Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Government Information for the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 7, 1995, at 2 p.m. in SH-216 to hold a hearing on the Ruby Ridge Incident.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on the nomination of Harris Wofford to be Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service, during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 7, 1995, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Thursday, September 7, at 10 a.m. for a markup on the following agenda: Legislation: S. 929, the Department of Commerce Dismantling Act. S. 177 to repeal the Ramspeck Act.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 7, 1995, at 2 p.m.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, every sports fan in America celebrated along with Baltimore's Cal Ripken last night; when he played in his 2,131 consecutive game and broke a baseball record most thought could never be toppled. That is an impressive feat; even more impressive when you consider that ``The Streak'' represents more than 13 years of dedication, sacrifice, and plenty of hard work. There is another consecutive streak you should know about, one that has not received nearly the attention that Cal Ripken's has, but one that affects a lot more people, and imposes an enormous cost on the American taxpayers. Worst of all, this streak has gone on unchecked for more than 30 years. Since the Great Society programs of the 1960's--for three long decades--taxpayers have suffered through a consecutive Federal spending streak that has taken more than 5 trillion of their tax dollars and siphoned them off to fund a welfare system that, frankly, has done more harm than good. Mr. President, I hope Cal Ripken's streak goes on forever, but the uncontrolled welfare spending streak must [[Page S 12772]] come to an end, and it is up to us to stop it. I rise today to remind my colleagues of a simple truth, and that is, the people are demanding that this Congress take responsibility for our broken welfare system and fix it. Last year, when I was running for the Senate, I listened to Minnesotans as we sat down together in their coffee shops and truck stops, in their businesses and in their homes. They asked me over and over again: ``What are you going to do about welfare?'' I told them we were going to fix it, and many of my colleagues made the same promise. As you know, we just returned from a 3-week recess, and like many others, I had the opportunity to spend that time traveling my State, meeting with people once again and again listening to their concerns. But the question this time was not ``What are you going to do about welfare?'' The question now was ``What are you doing about it?'' The people are expecting solutions, not delays, not the attempts we are seeing to derail this critically important legislation. For three decades, it has been the taxpayers who have paid the price for a welfare system that does little but encourage dependency and illegitimacy. For three decades, the taxpayers have continually turned over their hard-earned dollars to individuals instead of bettering their own families and helping secure their own futures. The taxpayers have been subsidizing hopelessness and despair. Congress has attempted to repair this mess before. The last major effort was in 1988, with the passage of the Family Support Act. On the day that conference report was passed in the House, my good friend, Bill Archer, now chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, went to the floor with a warning. He said: My criteria for welfare reform are that after 5 years of implementation we should be able to say to the taxpayers of this country that we have been able to encourage and to remove welfare recipients from the rolls so that it results in a program which has fewer welfare recipients than would occur under the current law. We should be able to say to the working people of this country that the cost of this program will result, after 5 years, in reduced taxes necessary to pay for welfare. This bill fails on both accounts. Mr. President, he could not have been more right, and we should have listened. Today, 7 years later, we have 1.3 million more families on the AFDC rolls than we had back in 1988. Seven years later, the working people of America are paying more taxes than they have ever paid before--4.5 percent more than they paid in 1988. We cannot continue to think that we will solve the welfare problem by throwing more precious taxpayer dollars at it, hoping that they will do some good. And, at last, I think we have a Congress that understands. Instead of encouraging the status quo, the Republican welfare reform legislation offers welfare families a future. It offers hope. Yes, it does ask something in return from those who benefit from it. But what it gives back is something infinitely more valuable: self-esteem, a sense of accomplishment, and a chance to create a better life for themselves and their children. The first step in creating that better life does not require anything more than a commitment. In breaking that long-held baseball record last night, Cal Ripken reminded us all that a person does not necessarily need to be the strongest, or the fastest, or the biggest player on the team to make a lasting contribution. Sometimes those with the most to give are simply the folks who show up every day, ready to work, eager to make a contribution. Taxpayers do that. They show up for work every day, put in 40-plus hours a week for their hard earned money. They make a contribution. With our legislation, we are encouraging welfare recipients to step up to the plate and take their turn at bat, to start lifting themselves, with our help, toward something better. We are not expecting home runs, but we will expect them to show up at the ballpark, ready to contribute. If we can accomplish that, then we cannot help but succeed. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to get serious about moving this legislation forward. I have heard about the terms of bipartisan support and a bipartisan effort. I hope that is what we can come down to as we go on with this debate, that we do come to a consensus that this is a bipartisan effort. I heard my colleague from North Dakota say we are not going to get everything he wants or everything I want, but hopefully we can come together with a plan that does meet the needs, obligations, and the responsibilities to our taxpayers. And they expect nothing less. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, there is a new Federal facility in the town of Florence, CO--about 100 miles southwest of Denver--that I wish to tell you about. It was dedicated only last January, without a lot of fanfare, and most people have probably never heard of it. But if you are invited for a visit, it is a request you cannot refuse, and an experience you will likely never forget. This new complex is the U.S. Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility--or the Super Max, for short--and already, it has become known as the Alcatraz of the Rockies. It is a place where the guests check in, but they do not check out, at least not on their own. The Super Max is the most secure prison in the Nation. A $60 million, state-of-the-art, high-technology fortress of steel, concrete, and barbed wire. It is where the worst of the worst are shipped to when society decides they can no longer be tolerated. It is a place where these most violent offenders are strictly controlled. It is a place where everyone is watched; where everyone is monitored. To call the Super Max cold and unfriendly would be a profound understatement. Visitors to the highest-security prison in the Nation first notice the fences--12-foot fences crowned with razor wires. They see the six guard towers, and the rolls of razor wire, and the armed guards who are not only authorized to use their weapons, but are instructed to shoot to kill. To enter the facility itself, the walls of which are reinforced with seven layers of steel and cement, visitors must pass through metal detectors. Their hands are stamped with a secret code in ultraviolet dye--that is to keep inmates from escaping by impersonating visitors. Mr. President, this is what you will find in a prison that has been labeled ``the end of the line'' for the Nation's hardcore offenders. You might think that the incredible security measures undertaken at the Colorado Super Max would be unique among Federal facilities. After all, where else except a maximum security prison, home to some of society's most malicious predators, would such intense restrictions need to be in effect? If you thought that, however, you would be wrong. There is another Federal compound with a security arrangement that is equally complex. There are armed guards with dogs, cement barriers, an extensive network of closed-circuit TV monitors, marked and unmarked pursuit vehicles, metal detectors and x ray scanners, signs, and barricades. But the guests who spend time in this Federal complex are not Mafia bosses, they are not convicted spies, hit men, drug kingpins, or arms smugglers. They are not dangerous, either, and they certainly do not deserve the intense security measures they are subjected to. They are average Americans who come here, to the U.S. Capitol Building, to see their Government at work [[Page S 12329]] and visit us, their representatives in Congress. And look how we greet them--not with signs of welcome, but with security arrangements which rival those of the Super Max, the most security-conscious prison in America. Mr. President, earlier this week, my staff made an informal survey around the Capitol and the Senate office buildings. We wanted to see this place through the eyes of a tourist, one of the 15 million Americans who visit us every year. And what we found was shocking and disappointing: 27 armed police officers, one with a dog, patrolling the grounds, checking identification, and searching car trunks; 33 retractable traffic barriers, designed to allow only certain vehicles access to Capitol Hill parking areas; 26 portable concrete barricades--when these are in place, no vehicles can get past; 34 portable traffic signs, labeled ``Stop'' or ``Do Not Enter''; 4 permanent guard boxes staffed with armed sentries; police cruisers, marked and unmarked; dozens of metal racks stamped ``U.S. Government'' blocking areas of the Capitol terrace once open to visitors; yards of rope, limiting access between sections of the Capitol grounds; yards of yellow tape reading ``Police Line--Do Not Cross''; and perhaps ugliest of all, 758 enormous, round, concrete barricades thinly disguised as flower pots, rimming the entire Capitol complex. That is just outside. Once inside our buildings, tourists will find: Checkpoints at 20 entrances where their handbags and personal belongings are analyzed by x ray scanners. A battery of 30 metal detectors through which visitors must pass. If metal is found--and often it is, but mostly keys and coins--our guests are subjected to an embarrassing search with a hand-held metal detector--a search I have heard many women complain about. There were 9 plainclothed officers, guarding the entrances to the House and Senate floors and visitors galleries; uniformed police officers--58 of them the day we checked--armed with guns and batons, watching everyone; and a video surveillance network that watches everyone, too. Mr. President, that is how we welcome visitors to their own Capitol: not with open arms, but by daring them to come. And just what are we trying to say to the American people when the battery of security measures used to control them as tourists rival the harsh measures used to control the most dangerous prisoners at the Nation's highest-security prison? What are we afraid of, Mr. President? Terrorists? Unfortunately, these security arrangements--many of which have been upgraded in the wake of the tragic bombing in Oklahoma City--would have little effect against a well-planned terrorist attack. I am afraid that we are perhaps using the horror of the Oklahoma City bombing as an excuse to further restrict the access of average Americans to their government, and if we are, well, that is wrong. Who suggested such an unwarranted assault on our visitors? Who put such a gestapo plan into effect? And most importantly, who in the administration or here in the Senate approved such a plan to barricade Capitol Hill, adding hundreds of new, armed guards? Let me just say how much respect I have for the men and women of the Capitol Police force, and for the incredible effort they put forth each and every day. As individuals, and as a department, they have and deserve our deepest thanks. My concerns are not directed at them. I want to quote Sgt. Dan Nichols, spokesman for the Capitol Police, when he was asked about the new security arrangements. Sergeant Nichols said: People need access to their government. But they also need to be protected. There is a saying we go by--free access and security are basically opposing concepts. You can only increase one at the expense of the other. Sergeant Nichols is exactly right. I believe we have erred too far on the side of security. With every new fence we put up, and every armed officer we station in front of it, we jeopardize a little bit more of the freedom symbolized by this great building. This gleaming ``jewel on the hill'' is ever so slowly being transformed into Alcatraz on the Potomac. What are we afraid of? Very few Americans will ever be offered a guided tour of the U.S. Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility in Florence, CO. But once they have visited Washington, DC and make the trip to Capitol Hill, they will have a very good sense of the daily atmosphere at a maximum- security prison. And that realization, Mr. President, ought to make them heartsick. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I congratulate the Chairman on the efforts of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee which the Senator chairs, and those of the Armed Services Committee, in addressing the problems caused by inadequate funding of ammunition programs. Correcting the current shortages in modern, preferred munitions is key to ensuring military readiness.

