Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 12:30 p.m., with the time equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. GRAMS. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to talk a little bit about taxes, as my Democratic colleagues have done already this morning. I want to go back over what the President said on Saturday in his weekly radio address to the Nation. I also had the honor this week to respond to the President's radio address. But at the time I wrote up the speech, I had not had an opportunity to see exactly what the President was going to say. I assumed he was going to be talking about taxes this week because that is what the Senate concentrated on last week. But I have now had the opportunity to look through the President's speech. I want to comment on some of the things the President talked about, now that I have had the opportunity to see it. I want to go back to Saturday morning, when the President gave his radio address. In his speech to the Nation he said: Now we have the chance to pass responsible tax cuts as we continue to pursue solid economic policy. What the President is talking about is that he is willing to give some kind of tax relief to the American public but only the kind the President thinks you need; not what your family needs or not what you are looking at in your budget this month but what Washington, inside the beltway, has determined you should have and, by the way, what amounts you should have. But these are targeted tax cuts. In other words, you only can receive these dollars back, or this tax relief, if you do what the President tells you to do. If you invest here or if you do this or you do that, then you can receive back or be able to keep some of your hard-earned money. But if you don't, Washington is going to take it. It is telling you what to do, how to spend your money. Then he went on to say: Instead of following the sensible path that got us here, congressional Republicans are treating the surplus as if they had won the lottery. We are talking about giving the money back to the people who earned it, and by the way, the ``risky, budget-busting tax cuts'' we are talking about--that is eliminating the death tax and marriage penalty, the unfair taxes--would be less than 10 percent of the projected budget surplus. It is less than a dime on the dollar, and this is what the President is saying is going to create complete chaos because somehow we are going to give back to the American taxpayer about 10 percent of the projected surplus. But he says we are acting as if we won it in the lottery. It is the President and my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle who think this is a lottery that they have won; that the surplus is there and they are somehow going to find the best way of spending it for you. They are going to determine the best way of spending it for you. They say we think it is a lottery when our proposal is to give the money back to those who earned it, not spending it. Even Alan Greenspan--and again we had him before our Banking Committee last week where we went over the same thing: The surplus is here; what's the best thing we can do with the surplus? Mr. Greenspan says: Pay down the debt. We are paying down the debt. A huge amount of these surplus dollars is targeted to reducing the debt, but also there is money left that can be and should be given back in the form of tax relief. But he said the worst thing we could do is what the President is advocating and my Democratic colleagues are advocating. The worst thing, Alan Greenspan said, that we could do is spend the money. That is what they want to do. They want to find new ways to spend it--but, of course, to benefit you. But they want to determine how to spend it, so they are going to enlarge Government or fatten existing programs. But who is going to pay the bill? It is going to be taxpayers. If we do not get tax relief today and we allow these dollars to be spent to enlarge or fatten the Government, who is going to support that larger, fatter Government tomorrow? It is going to have to come from possibly even in an increase in taxes. So if we miss this opportunity during times of surplus to cut taxes now, you can almost bet we are going to be facing the possibility of tax increases in the near future. We are talking about eliminating unfair taxes, and the majority of Americans agree with this. The marriage penalty and the death tax--even the President has called these unfair taxes. The President said in his speech: Taken together, the tax cuts passed last year and this year by this Congress would completely erase the entire projected surplus over 10 years. Of course, he is talking about the $800 billion tax cut package last year which he vetoed, that is dead and in the wastebasket, and combines it with the cuts we have this year, only 10 percent of the surplus. But he puts them together and says Republicans want to give it all back. That is not all bad. It should be given back. We are talking about overcharges, surpluses. These are dollars over and above what the Government has projected to need to carry out all of its responsibilities. We have $1.8-plus trillion earmarked to pay for programs the Government has said we need to do. These dollars are over and above that. Taxpayers fund every agency, every program, every project, every bureaucrat in that $1.8 trillion budget. Taxpayers are the most used, abused, and underappreciated people in our society. In other words, if they can get more money from you by twisting you a little bit harder, they are going to do that. One of my colleagues earlier this morning said if you make $75,000 a month and you receive through this tax cut another $2,000 a month, would that really make a difference? That is not for him to decide. These are dollars that somebody has worked for and earned. By the way, they are not talking about how much in taxes this individual is already paying on that $75,000, but they are saying: $2,000, what difference would it make to them? In other words, Washington can use it and spend it better than they can, so it should be no problem that we take these tax dollars away from them, even if they are unfair. Again, the majority of Americans agree, the death tax is unfair. You have paid all your taxes all your life to accumulate your estate, and the Government wants to come in after you die and take more than half of it again. It is the same with the marriage tax penalty. Because you are married, you are going to be taxed at a higher rate--on average, per couple, $1,400 per year--and somehow that is fair. Think of it. If someone asked you, what is your projected income over the next 10 years, would you want to sign a contract committing you to spend every single penny of it right now? The President is distorting this whole story. We are talking about a surplus, the overcharge. We are not talking about the base wage which the Government is receiving in taxes, but he is talking about the surplus. We should give the surplus back. I like to use a story about finding a wallet. Say this family is sitting around their kitchen table. They find a wallet, and it has $1,000 in it. They say: If we take our regular budget and now add this $1,000 to it, we can buy that big- screen TV we always wanted. They say: We have the money; we found it. Congress has found this wallet with all these surplus tax dollars in it. I was taught--and I think most parents continue to teach their children today--that if you find a wallet with money in it, you should do your best to find the owner and give it back, not to run with it and say: Oh, we found this money; how can we better spend it? We can spend this money. That is what is happening here. These are overcharges. Would you spend all your money now? All we are saying is we should give it back to the taxpayers so they can decide how to spend it best. The President said: We should have tax cuts this year, but they should be the right ones. We should have tax cuts, but they should be the right ones. The President 2 years ago in Buffalo, NY, said something to this effect, and I will paraphrase it: We could give back all of this surplus, but what if Americans do not spend it right? That is the same thing he is doing here: We could have tax cuts, but they should be the right ones. In other words, if we give the taxes back to the American people, the overcharge, the surplus--we are not even talking tax cuts here. That is a misused term. We are not cutting taxes. What we are trying to decide is how much of the surplus should go back to you, the taxpayer, that you have been overcharged. The President said: We could give it all back, but what if you don't spend it right? In other words, you are smart enough to go out and earn your money, but somehow you are