Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, there was a song actor Walter Brennan made popular in the early 1960's in which he reminisces about an old farmhand he recalled from his childhood. ``I can't remember when he 'tweren't around,'' went the lyrics. I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding Minnesotan, one of our State's pioneers in television, of whom can truly be said, ``We can't remember when he 'tweren't around.'' An entire generation of Minnesotans fondly remembers John Gallos as Commodore Cappy and Clancy the Cop, the characters he created for a pair of early-morning children's programs at WCCO Television in Minneapolis. In the early 1950's, television was in its infancy. It was anything goes as John and his colleagues experimented with and defined this new medium. The weekly prop budget of $1.50 did not buy much in those early years, but the kids who flocked to their television sets to start their days with a dose of Cappy or Clancy did not care: they had found a place where they were always welcome. Besides his children's programming, John hosted a nondenominational religious talk show entitled ``Sunday Morning With John Gallos'' which ran on WCCO for 31 years. The show was honored in 1995 with a Wilbur Award from the Religious Public Relations Council for its excellence in communicating religious and ethical issues. John rightly counts ``Sunday Morning'' as one of his proudest achievements. When I think of John, another of his Sunday projects comes to mind: a weekly salute to Laurel and Hardy that introduced the comic legends to a new generation. There is one story John often tells because to him, it demonstrates the positive impact local television can have on a community. For the rest of us, it exemplifies the positive impact John Gallos himself has had on the lives of Minnesota families. It happened just before Valentines Day around 1959. John, as Commodore Cappy, was talking on the air with Vivian Vulture, one of his puppets. ``I suppose you'll get a lot of Valentines this year,'' he told her. ``No, Commodore, I never get any Valentines,'' answered Vivian, and she started to cry. The Commodore wiped a tear from his own eye and said, ``Perhaps the children will think of you this year.'' Mr. President, over the next few days, more than 10,000 Valentine cards poured into the WCCO studios addressed to that little puppet. In recent years, the voices of most of the pioneering talents in Twin Cities television have grown quiet, as they trade their shifts in front of the cameras and microphones for retirement. And now, after nearly a half century spent inside the radio and television studios of WCCO, John Gallos is retiring, too. My colleagues in the Senate join with me in congratulating John for his lifetime of service to his community. We thank him for his generous spirit, and wish him well in the years to come.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Will the Senator yield for a moment? I ask unanimous consent to follow the Senator's 30 minutes with 15 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the people of northern Minnesota about an issue that symbolizes for us the difference between what the role of government should be and what it has become. I am speaking, of course, about the current struggle to restore the rights of the citizens to have reasonable access to the cherished Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness [BWCAW]. My colleague from northern Minnesota, Congressman Jim Oberstar, and I have unfortunately spent our days fighting a campaign of distortions and misinformation by a national coalition of special interest groups that want this national treasure for themselves: their private research territory not to be touched by what they view as the unclean, ignorant citizens of northern Minnesota. I believe a brief history of this controversy is needed if we hope to carry on an honest and reasonable debate on how best to resolve it. In 1978, 1 million acres in northern Minnesota were designated by Congress as our Nation's only lakeland-based Federal wilderness area. By establishing the BWCAW, Congress rightfully acknowledged the need to protect the tremendous ecological and recreational resources within the area, with the understanding that it was to be a multiple-use wilderness area, as first envisioned by Senator Hubert Humphrey in 1964. When Senator Humphrey included the Boundary Waters as part of the National Wilderness System, he made a promise to the people of Minnesota, saying ``The wilderness bill will not ban motorboats.'' It is safe to say that without that commitment to the people of northern Minnesota, this region would not be a wilderness area today. In 1978, additional legislation was passed making further enhancements to the protection of the Boundary Waters, such as a justified ban on commercial activities like logging and mining. The 1978 law also limited recreational uses. For instance, motorboat users could only use 18 of the 1,078 lakes within the region. Under the 1978 law, however, motorboat users were given the right to access some of these motorized lakes through three portage trails. Trucks and other mechanized means could be used to transport boats, canoes and people across the three portages from one lake to another. While many northern Minnesotans believed the 1978 law unduly restricted their boating privileges, they were comforted that these three mechanized portages would continue to allow reasonable access for everyone--from the young and the old to the strong and the weak--into many of these motorized lakes. The intent of Congress was altered in 1993 when environmental extremists succeeded in a lawsuit to close these portages to mechanized transport. As a result of this court order, visitors can only transport their boats now by carrying them on their backs or with pieces of equipment which are pulled like a wagon. That is great fun for the young and strong, but wrenching work for those who are elderly, disabled, or traveling with children. To illustrate the importance of allowing mechanized transport of boats over these portages, I wanted to show these pictures taken at Trout portage, one of the portages in question. As you can see, the physical requirements of dragging boats across these portages have placed an obvious roadblock to the open access guaranteed to the public by law. What is worse is that this court order came as the result of legalistic trickery by the radical environmentalists who filed the lawsuit--a deception they readily admit to and describe in great detail in a book they wrote entitled ``Troubled Waters.'' According to their book, the compromise worked out between the attorneys representing the radical environmentalists and the people of northern Minnesota, which was adopted in the 1978 law, allowed portages to use mechanized transport if the U.S. Forest Service determined that a feasible nonmotorized alternative could not be established. In 1989, the Forest Service, after careful study, did in fact make that determination, thereby keeping the portages accessible to all. But unbeknownst to the people of northern Minnesota, and apparently the U.S. Congress, the term ``feasible'' did not have the same meaning in environmental law as it does in everyday English. According to ``Troubled Waters,'' a ``feasible'' alternative could, under law, permit something that was possible only from an engineering standpoint, regardless of whether it would take longer, be less convenient, or even be, and I quote the preservationists' own words, ``downright tortuous.'' The extreme environmentalists go on in their book to describe how their attorney did not even bother to tell the attorney representing the interests of northern Minnesota about their sleight-of-hand gamesmanship. In other words, they purposely salted the deal with words they knew they would later challenge in court. It was under this narrow interpretation of the word ``feasible'' that a federal appeals panel ordered the portages closed, after reversing a lower court decision which determined that a group of healthy, able- bodied people could not always transport these boats using muscle power and portage wheels. And so for four years, these portages have been effectively restricted from use by the elderly and disabled. By the way, the word ``feasible'' means that the Ely football team or dog sleds can maybe help do this, but in other words it restricts an average person's ability to be able to get access to the park. Since the court decision, the number of motorboats transported across these portages has significantly decreased. Even more telling are the letters I have received from Minnesotans who have been shut out of the land they once called home. John Novak, a veteran from Ely, MN, wrote me about his frustration with the closing of the portages, saying: I was good enough to go into the armed services for our country for 3 years back in the forties. Now that I am disabled, I am not good enough to get in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. I received another letter from a young man from Virginia, MN, named Joe Madden who wrote ``I went to visit the Boundary Waters with my grandfather. We wanted to go fishing in Trout Lake, but we could not get there because we could not get my grandpa's boat over the portage. Can you please open it up so Grandpa and I could go fishing? These are just two of the many letters and requests sent to me by average, hard-working Minnesotans who have seen the promises made to them long ago by the Federal Government broken and forgotten over the years--people who rightfully believed that the Government was meant to work for them, but found out just the opposite. It is these people--the men, women, and children of northern Minnesota--whose crusade Jim Oberstar and I have carried to the Halls of Congress in trying to reopen the three portages in the Boundary Waters. In the 104th Congress alone, there have been a number of developments bringing us to the point at which we find ourselves today. Eight Minnesota State legislators--all Democrats--asked me to request a field hearing on this issue. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee then held a field hearing in International Falls, MN, on issues surrounding the Boundary Waters and Minnesota's Voyageurs National Park. A second field hearing was held in St. Paul at the request of my colleagues from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone and Congressman Bruce Vento. This year, Congress has held three committee hearings in Washington on bills introduced by Congressman Oberstar and me to reopen the portages, and provide the public greater input into how the Boundary Waters and Voyageurs National Park are managed in the future. At each of these hearings, a major display of opposition was organized by the extreme environmental special interests groups and their allies in Congress against our bills. As a result, Senators with little knowledge or legitimate interests in the Boundary Waters were scripted to pronounce the bills dead on arrival and to make unbiased charges that we introduced our legislation for political reasons--criticisms which ignored the clear bipartisan nature of our work. This organized campaign of disinformation and propaganda placed a significant obstacle against our hopes to move these bills through the committee process, leaving us and the taxpayers of Minnesota, who we represent, with few legislative options to resolve the problems facing the people of northern Minnesota. While many contentious issues surround the management of these two national treasures, no issue more perfectly symbolizes the failure of the Federal Government to live up to its proper role of serving the people than that of the three portages. The same radical environmental individuals engaged in Senator Wellstone's mediation effort have claimed that any portage changes are ``non-negotiable.'' And yes, the same environmental lawyer who came up with the word ``feasible'' is part of this mediation effort. Congressman Oberstar and I persuaded the managers of the conference committee considering the omnibus parks bill to include a compromise provision which would reopen the Trout, Prairie, and Four- Mile portages to the elderly, disabled, and everyone who did not have a washboard stomach. We hoped that at long last, the people of northern Minnesota would finally have their voices heard in Congress. But once again, those same special interest groups--who had fooled the people of northern Minnesota in 1978, closed the portages in 1993, and used their influence to block our bills from the committee process this year--struck again, soliciting letters of opposition from Senators outside of Minnesota and even a veto threat from the White House. The compromise was pulled out of the conference report late Tuesday night--and the people of northern Minnesota were shut out once again. I am disappointed by this turn of events--not so much for myself and Congressman Oberstar, though we have put much time and effort to get the portages reopened--but rather for John Novak, Joe Madden, and the thousands of northern Minnesotans who were counting on this Congress to begin righting the wrongs of the last two decades. You see, we in Minnesota still honestly believe in the words of President Lincoln that this is a ``government of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' These words and the principles of democracy they embody have been passed down from generation to generation--the uniquely American idea that Government should work in the interests of the people, not against them. But somewhere down the line, that idea was forgotten by those Federal officials and bureaucrats who have been serving the radical environmental cabal, rather than for those hard-working taxpayers in northern Minnesota who ask for so little. It is not surprising that the people of northern Minnesota are questioning just whom the Federal Government really serves. It was President Clinton--yes, the same President Clinton whose White House threatened to veto the portages compromise--who said ``There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be fixed by what is right with America.'' In taking up the cause of the people of northern Minnesota, I embrace those words and only slightly modify them to say ``There is nothing wrong with the federal government that cannot be fixed by what is right with the American people.'' And it is what is right about our fellow Americans that keeps me hopeful that we will indeed resolve this issue in a way that best suits those Minnesotans who I am proud to represent in the Senate. We may not have the money that the radical environmentalists do, or have at our disposal the highly-paid lobbyists and lawyers who are working against us--but we do have something more important than all of that. We have the truth on our side. And we are working for the same thing every American wants from our government: accountability to the people. Accountability means balancing the protection of our pristine wilderness with the rights of the people to enjoy our natural resources. It means restoring the promises made in the past and establishing a partnership with the people to ensure those promises will be honored in the future. And it means keeping the Federal Government in check to guarantee that it works for the best interests of the people. We who love the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness are working toward--and will continue to work toward--those goals. I am pleased to have a commitment from the distinguished chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee for an early markup of this common- sense reform effort in the next Congress. We will not stop our efforts until the principles of democracy are embodied in the future management of this beautiful national treasure. The people of northern Minnesota will have their voices heard in Congress, past injustices will be remedied, and the promises made so long ago by Senator Humphrey will be kept.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss some of the concerns I have about the Maritime Security Act, H.R. 1350, pending before the Senate today. On March 6, 1996, I joined several of my colleagues in a letter to Commerce Committee Chairman Pressler requesting that additional hearings be held on this bill. While there had been one hearing, groups opposing this legislation did not testify. Since many groups vigorously oppose H.R. 1350, such as Citizens Against Government Waste, National Taxpayers Union, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Heritage Foundation, Competitive Enterprise Institute, CATO, and National Grain and Feed Association, we believe a hearing should be held to fully air these concerns. That hearing did not occur. Nor did a markup of the Senate companion bill occur. We are today taking a controversial House bill from the desk that has not gone through the Senate process. The bill was rushed through the House in a similar manner and passed by a voice vote. I understand, however, that there are now many House Members who believe they did not have a good understanding of the bill at the time of the vote and would now have preferred a more thorough consideration. Mr. President, maritime subsidies have long been on priority lists for termination by many deficit hawks. They were heralded by Republicans early in the 104th Congress as a prime example of corporate welfare that must be terminated. Correspondingly, it has been known for some time that operating differential subsidies would be terminated. Now that we are closer to termination, the subsidies were dusted off and repacked in new authorization legislation called the ``Maritime Security Bill.'' Now, subsidizing U.S.-flag ships, and their noncompetitive labor rates, is an important U.S. security interest. National security is vitally important to me. But I am not convinced that this bill has raised national security concerns that justify the authorization of $100 million to subsidize 50 U.S. ships to the tune of $2 million a piece. During the gulf war, the Government has the authority to call up commercial vessels receiving maritime subsidies. However, three- quarters of the ships chartered during the crisis were foreign- flagged--and only 20 percent of the cargo rode on these ships. Most of the cargo was carried on Government ships. There is also a ready charter market for commercial cargo vessels when more ships are needed. Further, the few U.S.-flagged ships that were called up didn't even deliver their 8 percent of the total cargo to the war zone. They transferred their cargo to foreign-flagged ships at foreign ports. And they charged the Government far more than the cost incurred by either military or foreign-flagged crews--on top of the subsidies. There is no evidence that this continuation of the ODI subsidies would work any differently. Also, there is plenty of room for shipping companies to continue to substitute foreign flag ships if they are too busy, as they can now. Why subsidize ships that are not even available in crisis times? Doesn't that gut the intent of the national security argument? Even the Clinton administration has admitted that this program is just one which is necessary to preserve union jobs by subsidizing higher U.S. maritime wages. Why not subsidize all union jobs, not just those of the maritime unions? Mr. President, in my judgment, there are many reasons why we should terminate maritime subsidies, including cargo preference and Jones Act preferences. Since my colleague, Senator Grassley, had done such a good job of presenting them, I will not repeat them other than to say that it is my preference that all of the maritime subsidies be terminated-- for the industry to become competitive on its own without the Government crutch--and the burdensome Government regulations that come with the subsidies. There is no reason to believe that the Government, during times of crisis, cannot call into service its own vessels, foreign-flagged ships owned by American companies, charter vessels or obtain this kind of assistance from our allies. These subsidies are not needed and should be terminated, as determined earlier. Vice President Gore's National Performance Review recommended that maritime subsidies be ended. In 1995, the DOT Inspector General recommended termination. A MIT study opposes them. Many deficit hawks decry the waste of taxpayers money. Senator Grassley has also determined that nine retired Navy admirals who originally supported the American Security Council's effort to promote this legislation now have questions about it and support additional hearings before further consideration. They were as snowed as our colleagues on the House side. The extension of the shipbuilding loan guarantee program has also been criticized by many and deserves a closer examination as well. The one positive aspect of this bill is the relief it gives the Great Lakes Ports, including the Port of Duluth, to cargo preference restrictions. While I would prefer to terminate this subsidy as well, the bill does give the ports the ability to compete based on price rather than whether the ship is U.S. or foreign flagged. While cargo preference laws act to subsidize U.S.