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the chairman. maritime patrol aircraft force

Mr. GRAMS. Will the Chairman yield?

Mr. GRAMS. I ask that the Chairman remain open to that possibility, and that reconsideration in conference of funding for the M830A1 remain an option.

Mr. GRAMS. There is one shortage in a modern, preferred munition used by our M1 tanks--the M830A1 high-explosive anti-tank round--which is not addressed in your bill. Although the budgets of the Army and the Marine Corps contained no requests for this round because of overall funding constraints, the Armed Services Committee has authorized M830A1 for both Services. [[Page S 12189]] Reports indicate that the total number of M830A1 rounds the Army has on hand and on order is approximately one-half of its actual inventory objective, and that absent continued funding our industrial capability to produce this kind of modern tank ammunition will rapidly disappear. If that happens, filling the other half of the inventory at some point in the future will take much longer, be much more difficult, and cost much more than continuing production now at a modest level. Given this, I have strongly urged the Senate to consider funding for the M830A1, and I continue to do so. I am sure that these issues are know to the Chairman, and I also recognize the difficult task he faced in prioritizing many vital but unbudgeted programs. It would appear that a conference with the House of Representatives on the defense appropriations bill ies well in the future. In the interim, new information or changed circumstances may develop which may warrant assigning a higher priority to funding for the M830A1.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, today's debate over reforming the welfare system is a debate over the values we hold most sacred as Americans. We prize independence over servitude, personal accountability over irresponsibility, hard work over Government handouts. A welfare system that works ought to embrace those values, inspire people to seek the freedoms these values represent, and help them lead a better life. And yet, the Democratic system imprisoned over 20 million needy Americans since the 1960's. Instead of bringing families together, America's welfare system tears them apart. It encourages dependency, it subsidizes illegitimacy. And the people who benefit most from the present system are not the underprivileged Americans who need it, but the bureaucrats who run it. And it is time for a change. With the welfare reform legislation being debated in Congress, we at last have an opportunity to change 30 years of failed policies. We are determined to replace the old system for one simple reason; and that is, it does not work. Over the last 30 years, since the beginning of the War on Poverty in 1965, American taxpayers have spent more than $5 trillion on 79 different means-tested welfare programs. And what have we accomplished with their sizable investment? Not enough, because the poverty rate has remained constant. Federal, State, and local governments combined are now spending $350 billion every year on welfare benefits. That is nearly 40 percent more than we spend on national defense each year. If the Senate's welfare reform proposals were signed into law today, we would still spend nearly $1.2 trillion in welfare over the next 5 years. Anyone on Main Street will tell you that that is an awful lot of money. And it is all funded by the taxpayers. And I believe $1.2 trillion is a sufficient amount of taxpayer dollars to accomplish our goals of the next 5 years. And anyone who does not believe that this is enough, well, they spend too much time inside the beltway. Just look at the hard-working men and women of Minnesota who hand over more than a third of their paychecks to Washington. Last fall Republicans pledged to use the American taxpayer dollars more efficiently and more effectively. And reforming the welfare system is part of our effort to keep that promise. Our goal in the Senate is to truly end welfare as we know it. We must change the priorities that this country places on welfare and emphasize personal responsibility. We must include tough work requirements for welfare recipients. We must give States the power to develop policies which make both parents responsible for their children and eliminate benefits for drug addicts and alcoholics. We must give block grants to the States and put an end to the role of the Federal Government as a barrier in the welfare reform experimentation. States should begin the freedom, unhindered by the Federal bureaucrats in Washington, to implement innovative reforms. And we must give State governments the flexibility that they need to customize programs to address local needs, because State officials, not Washington bureaucrats, know best how local welfare dollars should be spent efficiently. State and local communities will finally be given the flexibility that they need to customize their welfare programs to best meet the needs of their citizens. It was President John F. Kennedy who once said: Welfare programs must contribute to the attack on family breakdown and illegitimacy. Unless such problems are dealt with effectively, they fester and grow, sapping the strength of society as a whole and extending their consequences in troubled families from one generation to next. And I agree. This legislation makes a first step in this direction by overhauling 6 of the Nation's 10 largest welfare programs. And this will save the taxpayers approximately $70 billion over the next 7 years. Now we will require able-bodied welfare recipients to work 20 hours a week. Welfare recipients will no longer be able to endlessly job search and then count that as work. Under the Dole-Packwood bill, work is work. In addition, the bill would require 50 percent of a State's welfare caseload to be working by the year 2000. This bill will no longer give welfare recipients more food stamps if their cash assistance is lower because they have refused to work. In addition, the bill requires States to meet a minimum paternity establishment ratio of 90 percent. Now welfare recipients who refuse to cooperate in paternity establishment will have