too dumb to know how to spend your money, and Washington can do that for you and do it better and do it in these targeted programs that are going to help everybody. But it will not let you have the opportunity to spend the money the way that will best benefit your family. Every family is a little different. Your needs are different from mine and your neighbors' or even your brothers' and sisters' in raising their families. You should have the opportunity to decide how this prosperity, these extra dollars, should be spent. What the President is saying is, send them to Washington, or keep sending this surplus to Washington, and we will decide what is best for you and how best to spend it. The President said: In good conscience, I cannot sign one expensive tax break--again, it is not a tax break; it is an overcharge--after another without coherent strategy. In other words, they want to control how these extra tax dollars are spent --not you, taking it out of your control. They want to determine exactly how these tax dollars should be spent. The President also says he supports this marriage tax penalty we passed, but he said it should be a carefully targeted marriage tax penalty that will cost less. Why will it cost less? Because the President eliminates a great number of these couples who currently qualify for the marriage tax penalty. He is saying that if you make too much money, if you itemize, or do not itemize, somehow you will not qualify. The President says ``targeted.'' Again we hear that word ``targeted.'' When we hear that, it means Washington believes it can best determine what you need or what program the Government can create or how the Government can spend your tax money. I want to say one other thing before I close, and that is what the President said at the end of his speech. I agree with these last few lines: The surplus comes from the hard work and ingenuity of the American people. We owe it to them to make the best use of it, for all of them and for our children's future. I agree with that statement. The only thing is we disagree on how to accomplish it. ``The surplus comes from hard work and ingenuity of the American people. We owe it to them to make the best use of it. . . .'' To me, the best use would be to give the surplus back. We are not talking tax cuts at all. We are not talking about reducing the revenues Washington needs to run this Government and its programs. What we are talking about is the surplus. We owe it to them to make the best use of it. That will be in rebating, returning those dollars to you so you can then decide what is best for your family. Is it braces for one of your children, or dancing lessons? Is it to begin an educational fund for your child? He is 5 years old, and you want to prepare for his college. You will make that decision, and you will not have to worry or wait for a Government program and then stand there with a hand out asking: Do I qualify, and can I get some of my tax dollars back? You will have to wait for somebody in Washington to say yes or no. That is not what should be happening. You should have control over your dollars. We all need to pay taxes. We know that. There are a lot of good things the Federal Government does. We know that. But Washington should not have the control of determining how to spend the additional dollars, the surplus. I strongly urge the President to sign our two tax bills that we want to send him: the death tax repeal and the marriage tax penalty. I hope the President will consider them and, as he said in the last line of his speech--again I will read it--we owe it to them to make the best use of it for all of them. And my opinion is to give it in tax relief. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak as in morning business, to extend the morning business for at least 5 minutes so I would have about 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet Tuesday, July 25, 2000, at 2:15 p.m., on pilot shortage.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 25, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on the National Missile Defense Program.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to today offer my support and cosponsorship of the Dorgan amendment providing additional disaster assistance to producers hit hard by floods, drought, and other severe storms that have resulted in crop destruction and disease. In Minnesota, floods in the northwest and southern portions of the state have devastated many farmers causing some crops to rot in the field. This is yet another hit for the struggling Minnesota farm economy. Portions of my state have faced heavy rains and flooding for several years now, and things aren't getting any easier for these hardworking farmers also hit with low prices. In northwest Minnesota, FSA estimates that nearly 50 percent of the acreage has been affected by floods. In nine counties in Minnesota, there have been nearly 1.2 million acres affected. In Mahnomen county, 100 percent of the acreage has been impacted by floods. FEMA funding and disaster assistance under the Small Business Administration and other programs do not provide these farmers the help they need. If we are willing to help farmers who are suffering from falling prices, as we have already done this year through supplemental spending, we should also come to the aid of those suffering from natural disaster, as we do on a routine basis each year as we experience such disasters. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important amendment. emergency meth lab cleanup funds amendment

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Special Olympics on the anniversary of their first games, held in Chicago on July 20, 1968. With the motto ``Let me win, but if I cannot win let me be brave in the attempt,'' Special Olympics has for more than 20 years been providing challenges and opportunities for individuals with mental retardation. I want to take this opportunity to commend the numerous ways Special Olympics helps not only the athletes who participate, but also their families and friends and the many volunteers who have made the program such a success. Special Olympics plays an important role in the lives of many of the mentally challenged throughout the world, including my home state of Minnesota. Since the start of Special Olympics, the organization has grown to include more than 1.7 million athletes worldwide, with 3,300 in Minnesota. Special Olympians compete in a variety of events at all skill levels. Competitions in events such as basketball, golf, figure skating, and gymnastics enhance the lives of all participants and the families who root for them from the stands. These athletes start training as early as age six, with some participants in Minnesota competing into their sixties. Special Olympics athletes can compete in as many events as they choose. Not only does Special Olympics hold annual competitions, but the organization helps participants train year round for their events. This encourages Special Olympic participants to develop physical fitness and generally helps improve their quality of life. The Special Olympics would not be possible without the devoted volunteers who lend their time and effort to this worthwhile cause. There are over 1,700 volunteers in Minnesota who serve as coaches, officials, teachers, and in other capacities. I want to thank all who take time out of their schedule to volunteer through Special Olympics. Mr. President, it is an honor to be able to recognize the accomplishments of the Minnesotans involved in Special Olympics. This organization deserves recognition for all they do and the positive impact they have on the lives of our Special Olympians.