-flagged crews, they can actually jeopardize jobs of dockworkers in ports, such as the Port of Duluth, where U.S.-flag ships are scarce. Mr. President, I realize that this bill may pass. The proponents carry a lot of weight in this body, and the national security argument, flawed as it is, is one that many choose not to challenge. Again, I have great admiration for the good work of my colleague, Senator Grassley, who is willing to call a spade a spade. For that reason, and because of the great respect Senator Grassley holds in this body, I would urge my colleagues to listen carefully as he offers his amendments to this bill. Each one of them attempts to ameliorate a serious concern in this legislation. They should not be dismissed for procedural or substantive reasons. They are not offerred to filibuster the bill. They are offerred to improve it. Each one should have been considered in a committee markup, which, again, was never held. In my judgment, the Grassley amendments are no-brainers that should not be controversial. One would ensure that the ships receiving the subsidies are available for service, not foreign-flagged subsitutes. Why would we subsidize ships that don't even have to be available in emergencies? Another amendment would force U.S. seafarers to serve in these crises. If the Government is subsidizing sizable seafarer wages, shouldn't they be required to serve if called? Right now that is not a requirement. Senator Grassley would include exceptions similar to those granted to military reservists. Again, what is controversial about this amendment? The next Grassley amendment would equalize seafarer war bonuses to the same rate as military reservists. Right now they receive far more. Why? An amendment would prohibit use of the subsidies for pro-maritime lobbying efforts. Last year we voted to restrict use of public funds from lobbying use. These funds should be restricted as well. Another amendment would prohibit subsidies being used for campaign contributions. Subsidized wages of seafarers have enabled these workers to contribute 500 times more than other union workers to campaigns. One amendment will require U.S.-flag ships and crews to deliver their cargoes directly to the war zone. Incredibly, now they can, and have, shifted their cargo to a foreign-flagged and foreign-crewed vessel at a port far from the war zone. They then can charge the Government U.S.- flag premium rates while providing lower foreign-flag rates. Or they can use a foreign-flag ship the entire route, receiving the same premium rates. Why is this acceptable if all of the proponents of this bill claim that we need a U.S.-flag capability. The bill provides for fair and reasonable reimbursement during use by the Government. The Pentagon paid $70,000 to the U.S. cargo ship operators to send war materiels to the gulf. The foreign bid was $6,000. This is wrong--a betrayal of the taxpayers. The last Grassley amendment would give the government the right to hire foreign-flag vessels if U.S.-flag costs are greater than 6 percent over the foreign cost. U.S. flags would also have to charge the government the same rate provided to volume customers. If the amendments offered by Senator Grassley are adopted, it would be easier for me to consider supporting this legislation. However, the entire premise for this bill is flawed. There simply is not a good case for this expenditure of taxpayers' dollars.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on the bill at this time.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I understand that Senator Nickles has a bill that is due for its second reading.

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I see no Senator on the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

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

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today the Senate will conduct a period of morning business until the hour of 2 p.m. with Senator Daschle or his designee controlling the time from 12 until 1, and Senator Coverdell or his designee controlling the time from 1 until 2 this afternoon. Following morning business, the Senate will then resume consideration of H.R. 3662, the Interior appropriations bill. There will be no rollcall votes during today's session, however, and the majority leader urges any Senator who intends to offer an amendment to this appropriations bill to offer and to debate the amendment today so that we may complete action on this legislation tomorrow. Any votes ordered on amendments today will occur beginning at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday. Under a previous consent agreement, Senator Bumpers will be recognized at 3 o'clock today in order to offer and debate his grazing fees amendment. It is the majority leader's hope that once Senator Bumpers offers that amendment, we will be able to reach a reasonable time limitation for debate so that we may move on to other outstanding issues on the Interior appropriations bill. Again, the majority leader asks for the cooperation of all colleagues as we continue to dispose of the remaining appropriations bills and hopes that Members will refrain from offering nongermane amendments that will only continue to delay passage of these spending measures as we approach the end of the fiscal year. We are also attempting to reach an agreement for consideration of the FAA reauthorization bill that would enable us to finish that legislation in a reasonable timeframe. There are also a number of other legislative matters we hope to consider prior to the Senate adjournment, including the Magnuson Act. And with the help of all Senators, we can reach time agreements to finish all these matters. Finally, I would remind all Senators that the majority leader expects busy sessions for the remaining weeks, and Senators should plan their schedules accordingly. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to finish our Senate business on time if Members request no votes every evening because of other commitments. I thank all of my colleagues in advance for their cooperation.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I offer legislation that would remove a costly and unnecessary burden imposed by Washington upon our State and local governments. Current Federal law requires States and counties to pay unemployment tax and benefits for people who work as election officials--even if they work as few as two days a year. This requirement has created a serious inequity for State and local governments. Under the law, polling place officials are considered as employees for unemployment insurance purposes, regardless of the number of days they work. Local governments are liable for payment of unemployment insurance for those election workers who apply for it after the elections, since they are being ``laid off from the employment through no fault of his or her own.'' As a consequence, their unemployment benefits could far exceed the stipend they receive for services on election day, because unemployment benefits are based on income from the previous year. During this time of belt-tightening at every level of government, many communities are having difficulty financing even the most fundamental activities, including election administration. Requiring local governments to spend their precious tax dollars paying unemployment benefits for such short-term employees would add a tremendous financial burden to budgets that in many cases are already strained to the breaking point. Mr. President, this current requirement does more harm than good to those it intends to protect. It hurts those civic-minded Americans who play a vital role in our democratic system through their willingness to serve as election officials, because it diverts limited public funds that would otherwise be used to balance local budgets or increase the salaries of election workers. It also makes it more difficult to retain and recruit an adequate number of qualified people to serve as election officials in our communities. My legislation seeks to free our communities and the taxpayers from this costly and unnecessary, federally imposed burden. It simply eliminates the requirement that state and local governments must pay unemployment compensation tax on the basis of services performed by election workers. Instead, it gives the States the freedom to design and run their own unemployment compensation programs for their election workers. I might add that according to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill is budget neutral. Mr. President, this is a reasonable and moderate attempt to correct an inequity for our States, cities, and counties, whose budgets are already tightly stretched providing the services upon which our communities depend. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I offer legislation that would remove a costly and unnecessary burden imposed by Washington upon our State and local governments. Current Federal law requires States and counties to pay unemployment tax and benefits for people who work as election officials--even if they work as few as two days a year. This requirement has created a serious inequity for State and local governments. Under the law, polling place officials are considered as employees for unemployment insurance purposes, regardless of the number of days they work. Local governments are liable for payment of unemployment insurance for those election workers who apply for it after the elections, since they are being ``laid off from the employment through no fault of his or her own.'' As a consequence, their unemployment benefits could far exceed the stipend they receive for services on election day, because unemployment benefits are based on income from the previous year. During this time of belt-tightening at every level of government, many communities are having difficulty financing even the most fundamental activities, including election administration. Requiring local governments to spend their precious tax dollars paying unemployment benefits for such short-term employees would add a tremendous financial burden to budgets that in many cases are already strained to the breaking point. Mr. President, this current requirement does more harm than good to those it intends to protect. It hurts those civic-minded Americans who play a vital role in our democratic system through their willingness to serve as election officials, because it diverts limited public funds that would otherwise be used to balance local budgets or increase the salaries of election workers. It also makes it more difficult to retain and recruit an adequate number of qualified people to serve as election officials in our communities. My legislation seeks to free our communities and the taxpayers from this costly and unnecessary, federally imposed burden. It simply eliminates the requirement that state and local governments must pay unemployment compensation tax on the basis of services performed by election workers. Instead, it gives the States the freedom to design and run their own unemployment compensation programs for their election workers. I might add that according to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill is budget neutral. Mr. President, this is a reasonable and moderate attempt to correct an inequity for our States, cities, and counties, whose budgets are already tightly stretched providing the services upon which our communities depend. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank, very much, my colleague from Wyoming.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, I rise today to discuss an issue of great importance to the people of northern Minnesota and others who care about Voyageurs National Park. In 1971, Voyageurs National Park was created in northern Minnesota after years of contentious debate in my home State and within the halls of the Federal Government. While there were some who were opposed to the park's creation, many others supported it under the promise that it would not only protect the area for future generations but would also be an economic benefit for northern Minnesota as well. Federal officials estimated the park would attract 1.3 million visitors annually, yet 25 years later the National Park Service estimates that the actual number of visitors is 200,000 per year. That is less than one-sixth of its initial projection. Why is the visitor rate so low in Voyageurs? Ask the National Park Service. Ask them about the countless numbers of regulations that they have imposed that would limit the ability of recreationists to enjoy the park such as the restriction under the Endangered Species Act recently repealed by a district court judge and a de facto wilderness designation never approved by Congress. Perhaps the most significant example of how the Federal Government has failed in its mission to promote visitor use is the Park Service's continued reluctance to conduct a visitor use and facilities study mandated by Congress 13 years ago. This study, supported by the Park Service back in 1983, was to be a tool that would help the Park Service determine why its visitor-rate projection had not been met. Yet, to date, this study has still not been completed--at the expense of the people of northern Minnesota and those who seek reasonable access to their public lands. Now, I am not suggesting that economic interests should be the determining factor in the management of this national treasure, but there is no question that the economic survival and security of the men, women, and children who live in the communities surrounding the park must be taken into consideration. More importantly, when the Federal Government gives its word to the people, it must live up to it. For this reason, I intend to offer an amendment to Interior appropriations which will help restore one of the unfulfilled promises made to the people of northern Minnesota. My amendment, which I will not offer today, would require the Park Service to begin its comprehensive visitor-use and facilities study in consultation with appropriate private and public entities. It does not set a rigorous timetable on when the study must be completed and in no way micromanages the Park Service's activities; it simply requires the Park Service to work with the State of Minnesota, the park's surrounding counties, and individuals to develop a framework under which the study will be completed. Madam President, the groundwork is set for a team effort to develop this study. I have spoken with county commissioners in northern Minnesota who have expressed strong support for this study and stand ready to help the Park Service develop it. The study was discussed during five hearings before the 104th Congress--both in Minnesota and Washington--and the strong, majority opinion during those hearings, including that of the Park Service, was in favor of the study. It is also my understanding that the Voyageurs Park Superintendent has mentioned that some funding may be available in the coming months to begin the study--for which I commend her. All of these developments make me optimistic that this study can be done. Again, after 13 years that it was directed to do so, the study finally may be done. The time has come for this study to be done. My amendment will create the framework to accomplish this task and to begin restoring the commitments made long ago to the people of northern Minnesota. I certainly hope that my colleagues in the Senate--including my fellow Senator from Minnesota--will lend their support to this amendment and for doing what is right for the Voyageurs National Park and those who love it. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, when 2,000 American job providers came to Washington last June to attend what was called the Third White House Conference on Small Business, they brought with them hundreds of ideas on how to make Government more responsive--to the taxpayers and to small business alike. They condensed their suggestions into a list of 60 to send on to the White House. Even though their recommendations covered a tremendous range of concerns, one point generated near universal agreement from that conference, and that was that something must be done about the complex and costly Federal tax system. Well, there's nothing simple about taxes anymore, as you have heard here today. As any taxpayer will tell you, the IRS today is five times bigger than the FBI, and it's twice as large as the CIA. To run such a massive operation takes the equivalent of more than 3 million full-time employees. We have more Americans collecting taxes than we have serving in the Armed Forces. The IRS manages a library of 437 separate tax forms. The IRS mails out over 8 billion pages of tax instructions every year. Now, our colleague in the House, the distinguished majority leader from Texas, points out that American workers and businesses spent 5.4 billion hours in 1990 just preparing their taxes. That is more time than it takes to build every car, truck, and van that is manufactured in the United States every year. Just to administer a tax system so unwieldy costs our taxpayers almost $14 billion a year. Even though the IRS demands strict compliance from the American people, it has set far lower standards for itself, as our colleague from Utah points out. It has long permitted itself severe abuses within its own accounting practices--something they would not tolerate from businesses or individuals. In a report issued last year, the General Accounting Office took the IRS to task for failing to keep its own books and records with the same accuracy that it demands of the taxpayers. For the last 2 years, in fact, the GAO has not been able to express an opinion on the financial statements of the IRS, and that was due to serious accounting errors and internal control problems. More than 20 months later, the problems still remain. In testimony before Congress in June, Gregory Holloway of the GAO reported: We have made 59 recommendations to improve the IRS's financial management systems and reporting. IRS agreed with these recommendations and has worked to implement them and correct its financial management systems and information problems. However, many of the more significant recommendations have not yet been fully implemented. There are other ways in which the management problems within the IRS are manifesting themselves. And far too many of my constituents are forced to deal with the fallout on a daily basis. Madam President, every American has experienced the frustration of filing their Federal tax returns. Even though Congress has tripled funding for the IRS over the last 7 years to the tune of $7.5 billion, the level of service provided to the taxpayers has not grown proportionally. In recent years, the IRS has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in its efforts to modernize its operations, including its information systems--but the GAO has dubbed the results ``chaotic.'' As an ironic consequence, the IRS, the Nation's tax collector, is perhaps the least taxpayer-friendly agency in the entire Federal Government. Meanwhile, the Federal tax system continues to grow more complicated and hard to understand. In the mid-1950's, the Federal Income Tax Code was comprised of 103 sections and 400,000 words. Today, it has ballooned to 698 sections--a 578-percent increase--and nearly 1.4 million words. Adding to the aggravation of the Nation's taxpayers, tax regulations have multiplied just as rapidly. Between 1955 and 1994, the number of words in the regulations of the Internal Revenue Code increased more than 550 percent, from just over 1 million words to 5.7 million in the IRS Code. Even if you are a trained speed reader who can read 1,000 words a minute, and you did not do anything else but devote every hour of every business day to