Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the anniversary of the founding of the American Red Cross by Clara Barton 119 years ago. This year's theme, ``We Touch the World,'' describes the compassionate direction the Red Cross is taking locally, nationally, and internationally. After the brutal battle of Solferino near Verona, Italy, Jean Henry Durant, a Swiss citizen, formed the International Red Cross in 1863 with the intent to alleviate suffering and promote public health. The first Geneva Convention was signed by 16 nations a year later, adopting the red cross as a symbol of neutral aid. Clara Barton recognized the importance of the humanitarian efforts of the International Red Cross in Europe, and cultivated the fundamental principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality, independence, voluntary service, unity, and universality into what we know today as the American Red Cross. In addition to alleviating suffering and promoting public health, Ms. Barton also envisioned a need for disaster relief and battlefield assistance. Founded on May 21, 1881, in Washington, DC, the American Red Cross was able to lobby the U.S. Congress to ratify the Geneva Convention, providing an official basis to associate with the International Red Cross. The U.S. was the 32nd nation to sign the document, agreeing to protect the wounded during wartime. Ms. Barton then continued to serve the Red Cross as its volunteer president until 1904. Over the last 119 years, the American Red Cross has not only served Americans and our allies during wartime, but has brought help to anyone in need of aid. Its thousands of volunteers provide the American Red Cross with the tools to carry out its vitally important task in times of need. Behind the scenes, in preparation for disaster situations, local Red Cross chapters provide their communities with CPR and First Aid classes and information on health issues, and promote blood donations to provide the medical field with an adequate supply should a crisis arise. Just a few years ago, in my home state of Minnesota, the Red Cross left its mark by touching the lives of those affected by the floods of 1997 and the tornadoes that tore through towns in the southern part of the state. And during it all, the Minneapolis chapter was without a permanent home to help in the disaster relief. Last month, they opened their doors, the first permanent location since 1996, to a new facility that includes a blood-donor center, space to shelter and feed people in case of a disaster, and an emergency operations center with its own communications and power systems. Mr. President, ninety-one cents of every dollar spent by the American Red Cross goes directly to programs and services that help people in need. All of the disaster assistance is free, thanks to the generosity of donors and volunteers alike. The ratio of volunteer Red Cross workers to paid staff is nearly 41 to one. I am honored to have this opportunity to commemorate the dedicated work of the late Clara Barton and the contributions of all those who continue to carry out her legacy in the American Red Cross.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to America's small businesses--the backbone of our Nation's vibrant economy. As my colleagues may know, the week of May 21-27 is recognized as ``National Small Business Week.'' Small businesses have always been one of the leading providers of jobs in our country. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses employ 52 percent of the private workforce and account for 35 percent of federal contract dollars. Small businesses produce 38 percent of jobs in high-technology industries, and small- and medium- sized companies comprise 96 percent of all exporters and 30 percent of all exports. These statistics underscore the important role the small business community will have toward developing a 21st century economy that is global and technologically driven. In particular, I am very pleased with the tremendous growth in women- owned businesses over the last several years. According to the National Foundation for Women Business Owners, there are more than 9.1 million women-owned businesses in the United States, employing more than 27.5 million people and generating $3.6 billion in sales. Between 1987 and 1999, the number of women-owned firms increased dramatically, by more than 103 percent. During ``National Small Business Week,'' I am proud to share with my colleagues the special recognition granted by the Small Business Administration to two of Minnesota's small business persons: the 1999 Minnesota Small Business Person of the Year, Nancy L. Fogelberg, President of American Artstone in New Ulm, Minnesota; and the Financial Services Advocate of the Year, Iric Nathanson, Project Coordinator for the Minneapolis Community Development Agency. To be named a recipient of the Small Business Person of the Year award is not an easy task. The Small Business Administration has selected Nancy for this unique recognition based on her personal achievements and important contributions to our economy. Nancy has demonstrated growth in the total number of company employees; innovative products and services; growth in sales and financial position; an ability to effectively address problems confronting the company; and community service. In 1993, Nancy Fogelberg became President of American Artstone, an 86-year-old manufacturer of architectural stone castings. Nancy quickly modernized her plant through financing provided by the Small Business Administration, and quickly made American Artstone more competitive and profitable. I also congratulate Nancy on recently being named president of the National Cast Stone Institute. I am also proud to recognize the important achievements of Iric Nathanson, who has worked to provide financing opportunities for small businesses. Among his many achievements, Iric developed a capital-loan program that uses city-backed guarantees to help small businesses access revolving credit lines and working capital loans. Iric also coordinated the development of a micro-enterprise loan program in Minneapolis though the establishment of a partnership between the Minneapolis Community Development Agency and the Minneapolis Consortium of Community Developers. Small businesses in Minneapolis have been well served by Iric's efforts on their behalf. I again congratulate the National Small Business Week winners from Minnesota and every small business owner who helps make our communities better places to work and live. I look forward to working with them on small business public policy issues during the 106th Congress.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I am pleased that two important Minnesota projects are being funded in this bill, Phase II of Camp Ripley's Combined Support Maintenance Shop (CSMS) and a new Army National Guard Training and Community Center (TACC) in Mankato, Both of these projects were included in the Department of Defense Future Years Defense Program. They are recognized as being good for the Nation, as well as good for Minnesota. First, in regard to Camp Ripley, the existing CSMS was constructed in 1949 and has been expanded to three additional warehouse-type facilities. All four facilities are undersized and fail to comply with modern construction criteria. The configuration and site restrictions of the current facilities make it difficult for the personnel to produce the quality and volume of work expected at Camp Ripley. Due to budget pressures, Congress divided the new CSMS project into two phases. Phase I received 1993 authorization and appropriation of $7,100,000 and includes administration, storage and allied trade shops. Phase II will provide general maintenance workbays, specialty workbays, military vehicle parking, service and access areas, and flammable materials storage. Without the completion of Phase II, the Minnesota Army National Guard's equipment readiness will be degraded and the costs of operating multiple facilities will overwhelm Camp Ripley's operating budget. Funding Phase II of the CSMA at a level of $10,368,000 will allow this project to be completed. I have championed this project from the outset, and I am pleased it is coming to fruition. Second, a new Army National Guard Training and Community Center (TACC) in Makato, MN is certainly needed. The 2/135th Infantry's current facility was originally built in 1914, although it was torn down and rebuilt in 1922. Since that time, the only major modifications have been the replacement of the windows and the roof. The condition of the facility has deteriorated to such an extent there is approximately $246,200 in backlogged maintenance and another $80,000 in construction would have been needed just to bring the building up to code. Due to health and safety concerns, the Guard currently cannot park its military vehicles on location; most are parked at the nearest National Guard facility 60 miles away. The current facility's limitations are so great the only practical course of action is to build a new TACC. The $4,681,000 for the Mankato Training and Community Center (TACC) will enable this to happen, and I have no doubt it will increase the recruiting and retention abilities of the local Guard unit. Congressman Gil Butknecht has shown leadership on this project, and did a stellar job sheparding it through the House. Mr. President, once again, I am proud to have worked to gain the support necessary to fund these projects. I have no doubt the funding the Camp Ripley and the Mankato TACC will be good for the readiness of the National Guard, and that means it will be good for the people of Minnesota and our Nation as a whole.