their benefits withheld. Another significant change this bill will make is that drug addiction and alcoholism will no longer be considered a disability for the determination of supplemental security income. Taxpayers will no longer be required to pay for an individual's drug or alcohol addiction. The Dole-Packwood bill will deny welfare benefits to illegal aliens and also impose a 5-year lifetime limit on welfare benefits. And I commend Senator Dole for these very, very important steps. One element of the bill that I am particularly proud of is the adoption of an amendment that I proposed with my friend and colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby, our pay-for-performance amendment that will require States to pay benefits to welfare recipients only for the number of hours worked. If a welfare recipient refuses to work at all during the required 20- hour work-week, they would receive no benefits for that week. If they decided to work only 15 hours instead of the 20 hours required, they would receive welfare benefits for 15 hours' worth of work. Now, Mr. President, this amendment which has been included in the leadership amendment will hold welfare recipients to the same employment [[Page S 11812]] standards as the rest of America's work force. You will be paid for the amount of hours you work, no more, and no less. Now, Congress has no intention of turning its back on the most needy in this country. We simply want to try a new approach, an approach that creates opportunity and offers a hand up and not just a handout, an approach that is just as fair to the taxpayer as it is to the welfare recipient. Truth be told, the only people who will be turned out on the streets by welfare reform are the thousands of bureaucrats and lobbyists who administer and protect the current welfare system's complex maze of dependency. And maybe those who are bilking the system of millions, if not billions, of dollars each year--those who enjoy taking hard-earned money from taxpayers--maybe they have forgotten that taxpayers in Minnesota would like to keep their dollars and use them wisely for their child's care or their children's education. Again, $1.2 trillion over the next 5 years is a major commitment by America's taxpayers. Amazingly, however, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will argue that $1.2 trillion is not enough, that America's taxpayers should pay more. I disagree. I believe taxpayers have been generous, but now they have had enough of these failed policies which have produced little return for their investment, policies that have only created more dependency and have not solved any of the problems we face. Taxpayers have paid more than their fair share, and as an advocate for America's taxpayers, I am prepared to be their voice in this debate. We have witnessed the attacks over the last few months organized by the entrenched bureaucrats, the special interest lobbyists for the taxpayer-financed welfare industry, and the liberal activists who oppose any welfare reform. We have been subjected to the orchestrated campaigns of these opponents of change, these jealous defenders of the status quo. They continue to distort the truth and misrepresent our intentions. They cry that changing the welfare system is dangerous and it is cruel, that Republicans will take food out of the mouths of starving children. But I believe that nothing could be more dangerous or cruel than letting the current system remain. The American taxpayers must look beyond the scare tactics, the rhetoric, and focus on the facts. The facts are reducing bureaucracy, increasing flexibility, and demanding work from those who are capable of working is an investment in our future--in their future--and both welfare recipients and taxpayers will be better off for it. Welfare, as it was originally envisioned, was meant to be a temporary safety net for those who had fallen upon hard times, not a permanent hammock that coddles them into life-long dependency. The American people are calling for a new vision that will make this country better, stronger, in the year 2000 and beyond. To the liberals, the solution to the welfare problem is the same solution they have turned to over and over again for the past 30 years. Whenever they have faced a fiscal crisis, their answer has always been to raise taxes on the middle class. That is what they have done each time the Medicare trustees warned that Medicare was facing bankruptcy. And that is how they would have us fix welfare, give away more of the taxpayers' dollars. That makes the liberals feel good to take away people's money, to fund programs of their choice, so they appear righteous--but what does that do to middle class Americans? This Congress is not going to raise taxes. This Congress is not going to ask the taxpayers to finance these fundamental changes to the welfare system. Instead we are going to ask more from the welfare recipients, and I believe that is a fair deal. After all, the taxpayers have supported the failed status quo for far too many years. And with little but a bloated bureaucracy to show for it. For those reasons, I am proud to be cosponsoring the Dole welfare reform bill to change the status quo, to protect hard-working, middle- class taxpayers, to lift people out the vicious cycle of dependency, to truly end welfare as we know it. As Oklahoma Representative J.C. Watts has stated so well: We can no longer measure compassion in this country by how many people are on welfare. We need to measure compassion by how many people are not on welfare because we've helped them climb the ladder of success. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join my efforts to offer opportunity to all Americans by fundamentally reforming our failed welfare system and providing a fair deal to the taxpayers and those who receive the taxpayers' earnings. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the McCain amendment to the Treasury Postal appropriations bill. This amendment would cap the number of Presidential political appointees, or schedule C's, at 2,000, down from the current average of 2,800. Overall, the Treasury Postal appropriations bill goes a long way toward fulfilling our promise of deficit reduction to the American people. Senator Shelby should be commended for weeding out excessive and duplicative layers of bureaucracy from the Treasury Department, Postal Service, Executive Office of the Presidency, and several independent agencies. The result is an appropriations bill that is $42 million below the House appropriation for 1996, $367 million below the level enacted for 1995, and $1.8 billion below Clinton's budget request. But the McCain amendment would make this bill even better for at least two reasons. In terms of deficit reduction, CBO estimates that limiting the number of political appointees to 2,000 would save $363 million over the next 5 years. This degree of deficit reduction will contribute to greater economic benefits for all Americans, with lower interest rates stimulating investment, economic growth, and jobs. In addition to the monetary savings this amendment would generate, capping the number of political appointees in the executive branch would help make Government run more efficiently and productively. In fact, back in 1989, the Commission on Public Service, led by former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker, recommended limiting the number of political appointees to 2,000. Even more recently, Vice President Gore's National Performance Review recommends a reduction in the number of political appointees, arguing that ``overcontrol and micromanagement * * * stifle the creativity of line managers and workers * * * [and] consume billions [of dollars] per year in salary, benefits, and administrative costs.'' As a bipartisan solution, the McCain amendment fits in with reform strategies advocated at both ends of the political spectrum. I urge my colleagues to support the McCain amendment. Your vote will be a vote for greater Government efficiency, deficit reduction, and good economic sense.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor and strong supporter of the amendment by Senator McCain to terminate the third Seawolf submarine. I want to thank the Senator from Arizona for his leadership on this issue and for his constant and tireless efforts to scour the defense budget--and, indeed, the entire Federal budget--for wasteful and unnecessary spending. Like the Senator from Arizona, I believe we must build a strong military that can respond to the rapidly changing threats America faces in the post-cold war world. The Seawolf submarine, which was developed to counter a specific Soviet threat during the cold war, is simply outdated and irrelevant in this new era. Mr. President, if we're going to buy military equipment that's behind the times, the least we could hope for is to get it at a cut-rate price. But this is not the case. The third Seawolf will cost $2.4 billion bringing the grand total for this program to more than $7 billion for just three submarines. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to terminate the Seawolf and save the taxpayers a minimum of $1.3 billion. Moreover, these savings could increase in future years as we determine the most efficient way to construct the next generation of nuclear submarines. [[Page S 11294]] As the Senator from Arizona has repeatedly pointed out, this funding is needed for higher priority defense programs that will truly enhance our military readiness. The McCain amendment has been strongly endorsed by a number of Government watchdog organizations, including the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Mr. President, let's stand with these groups and show the American taxpayers that the Congress supports responsible spending that will yield a strong and strategically sound national defense.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I would just like to say, I know this might sound like just a small step, only $40 million in a city where we talk in billions and trillions, but I think about how many taxpayers in Minnesota would I have to put in a line to put $40 million into the Treasury. There are a lot of people in Minnesota to whom I would have to say, ``Your money is going to fund a music hall of fame in Alabama, a practice stadium for a professional football team in North Carolina, a NASCAR Hall of Fame. I have to say, I am one of the biggest fans of NASCAR racing in the country, but I do not know if Minnesota taxpayers want to be asked to spend some of their tax money for that, when I know in Minnesota there are needs for $850,000 to keep flooding out of a town in Marshall, $3 million request for a highway, 610. But these are going by the wayside because there is not enough money to fund projects like this. But yet we continue to ask for money that is being spent for such as the Appalachian Regional Commission. I just wanted to mention one other thing. It is always great to say we are going to help somebody. But we are always using somebody else's money to do it. We are asking the taxpayers of this country to pony up for the money we want to spend on pet projects. I want to recount a story of a lady back in Minnesota, Natalie Wolstad, Coon Rapids. I have used this story before, but I would like to recount it again. She wrote me a letter saying she had gone to the bank with a realtor trying to buy their first home, a young couple. After they went through all the process, the bank said, ``I am sorry but you do not qualify for a loan.'' She said she and her husband went home that night and went through their checkbook and all their bills because they wanted to see what were they doing wrong with their money that they could not afford to buy a home. After they figured up all the bills, they found out they were not doing something wrong, but as they went through it they noticed, really for the first time, how much money was coming out of their paycheck to go for taxes. So it was the tax bite that was keeping them from qualifying for a loan. Like I say, we always want to do something good for somebody else, but we want to use somebody else's money. Those dollars come from taxpayers. Those taxpayers have faces and names, like Natalie Wolstad. So before we take more money out of their pockets to spend as we think would be needed--and as my good friend from Arizona said, there are many, many poor counties in this country that could use this type of funding but they are not supplied with dollars from commissions like the ARC. There is no MRC, there is no Minnesota Regional Commission that will provide these types of dollars that would help Natalie Wolstad and her family. So I think we should think twice about asking the taxpayers whether they want to spend money for projects like this. Amendment No. 2058 (Purpose: To reduce the level of funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission to that enacted by the House of Representatives)