reading these regulations, it would take you almost 3 years to wade through them. The rapid growth of the Federal Tax Code and its regulations has dramatically increased the complexity of our tax system, to the point where no one but a very few tax specialists can understand it. Even IRS agents are often confused by their own tax laws. The complexity of the Federal tax system means that tax assistance for ordinary American taxpayers is even more urgent now than ever before. But this desperately needed assistance has not been adequately provided. For example, my State office receives complaints daily from constituents frustrated they cannot get through to a human being at the toll-free lines established by the IRS: The lines are constantly busy. In some cases, my constituents have tried for 3 or 4 days before they finally reached a real, live person. In July, I received this letter from a taxpayer in St. Paul who was being threatened with a lawsuit by the IRS: I am one of those middle-age, lower-middle-class citizens who have pulled myself from extreme tragedy to the point where I am trying to buy my house, I've never had the government or any agency help me. And now my entire life is threatened because I can't talk to a human being about my taxes. Please help me. I have sent a copy of this to the IRS, the White House, Senator Wellstone, and no one seems to be able to help. I can't believe that I cannot find a human being in the IRS to talk to. Another constituent of mine who tried repeatedly to reach someone at the hotline shared their frustration with the IRS operator when their call was finally answered. ``Blame it on Congress. They cut our budget,'' said the operator. The IRS employee ended the call by advising my constituent to telephone me and demand more tax dollars for the IRS. Let us go back over that again. He finally got through after days and was finally able to talk to an operator at the IRS. And the answer he got was ``Blame it on Congress'' because ``they cut our budget.'' And before he got off the phone the operator, the IRS person, told them to call me in Washington and demand more money for the IRS. I suggest, Madam President, that throwing more dollars at an agency that already cannot account for $1.4 trillion tax dollars it takes in annually is hardly the solution. The Federal Government enacts laws that we require the people to obey. But in the case of the IRS telephone hotline service, we have failed to provide sufficient assistance to enable average Americans to understand and comply with the laws. And when innocent incompliance occurs due to the complexity of the tax system, we punish the taxpayers by imposing all sorts of penalties. This is simply not fair. Let me give you two examples. A certain individual in Minnesota told me about a problem he had. He paid about $35,000 in taxes but didn't file his return until October. But he had filed all the necessary extensions that he needed to file to get the extension on his return. The IRS had already collected about $35,000. But he was still short about $4,000, which he paid plus interest. But even after paying all those taxes he still was find $700 for being late. Another individual that is self-employed told me that he pays his taxes every year quarterly estimating his taxes, and at one time he received more money in payments from his clients than he expected, and when he paid taxes on that, IRS came back and fined him $500 because he had failed to report that correctly. Madam President, I do not know if that is fair, or what is intended when we have taxpayers out there trying to meet the laws, obey the codes, and yet are fined by this agency. Madam President, I am pleased the Senate took action this week to resolve this most frustrating situation by accepting my amendment to the Treasury-Postal appropriations legislation. The amendment will help correct the problem by making the IRS prioritize its toll-free telephone service and allocate the necessary resources to ensure that taxpayers receive adequate assistance and answers to their questions. This will not solve most of the problems plaguing the IRS, of course, but it marks a start. I am happy to see additional solutions being proposed, and I am especially pleased that our former majority leader, Bob Dole, is speaking loudly about our need to forever end the IRS as we know it. He has pledged to ``free the American people from tax tyranny,'' and the ideas for IRS reform he has put forward in his economic blueprint have raised the level of this debate. They deserve a close look by the taxpayers, as we seek to build an IRS that will be a tool for the taxpayers, not a weapon against them. Thank you very much, Madam President.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, my freshman colleagues and I have come to the floor this morning to share our thoughts about the future. It is a vision for tomorrow not bound in political partisanship, because ours is not a Republican agenda, but an American agenda: A message every citizen can embrace, whether they are just starting out on the job, a new parent, an executive working their way up the ladder, a long time employee in a union shop, a student, a senior citizen. Anybody who is searching for something better, and the freedom to achieve it, is welcome. And our message for the future can be spelled out in just six words: Lower taxes, less Government, more jobs. The vision those six words embodies contrasts sharply with the reality that has been imposed on the American people by their own Government. Instead of making real achievements on behalf of America's families, the last Congress, the 103d, was most noted for enacting the largest tax increase in American history. The $265 billion in new taxes it demanded from the middle class could not have been further from what the taxpayers wanted or deserved. This Congress heard their calls and we have pointed Washington in a new direction by seeking dramatically lower taxes for working Americans. We heard the people when they told us that they, not some tax collector or career bureaucrat in Washington, know what is best for their families and how to spend their money which they worked so hard for. The Government has never raised a child--it does not pay the dental bills when the kids need braces, or buy the groceries for the dinner table, or write the checks for the college tuition. Parents make those decisions, and with more of their own money in their wallets, parents will be empowered to raise their children as only parents can. Unlike the preceding Congress, which built its reputation by attempting to expand the reach of Government into our lives, the 104th Congress has made middle-class tax relief the centerpiece of our American agenda of returning power to the people. And we have pledged to continue our efforts--to strengthen our efforts--in the 105th. We offered middle-class families the $500 per-child tax credit. Under the blueprint for economic renewal proposed by our former colleague, Bob Dole, the child tax credit would return more than $1,800 to the average Minnesota family of four. With a Republican President in the Oval Office, we will enact the $500 per-child tax credit into law. Congress cut the capital gains tax, too, to protect small investors, seniors, farmers, and families from having their savings and investments unfairly penalized. With a Republican President, our reduction in the capital gains tax will become law as well, and so will tax credits for families caring for elderly relatives and an end to the marriage penalty in our IRS Tax Code. Here is the bottom line, Mr. President: By enacting each of these ideas today, we have the power to inspire dramatic change for tomorrow's families. Cutting taxes puts money back into the community and directly into the hands of working Americans, where it belongs in the first place, and where it ought to stay. It stands to reason that once we train the Federal Government to run itself more efficiently, it will need fewer tax dollars to accomplish the people's work. The public's desire for less interference from Washington, therefore, translates into a smaller, more efficient government, reduced bureaucracy, and, ultimately, less waste of the Nation's precious financial resources. When we achieve that, we can begin fulfilling what I consider to be our most solemn obligation: erasing our deficit and finally eliminating our cancerous national debt. The future we envision for our children and grandchildren is one free of debt imposed by this generation. No generation before in this country has left the next generation a debt. This generation will be the first to do that, and we should take every step possible to make sure we eradicate that responsibility. With our eye on that promise, Congress has made great progress, cutting spending by more than $50 billion over these past two years, eliminating more than 270 wasteful programs, and privatizing four major governmental agencies. Most importantly, our budgets balance--a sure sign of our commitment to ushering in a new era of fiscal responsibility. Still, Americans say we can do better, and my colleagues and I agree. We must do better. But I am not sure the people understand that if we are going to fully carry out their agenda, it will likely take a different President to lead us there. Our third goal for the future--more and better jobs--will follow once we have energized the economy by freeing America's families and job providers from the burden of high taxes and once we have reduced the mountains of regulations and overhauled the Tax Code to forever end the IRS as we know it. Without a Federal bureaucracy blocking the path to success, wage earners and investors will find the freedom to do what a free-market economy encourages them to do: spend their own dollars, stimulate growth, and create new, better-paying jobs. When my colleagues and I think to the future, we envision a hopeful, vibrant place. It is an America where any citizen who wants to achieve prosperity for themselves and their families--whatever their background and however they define that prosperity--is given the opportunity to succeed. It is an America where government enables their success, and does not stand in its way. Mr. President, I am proud of the progress