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in paying tribute to the life and legacy of a man I considered a friend first, a Senator second, and a great American above all. Senator Coverdell was everything that those of us who were blessed to serve with him strive to be: effective, committed, compassionate, and tenacious when it meant doing right by the people of Georgia and the American taxpayers he revered. Paul was a voice for families, for children, for the nation's workers, and every individual seeking to build a better life for themselves, their family, and generations to come. Of all my colleagues, I think I spent more of my working hours with Paul Coverdell, in meetings, strategy sessions, and casual conversations. I considered him to be the ``sparkplug of the Senate'' because of the life and energy he brought to this body. As others have said, very little went on here that Paul wasn't somehow involved in, and he was the man I went to when I needed a friendly ear. I didn't always hear what I wanted to hear, or get the sympathy I thought I needed, of course, but I always received the counsel of a man who spoke from the heart. He leaves behind a remarkable legacy of service, and not just here in the Senate. Other colleagues have spoken of his leadership of the Peace Corps, his 16 years in the Georgia State Senate, his military service, his real-world experience in business. In this Chamber, he will be especially remembered for his unyielding dedication to working Americans, whether through his work on education, and in particular his education savings accounts, leading the fight against illegal drugs, promoting volunteerism, and lifting up America's farmers. I think, though, that Paul will be remembered foremost as an ardent defender of freedom. The highest tribute one can pay to a colleague is to say that, day in and day out, they got the job done. Senator Paul Coverdell got the job done, with humility, with enthusiasm, and always with good humor. With Paul's passing, the State of Georgia has lost a leader, the Senate has lost its sparkplug, many of us have lost our best friend, and the Coverdell family has lost a truly exceptional man. My prayers, and the prayers of our colleagues and our staffs, are with Nancy and her entire family during this difficult, difficult time. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to allow farmer-owned cooperatives access to the small ethanol producer tax credit. Mr. President, current law provides for an income tax credit of 10 cents per gallon for up to 15 million gallons of annual ethanol production by a small ethanol producer. A small ethanol producer is one defined as having a production capacity of less than 30 million gallons per year. The credit was enacted as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and championed by our former colleague, Senator Bob Dole. Unfortunately, the credit was enacted at a time when the growth and shape of the ethanol industry was still difficult to predict. This situation has led to an unfortunate situation in Minnesota, Iowa, and in other areas where farmer-owned cooperatives have been unable to access the credit due to the way in which the original legislation was drafted. The original legislation certainly envisioned these small, farmer-owned cooperatives as being eligible for the tax credit, but the intricacies of the tax code have made it impossible for them to do so. Mr. President, there are currently 22 cooperative ethanol plants in the United States. Twelve of them are located in Minnesota. Eleven of these Minnesota cooperatives involve over 5,000 farmers and their families. Minnesota cooperatives are able to produce roughly 189 million gallons of ethanol per year. My legislation would simply provide a technical correction to ensure farmer-owned cooperatives are included in the definition of who can benefit from the small ethanol producer tax credit. My bill also expands the definition to include facilities with less than 60 million gallons in annual capacity. I want to again stress that this proposal is consistent with the original intent of the 1990 law that created the small ethanol producer tax credit. Farmer-owned cooperatives were never intended to be excluded from receiving the benefits of the tax credit if they produce less than 30 million gallons. It was just hard to envision the role and growth of cooperatives when we passed the 1990 law. Cooperatives are not huge corporate ventures, but associations of small farmers. Mr. President, the ethanol industry in Minnesota and across the country is one we should promote. Ethanol is a crucial product for rural America, for our nation as a whole, and especially for Minnesota. I'd like to point out just a few of ethanol's impressive benefits-- environmentally and economically. According to the Minnesota Corn Growers, ethanol production boosts nationwide employment by over 195,000 jobs. Ethanol improves our trade balance by $2 billion and adds $450 million to state tax receipts. It reduces emissions from gasoline use and therefore helps us clean up the environment. According to the American Coalition for Ethanol, more than $3 billion has been invested in 43 ethanol facilities in 20 states. Those investments have directly created 40,000 jobs and more than $12.6 billion in increased income over the next five years. Minnesota is now home to over a dozen operating ethanol plants with a capacity of over 200 million gallons annually. These plants mean new jobs with good wages and good benefits for people living in rural areas where these plants are built. According to a report by the Minnesota Legislative Auditor, those plants, and the resulting economic activity, are expected to create as many as 5,000 new, high-wage jobs--including jobs in production, construction, and support industries. In addition to its positive economic impact, ethanol production allows our nation to move away from our dependence on foreign energy sources. The United States Department of Agriculture estimates that for every gallon of ethanol produced domestically, we displace seven gallons of imported oil. Ethanol plays a role in increasing our national energy security by providing a stable, homegrown, renewable energy supply. Ethanol is estimated to reduce our demand for foreign oil by 98,000 barrels per day. Those are just some of the reasons why I urge my colleagues to join me in allowing small, farmer-owned cooperatives to enjoy the full benefits of the small ethanol producer tax credit. I want to thank Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa for working with me on this important legislation. As everyone knows, Senator Grassley has been a steadfast leader of efforts to promote tax relief for farmers and rural Americans. I'm proud to be working with him on this legislation. I ask that the full text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to allow farmer-owned cooperatives access to the small ethanol producer tax credit. Mr. President, current law provides for an income tax credit of 10 cents per gallon for up to 15 million gallons of annual ethanol production by a small ethanol producer. A small ethanol producer is one defined as having a production capacity of less than 30 million gallons per year. The credit was enacted as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and championed by our former colleague, Senator Bob Dole. Unfortunately, the credit was enacted at a time when the growth and shape of the ethanol industry was still difficult to predict. This situation has led to an unfortunate situation in Minnesota, Iowa, and in other areas where farmer-owned cooperatives have been unable to access the credit due to the way in which the original legislation was drafted. The original legislation certainly envisioned these small, farmer-owned cooperatives as being eligible for the tax credit, but the intricacies of the tax code have made it impossible for them to do so. Mr. President, there are currently 22 cooperative ethanol plants in the United States. Twelve of them are located in Minnesota. Eleven of these Minnesota cooperatives involve over 5,000 farmers and their families. Minnesota cooperatives are able to produce roughly 189 million gallons of ethanol per year. My legislation would simply provide a technical correction to ensure farmer-owned cooperatives are included in the definition of who can benefit from the small ethanol producer tax credit. My bill also expands the definition to include facilities with less than 60 million gallons in annual capacity. I want to again stress that this proposal is consistent with the original intent of the 1990 law that created the small ethanol producer tax credit. Farmer-owned cooperatives were never intended to be excluded from receiving the benefits of the tax credit if they produce less than 30 million gallons. It was just hard to envision the role and growth of cooperatives when we passed the 1990 law. Cooperatives are not huge corporate ventures, but associations of small farmers. Mr. President, the ethanol industry in Minnesota and across the country is one we should promote. Ethanol is a crucial product for rural America, for our nation as a whole, and especially for Minnesota. I'd like to point out just a few of ethanol's impressive benefits-- environmentally and economically. According to the Minnesota Corn Growers, ethanol production boosts nationwide employment by over 195,000 jobs. Ethanol improves our trade balance by $2 billion and adds $450 million to state tax receipts. It reduces emissions from gasoline use and therefore helps us clean up the environment. According to the American Coalition for Ethanol, more than $3 billion has been invested in 43 ethanol facilities in 20 states. Those investments have directly created 40,000 jobs and more than $12.6 billion in increased income over the next five years. Minnesota is now home to