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, I rise today to honor Federal, State and local law enforcement officers who work to protect and serve the public on a daily basis. I am proud to be a cosponsor of S. Res. 247, which designates today as ``Peace Officers Memorial Day'' and recognizes law enforcement officers killed or disabled in the line of duty. During National Police Week, law enforcement officers in all fifty states will pay tribute to their fellow officers who lost their lives in the line of duty. According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, approximately 130 law enforcement officers lost their lives in 1999 while protecting the public. In my home state, 187 Minnesota law enforcement officers have died in the line of duty since 1914. Most recently, the name of Minnesota State Patrol Corporal Timothy Bowe was added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. Sadly, more than 14,000 law enforcement officers paid this ultimate sacrifice during the 20th Century. I am honored to pay tribute to the men and women who demonstrated extraordinary bravery while caring for our families and communities. I would also like to note the extraordinary sacrifice of families who have lost a son, daughter, spouse, parent, or relative who was slain while performing their police duties. We honor the memory of these officers by providing for the families that they have left behind. When I think about these families, I am reminded of the inscription on the wall of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial--``In valor there is hope.'' I am very pleased that the Senate is continuing its efforts to provide support for the families of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. Specifically, I have cosponsored S. 1638, legislation introduced by Senator John Ashcroft that would retroactively provide financial assistance for higher education to the spouses and children of federal, state, and local law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. Current law provides that the dependants of federal law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty after May 1, 1992, are eligible for this assistance. Dependants of state and local law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty after October 1, 1997, are also eligible. This legislation would change these dates to May 1, 1978, for federal law enforcement officers and October 1, 1978, for state and local law enforcement officers. This important legislation, endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, builds upon police benefits legislation that passed the 104th and 105th Congress with my strong support. Since 1995, we have enacted the Federal Law Enforcement Dependants Assistance Act of 1996, the Public Safety Officers Educational Assistance Act of 1998 and the Care for Police Survivors Act of 1998. These laws help to support the families of our law enforcement officers and keep alive the memory of these brave and heroic men and women. During National Police Week, I join all Minnesotans in honoring the memory of slain law enforcement officers and their contributions to promoting public safety throughout our communities.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, the State of Minnesota has truly been blessed with a wide array of remarkable gifts. Few places on Earth can boast such diversity amongst its abundant natural resources, prosperous industries, and exceptional people. Today marks the 142nd anniversary of Minnesota's admission as the thirty-second state of the Union, and I want to take this opportunity to reflect on a few of the things that make my state special. This is a difficult speech to make in such a short amount of time, as I am sure I could break Senator Thurmond's twenty-four hour and eighteen minute filibuster record by talking about Minnesota's contributions to America but I will stick to just a few of the highlights and try to finish up by sundown. Minnesota's natural beauty has been photographed and documented time and time again. License plates may proclaim Minnesota to be ``The Land of 10,000 Lakes,'' but in reality, our vast lakes number in excess of 12,000, and we have more than 63,000 miles of natural rivers and streams. But there is something about sitting on the shore of Mille Lacs Lake at dawn on a Saturday in July that even a two-page spread in National Geographic cannot capture. Minnesotans have a unique relationship with their great outdoors. Many take advantage of our pristine environment through a large assortment of activities, such as taking a week to canoe through the Boundary Waters or going for a walk along the Mississippi River over a lunch hour. Minnesota is a true sportsman's paradise. Our unique habitat creates some of the best hunting and fishing in the country. We are proud of our outdoor heritage, and take seriously our commitment to maintaining the delicate balance between protecting the environment and the responsible use of our resources. Nor are we shy about sharing our bounty with others. Minnesota welcomes more than 20 million vacationers every year, who support 170,300 tourism jobs and return $9.1 billion to the local economy. Yet, for all those visitors, our state offers places of such solitude that a camper or canoeist can travel for a week and spot any number of deer, bears, and bald eagles, but never see another person. The influence of agriculture on Minnesota life and traditions cannot be overstated. Even as family farms struggle in today's difficult market, the resilience and dedication of our farmers establishes the backbone of the Minnesota economy. One in every four Minnesota jobs is tied to the agriculture industry in some way. Minnesota has become a national leader in international exports, as our producers export billions of dollars worth of grains, meats, and other products every year. I am proud of my ongoing efforts to ensure that even more world markets are opened to Minnesota agriculture products--they are among the best products in the world, and they should be shared. Many of the nation's top job providers call Minnesota home. Well-known names like General Mills, Pillsbury, 3M, Target, and Cargill have deep roots within our communities. Aside from the economic impacts made by our corporate community, there is an impressive philanthropic presence in the state. For example, Cargill's generous contributions to causes such as education, environment, and youth programs total in the tens of millions of dollars. Firms such as Medtronic and St. Jude Medical are national leaders in the bio-medical industry. Their products have given hope to those who previously faced a bleak medical outlook. Other Minnesota organizations are searching for answers to tomorrow's problems--today. The world- renowned Mayo Clinic not only treats over half a million patients a year, but is leading the charge against the mysteries of mankind's deadly diseases through its ongoing research. Of all the successful companies, natural beauty, and bountiful resources Minnesota plays host to, the real treasures are the people of my state. Successful Minnesotans come from all walks of life. Some of the most prolific writers of the past century have hailed from the North Star State. The first American to be awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature was Sinclair Lewis, a native of Sauk Centre, Minnesota. F. Scott Fitzgerald, Jon Hassler, and Garrison Keillor are all writers we are proud to call our own. Something about the fresh air in Minnesota inspires us to do bigger and better things. Charles Lindbergh must have gotten a big whiff of that air; so did Judy Garland, Kevin McHale, and Bob Dylan, just to name a few. Our state and nation recently mourned the loss of one of our most beloved natives. Charles Schulz captured the hearts of young and old alike with his long-running Peanuts comic strip, and we will miss him each and every Sunday. There are many Minnesota celebrities who have contributed to the richness of our nation, but the people who really deserve the applause and recognition are the men and women who day in and day out strive to make their communities, state, and nation a better place to live. The farmer who harvests our nation's corn, the policewoman who patrols the streets, the stay-at-home mom who supervises a household of kids, and the volunteer who takes the time to visit a disabled veteran rarely receive the accolades they deserve. These people are as indispensable to the growing, bustling community of St. Michael-Albertville as they are to the thriving metropolis of Minneapolis-St. Paul. I applaud them and am proud to represent each of them here in the United States Senate. The quality of life in Minnesota is outstanding for a reason. Ideals such as hard work, dedication, personal responsibility, and a true passion for life are all essential to my state's success. Growing up on a Minnesota dairy farm, I was fortunate enough to witness these qualities and their importance at a very young age. And for any of my colleagues who may be wondering, you don't have to be a native to spread the ``Minnesota Nice'' spirit. For example, some of the most outstanding Minnesota citizens are those from its many ethnic communities. Their devotion and contribution to Minnesota's way of life is commendable, and representative of the way our state seems to bring out the very best in its people. I am deeply proud of my state, Mr. President, and representing her and her citizens is a great honor. So, on this 142nd anniversary of our statehood, I encourage Minnesotans to take time to discover something new about our state and ponder some of the many treasures with which we have been blessed. Visit one of our sky-tinted lakes, the Mall of America, Split Rock Lighthouse, Fort Snelling, or even the world's largest ball of twine. Take pride in our state and continue the efforts to make Minnesota an even better place to call home.