we have made in this Congress toward opening those doors, toward fulfilling the American agenda of lower taxes, less government, and more jobs. I can say with certainty that our work is not finished. But I say with equal certainty that we have not wavered in our commitment to seeing it through. We will make every attempt as we enter the 105th Congress to finish the job we have started in the 104th. I thank the Chair. I see there is no other Senator in the Chamber so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, this is a simple and straightforward amendment. All it does is ask the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service to make improvement of the IRS 1-800 help line service a priority, and allocate the necessary resources to ensure the American taxpayers receive the assistance they need from the IRS. Mr. President, although IRS spending increased from $2.5 billion in fiscal year 1979 to $7.5 billion in fiscal year 1996, the level of service provided to the taxpayers has not grown proportionally. In recent years, the IRS has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in its efforts to modernize its operations, including its information systems--but the results have been described by the GAO as ``chaotic.'' As an ironic consequence, the Nation's tax collector remains perhaps the least taxpayer-friendly agency in the entire Federal Government. Meanwhile, the Federal tax system has grown more complicated than ever before. In the mid-1950's, the Federal Income Tax Code was comprised of 103 sections and 400,000 words. Today, it has ballooned to 698 sections--a 578-percent increase--and nearly 1.4 million words. Adding to the aggravation of the Nation's taxpayers, tax regulations have multiplied just as rapidly. Between 1955 and 1994, the number of words in the regulations of the Internal Revenue Code increased more than 550 percent, from just over 1 million words to 5.7 million. Even if you are a trained speed reader who can read 1,000 words a minute, and you did not do anything else but devote every hour of every business day to reading these regulations, it would take you almost 3 years to complete them. The rapid growth of the Federal Tax Code and its regulations has dramatically increased the complexity of our tax system, to the point where no one but a very few tax specialists can understand it. Even IRS agents are often confused by their own tax laws. The complexity of the Federal tax system means that tax assistance for ordinary American taxpayers is even more urgent now than ever before. But this desperately needed assistance has not been adequately and effectively provided. For example, my State office receives complaints daily from constituents frustrated they cannot get through to a human being at the toll-free lines established by the IRS: the lines are constantly busy. In some cases, my constituents have tried for 3 or 4 days before they finally got through. Mr. President, we enact laws and require the people to obey them. But in this case, the IRS has failed to provide sufficient assistance to enable average Americans to understand and comply with the laws. And when innocent noncompliance occurs due to the complexity of the tax system, we punish the taxpayers by imposing all sorts of penalties. This is simply not fair. Mr. President, this amendment is a small but important step to improve our service to the American taxpayers. All it does is urge the IRS to use existing funds to provide more IRS 1-800 help line servive. I urge my colleagues to support it. amendment no. 5262 (Purpose: To prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from using color printing for purposes other than to call attention to changes in tax law or to make tax forms easier to use) On page 26, after line 9, insert the following: Sec. . No funds made available by this Act, or any other Act, to the Internal Revenue Service may be used to pay for the design and printing of more than two ink colors on the covers of income tax packages, and such ink colors must be the same colors as used to print the balance of the material in each package.

Mr. GRAMS

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

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I would like to call up amendment No. 5237 and offer it as a second-degree amendment to the pending committee amendment, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, this is a simple and straightforward amendment.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I wanted to add, as my colleague mentioned about the tax cuts that are being proposed for France, I think we note Germany is also proposing tax cuts because of the huge unemployment rate in that country. Again, the same thing, as more government taxes have begun to choke that economy as well as in Sweden, so other nations around the world are looking for ways to encourage economic growth through a reduction in their governments. Like the Senator from Georgia said, it is hard to believe they would be ahead of the United States making those determinations. But, Mr. President, America's working families, as we have been talking about, face greater hardships now than at any time in the last decade and the impact of the Clinton Presidency is being felt on all fronts: the economy is flat, taxes are on the rise, while take-home pay is not going anywhere at all. Despite his administration's claims to the contrary, the economy has merely slogged along since Bill Clinton took office, growing at a barely perceptible 2.4 percent and making this recovery the slowest of the past century. The projected growth for next year is only 1.9 percent. At the same time, the Government's tax collectors are making new demands of working Americans and siphoning away more of their dollars than at any other time in history. In too many cases, workers are actually taking home less in their pay envelopes than they did 4 years ago. It did not help when Bill Clinton vetoed the balanced budget legislation passed last year by Congress. Without a balanced budget to keep interest rates in line, families are paying significantly more to finance necessary expenditures: an extra $36,000 for a home mortgage, for example, or $1,400 more for a student loan and higher interest fees again because of a vetoed balanced budget by this President. Those are dollars that could have been spent saving for a child's education, or purchasing health care, insurance, and other basic family needs. If families feel as though they are being squeezed between high taxes, a White House that cannot stop spending, and a stagnant economy, they are right--and it is called the Clinton crunch. Under economic policies perpetuated by the Clinton administration, our cities are suffering as well. Since 1965, 15 of the 25 largest U.S. cities have together lost over 4 million residents, at the same time the Nation's population has grown by 60 million. As residents bail out in record numbers, America's job creators have joined the flight. Dozens of Fortune 500 companies, once headquartered in New York City have relocated since the 1970's, and the statistics are similarly grim in other major cities such as Cleveland, Detroit, Philadelphia, and St. Louis. The urban centers in my home State of Minnesota are no exception-- according to the U.S. Census Bureau, St. Paul and Minneapolis are shrinking, too. In the 4-year period between 1990 and 1994, the population in my State's two largest cities dropped by nearly 4 percent. A study recently released by the Minnesota Planning Office revealed that even as the rest of the State is experiencing dramatic growth in the 1990's, its metropolitan hubs are not. Once the job creators are gone and employment opportunities vanish with them, the hearts of our once mighty economic centers wither away. Poverty and crime flourish like weeds in their place. Consider the alarming murder statistics now rocking the Twin Cities. St. Paul recorded 25 homicides in all of 1995; already this year, 25 murders have been reported. The 71 homicides on the books this year in Minneapolis mean the city may match--or even exceed--last year's record number of killings. What is driving people away? Why are our cities no longer the powerful economic magnets of the past? Sadly, just as it is responsible for the state of the economy as a whole, the Government itself bears much of the responsibility. A recent study by the Cato Institute found excessive Government spending and high taxes to be a major cause, not just a consequence, of urban decline. Researchers have learned that cities that overspend and overtax lose population; cities with low spending and low taxes gain population. The Federal tax burden continues to rise. Today, a typical, two- income family is paying nearly 40 percent of its income in Federal, State, and local taxes. That is devastating for urban families who struggle every day to keep a job, put food on the table, and make a decent home for themselves and their children--while Government continues to demand more. We have two workers in most households today. One is working to provide for the family, the other is working to provide for the Government. Most taxpayers do not realize that in recent years, 15 cents of every tax dollar they have contributed has gone toward paying the interest on our $5.2 trillion national debt. In 1995, more than $230 billion which could have been put to work meeting the Nation's needs was instead squandered on interest payments--payments amassed because for 40 years, Washington always got whatever it wanted when it visited the candy store, whether it had the money or not. Until Washington stops spending more than it takes in, the national debt will continue to swell, until we have left our grandchildren a bill even they will be hard pressed to pay off, if they have the ability at all to pay. America must do better, and so Republicans, along with Bob Dole, have unveiled a plan that will stimulate economic growth and restore opportunity to every American family. It is a comprehensive blueprint for our future built on three, interwoven themes: First, America's budget must be brought into balance; second, working families deserve tax relief, and third, the IRS, as we know it, must come to an end. And again Bob Dole, has detailed