over a dozen operating ethanol plants with a capacity of over 200 million gallons annually. These plants mean new jobs with good wages and good benefits for people living in rural areas where these plants are built. According to a report by the Minnesota Legislative Auditor, those plants, and the resulting economic activity, are expected to create as many as 5,000 new, high-wage jobs--including jobs in production, construction, and support industries. In addition to its positive economic impact, ethanol production allows our nation to move away from our dependence on foreign energy sources. The United States Department of Agriculture estimates that for every gallon of ethanol produced domestically, we displace seven gallons of imported oil. Ethanol plays a role in increasing our national energy security by providing a stable, homegrown, renewable energy supply. Ethanol is estimated to reduce our demand for foreign oil by 98,000 barrels per day. Those are just some of the reasons why I urge my colleagues to join me in allowing small, farmer-owned cooperatives to enjoy the full benefits of the small ethanol producer tax credit. I want to thank Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa for working with me on this important legislation. As everyone knows, Senator Grassley has been a steadfast leader of efforts to promote tax relief for farmers and rural Americans. I'm proud to be working with him on this legislation. I ask that the full text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to reverse the snowmobile ban in our national parks and provide funding for a study to determine how the National Park Service can minimize the impact of snow machines and properly manage competing recreational activities in the National Park System. I want to thank Senators Thomas and Craig for their efforts to bring this important amendment before the Senate for consideration. While the Interior Department's ill-conceived ban will not immediately affect snowmobiling in Minnesota's Voyageurs National Park, it will impact snowmobiling in at least two units of the Park System in my home state--Grand Portage National Monument and the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. In addition, this decision will greatly impact Minnesotans who enjoy snowmobiling, not only in Minnesota, but in many of our National Parks, particularly in the western part of our country. When I think of snowmobiling in Minnesota, I think of families and friends. I think of people who come together on their free time to enjoy the wonders of Minnesota in a way no other form of transportation allows them. I also think of the fact that in many instances snowmobiles in Minnesota are used for much more than just recreation. For some, they're a mode of transportation when snow blankets our state. For others, snowmobiles provide a mode of search and rescue activity. Whatever the reason, snowmobiles are an extremely important aspect of commerce, travel, recreation, and safety in my home state. Minnesota, right now, is home to over 280,000 registered snowmobiles and 20,000 miles of snowmobile trails. According to the Minnesota United Snowmobilers Association, an association with over 51,000 individual members, Minnesota's 311 snowmobile riding clubs raised $264,000 for charity in 1998 alone. Snowmobiling creates over 6,600 jobs and $645 million of economic activity in Minnesota. Minnesota is home to two major snowmobile manufacturers--Arctic Cat and Polaris. And yes, I enjoy my own snowmobiles. People who enjoy snowmobiling come from all walks of life. They're farmers, lawyers, nurses, construction workers, loggers, and miners. They're men, women, and young adults. They're people who enjoy the outdoors, time with their families, and the recreational opportunities our diverse climate offers. These are people who not only enjoy the natural resources through which they ride, but understand the important balance between enjoying and conserving our natural resources. Just three years ago, I took part in a snowmobile ride through a number of cities and trails in northern Minnesota. While our ride didn't take us through a unit of the National Park Service, it did take us through parks, forests, and trails that sustain a diverse amount of plant and animal species. I talked with my fellow riders and I learned a great deal about the work their snowmobile clubs undertake to conserve natural resources, respect the integrity of the land upon which the ride, and educate their members about the need to ride responsibly. The time I spent with these individuals and the time I've spent on my own snowmobiles have given me a great respect for both the quality and enjoyment of the recreational experience and the need to ride responsibly and safely. It has also given me reason to strongly disagree with the approach the Park Service has chosen in banning snowmobiles from our National Parks. I was stunned to read of the severity of the Park Service's ban and the rhetoric used by Assistant Secretary Donald J. Barry in announcing the ban. In the announcement, Assistant Secretary Barry said, ``The time has come for the National Park Service to pull in its welcome mat for recreational snowmobiling.'' He went on to say that snowmobiles were, ``machines that are no longer welcome in our national parks.'' These are the words of a bureaucrat whose agenda has been handwritten for him by those opposed to snowmobiling. The last time I checked, Congress is supposed to be setting the agenda of the federal agencies. The last time I checked, Congress should be determining who is and is not welcome on our federal lands. And the last time I checked, the American people own our public-lands-- not the Clinton administration and certainly not Donald J. Barry. I can't begin to count the rules, regulations, and executive orders this Administration has undertaken without even the most minimal consideration for Congress or local officials. It has happened in state after state, to Democrats and Republicans, and with little or no regard for the rule or the intent of law. I want to quote Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt from an article in the National Journal, dated May 22, 1999. In the article, Secretary Babbitt was quoted as saying: When I got to town, what I didn't know was that we didn't need more legislation. But we looked around and saw we had authority to regulate grazing policies. It took 18 months to draft new grazing regulations. On mining, we have also found that we already had authority over, well, probably two-thirds of the issues in contention. We've switched the rules of the game. We're not trying to do anything legislative. As further evidence of this Administration's abuse of Congress--and therefore of the American people--Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Carol Browner was quoted in the same article as saying: We completely understand all of the executive tools that are available to us--And boy do we use them. While Ms. Browner's words strongly imply an intent to work around Congress, at least she did not join Secretary Babbitt in coming right out and admitting it. Well, Mr. President, I for one am getting a little sick and tried of watching this Administration force park users out of their parks, steal land from our states and counties, impose costly new regulations on farmers and businesses without scientific justification, and force Congress to become a spectator on many of the most controversial and important issues before the American people. Quite frankly, I'm getting a little sick and tired of this Administration's positions of zero-cut, zero-access, and zero-fun on public lands. When forging public policy, those of us in Congress often have to consider the opinions of the state and local officials who are most impacted. If I'm going to support an action on public land, I usually contact the state and local official who represent the area to see what they have to say. I know that if I don't get their perspective, I might miss a detail that could improve my efforts are necessary or if they're misplaced. They can alert me to areas where I need to forge a broader consensus and of ways in which my efforts might actually hurt the people I represent. I think that is a prudent way to forge public policy and a fair way to deal with state and local officials. I know, however, that no one from the Park Service ever contacted me to see how I felt about banning snowmobiling in Park Service units In Minnesota. I was never consulted on snowmobile usage in Minnesota or on any complaints that I might have received from my constituents. While I've not checked with every local official in Minnesota, not one local official has called me to say that the Park Service contacted them. In fact, while I knew the