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of ``Be Kind to Animals Week.'' This week is a time to draw attention to how important animals are to our lives and to make sure they receive the treatment and protection they deserve. The American Humane Association was founded in 1877 with a goal to unite a few groups to give a national voice to those who could not speak for themselves: animals. The Association established Be Kind to Animals Week in 1915, the first national week specifically for animals and now the oldest week of its kind in existence in this country. This is the 85th year ``Be Kind to Animals Week'' will be celebrated. The leader of the American Humane Association in 1915 was Dr. William O. Stillman, who foresaw this week continuing on ``as annual events to stimulate and revive human thought.'' The three main goals of the first Be Kind to Animals Week were to encourage the clergy to spread the message about kindness to animals by observing Humane Sunday, to visit schools and teach children the message of being humane, and to publicize the good works of our nation's humane societies. These noble goals continue on today through the American Humane Association. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the many Humane Societies in my home state of Minnesota. These organizations are on the front lines of standing up for and protecting animals across Minnesota. By visiting a local animal shelter, I know many citizens have bettered not only the lives of countless animals through adoption, but surely their own lives in the process. The staffs and volunteers of Minnesota Humane Societies continue to make this possible for all citizens--and their efforts to teach people the importance of spay-neuter programs have also been extremely helpful. Animals certainly have a tremendous effect on our lives. Domesticated animals are considered family members to many of us. Farm animals provide nourishment to families here at home and around the world. And wild animals provide a balance to our overall ecosystem. I am sure Dr. Stillman would be extremely pleased to see his plan of having an annual week to remember the important role of animals continuing on in its 85th year. I want to urge everyone to use this week to take a minute and reflect on what animals mean to our lives, and how we can continue to give animals the protection and care they deserve every day.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, thank you very much. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

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

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes today to talk about the Department of Interior's recent decision to ban snowmobiling in most units of the National Park System. While the Interior Department's recent decision will not ban 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 they 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. They've 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 not the words of someone who is approaching a sensitive issue in a thoughtful way. 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. In light of such brazenness, it's amazing to me that this Administration, and some of my colleagues in Congress, question our objections to efforts that would allow the federal government to purchase even larger tracts of private land. If we were dealing with federal land managers who considered the intent of Congress, who worked with local officials, or who listened to the concerns of those most impacted by federal land-use decisions, we might be more inclined to consider their efforts. But when this Administration, time and again, thumbs its nose at Congress and acts repeatedly against the will of local officials and American citizens, it is little wonder that some in Congress might not want to turn over more private land to this Administration. 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 legislatively. In other words, an end run of Congress, which is an end run of the American people. That is a remarkable statement by an extremely candid man, and his intent to work around Congress is clearly reflected in this most recent decision. Clearly, Secretary Babbitt and his staff felt the rules that they've created allow them to ``pull the welcome mat for recreational users'' to our national parks. 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. So it is handy for them to avoid the legislative route, to avoid coming through Congress; they do it through executive orders and mandates. 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. I for one am getting a little sick and tired 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. It's getting to the point where I'm not sure what to tell my constituents. I've been on the phone with snowmobilers in Minnesota and they ask what can be done. I start to explain that because of the filibuster in the Senate and the President's ability to veto, it will be difficult for Congress to take any action. I've found myself saying that a lot lately. Whether it's regulations on Total Maximum Daily Loads, efforts to put 50 million acres of forests in wilderness, or new rules to regulate a worker's house should they choose to work at home, this Administration just doesn't respect the legislative process or the role of Congress. Nor does this Administration respect the jobs, traditions, cultures, of lifestyles of millions of Americans. If you're an American who has yet to be negatively impacted by the actions of this Administration, just wait your turn because you were evidently at the end of the list. Sooner or later, if they get their way in the next few months, they're going to kill your job, render your private property unusable, and ban you from accessing public lands that have been accessible for generations. Regrettably, many of us in Congress are now left with the proposition of telling our constituents that we must wait for a new Administration. I have to tell them that this Administration is on its way out the door and they're employing a scorched earth exit strategy. And I have to warn them that the situation could get worse if a certain Vice President finds himself residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue next year. I have to admit, there's nothing pleasurable about telling your constituents to wait until next year. I think it's important to remember that, as Senators, we are the representatives of every one of our constituents. When I have to tell a constituent that Congress has lost its power to act on this matter, I'm actually telling that constituent that he or she has lost their power on this matter. When I have to tell a snowmobiler that the Administration doesn't care what Congress has to say about snowmobiling in national parks, I am really telling him or her that the Administration doesn't care what the American people have to say about snowmobiling in national parks. Congress did not get a chance to debate it or to represent the people back home. I doubt any of us could've said that any better than Donald J. Barry said it himself. 