this plan and what it offers for individuals, for families, and for the country. Despite the arguments you hear from across the aisle who draw conclusions, irrespective of what is based on these plans, a balanced budget is at the heart of our economic plan. By boarding up the candy store and cutting Federal waste and inefficiency, we will balance the budget by the year 2002 while we protect and preserve Medicare, Medicaid, and other vital Federal programs upon which millions of Americans rely. At a time when nearly 1 out of every 4 dollars earned by working Americans goes to pay Federal taxes, we believe relief from Washington is long overdue. Our plan benefits every taxpayer by automatically cutting their taxes by 15 percent. That is a significant change from the policies of the past 4 years, when promises of tax relief were displaced by a 1993 tax increase of historic proportions. More than any other segment of society, America's middle-class families have borne the brunt of the Government's tax-happy ways. We have recognized their sacrifice by offering them a $500-per-child tax credit. As the Senate author of the child tax credit, I have long recognized the dramatic results we could achieve by cutting taxes for 24 million working households nationwide and allowing families to control more of the dollars that they work so hard to make. The $500-per-child tax credit is not peanuts--it is real help at a time when more Americans are working extra jobs or taking on overtime hours to keep from sinking under their tax burden. In my State alone, it means families in Minnesota would keep $500 million in their pockets to spend on their families to decide how to spend rather than turning those dollars over to Washington for Washington to make those decisions. Our vision for America's economic future will confound those who continue to defend the failed policies of the past. Clinging desperately to their borrow-and-spend ways, they claim that tax relief and deficit reduction cannot go hand in hand. Yet our plan proves these are compatible goals. The tax cuts of the Reagan era ushered in America's longest peacetime expansion, helping to create 20 million new jobs and pushing incomes and living standards to record highs. As more Americans found work and earned higher salaries, they collectively paid more in taxes even though individually they were paying less. Yes, the deficit rose, but it was in the hands of a Democrat- controlled Congress that failed to match tax cuts with spending cuts of its own and instead a Congress that spent $1.59 for every tax dollar it collected. They say we cannot have tax cuts and balance the budget, but we can if we have a Congress that is willing to cut the spending at the same time. A Congress and President committed to realizing a balanced budget in 6 years would achieve unparalleled growth in the economy and offer Americans unparalleled opportunities for success. Finally, we must untangle the deeply rooted IRS from the lives of the American people. If the IRS seems omnipresent, well, it is. Today, it is five times as big as the FBI and twice as large as the CIA. Just to comply with the jumble of laws it has imposed on the taxpayers it takes the annual equivalent of 3 million people, working full time, and the IRS continues to grow. But even as its budget has increased from $2.5 billion in 1979 to $7.5 billion this year, IRS service to the taxpayers has steadily declined. An example: Working families have paid billions just to modernize the agency's tax collection system. The results, according to the GAO, have created chaos, and more importantly, the IRS remains hostile to the average American taxpayer. For example, every day, my State office received complaints from constituents who have been frustrated that they can't even get through to an IRS agent. The have been calling the IRS 1-800 lines. The lines, they say are constantly busy. In some cases, my constituents tried for 3 or 4 days before they were actually able to get through. Another story I recently encountered was that of one Minnesotan who owes about $24,000 in back taxes because his building business had a few lean years. He said he built a spec house in 1994 and now he finally has a buyer for it. But here is the problem. He says he will be able to make $18,000 on the house if he sells it, which will all go to the IRS, but the IRS strapped a lien on the house and it will not release it because he can't pay the entire $24,000. So by holding him hostage and demanding it all, the IRS is shooting itself in the foot when it could have already collected at least 70 percent of the debt and allowed this individual to go on and try to earn more money to pay his back taxes. And this is quite typical. The abusive power and the arrogance of the IRS must be brought to an end. Fundamental reform of the IRS must be part of any plan to help unleash the American economy--a reinvented IRS, a balanced budget, relief from high taxes, and an economy that frees, not entraps, American families. Mr. President, finally, that is the difference between another 4 years of what we have called and what you have heard talked about as the Clinton Crunch and our vision for America's future. That is a vision of hope and opportunity, a vision that deserves a closer look by the American taxpayers. I hope they do that in the next couple of weeks. Mr. President, I thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS. Very much so. It is kind of a catch-22. Every time the city says they need more programs to encourage people to stay, they have to somehow have the revenues, so they raise taxes. And every time they raise taxes, they have an ever-increasing burden, not only on the people, but the businesses that support them. Once the businesses leave, it leaves a vacuum for crime and other problems. It is a catch- 22. The Government says they will put more money into it, so they have to raise taxes and generate more revenue. And it compounds the problem, as the Cato Institute said. The Government is a consequence, not just a contributing factor, but a consequence of this problem.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I am very concerned about regulations that were just issued by the IRS in May regarding the section 936 possession tax credit. These new regulations cast aside regulatory rules upon which companies have relied for many years permitting arm's length pricing in the purchase of components. The new regulations produce the discriminatory result that an arm's length third-party price can be used to value outbound sales of components but not inbound purchases of components by the possession company for purposes of the section 936 calculation. I believe that a fair and workable solution can be developed to address these concerns and would ask the Senator to join me in encouraging the Treasury Department to seek such a solution.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss something that probably has not been debated much in the Senate since this body considered the FDIC Improvement Act back in 1991. I want to talk about the need to modernize the outdated laws that govern America's financial services industry. The vital role that financial services play in our daily lives cannot be understated. We take out loans to go to college, to buy a car, and to purchase a home. We buy insurance to provide greater security to ourselves and our families. We make investments throughout our life so that we may retire in comfort and dignity. Today, technological advancements and increased innovation in the delivery of financial services make it easier than ever for consumers to get loans, purchase insurance, and invest their earnings. Unfortunately, our archaic and burdensome laws governing financial institutions continue to discourage, rather than encourage, such advancement and innovation. The laws to which I am referring are not those governing the safety and soundness of financial institutions, such as setting minimum capital requirements or requiring periodic oversight by Federal or State regulators. Safety and soundness laws and regulations are beneficial and necessary, as they enhance the security of the consumer whenever he or she deposits money in a bank or purchases an insurance policy. The outdated laws that I am referring to are the laws that create barriers to competition by artificially compartmentalizing the three major sectors of financial services--banking, securities, and insurance. For example, under the Banking Act of 1933, more commonly known as the Glass-Steagall Act, banks are generally barred from directly investing in corporate securities, underwriting new corporate issues, or sponsoring mutual funds. Under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, securities underwriters, insurance underwriters, and nonfinancial companies are generally prohibited from owning banks or being owned by a bank holding company. These outdated financial institution laws hurt consumers by artificially increasing the costs of financial services, reducing the availability of financial products, and reducing the level of convenience in the delivery of financial services. These outdated laws hurt small businesses--an engine of job growth in the American economy--by artificially limiting the amount of equity capital available for expanded activity. And finally, these outdated laws weaken the international competitiveness of America's financial institutions by prohibiting them from offering the range of financial services that foreign financial institutions may offer. It should be noted that the Glass-Steagall Act--which created the compartmentalized structure of financial services that we have today-- was based upon the false premise that the massive amount of bank failures that occurred during the Great Depression was caused by the securities activities that these banks conducted. However, just the opposite is true: Diversification in financial services actually increased the safety and soundness of the banks. Between 1929 and 1933, 26.3 percent of all national banks failed. However, the failure rate for those banks that conducted securities activities was lower. Of the national banks in 1929 that either had securities affiliates or had internal bond departments, only 7.2 