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my good friend from Arizona, Senator McCain, and my friend from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, we intend to offer a bipartisan amendment to the energy and water appropriations bill, which would reduce funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission, ARC, by $40 million. First, I will explain some of our reasons for offering this amendment. In his inaugural address 35 years ago, President Kennedy challenged the American people to ``ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.'' Just five years later, however, those words seemed to have been forgotten with the establishment in Congress of the ARC, the ultimate expression of ``what can I get out of my government?" The goal of Congress in creating the ARC was to bolster economic development in a 195,000 square-mile region which presently encompasses 13 States. Over the course of the past 30 years, we have spent more than $7 billion in the Appalachian region, much of it for pork-barrel projects, trying to stimulate economic growth there. Today, many of the ARC's programs duplicate activities funded by other Federal agencies. In fact, Appalachian corridor construction, under which the Senate energy and water appropriations bill justifies the $40 million increase in funding from the House, also falls under the jurisdiction of the Transportation Department's Federal highway program. Representative Scott Klug of Wisconsin put it this way: What the Appalachian Regional Commission does is essentially allow 13 states in this country to double dip into infrastructure money, money to do economic development, and money also to do highway and water construction and projects like that. Now, clearly, Mr. President, the Appalachian Regional Commission has become a vehicle to justify continued pork-barrel spending which duplicates the efforts of many other Federal programs. That is hardly what President Kennedy had in mind 35 years ago. While the ARC allocates funds for the poor, rural communities of Appalachia, these areas are no worse off than rural communities in Minnesota, Arizona, or the 35 other States that do not benefit from the ARC. In fact, in my home State of Minnesota, 12.8 percent of my constituents live below the poverty level. That is a troubling statistic for a state which considers itself not a poor State, but a proud State. It is higher than many states which benefit from ARC funding--such as Virginia at 9.4 percent, Maryland at 11.6 percent, Pennsylvania at 11.7 percent, and Ohio at 12.6 percent. Do Minnesotans have a Federal program designed just for them? Of course not. To pay for something like the ARC on a nationwide basis would require billions of dollars, either from cutting more from other programs, borrowing money from our children, increasing the deficit, or raising taxes. The first option is unlikely--the remaining three are completely unacceptable. Already, for every dollar the taxpayers of my State contribute to the Federal Treasury, they receive only 82 centsworth of government services. That is 82 cents on the dollar. The States which receive ARC funding receive, on average, $1.21 for every tax dollar they contribute. Now, Minnesota has been a good neighbor and has contributed more than its fair share. But when Minnesotans see $750,000 of ARC funds spent on a summer practice stadium for the National Football League's Carolina Panthers, this is a slap in the face. Clearly, the ARC's priorities do not reflect the priorities of the taxpayers. While there have been some improvements in the Appalachian region, these have generally followed the health of the economy in general. In the 1980's, there was strong growth in the area which mirrored the economic growth of the country at large. During this time, ARC funding was reduced by 40 percent, roughly the level appropriated by the House bill this year. Did the region suffer? On the contrary. Taxes were cut and unemployment rates in the region fell by 38 percent. That is how President Kennedy created jobs in the 1960's. That is how President Reagan created jobs in the 1980's. That is how we need to create jobs as we approach the year 2000. The ARC is a classic example of how pork barrel projects are dished out in Washington. If ARC programs only benefitted two or three States, the Commission probably would not have lasted as long as it has. But when you cobble together several hundred counties, in 13 different States, with 26 Senators representing them, you have a built-in political constituency that will make sure funding is perpetuated forever and ever. Mr. President, the ARC is a relic, a thing of the past. We need to look toward the future, toward a balanced budget, tax cuts, and job creation. These benefits would far outweigh the additional $40 million in taxpayers' money the Senate wants to appropriate. Earlier this year, Congress agreed to phase out the ARC in the balanced budget resolution which passed both chambers. Our amendment does not zero out funding for the ARC this year--it simply reduces the level of funding to that approved by the House, $142 million. That means $40 million that goes back to the taxpayers, either in the form of deficit reduction or tax cuts. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Grams-McCain amendment and support us in this effort to cut government waste. Show the taxpayers that we will keep our word and make the tough choices necessary to balance the Federal budget and bring economic growth and prosperity to every region across this Nation. President Kennedy was right--Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.