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 officials 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. I also know that the local officials can tell me if 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. I do not think any local officials thought this would happen. I know those involved in the snowmobile industry had no idea, while talking with this administration, this was going to come down. It was a shot out of the blue. I believe this quick overreaching by the Park Service was unwarranted. It did not allow time for Federal, State, or local officials to work together on this issue. It did not bring snowmobile users to the table to discuss the impact of this decision on them. It did not 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 formation and formulation. It is an affront to the consideration American citizens deserve from their elected officials. I would like to repeat that. This decision stands as a very dramatic example of how not to conduct policy formulation and is an affront to the consideration that I believe American citizens deserve from their elected officials. I hope we take a hard look at this decision and call the administration before Senate committees for hearings. I believe there has been one scheduled. Senator Craig Thomas, I believe, will be holding such a hearing on May 25 to try to bring some administration officials before Congress and to ask some very simple questions: Why was this action taken? I have long believed we can have an impact on these matters by holding strong oversight hearings and by forcing the administration to be accountable for their actions. We cannot, however, simply stand by and watch as this administration continues its quest, in its final, waning days, for even greater power, power that will come at the expense of the deliberative, legislative process envisioned by the founders of this country. Secretary Babbitt, Administrator Browner, and Donald J. Barry may believe they are above working with this Congress. But only we can make sure that they are reminded, and we can do it in the strongest possible terms, that when they neglect Congress they are neglecting the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, almost one year ago today, I came to the floor of the Senate to recognize a very important group of individuals: Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel. I would like to take some time again this year to applaud the selfless efforts of the men and women who dedicate themselves to such a worthy cause day in and day out. For most of us, it is hard to imagine going to work every day not having any idea what kind of tragic situations we may encounter or what kinds of dangers we might face. These dedicated individuals overlook these challenges every day and often imperil themselves to help those in need of medical attention. Unfortunately, especially given the important work they do, this group often goes unrecognized. I rise today in support of National EMS Week and want to recognize EMS personnel by celebrating their selfless efforts with thanks and gratitude. My praise comes early; while National EMS Week is observed during the third week in May, I felt it necessary to make these remarks today, as many EMS personnel will be honored this evening at a special reception held here in Washington, DC. Mr. President, this year's National EMS Week theme, ``New Century, New Hope,'' encourages a forward-looking, optimistic approach to identifying and meeting newly emerging community challenges. EMS is a complex, integrated system of personnel in both ambulances and hospitals that provides excellent care in emergency medical situations by affecting safe and efficient transport and treatment until more advanced medical care can be delivered. Importantly, EMS also includes the person who recognizes an emergency and summons help through a phone call to 9-1-1. This is the beginning of a very important chain of communication and care, which results in saved lives. During both the 105th and 106th Congresses, I have come to the floor of the Senate to introduce the Emergency Medical Services Efficiency Act, S. 911. This bill was a product of the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee that I formed in 1997 to evaluate some of the problems facing EMS providers. Because I believe there is an overriding public health interest in ensuring a viable and seamless EMS system, I continue to pursue passage of S. 911. This legislation attempts to create acceptable government standards for EMS providers and allows expansion in the next century to enable providers to better serve their local communities. A first priority included in my bill is for ``prudent layperson'' language to accompany the approval of EMS services under many medical plans, especially Medicare. One of the most fiscally disruptive forces is the denial of emergency transport due to a physician's reevaluation of what ``seemed'' critical and is later labeled as being ``medically unnecessary.'' Portions of this legislation have already been approved by the Senate. In addition, S. 911 calls for EMS providers to play a role in the process of providing recommendations on how federal regulatory policy is made. I think this makes sense, and most importantly, it gives EMS providers a clear voice in identifying and finding a solution to the most challenging aspects of critical care delivery. On an annual basis, the American Ambulance Association recognizes EMS personnel from around the country for their selfless contributions to their profession, and presents them with the Star of Life Award. This year, 94 individuals were chosen by their peers to receive this prestigious award. I would like to personally thank those honorees for their service, and commend them on the respect they have generated for themselves and their profession amongst their peers and the public. Again, I would like to applaud the efforts of all EMS personnel. They have the sometimes unenviable task of cleaning up the messes that life affords every community, but they do it with pride and they do it well. I plan to do everything in my power to provide these individuals with the additional tools and loud voice that they have earned through their devotion to our local communities. Mr. President, I ask that the names of the year 2000 American Ambulance Association's Star of Life honorees be printed in the Record. The list of honorees follows: American Ambulance Association--2000 Stars of Life Dub Morris, Columbia County Ambulance Service, AZ. Barbara K. Clark, Rural/Metro--Southwest Ambulance, AZ. David Stockton, Rural/Metro--Southwest Ambulance, AZ. David Atkins, American Medical Response, CA. Rachelle Byler, American Medical Response, CA. Bert DeMello, American Medical Response, CA. Dennis Flannery, American Medical Response, CA. Darlene Heitman, American Medical Response, CA. Noella Lelham, American Medical Response, CA. Brian Pounds, American Medical Response, CA. Dennis G. Smith, American Medical Response, CA. Sheri Burcham, American Medical Response, CO. Michael Harvey, American Medical Response, CO. Jeffery Adams, American Medical Response, CT. Brooke Liddle, American Medical Response, FL. Pagona Pratt, American Medical Response, FL. Terri L. Brown, American Medical Response, GA. Bradley A. Melone, Mid Georgia Ambulance, GA. Lisa D. Scott, Rural/Metro Ambulance, GA. Danny Sagadraca, American Medical Response, HI. David Cole, Iowa EMS Association, IA. Wendy L. Hackett, MEDIC EMS, IA. Christine A. Hartley, Lee County EMS Ambulance, Inc., IA. Sandy Neyen, Iowa EMS Association, IA. Jim B. Steffen, Henry County Health Center EMS, IA. Andrew D. Stevens, MEDIC EMS, IA. Dan R. Walderbach, Henry County Health Center EMS, IA. Darin E. Longanecker, American Medical Response, IL. Daren T. Pfeifer, American Medical Response, KS. Michael Moree, Acadian Ambulance & Air Med Services, LA. Annette V. Mouton, Med Express Ambulance Service, Inc., LA. Jamie L. Richaud, Med Express Ambulance Service, Inc., LA. Joan Savoy, Priority Mobile Health, LA. Mary Williams, Priority Mobile Health, LA. Jamie J. Crawford, Lyons Ambulance Service, MA. Robert McDevitt, Action Ambulance, MA. Donna L. Moore, Lyons Ambulance Service, MA. James Scolforo, American Medical Response, MA. Alfred Theirrien, American Medical Response, MA. Gary Wright, Action Ambulance, MA. David L. Janey, Rural Metro Corporation, MD. Cindy Walker, American Medical Response, ME. Mandy Argue, American Medical Response, MI. Bryan A. Fuller, American Medical Response, MI. Steve Hazucka, Medstar Ambulance, MI. Scott Hicks, Medstar Ambulance, MI. Joseph Horvath, Huron Valley Ambulance, MI. Robert Martin, American Medical Response, MI. Wayne H. Mervau, North Flight, Inc., MI. Judy Pearson, American Medical Response, MI. Jack Taylor, Life EMS, MI. Robert Atzenhoefer, Gold Cross Ambulance, MN. Richard P. Humble, Metropolital Ambulance Service Trust,