percent had failed by 1933. The message from these statistics is clear: We should encourage competition and diversification, not discourage it. Earlier this year, Congress passed a bipartisan and comprehensive legislative initiative to reform the Telecommunications Act and stimulate competition and innovation in the telecommunications industry. Similar action is needed to stimulate the growth and global competitiveness of our financial services industry. There are currently three financial institution modernization bills that have been proposed: S. 337, the Depository Institution Affiliation Act, sponsored by Senator D'Amato, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee; H.R. 2520, the Financial Services Competitiveness and Regulatory Relief Act, sponsored by Representative Leach, Chairman of the House Banking Committee; and finally, a proposal submitted at the beginning of this year by the Alliance for Financial Modernization, which consists of various financial services industry organizations. It appears likely that next year, the Senate Banking Committee will consider the issue of financial institution modernization. So that Members of the Senate may have more information about the current compartmentalized structure of America's financial institutions, the three proposals for reforming this structure, and the issues that arise from these proposals, I am announcing the formation of the Financial Institution Modernization Working Group. The purpose of the Financial Institution Modernization Working Group is not to endorse any one of the currently proposed bills. Rather, it will engage in analyzing the merits of the current proposals and the current controversies surrounding these proposals. The Working Group will, however, endorse five principles that should be met by any financial institution modernization legislation package that is presented to the Senate: First, the legislation should lower the costs to consumers for financial services by increasing competition in the provision of these services. Second, the legislation should maintain the safety and soundness of the Federal deposit insurance system. Third, the legislation should not create a new structure that prevents current financial institutions from conducting any activities that they currently conduct. Fourth, the legislation should create a Financial Services Holding Company structure to increase competitive equality among all financial service providers. And fifth, the legislation should definitively resolve the current concerns about the future of the Savings Association Insurance Fund by merging the bank and thrift deposit insurance funds, unifying the bank and thrift charters, and consolidating the bank and thrift regulators. It is my hope that these five principles will provide a solid foundation for the Financial Institution Modernization Working Group's discussions in the coming months. In closing, I look forward to working with Senators who are both on and off of the Banking Committee to make the Financial Institution Modernization Working Group a useful source of information and ideas. It is my hope that 1997 will be the year that we join together and create a bipartisan bill that will reform our financial institution laws so that America's financial institutions will be able to compete, innovate and grow to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to follow up on what the Senator from Louisiana was saying. Just last week, the courts reaffirmed what the Congress and also the Nation's taxpayers have known since 1982 when this contract, this agreement was worked out, and that is, the Department of Energy has the legal obligation to begin accepting nuclear waste by January 31, 1998. This ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the second highest court in the land, marked a historic transformation in the nuclear waste debate. We are no longer discussing whether or not DOE has a responsibility to accept the waste, but how quickly we can move toward the final disposal solution. As my colleagues know, the roadblocks have not been environmental or technological, only political. After nearly 15 years, and at a cost to the Nation's electric consumers of $12 billion, the courts appear to have finally cleared that path. So why are some of our colleagues still trying to raise new obstacles? Is it because they are opposed to finding a real resolution to this environmental crisis? I cannot believe anyone would want to see nuclear waste continue to pile up in some 35 States, 41 if you include waste produced by the Government. Many of those States' utility commissioners argue that the ratepayer had paid for the waste to be removed and stored at a single permanent site. It was the DOE's failure to live up to its end of the bargain that led to the highly publicized lawsuit against DOE. The three circuit court judges concurred with the States' opinion and rejected the DOE's attempt to ``rewrite the law.'' Even so, some of our colleagues want to rewrite that law today. Such amendments reject the mandatory obligation of the DOE to take title to the spent fuel in 1998. They are merely an attempt to rewrite the law under the guise that somehow ratepayers are different than taxpayers. By vilifying those customers who are served by nuclear power facilities, the opponents of nuclear power hope to refocus the debate. Hiding behind the cloak of so-called taxpayer protection, they refuse to acknowledge the fact that moving forward with a permanent disposable program is the best way to avoid a taxpayer bailout. In fact, entities as diverse as the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the utilities themselves have calculated that enactment of S. 1936 would save $5 billion to $10 billion to the U.S. taxpayers/ratepayers. What I find most disturbing is this false differentiation of electric customers served by nuclear utilities from the rest of the public. The idea that somehow these Americans reaped the benefit of low-cost power for years and are now somehow trying to get out of their obligation to pay for the waste is an affront to the citizens of this country. Over the last decade and a half, Minnesotans have paid nearly $250 million in exchange for the unmet promises that the DOE would permanently store our State's nuclear waste. Again, the Nation has paid $12 billion, nationwide, into the nuclear waste trust fund. I believe the ratepayers have now lived up to their end of the bargain and met their financial obligation. It is the DOE that has not. But what about those who have benefited indirectly from nuclear power? I am referring to the customers served by utilities that themselves do not own nuclear generating stations but that from time to time do purchase the low-cost nuclear power. Aren't these the same taxpayers that opponents of this bill are seeking to protect? Yet don't these individuals share some of the responsibility? This issue is clearly explained in the letter that I received from Minnesota Department of Public Service Commissioner Kris Sanda. Commissioner Sanda wrote: For reliability reasons, our Nation's electrical grid is divided into several regional power pools. The Mid-Continent Power Pool serves our home state [of Minnesota, as well as] North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, portions of Montana and Wisconsin . . . In addition to ensuring the reliable delivery of electrical energy, MAPP [as it is called] serves as a clearinghouse for spot and intermediate term market for energy and capacity transactions . . . There are certain times of day and seasons of the year when energy from those plants is sold by [a nuclear generating facility] to other utilities in MAPP . . . So in other words, other areas of the country receive this power. It is without question . . . that all Minnesotans benefit from [NSP's] nuclear facilities, regardless of which utility provides their power . . . The same is true for virtually all consumers across the country, even those whose primary utility does not use nuclear fuel to generate electricity. Therefore, responsibility for funding a permanent storage site is clearly shared by all of the Nation's power consumers. And Congress has the responsibility for ensuring that DOE builds an environmentally sound facility. Finally, Mr. President, I think it is important that our vote to reject this amendment will send a clear message that we reject these attempts by the antinuclear forces to portray as villains the electric consumers served by nuclear generating stations. I urge my colleagues to support final passage of S. 1936.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, again, as I said, this is a very moderate and straightforward amendment. All it does is simply adopt the funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission at the House-passed level of $10 million less than that approved by the Senate. It requires that the commission provide a specific plan for future downsizing. Like many Federal programs, the ARC was created back in 1965 as a temporary response--temporary response--to poverty in Appalachia. Today, over 30 years later and despite the infusion of more than $7 billion of taxpayer money into the region, we are still pouring money into the area under the pretext of fighting poverty. This program is one of 62 Federal economic development programs. The ARC is the only major Government agency targeted toward a specific region of the country. This program has outlived its original mandate. It is ineffective and it is expensive and simply does not work. American taxpayers can no longer afford such extravagant spending. That is why CBO, the Senate, the House budget committees all recommended elimination of the ARC. Even President Clinton recommended reducing it by $500 million in budget authority and $300 million in outlays over the next 5 years. Although I strongly believe the ARC should be terminated, the Grams- McCain amendment does not zero out funding for the ARC, nor does it reduce it significantly. It simply reduces the level of funding to that approved by the House of $155 million, not the $165 million in the Senate budget. It also provides a specific plan for future downsizing. I urge my colleagues to support this very moderate amendment. Thank you, Mr. President.