Park Service was considering taking action to curb snowmobile usage in some parks, I had no idea the Park Service was considering an action so broad, and so extreme, nor did I think they would issue it this quickly. This quick, overreaching action by the Park Service, I believe, was unwarranted. It did not allow time for federal, state, or local officials to work together on the issue. It didn't bring snowmobile users to the table to discuss the impact of the decision. It didn't allow time for Congress and the Administration to look at all of the available options or to differentiate between parks with heavy snowmobile usage and those with occasional usage. This decision stands as a dramatic example of how not to conduct policy formulation and is an affront to the consideration American citizens deserve from their elected officials. That is why this amendment is so important. It reverses the dark of night, back room tactics used by this Administration to arrive at this decision. We cannot simply stand by and watch as the administration continues its quest for even greater power at the expense of the deliberative legislative processes envisioned by the founders of our country. Secretary Babbitt, Administrator Browner, and Donald J. Barry may believe they're above working with Congress, but only we can make sure they're reminded, in the strongest possible terms, that when they neglect Congress they're neglecting the American people. This amendment does just that.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, every year at this time it seems we're here on the Senate floor debating another attack on the Forest Service's Timber Management Program. Every year those who wish to eliminate logging in our National Forests come up with another angle which they claim helps protect the environment by eliminating ``wasteful'' spending on logging practices. Every year people throughout northern Minnesota and forested regions across the country see their jobs and their livelihoods threatened in the name of preservation or conservation. And every year, those of us who represent the good people of the timber and paper industry in our states have to fight, scratch, and claw our way to a narrow victory that saves those jobs and those families from economic ruin. I come from a state in which the forest and paper industry is vital to our economy. The reduction in the timber program on National Forests has had a dramatic impact over the past ten years on the number of jobs and the economic vitality of northern Minnesota. According to Minnesota Forest Industries (MFI), jobs provided by the timber program in Minnesota dropped from over 1,900 in 1987 to less than 1,100 last year, and they continue to decline. The reduction in timber harvests on federal lands has had an equally dramatic effect on unrealized economic impacts. MFI estimates that unrealized economic benefits include over $10 million from timber sales, $25 million in federal taxes, $2.5 million in payments to states, and $116 million in community economic impact in Minnesota alone. It's important to point out that the timber program in National Forests have a very positive impact on the amount of federal money that goes to rural counties and schools. Nationally, the program contribute $225 million to counties and schools each year through receipts from timber sales in national forests. In Minnesota, the timber program provided roughly $1.7 million to counties and schools in 1998 alone. If the timber program would have met its allowable sale quantity in 1998, that number would have risen to nearly $2.5 million. I'm fascinated by the claims of some of my colleagues that the timber program is a subsidy to wealthy timber and paper companies and the claims that the timber program loses money because we're giving timber away to these companies. If you truly believe that, I challenge you to visit forested regions and speak with the families who have lost their mills and the loggers who have lost their jobs. Talk to the counties and the private landowners who cannot access to their own property because the Forest Service doesn't have enough money to do the environmental reviews. Or talk directly to the Forest Service personnel and let them tell you how lengthy and costly environmental reviews and the overwhelming number of court challenges to those reviews are making the timber program so costly. Then go speak with state or county land managers and ask them why their timber programs are so successful. Ask them why their lands are so much more healthy than the federal lands and why they're able to make money with their timber programs. In Minnesota, St. Louis County only has to spend 26 cents in order to generate one dollars of revenue in their timber program and the State of Minnesota spend 75 cents to generate one dollar of revenue. The Superior National Forest, on the other hand, spend one dollar and three cents to get the same results. I cannot see how my colleagues can stand here on the Senate floor and tell me that the forest and paper industry in our country, and its employees, are the bad guys. The forest and paper industry in America employs over 1.5 million people and ranks among the top ten manufacturing employers in 46 states. These are good, traditional jobs that help a family make a living, allow children to pursue higher education, help keep rural families in rural areas, and provide a legitimate a base from which rural counties can fund basic services. These are jobs that we in Congress should be working diligently not only to protect, but to grow. Unfortunately, many Members of Congress who advocate these ideas have never taken the time to understand the positive economic and environmental benefits of science-based timber harvests. They've never sat down with a county commissioner who doesn't know where he is going to get the money for some of the most basic services the county provides to its citizens. They've never considered that for every 1 million board feet in timber harvest reductions in Minnesota, 10 people lose their jobs and over $570,000 in economic activity is lost. And they've never taken the time to go into a health forest where prudent logging practices have been essential to ensuring the vitality and diversity of species. If Members of this body want to make the timber program profitable across the country, then we should have an honest debate about what works and does not work in the program. We should discuss frankly the ridiculous number of hoops public land managers have to jump through in order to process a timber sale. I think we need to discuss the fact that under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act the federal government must provide access across federal lands for state, county, and private landowners to access their land. Yet in Minnesota, those landowners either have to wait a number of years or pay for the environmental reviews themselves because the Forest Service claims it doesn't have enough money. We should also discuss openly the dramatic impact court challenges are having on the ability of the Forest Service to do its job and to carry out the timber program in a cost-effective manner. On top of that, it's clear that under this Administration the Forest Service doesn't want a timber program that shows a profit and they've done an effective job of using the powers of the Executive Branch to vilify both the timber program and the men and women of my state who rely upon that program in order to meet their most basic needs. Virtually everyone in this body, including this Senator, is committed to the protection of our environment and to the conservation of our wildlife species and wildlife habitat. I believe we can expand upon our commitment to wildlife and provide additional resources for habitat protection. But I do not believe we must do so on the backs of timber and paper workers throughout the nation. I am willing to work with anybody in this chamber towards those conservation efforts, but let's not do it by pitting timber and paper workers against conservationists. We cannot simply stand here and claim that the Bryan amendment is an easy way to throw some money towards planning for the threat of forest fires. Rather, this amendment is going to take jobs from my constituents and hurt the economy of the northern part of my state. The Bryan amendment is just one more step down the road toward eliminating logging on federal land. This amendment is going to reduce the ability of a number of rural counties in my state to make ends meet and to provide necessary services to residents. These are just a few of the realities of the Bryan amendment and just a few of the reasons why I cannot and will not support its passage. archie carr national wildlife refuge funding