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to praise the work of Minnesota's hospitals and those across America as we recognize National Hospital Week. This year's theme, ``Touching The Future With Care,'' focuses on the heart of the hospital system: its people. For those Minnesota doctors, nurses, administrators, and volunteers who consistently provide the highest level of quality health care in America, I commend your selfless efforts. You are very deserving of our recognition here today. Hospitals are open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, providing their communities with around-the-clock health care services. In my own state of Minnesota, 142 hospitals and 22 different health care systems provide Minnesotans with one of the most efficient and effective health care systems in the United States. This is not a result of mere chance. Rather, it is the combined efforts of our health care professionals-- those men and women who devote themselves to the delivery of timely, quality health care, when and where it is needed. As we all know, American hospitals have faced severe challenges over the last several years due to rapidly declining reimbursement rates under Medicare. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 made dramatic changes to the payment rates to hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, and individual providers. In fact, Medpac, Congress' Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, reported that profit margins for hospitals across the country dropped nearly 40 percent between 1998 and 1999. This is the lowest level in 20 years. And to add insult to injury, the Congressional Budget Office reported that Medicare payments, which serve as one of the largest revenue sources to hospitals, would realize a 62% decrease over the next five years. Clearly, in an industry that is already running on fumes, we cannot afford to cut deeper into the margins of hospitals and simply hope that they will be able to absorb the added losses and continue to provide the quality health care that we expect. Last year, in an effort to reduce some of this burden, Congress attempted to address the problem with the 1999 Balanced Budget Refinement Act. This legislation restored some of the drastic cuts called for in 1997, and provided relief in payments for outpatient services. This effort has already made a measurable difference and has enabled many hospitals and other providers to remain in business. Yet, this is only half the problem. The Balanced Budget Refinement Act addressed outpatient care provided by hospitals, and now, through legislation I cosponsored earlier this year called the American Hospital Preservation Act, we are addressing inpatient services. This is the other half of the equation. The American Hospital Preservation Act will help restore the scheduled 1.1 percent reduction in the inflation rate adjustment for in-patient services for years 2001 and 2002. Most importantly, this legislation will allow hospitals to better keep up with rapid increases in health-related costs. Mr. President, we in Congress have a big task ahead of us. We need to remain steadfast in our commitment to these institutions and complement the efforts of the people who devote so much of themselves to saving and preserving the lives of others. National Hospital Week exists so that we may remember and recognize the efforts of these organizations, and more importantly, the people who work within them. I am proud of the level of quality health care that is provided through our city and rural hospitals in Minnesota, and I am going to continue to do all I can to help preserve the integrity of these institutions on which we all rely.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate Goodwill Industries Week and call attention to a leader in job training and employment services for people with disabilities and other barriers to employment. Nearly a century ago, Reverend Edgar Helms, a Methodist minister from Boston, founded Goodwill on the premise of reusing household goods and clothing from wealthy neighborhood homes to create a system that provides the poor with training, jobs, and self-esteem. The Goodwill philosophy of ``a hand up, not a hand out'' was born, and has blossomed into a $1.5 billion non-profit organization. Dr. Helms' own words described Goodwill Industries as both an ``Industrial program as well as a social service enterprise . . . a provider of employment, training and rehabilitation for people of limited employability, and a source of temporary assistance for individuals whose resources were depleted.'' Just a few of the programs offered include retail skills training through a partnership with Target stores, service technician training on-site at Valvoline Instant Oil Change locations, and construction skills training at Habitat for Humanity building sites. These programs, matched with Goodwill employment services, prepare people to enter the workforce in high-demand fields. Goodwill Stores funnel nearly 84 cents of every dollar spent at Goodwill towards employment and training programs for people faced with barriers to employment. This includes individuals with disabilities, people with limited work history, those who have experienced corporate downsizing, and recipients of government support programs. By operating autonomously, each of the 182 Goodwill member organizations adapts its services to meet the needs of its local community. This allows them to design specific programs and services that give Goodwill graduates the appropriate skills they need to find work close to home. Goodwill programs may not be for everyone, but Goodwill Industries International, through its employment and training efforts, provided necessary services for nearly 321,000 people worldwide in 1998, people who now have the tools to accomplish the goals in life that were once beyond their grasp. For this week of May 7-13, I commend those who have made a difference in someone's life through the services of Goodwill Industries and those who accomplish new heights in their careers thanks to these much-needed programs.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes today to talk about the Department of Interior's recent decision to ban snowmobiling in most units of the National Park System. While the Interior Department's recent decision will not ban 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 are farmers, lawyers, nurses, construction workers, loggers, and miners. They are men, women, and young adults. They are 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 3 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 they ride, and educate their members about the need to ride responsibly. The time I spent with these individuals and the time I have 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. They have 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 not the words of someone who is approaching a sensitive issue in a thoughtful way. 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. In light of such brazenness, it's amazing to me that this administration, and some of my colleagues in Congress, question our objections to efforts that would allow the Federal Government to purchase even larger tracts of private land. If we were dealing with Federal land managers who considered the intent of Congress, who worked with local officials, or who listened to the concerns of those most impacted by Federal land-use decisions, we might be more inclined to consider their efforts. But when this administration, time and again, thumbs its nose at Congress and acts repeatedly against the will of local officials and American citizens, it is little wonder the some in Congress might not want to turn over more private land to this administration. I cannot 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 are not trying to do anything legislatively. That is a remarkable statement by an extremely candid man, and his intent to work around Congress is clearly reflected in this most recent decision. Clearly, Secretary Babbit and his staff felt the rules that they've created allow them to ``pull the welcome mat for recreational users'' to our national parks. 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 Babbit in coming right out and admitting it. Mr. President, I for one am getting a little sick and tired 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. It is getting to the point where I am not sure what to tell my constituents. I have been on the phone with snowmobilers in Minnesota and they ask what can be done. I start to explain that because of the filibuster in the Senate and the President's ability to veto, it will be difficult for Congress to take any action. I have found myself saying that a lot lately. Whether it is regulations on Total Maximum Daily Loads, efforts to put 50 million acres of forests in wilderness, or new rules to regulate a worker's house should they choose to work at home, this aAdministration just doesn't respect the legislative process or the role of Congress. Nor does this administration respect the jobs, traditions, cultures, of lifestyles of millions of Americans. If you are an American who has yet to be negatively impacted by the actions of this administration, just wait your turn because you were evidently at the end of the list. Sooner or later, if they get their way in the next few months, they're going to kill your job, render your private property unusable, and ban you from accessing public lands that have been accessible for generations.Regrettably, many of us in Congress are now left with the proposition of telling our constituents that we must wait for a new administration. I have to tell them that this administration is on its way out the door and they're employing a scorched earth exit strategy. And I have to warn them that the situation could get worse if a certain Vice President finds himself residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue next year. I have to admit, there is nothing pleasurable about telling your constituents to wait until next year. I think it is important to remember that, as Senators, we are the representatives of every one of our constituents. When I have to tell a constituent that Congress has lost its power to act on this matter, I am actually telling that constituent that he or she has lost their power on this matter. When I have to tell a snowmobiler that the administration doesn't care what Congress has to say about snowmobile in national parks, I am really telling him or her that the administration doesn't care what the American people have to say about snowmobiling in national parks. Well, I doubt any of us could've said that any better than Donald J. Barry said it himself. 