Mr. GRAMS. I yield.

Mr. GRAMS. No, I did not know that.

Mr. GRAMS. It is $7 billion.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I now call up amendment 2058 at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this amendment. Clearly, there is a problem with the disputed water levels. It is a problem that deserves a solution--one that is well thought out and final. Today, my colleague from Minnesota has offered his proposal. And I am prepared to support it--not as a solution to the problems facing the people of northern Minnesota, but as a message that we will not let these problems go unresolved. Unfortunately, this amendment, while sending a message, does not necessarily pass the test of being a good solution. Hastily prepared ideas rarely do. It should come as no surprise that this amendment has a number of problems and could have some unforeseen consequences of which we're not aware today. And the Senate needs to be aware of that. There is an orderly and regular process by a joint United States- Canadian commission to address this very matter--the International Joint Commission. That process is already underway. It will result in water level decisions based on scientific analysis. Tonight the Senator's amendment would prejudge the outcome of that process. It would put into effect a subcommittee report to the full international committee before the full committee has a chance to consider the report and make a final decision. We simply do not know what impact the subcommittee recommendation would have on fish, wildlife, and the environment. The amendment also does a very curious thing: It would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to enforce the international joint commission subcommittee's water recommendations on dams and water impoundments over which the FERC does not now have jurisdiction. What we are doing here is codifying a decision by a subcommittee of a United States-Canadian body, the international joint commission with virtually no input from the Canadian side. But today, we will adopt this amendment--without adequate notice, without proper consultation. Because what we are giving the people of Minnesota is a message: and that is the Senate urges the IJC to act quickly to resolve this issue. The people of Minnesota deserve a solution, not just a message. But a message is what we are giving them tonight. Again, I want to thank my colleague for his efforts and support. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Jeffords amendment and am pleased to be an original cosponsor. Over the past 2\1/2\ years, I have had the opportunity to help formulate our renewable energy policies, both as a member of the House Energy R&D Subcommittee, and now as a member of the Senate Energy Committee. This amendment represents an important step forward in our efforts. In my home State of Minnesota, we have a strong commitment to renewable and alternative energy resources. Solar, wind, and biofuels play a key role in Minnesota's overall energy blueprint, and these priorities are shared across this Nation. Our amendment demonstrates this understanding while reducing redtape and bureaucracy at the same time. Too many taxpayers' dollars are being wasted on bureaucracy and red- tape in Washington and not on programs that help meet the energy needs of the people of Minnesota. If we are going to spend the taxpayers' money, we had better make sure it is for their benefit, and not for a bloated bureaucracy. By slashing bureaucracy and eliminating $25 million from departmental administration, we are able to increase the levels of funding for solar and renewables. Even DOE Secretary Hazel O'Leary endorses this type of approach--her proposal for strategic realignment estimates potential savings of nearly $2 billion through consolidating and realignment of the current DOE structure. Limiting the scope of Government--while expanding funding for renewable energy resources--are goals which can be achieved together, as this amendment so clearly demonstrates. The Jeffords amendment reflects a balanced prioritization of our limited energy dollars. It is my strong hope that by maintaining a Federal commitment to solar and renewable programs, we will be able to achieve a strong and vibrant industry that is capable of thriving in the free market. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Jeffords renewable amendment. It allows us to pursue renewable energy resources at the same time we protect the taxpayers, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of such a proposal. Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAMS. That will be fine.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in strong, enthusiastic support of S. 908, the Foreign Relations Revitalization Act. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I am proud to have voted for this groudbreaking legislation to fundamentally reform America's foreign affairs agencies. For much of this year, Congress has responded to the voters' demand to shrink the Federal Government and reduce its intrusion in their lives. But it is not just our domestic agencies that are in need of an overhaul. S. 908 fulfills two important goals: First, it will help to reshape the State Department so that we can better meet the new challenges of a rapidly changing world. And second, it will apply our limited financial resources in a more realistic and effective way. Unfortunately, the President's proposed budget for 1996 would actually increase international affairs spending by $950 million, and that is hardly evidence of a strong commitment to balancing the budget. Moreover, some administration officials--as well as some Members of this body--have thrown around reckless accusations about this bill's efforts to reorganize the State Department. They charge that it somehow represents a move to withdraw the United States from international affairs. But make no mistake. It is our desire, and America's responsibility, to remain actively and productively engaged around the world that make this legislation so necessary. While the administration has been busy crying ``isolationism" and doing everything in its power to block consideration of S. 908, five former Secretaries of State have come forward to ardently endorse it. Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger and former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft testified on the clear connection between the cold war and the expansion of the Federal bureaucracy: [[Page S 10937]] [T]his proliferation of agencies occurred in response to security-related concerns which have since diminished or disappeared. Therefore, we are now encumbered by a plethora of programs which no longer are closely tied to, or clearly serve, U.S. national interests. . . . [The] origins of the agencies being considered for abolition are all rooted in a world which no longer exists. And former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger--not known for ``isolationist'' tendencies--wrote, What is needed is steadiness, coherence and precision in the articulation and implementation of policies. . . . He went on to say: Your proposal to abolish the Agency for International Development, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the U.S. Information Agency is a bold step in this direction by centralizing authority and responsibility for the conduct of foreign affairs where it properly belongs--in the President's senior foreign affairs advisor, the Secretary of State. Even current Secretary of State Warren Christopher reportedly made a similar proposal to Vice President Gore's ``Reinventing Government'' team. But, unfortunately, the Vice President chose to reject the Secretary's plan and, instead, capitulated to the cold war reactionaries in the administration who are intent on preserving their pet agencies at all costs. Therefore, Mr. President, Congress must act responsibly with the taxpayers' money and do for the State Department what it could not do for itself. Rather than ``micromanage'' State Department reform, S. 908 preserves substantial flexibility for the President and the Secretary of State to determine its new organizational structure. Given the complete lack of cooperation Congress has received on this issue from the administration, allowing such flexibility may be considered a ``leap of faith.'' However, I firmly believe Congress should guide and agencies should be expected to perform. Above all, Mr. President, the heart of S. 908 must be kept intact. The consolidation of AID, ACDA and USIA under the State Department will end the current duplication of many functions and personnel. As a result, S. 908 will save the taxpayers $4.8 billion over 5 years according to the Congressional Budget Office. The international affairs budget must take its fair share of reductions to keep us on track to balancing the budget in 2002. But I want to remind my colleagues that without the efficient and prudent savings in the State Department reorganization plan, cuts in foreign aid programs will have to be that much deeper. Finally, I hope that this bill--combined with S. 961, the Foreign Aid Reduction Act--will encourage a comprehensive review of U.S. foreign aid. We all know that foreign aid is held in low esteem by many Americans. Given the track record of AID and the minimal performance of some foreign aid programs, this is hardly surprising. We must not abdicate our oversight responsibilities. By enacting the legislation before us today, we can begin rehabilitating foreign aid in the eyes of the American people. Mr. President, we must ask ourselves: Do we really need a bureaucracy of 9,300 employees and contractors to manage foreign aid programs? There are 405 employees at AID's Egypt mission in Cairo alone. And it costs the taxpayers $150,000 to $300,000 a year--not counting salary-- to station just one AID employee overseas. We must focus our efforts on making sure that foreign aid actually reaches people in need rather than getting swallowed up by oversized U.S. and foreign bureaucracies. I support an approach that conducts more of our foreign aid programs through non-governmental organizations and private voluntary organizations. These are groups that generally have much lower overhead costs than AID. As we reevaluate foreign aid and demand that it become more accountable, more efficient and more effective, we must also examine the actions of those countries which receive taxpayer dollars. Foreign aid cannot provide real, sustainable development unless recipient countries are dedicated to economic freedom and free-market reforms. To renew Americans' faith in foreign aid, we must show them proven results. We cannot afford to run an international welfare program which subsidizes countries that show no progress toward economic self- sufficiency. Just like our broken welfare system at home, such a program will only encourage dependency and continue to burden the taxpayers for years to come. In closing, Mr. President, S. 908 offers all Senators this opportunity: We have all talked a good game about eliminating agencies that are outmoded or inefficient. Now the question is can we actually do it. I urge all Members to vote for S. 908, not just for the sake of eliminating three agencies, but because doing so will help ensure that America has the foreign policy tools necessary to take us into the 21st century. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, in addition to the Minneapolis Star Tribune articles regarding the Federal judiciary circulated to Senators on Friday, July 28, I would like to share with my colleagues the following article, which was published on the op-ed page of the Star Tribune on Sunday, March 12, 1995. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.