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to make a few brief follow-up remarks about the repeal of the unfair and unjust death tax. As I said before, it is the family farms and small business owners that the death taxes particularly harm, not the rich, as our colleagues from the other side of aisle claim. Mr. President, the death tax hurts average American workers as well. Let me give you another example of how this tax penalizes those workers: Hy-Vee, Inc., headquartered in Iowa, with operations in my state of Minnesota and 7 other Midwestern states, is one of the largest employee-owned companies in the nation. Over the past half a century, the employees and the management of Hy-Vee have built a very successful business. It is ranked one of the top 15 supermarket chains in this country, and top 5 supermarket chains based on cleanliness, and other services. Through the company's profit-sharing mechanism, workers in Hy-Vee are rewarded for their hard work. Over 171 workers of the Hy-Vee company have accumulated assets of over $650,000. These employees are not wealthy individuals by any means but average workers who work at the checkout lines or at mid-level management. However, a large portion of the earnings from their hard work can be taken away by the government if we don't eliminate the death tax. Ron Pearson, CEO of Hy-Vee, says: ``We believe that in many ways, employee ownership represents the truest expression of the American dream. It is simply unfortunate that the dream also contains a nightmare--the estate tax.'' Mr. President, I believe Mr. Pearson is right. We must repeal the death tax to preserve the American dream for working Americans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article telling Hy- Vee's story be printed in the Record. There being no objections, the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today the Senate begins consideration of the first tax reconciliation bill, which would correct the injustice of the marriage penalty. As a long-time advocate of repealing the marriage penalty, I rise to strongly support this legislation and support elimination of the marriage penalty entirely. First, I'd like to take this opportunity to commend our leaders for bringing up this important legislation. I'd particularly like to commend Chairman Roth for his leadership on tax relief. He has consistently championed critically needed tax relief that will restore fairness for millions of American families. This marriage penalty tax relief legislation would increase the standard deduction so that married couples filing jointly get the same deduction as single taxpayers. It expands the 15 percent and 28 percent tax brackets to ensure that 21 million American couples--including 3 million American seniors--pay the same tax rate as unmarried taxpayers. The bill makes Alternative Minimum Tax exemption for family-related tax credits permanent, so families won't be pushed into higher tax brackets. This bill also takes care of low-income married couples by increasing the threshold of the Earned Income Credit to allow them to enjoy this tax relief. Mr. President, in my view, this is fair, well-balanced legislation by any standard. There are compelling reasons to eliminate the marriage penalty tax and provide immediate tax relief for millions of married couples: As I have said many times before in this Chamber, the family has been and will continue to be the bedrock of American society. Strong families make strong communities; strong communities make for a strong America. We all agree that this marriage penalty tax treats married couples unfairly. Even President Clinton agrees the marriage penalty is unfair. But our tax policy reflects just the opposite. It discourages marriage, punishes married couples, and damages the family--the basic institution of our society. The Congressional Budget Office reports that 22 million American couples suffered from the marriage penalty in 1999. The average penalty paid by these couples was $1,500. This wasn't always the case. For over half a century--from 1913, when Washington first imposed the federal income tax, to 1969--the federal income tax treated married couples as well as, or better than, single individuals. Since 1996, however, many married couples every year have had to pay a penalty just for saying ``I do.'' At the time they exchanged their vows, I'll bet most of those couples didn't realize they were also saying ``I do'' to Uncle Sam. The tax hike of 1993 further aggravated the problem because it added new, higher tax rates. In addition, now that a greater number of households are dual income, that means that more couples are subject to this penalty. Mr. President, the consequence of this unjust penalty is devastating. It has put an additional financial burden on already overtaxed American families. Here is an example of how this penalty hits the average American: Alicia Jones from my state of Minnesota and her husband graduated from college and had just begun working full-time two years ago, in professional careers. They had no children and were renting an apartment, saving to buy a house. They had to pay at least an additional $1,500 for simply being married. As a result, on top of the over $10,000 tax they already paid, they had to take an additional $700 from their limited savings account to pay for federal taxes--taxes that they wouldn't have had to pay if they weren't married. She wrote, ``I am frustrated by this, I'm frustrated for the future-- how do we get ahead, when each year we have to take money from our savings to pay more for our taxes. I hope that you will remember my concern.'' Millions of married couples similarly suffer because of this penalty. This is extremely unfair. This was not the intention of Congress when it created the marriage penalty tax in the 1960s by separating tax schedules for married and unmarried people. This unjust marriage penalty also has an adverse social impact, as more and more people delay their wedding just for tax purposes. I have an example of that in my own office. Research also shows that the marriage penalty has discouraged couples from getting married. It has also encouraged some married couples to get friendly divorces. They continue to live together, but save on their taxes. Clearly, this tax policy has interrupted and distorted the normal lives of many Americans. It should not be allowed to continue. Repealing the marriage penalty will provide immediate, meaningful tax relief to American families and allow them to keep $1,500 or more each year of their own money to pay for health insurance, groceries, child care, or other family necessities. In my state of Minnesota alone, over 550,000 couples will benefit from this tax relief and will no longer suffer from this unfair tax. However, the biggest beneficiaries of the elimination of the marriage penalty tax are working women and low-income families. Federal tax policy penalizes working women by taxing their income at the highest rate imposed on their husbands' income. Our legislation addresses this injustice by allowing married working women to keep significantly more of their hard-earned money for family needs. The elimination of the marriage penalty will primarily benefit minority, and low and middle income families. Government data suggest the marriage penalty hits African-Americans and lower-income working families hardest. Couples at the bottom end of the income scale who incur penalties paid an average of nearly $800 in additional taxes, which represented 8 percent of their income. Eight percent, Mr. President. Repeal the penalty, and those low-income families will immediately have an 8 percent increase in their income, larger than for all other income levels. Despite these facts, some of our colleagues from the other side of aisle still call this a ``tax cut for the rich.'' They seem to have gotten into the habit, whenever they hear the phrase ``tax relief,'' of jumping up and shouting ``tax cut for the rich!'' That's not fair to working Americans who are hit hard by these taxes. Mr. President, some also argue that marriage penalty tax relief will go to those families who already receive marriage bonuses. The argument does not fold true either. While about 51 percent, or 25 million couples, receive marriage bonuses, this doesn't justify the federal government penalizing another 22 million couples just for being married or for choosing to work. In addition, most of those who receive marriage bonuses are likely to receive this due to family-related tax credits, such as the $500 per- child credit I passed into law to help a family afford raising children. It is contradictory to allow married couples to receive these credits and then turn around and require them to pay more income taxes for receiving the tax