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 officials 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. I also know that the local officials can tell me if 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 snowmobiling 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. I hope we take a hard look at this decision and call the administration before Senate Committees for hearings. I have long believed that we can have an impact on these matters by holding strong oversight hearings and by forcing the Administration to account for its actions. We cannot, however, 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 Babbit, 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. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the National Day of Prayer, Thursday, May 4. Today is a special and exceptional opportunity for all citizens of our country to join together in prayer. Days of prayer have been a fundamental part of our American heritage since 1775, when the Continental Congress, recognizing the need for guidance as it undertook the enormous challenge of forming a new Nation, designated a time for prayer. President Abraham Lincoln continued this tradition. In 1863, in the midst of the Civil War, he proclaimed a day of ``humiliation, fasting, and prayer.'' The National Day of Prayer has been celebrated formally since its enactment by Congress in 1952. In 1988, President Reagan signed a bill setting the National Day of Prayer on the first Thursday of every May. Now, each year, the President signs a proclamation encouraging all Americans to pray on this day. The theme for this year's National Day of Prayer is ``PRAY2K: America's Hope for the New Millennium.'' During the times of both triumph and adversity that surely lie ahead, I know prayer will help America's leaders and citizens to direct our country on the right path for the new millennium. In the 1st Century A.D., the apostle Paul wrote to the Philippians, telling them, ``Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.'' It is my hope the citizens of my home state of Minnesota, and people across this Nation, will take that advice and present the concerns of the country in prayer not only on May 4, but every day of the year. I know many thousands of students will gather today at the State Capitol in Minnesota, to pray for their leaders and their peers in an event entitled ``Share the Light 2000.'' I applaud their efforts and commend them in their commitment to this important day. I thank everyone involved in making this day possible year after year and all those who will take part in the National Day of Prayer. May the spirit that fills our hearts this day remain strong always.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today is Tax Freedom Day, the day on which working Americans stop working just to pay their State, Federal, and local taxes and actually begin keeping their earnings for themselves. This is an important day for American taxpayers, but it is certainly not a happy occasion because every year--since 1913--Tax Freedom Day has arrived later and later. This means that Americans are working more hours and more days every year just to pay their tax bill. This year, Americans had to work 124 days for their local, State and Federal governments before they could finally start working for themselves and their families on May 3. What is even more troubling is that in 13 States--including my home State of Minnesota--Tax Freedom Day will arrive 2 or more days later than the rest of the Nation. That means Minnesota taxpayers have to wait longer before they can start working for themselves, not for the Government. Despite the fact that Americans work so long for the Government, we have recently heard a lot of talk on the Senate floor and in the media that the Federal tax bite is the smallest in 40 years and that the era of big government and high taxes is over. If that is true, why hasn't Tax Freedom Day arrived earlier than last year? The stark truth is that the Federal Government's tax collecting--and spending--are still too high. The facts speak for themselves. Although the total Federal tax burden is slightly lower thanks to our tax-relief initiatives, particularly the bill I authored to provide a $500 per-child tax credit, the combined burden of Federal personal income and payroll taxes is well above the figures of both World War II and 1980 prior to the Reagan tax cut. Federal taxes consume 20.4 percent of GDP, compared to 17.5 percent of GDP when President Clinton took office. Since 1993, federal taxes have increased by 54%, which for the average taxpayer translates into a $2,000 tax hike. The combined personal income and payroll tax soared to 16.3% of GDP in 1999, up from 14.2% in 1992. Measured as a share of GDP, the personal income tax rose from 8% in 1981 to 9.6% in 1999. The payroll tax now takes 6.8% of GDP, up from 4.5% in 1970. On average, each American is paying $10,298 this year in Federal, State, and local taxes. A typical family now pays more of its income in total taxes than it spends on food, clothing, transportation, and housing combined. More and more middle-income families are being pushed into higher tax brackets each year. Even for most low- and middle-income families, federal payroll taxes take a huge bite of their income, and it keeps growing. For example, in 1965, a family earning wages of $10,000 paid $348 in payroll taxes. Today, that family would pay $1,530 in payroll taxes--an increase of 340 percent. According to the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan group that tracks the government tax bite at all levels, the total tax burden has grown significantly since 1992. While State and local taxes have grown somewhat, Federal taxes account for the largest share of the increase. Federal, State and local taxes claim 39.0 percent of a median two- income family's total income and 37.6 percent for a median one-income family, according to a Tax Foundation study. During the Clinton administration, Tax Freedom Day has leap frogged almost 2 weeks from April 20 in 1992 to May 3 this year. The Clinton Presidency means working Americans have to spend an extra 13 days working for Government. Not since the era of the Vietnam War and President Johnson's ``Great Society'' programs has Tax Freedom Day been pushed back so far in such a short period of time--and this is from an administration that claims it has put an end to ``big government.'' The Government is getting bigger, not smaller. Some people claim that big Government is over because Government spending as a percentage of GDP is shrinking. The real question is how do we measure the size of the Government? Is it the number of employees, the number of dollars spent, the tax burden, the hidden costs of regulations, or all of the above? I believe it should be all of the above. The growth of the economy does not have to be linked to the growth of Government. In fact, I have always said that we can streamline the Government and still provide all the Government services we need. A more meaningful way to measure Government spending is to look at the number of dollars spent. Since President Clinton took office in 1993, Government spending has increased from $1.40 trillion to $1.83 trillion in 2000, a 30-percent rise. During the same period, Government revenue increased from $1.15 trillion to $2.08 trillion, a 75-percent increase. The growth for domestic nondefense spending was 6.3 percent between 1990 and 1995. In the last 2 years alone, nondefense spending grew by 5.3 and 6.8 percent. President Clinton has proposed a 14-percent increase in his last budget. If this is not big Government, what is? If President Clinton's spending frenzy continues, it will wipe out the entire $1.9 trillion non-Social Security surplus in less than 3 years, leaving none of these tax overpayments to return to taxpayers in the form of debt reduction, tax relief and Social Security reform. But our colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not say this increased spending is risky. They instead claim that our tax relief efforts to let the people keep a little more of their own money is risky. People today work hard, and then are penalized for their work. With punitive taxes, Washington makes the American dream of working hard for a better life more difficult, and for some, impossible. How can anyone call the elimination of the marriage tax penalty for 21 million American families risky? It is clear that the American people are still overtaxed despite the progress we have made to reduce taxes. Congress must provide meaningful tax relief to help alleviate the tax burden on working Americans. But the only way we can effectively push back Tax Freedom Day is to terminate the tax code and replace it with one that promotes tax freedom and economic opportunity. We must repeal the 16th amendment and abolish the IRS. We must create a new tax system that's fairer, simpler, and friendlier to taxpayers. Tax Freedom Day--it should be more than just another reminder of the high cost of Government. We owe it to the American taxpayers to work together to fix the system. Only when we begin to shorten the number of days that Americans work for Government, and allow them to own the fruits of their labor, can we truly celebrate Tax Freedom Day.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to take just a few minutes today to speak about the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act and the President's recent veto of this legislation. Throughout the past 5 years, I have repeatedly come to the Senate floor to discuss this important issue and its impact on my home State of Minnesota. I have, on countless occasions, laid out for Members of the Senate the history of the nuclear energy program and the promises made by the Federal Government. Every time I sit down to discuss this matter with stakeholders, I am reminded that the Federal Government not only allowed, but strongly encouraged, the construction of nuclear power plants across the country. This point needs to be clearly understood by the Members of this body. Our Nation's nuclear utilities did not go out and invest in nuclear power in spite of Federal Government warnings of future difficulties. Instead, they were encouraged by the Federal Government to turn to nuclear power to meet increasing energy demands. Utilities and states were told to move forward with investments in nuclear technologies because it is a sound source of energy production. It is important to note that the Federal Government's support for nuclear power was based on some very sound considerations. First, and I believe most important, nuclear power is environmentally friendly. Nothing is burned in a nuclear reactor so there are no emissions released into the atmosphere. In fact, nuclear energy is responsible for over 90% of the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that have come out of the energy industry since 1973. Between 1973 and 1996, nuclear power accounted for emissions reductions of 34.6 million tons of nitrogen oxide and 80.2 million tons of sulfur dioxide. Second, nuclear power is a reliable base-load source of power. Families, farmers, businesses, and individuals who are served by nuclear power are served by one of the most reliable sources of electricity. In Minnesota, nuclear power accounts for roughly 30% of our base-load generation. Third, nuclear energy is a home-grown technology and the United States led the way in its development. We have long been the world leader in nuclear technology and continue to be the world's largest nuclear producing country. Using nuclear power increases our energy security. Finally, much of the world recognizes those same values and promotes the use of nuclear power because of its reliability, its environmental benefits, and its value to energy independence. Because of those reasons, the Federal Government threw one more bone to our Nation's utilities. It said if you build nuclear power, we will take care of your nuclear waste. We will build a repository and take it out of your States. In response to those promises, over 30 States took the Federal Government at its word and allowed civilian nuclear energy production to move forward. Ratepayers agreed to share some of the responsibilities, but were promised some things in return. They agreed to pay a fee attached to their energy bill to pay for the proper handling of the spent nuclear fuel in exchange for an assurance that the Federal Government meet its responsibility to manage any waste storage challenges. Because of these promises and measures taken by the Federal Government, ratepayers have now paid over $15 billion, including interest, into the Nuclear Waste Fund. Today, these payments continue, exceeding $600 million annually, or $70,000 for every hour of every day of the year. In Minnesota alone, ratepayers have paid over $300 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund. In summary, the Federal Government promoted nuclear power, utilities agreed to invest in nuclear power, states agreed to host nuclear power plants, and ratepayers assumed the responsibility of investing in the long-term storage of nuclear waste. And still, nuclear waste is stranded on the banks of the Mississippi River in Minnesota and on countless other sites across the country because the Department of Energy has a very short-term memory and this administration has virtually no sense of responsibility. We can argue all day long in this Chamber on the merits of nuclear power. But we cannot deny that the Federal Government promoted nuclear power and promised to take care of nuclear waste. The Clinton administration, however, would have you believe that they do not have a responsibility to deal with nuclear power. I have been working with Senator Murkowski and many other Members over the roughly 5 years that I have been in the Senate to establish an interim repository for nuclear waste and move forward with the development of a permanent repository. We have brought a bill to the floor that accomplishes those objectives in each of the past two Congresses. Each time, we passed the bill in both the House and the Senate with overwhelming, bipartisan support. Just over 2 years ago, we passed a bill that would have removed nuclear waste from States by a vote of 65- 34 and the House passed the bill with 307 supporters--a veto-proof majority. We have had extensive debate with the opportunity for anyone to offer amendments. We have thoroughly addressed most issues related to nuclear waste storage, including the transportation of waste across the United States. Yet every time we have passed a bill that fulfills the Federal Government's commitments, President Clinton has issued his veto threat and stopped our efforts in their tracks. Here we are again. The President has vetoed the legislation before us today and apparently taken great pride in doing so. Time and again, when confronted with making the tough decisions about the future of our Nation's energy supply, this President has ``punted,'' and refused to take any responsibility for the energy needs of our growing economy. If it were not such a serious matter, I would have to say that the President's approach to energy policy is comical. When was the last time anyone here heard the President speak in any great detail about energy issues? He does not. I do not think he cares or at least his policies reflect a great degree of indifference to the energy needs of our Nation's consumers. He has turned over the reins of the Energy Department not just to Secretary Richardson, but to Al Gore, and Bruce Babbitt, and Carol Browner, and anyone else who has an agenda with an aspect of the energy industry. As many of my colleagues know, I have been a strong critic of the Department of Energy since coming to Congress in 1992. I have long argued that the Department has failed miserably on its most basic mission of increasing our Nation's energy independence. The Department was created in the late 1970's in response to that decade's energy crisis. Since that time, our reliance on foreign oil has increased from 35% to almost 60% today. In the 1970s, we were looking to increase our use of nuclear energy, today we are looking at closing down plants before their licenses have expired. In the 1970s, much like today, hydro power was a very popular form of electricity generation among the American public. Even still, this Administration wants to rip apart hydro dams in the Northwest and, I guess, replace them with fossil fuels. Therein lies the great irony of the Clinton administration's approach to energy and the environment. This administration had the vision to agree to legally binding reductions in greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time failing to take even the most basic steps to protect emissions free nuclear power plants from shutting down. I asked the administration's chief Kyoto negotiator, Stuart Eizenstat, about nuclear energy during a Foreign Relations Committee hearing and he said that we absolutely needed nuclear energy to meet the demands of the Treaty. In fact, he said that he believed his own administration ought to have done more and ought to be doing more to promote nuclear power. Mr. Eizenstat, the President's signature on this bill would have been a great first step. Instead, this President has taken an action which I argue is harmful to the environment and contradicts his statements and actions that he wants to improve air quality in our country. Nuclear energy, however, is not the only example of this administration's hypocrisy on energy and the environment. Hydro power, as well, is an emissions free form of electricity generation. Yet this administration is engaged in at least two separate activities that undermine the future of hydro power and its environmental benefits. As I mentioned earlier, this administration wants to rip open hydro dams in the northwest and, I guess, replace that electricity with fossil fuels. Second, this administration, in its electricity restructuring proposals, wants to require a certain usage of renewable energy but refuses to include hydro power as a renewable energy source. These are all perfect examples of how this administration isn't truly interested in results oriented clean air goals. Instead, they want to deeply involve themselves in the process of achieving environmental goals, regulate