credits. We should give more bonuses to all American families whether both spouses or only one of them are working. More importantly, the trends show that more couples under age 55 are working, and the earnings between husbands and wives are more evenly divided since 1969. This means more and more couples have received, and will continue to receive, marriage penalties and fewer couples will have bonuses. Another conventional argument of our Democratic colleagues against tax relief is that the tax relief costs too much. This is a typical Washington way of thinking. They forget the fact that it is the taxpayer's, not Washington's, money in the first place. Mr. President, it is hard to justify under any circumstances continued punishment of married couples in this country regardless of the costs. Moreover, in this era of record budget surpluses, the so called ``costs'' associated with the repeal of the marriage penalty are just a fraction of the tax overpayments made by working Americans. Over the next 10 years, the federal government will collect over $1.9 trillion in tax overpayments from taxpayers, while the total tax relief in the reconciliation instruction adopted under the FY 2001 budget resolution is merely $150 billion. This is less than 8 cents of every dollar of non-Social Security surpluses collected by the government. We have also heard some argue that Washington needs tax overpayments to save Social Security and Medicare with an addition of prescription drug benefits. President Clinton has also said that he will support the marriage penalty repeal if prescription drug benefits are added. Mr. President, I support saving and strengthening Social Security and Medicare, and I support prescription drug benefits for seniors. I have my own plan to do that. I support repealing the marriage penalty tax, the death tax, and the tax on seniors' retirement benefits. But I believe they all should be passed and signed into law on their own merits, and shouldn't be traded against each other. As a matter of fact, the Administration has never come up with a viable plan to save Social Security. It has blocked bipartisan efforts to strengthen Medicare, including prescription drug benefits. Now it uses this as a cover to deny working Americans the moderate tax refund they deserve. Mr. President, this is not acceptable. I have repeatedly argued that American families today are overtaxed, and the surplus comes directly from taxes paid by the American people. It is only fair to return it to the taxpayers. With a huge budget surplus, we can reduce working Americans' tax burden, pay down the national debt, save Social Security, and provide prescription drug benefits for seniors--if the Administration and the Congress have the political will to do so. In closing, Mr. President, the marriage penalty is simply bad tax policy and we must end it once and for all to restore equity and fairness for working Americans.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, current law provides for an income tax credit of 10 cents per gallon for up to 15 million gallons of annual ethanol production by a small ethanol producer. A small ethanol producer is one defined as having a production capacity of less than 30 million gallons per year. The credit was enacted as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and championed by our former colleague, Senator Bob Dole. Unfortunately, the credit was enacted at a time when the growth and shape of the ethanol industry was still difficult to predict. This situation has led to an unfortunate situation in my state and in other areas where farmer-owned cooperatives have been unable to access the credit due to the way in which the original legislation was drafted. The original legislation certainly envisioned these small, farmer-owned cooperatives as being eligible for the tax credit, but the realities of the tax code have made it impossible for them to do so. There are currently 22 cooperative ethanol plants in the United States. Twelve of them are located in Minnesota. Eleven of these Minnesota cooperatives involve over 5,000 farmers and their families. Minnesota cooperatives are able to produce roughly 189 million gallons of ethanol per year. My language would simply correct the provision of the law that shuts out these farmer-owned cooperatives from the complete benefit of the small ethanol producer tax credit. I want to again stress that this language is consistent with the original intent of the 1990 law that created the small ethanol producer tax credit. Farmer-owned cooperatives were never intended to be excluded from receiving the benefits of the tax credit if they produce less than 30 million gallons and I believe it's time the Congress stepped in and clarified the law. The ethanol industry in Minnesota and across the country is one we should promote. Ethanol is a crucial product for rural America, for our nation as a whole, and especially for Minnesota. I'd like to point out just a few of ethanol's impressive benefits--environmentally and economically. According to the Minnesota Corn Growers, ethanol production boosts nationwide employment by over 195,000 jobs. Ethanol improves our trade balance by $2 billion and adds $450 million to state tax receipts. It reduces emissions from gasoline use and therefore helps us clean up the environment. According to the American Coalition for Ethanol, more than $3 billion has been invested in 43 ethanol facilities in 20 states. Those investments have directly created 40,000 jobs and more than $12.6 billion in increased income over the next five years. Minnesota is now home to over a dozen operating ethanol plants with a capacity of over 200 million gallons annually. These plants mean new jobs with good wages and good benefits for people living in rural areas where these plants are built. According to a report by the Minnesota Legislative Auditor, those plants, and the resulting economic activity, are expected to create as many as 5,000 new, high-wage jobs--including jobs in production, construction, and support industries. In addition to its positive economic impacts, ethanol production allows our nation to move away from our dependence on foreign energy sources. The United States Department of Agriculture estimates that for every gallon of ethanol produced domestically, we displace seven gallons of imported oil. Ethanol plays a role in increasing our national energy security by providing a stable, homegrown, renewable energy supply. Ethanol is estimated to reduce our demand for foreign oil by 98,000 barrels per day. Those are just some of the reasons why I urge my colleagues to join Senator Grassley and me in allowing small, farmer-owned cooperatives to enjoy the full benefits of the small ethanol producer tax credit. I thank Senator Grassley for including this provision, which I had planned to introduce separately, in his package of important tax relief for farmers. As one who has sponsored similar legislation providing tax relief for farmers, I strongly support his amendment and have asked to be a cosponsor. I appreciate the Senator from Iowa's efforts in support of our nation's farmers and all of rural America.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, all I want to say is that if it is justifiable to increase taxes on our senior citizens to help supplement the Social Security system, it would be like increasing taxes on our farmers so we could give them a better farm bill. It would be like taking more taxes from the farmers so we can give them more back in the farm program. It is saying: Let's tax our seniors at a higher rate-- which is unfair--so we can give them more back to stabilize the Social Security system. It is a basic double taxation. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. The amendment repeals the 1993 tax increase that was imposed as part of the Clinton tax package in 1993, but this was an additional increase in taxes on seniors' Social Security benefits. While we should repeal all of the taxes on seniors' Social Security benefits, as it was when Social Security began, as I have proposed in my legislation, S. 488, I believe this amendment is at least a move in the right direction, and that is to restore some fairness for our senior citizens. This amendment, as I said, repeals completely President Clinton's 1993 tax increase on seniors' Social Security benefits. The repeal does not affect Medicare because the revenue loss is offset by the non- Social Security surplus. We are holding the Medicare trust fund harmless while correcting what I believe, and I think the majority in Congress believe, is the injustice of the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits for our senior citizens. There are many compelling reasons to repeal this unfair tax increase. When Congress established the Social Security program, the benefits that were then paid to senior citizens were exempt from all Federal income tax. In fact, Social Security benefits were not taxed at all by the Federal Government for nearly half a century. However, when Social Security encountered a financial crisis in the early 1980s, Congress began taxing the benefits. Half--50 percent--of Social Security benefits were subjected to taxation if a single senior citizen earned an annual income of over $25,000 a year and where a couple earned more than $32,000 a year. With the couples and the singles, this is almost a marriage penalty on senior citizens in their retirement benefits. In 1993, when President Clinton needed even more money to fund his new spending programs, he increased the taxable portion of Social Security benefits from the 50-percent level to 85 percent of income for our seniors. These tax increases have been an unfair tax burden on a number of our senior citizens. In fact, 25 percent of our retirees are affected by this provision. I believe taxation on Social Security benefits is wrong and it is unfair because Social Security benefits are already earned benefits for senior citizens. By that I mean that Federal income tax has already been paid on Social Security contributions. I do not know if a lot of people realize this, but before they take Social Security out of your check, the Government taxes it. So for your whole life, all of your Social Security earnings have already been taxed before the Government takes it and puts it into the system. What they are saying now is they want to tax you again as you bring it out not at 50 percent, but as high as 85 percent for up to 25 percent of our seniors. This is a very unfair tax. Yet the Government is now taxing them again on the benefits they are collecting. Clearly, taxing Social Security benefits is a double taxation. Millions of senior citizens planned for their retirement based on the expectation that their benefits would not be taxed. As the tax rate continues to grow and health care costs are also increasing, the income of more and more senior citizens is falling along with their standard of living. Social Security has become the primary source of retirement income for most Americans, and as I said, as the health care costs go up and the Government is taking more money from them in taxes, it leaves them less to pay for health care and to pay for prescription drugs if they need it. It all, again, goes back because the Government wants a bigger part of their income. Six out of 10 recipients today get more than half of their income from Social Security. For some families, Social Security benefits are the only source of their retirement income, and research shows American seniors will depend even more on just Social Security income in the future. That is because a lot of our citizens today do not have money left at the end of the month to put into a savings account for their retirement. They are left with only one choice, and that is Social Security. Again, they have less left at the end of the month to put into a savings account because Government taxes are going up. In fact, they are 15 times higher on a household today than they were at the turn of the century in 1900. Although Social Security has helped many American seniors, the income that is derived from Social Security is often insufficient to maintain a decent retirement today. For example, 1995 data shows that male retirees received on average $810 a month in benefits. Women received only $621 a month from Social Security. I repeat, data from 1995 shows on average $810 a month for men when they retire, and only $621 on average for women when they retire. In fact, Social Security benefits are paltry, which is one reason why the poverty rate among widows is nearly 20 percent, two times greater the rate than widowers, and poverty rates are higher among retired minority women. Twenty-nine percent of African American women and 28 percent of Hispanic women retire into poverty. I believe it is unconscionable for Washington to tax Americans' Social Security retirement benefits. In addition, over the past 15 years, goods purchased by seniors have increased 6 percentage points more than goods purchased by the general public. Again, their dollars are not stretching as far as they used to stretch. Their medical costs skyrocketed by 156 percent, and they have less of their retirement benefits because the Government is taxing more. My concern is as inflation on medical and pharmaceutical goods continues to rise, without repeal of this unfair tax increase, older Americans' hard-earned Social Security benefits will be worth less and less, and that means their purchasing power will continue to diminish and so will their standard of living. This tax hurts seniors who choose to work or must work after retirement in order to maintain their standard of living or to pay for health insurance premiums, medical care, prescriptions, and many other expenses. This tax increase is nothing but a reduction in seniors' benefits that Washington has promised. Unlike welfare where need determines the level of benefits, Social Security is an earned right for our seniors. Taxing their benefits--again, double taxation--is simply an indirect means test on those benefits. I bet millions of American seniors would agree with me. In fact, repeal of the 1993 tax increase has strong support in the Congress. It was part of the Republican Contract With America and was approved by the House as part of the omnibus reconciliation bill in 1995. In the 106th Congress, 14 bills have been introduced calling for the repeal of this unjust increase in taxation. Some will argue that Medicare will be hurt through this amendment, but, in fact, Medicare funding will be left untouched. Social Security tax dollars going to Medicare will be supplanted by general revenue funds. I believe all of us recognize the need to preserve the integrity of the Medicare program. Therefore, I have ensured through this amendment that it will not harm Medicare. Many seniors across the country strongly support the repeal of this unfair tax increase. Seniors' organizations such as United Seniors and the Council for Government Reform strongly favor its repeal. The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare has also stated that it favors the repeal of this 1993 tax increase that was imposed by President Clinton on our senior citizens. The American Association of Retired Persons originally opposed the 1993 tax increase and has not changed its position. In this era of budget surplus, there is absolutely no reason at all for the Government to continue taxing our seniors' retirement income in order for the Government to subsidize excessive spending from Washington. I believe seniors deserve tax relief so they can keep a little more of their own money in their pockets, again, so they can help pay for their own medical bills, their prescriptions, and other expenses. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I reiterate this is an unfair tax. This is double taxation on senior citizens, raising it from 50 to 85 percent on their income, and at a time when we are talking about seniors needing additional dollars to help pay their medical bills, and especially to help them meet their prescription drug bills. So I think this would be one way to enable our seniors to have a little more say in their income and be able to provide for themselves a little better. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to repeal the President's 1993 tax on Social Security earnings for our retired Americans. I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have at least 30 seconds to respond.

Mr. GRAMS. I thought all time had been yielded back.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. It asks for the repeal of the 1993 tax increase that was placed on Social Security benefits. By the way, that does not affect Medicare because we have provided offsets to do that in this amendment. For the first 50 years of Social Security, there was no Federal tax on the benefits our seniors received from Social Security. You were taxed on those benefits before it was taken out of your check and not when you received the benefits. But in the 1980s, they put on a tax and exposed 50 percent of the benefits. Then in 1993, under President Clinton's tax increase plan, it increased to 85 percent. Social Security is taxed before being taken from your checks. Now it is taxed up to 85 percent when you receive the benefits. That is double dipping, and, at a time when health care costs are going up and we are debating prescription drug benefits, we need to leave more dollars in our seniors' pockets. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.