like crazy, and predetermine winners and losers. Unfortunately, the only real losers in the Clinton energy circus are the American consumers. I want to touch on one last Clinton administration energy and environment contradiction. As my colleagues know, this administration has been opposed to new oil and gas development on public land. In fact, Vice President Gore recently stated that he would do everything in his power to stop offshore oil and gas leasing. Both President Clinton and Vice President Gore tout these stances against oil and gas development as part of their legacy of environmental protection. I ask my colleagues, do you think other nations on whom we rely for our oil supplies are employing the environmental protections and reviews that we require? Do you think Iran, Libya, or Iraq are going the extra mile to protect the environment? Do you think the OPEC nations are holding themselves to the stringent environmental standards to which we hold companies on U.S. soil? We all know the answer is an emphatic no. Yet this administration is opposing virtually any exploration of oil and gas reserves on public land for environmental reasons, while at the same time, it employs its ``tin cup diplomacy'' that relies upon countries like Iran, Iraq, Libya and others to increase their production for us. I ask my colleagues, if you look at the global impacts of the Clinton administration's actions, who are the real environmentalists? Certainly not the Clinton administration. It is clear to me that this administration's policy against exploration and development, when compared against its policy of begging for increased oil production abroad, is a net loss for American jobs, family checkbooks, domestic energy security, and the environment. I am getting a little off track, but I believe this point needs to be clearly understood when we are talking about a long- term plan to remove, transport, and store nuclear waste. This administration is not concerned about results, nor is it really concerned about the environment. Instead, this administration is concerned solely with its political agenda and keeping the nuclear industry on the ropes. We can, as a nation, move forward now and deal with our nuclear waste. There is simply no scientific nor technological reasons why we cannot move waste from civilian reactors to a central repository. In fact, we ship waste across our Nation right now--including the waste we have accepted from 41 other nations under the Atoms for Peace program. Our Nation's fleet of nuclear powered vessels go from international port to port. They protect the world and our Nation's interests in a way that is only allowed them through the use of nuclear power. There is overwhelming proof that we can transport nuclear waste on ships, roads, and rail without a threat to either the environment or human beings. I am going to support the legislation before us, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. If the President is not going to have an energy policy, then we in Congress had better step forward and forge one of our own. When the brownouts begin increasing in frequency and energy rates rise, President Clinton will be long gone and we will be left to explain to our constituents why their family lost its power, their business lost a days work, or their farm was unable to milk its cows. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Yes.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to discuss an amendment that I hope to offer later to the proposed Educational Opportunities Act. To get right to the needs of this amendment, it would permit States to fulfill the assessment requirements of this bill by testing students at the local district level, or at the classroom level, and with a nationally recognized academic test, such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, and also to provide school districts a choice of State-approved standards from which to teach their students. This is an amendment that seeks to maintain more authority at the local level where decisions are best made. It would provide more flexibility for schools to choose their own assessments to meet State standards without losing any of the accountability needed to ensure students are achieving. Basically, it would offer schools an option on how they want to measure the academic standards for achievements of their students--not to have this cookie-cutter-type proposal out of Washington that says this is the only way it can be done but to allow some flexibility for States that might want to use a different measuring stick. In Minnesota, the Federal requirements to implement a set of State standards and accompanying State assessments have resulted in a highly controversial State content standard called the ``profile of learning.'' Many parents in Minnesota have expressed to me their concern about the vague and indefinite nature of the profile standards and also the consequential decline of academic rigor in the classroom. Parents also object to some of the intrusive test questions that have been asked of the students. A poll taken a few months ago showed that only 9 percent of public school teachers support continuation of the profile as it is currently written in the State of Minnesota. The students who visit my Washington office on school trips almost universally believe the time spent on fulfilling the profile requirements has shortchanged them from obtaining real academic instruction. Some of the assessments, entitled ``performance packages'' in Minnesota, can take from 3 to 6 weeks to complete, sacrificing some very valuable class time for students. The performance packages required under the profile are often assigned to groups of students, and inevitably some students end up pulling more of the weight than others. It is hard to see how this group system ensures that each student is assessed based upon his or her individual performance or effort. I won't get into many particulars of the profile standards, but they, unfortunately, focus too much on politically fashionable outcomes and not enough on transmitting to students a core body of knowledge. For instance, one of the profile ``performance packages''--let me explain this to you--was for a student to ``violate a folkway,'' which means to do something odd or unexpected in a public place; and then they would have their partner come along with them who, in the background, would watch how people reacted and write down that reaction. I think it would be an understatement to say that a school project such as that would be of extremely questionable value, just as an example. The Thomas P. Fordham Foundation, which publishes a review of State standards nationwide, stated that in the English portion of the profile ``a large number of standards are not specific, measurable, or demanding.'' We have another expert, a standards expert, Dianne Ravitch, who wrote the following about the profile: I will be candid because I don't have time to be diplomatic. In the area of social studies, the Minnesota standards are among the worst in the Nation. They are vague. They are not testable. I advise you to toss them out and start over. A professor at one of the Minnesota State universities describing the profile wrote: The detail, the record keeping, the assessment for each individual is enough to make one's head spin. The time that will be devoted to paperwork will, of necessity, distract teachers from planning, preparation, reflection, working with students, and other essential tasks. I pity the poor teacher who tries to bring it off and any nonlinear-thinking student who falls victim to Minnesota-style results-based learning. It is obvious that in Minnesota we have a real problem with education standards. In fact, the Minnesota House of Representatives voted last year to scrap the profiles completely, but unfortunately that bill was not adopted by the full legislature. Our children's education is too important to be the subject of experimentation with the latest politically correct instructional fad. I want Minnesota students to excel, and I want to make sure Minnesota school districts have a choice of standards--again, not a cookie-cutter model from Washington or imposed by Washington to qualify for any funding. I believe Minnesota will adopt new standards and assessments, if not this year, then in the near future. I want to help ensure school districts are not forced to follow a fad, but that they have some options in how to assess their students' education. Though the profile has not been replaced, there is a strong grassroots movement toward rigorous academic standards in Minnesota which has been embodied in legislation that creates an alternative academic standard that emphasizes very clear, rigorous standards, local control, and accountability to parents. This State legislation has been entitled the ``North Star Standard,'' and it is the intent of the bill's sponsors to implement this standard as a local option so that local school districts can choose between the North Star Standard or the profile. They can stick with the new politically correct system or they can go to an academically rigorous system that allows students to learn more. My amendment would clarify that there can be two sets of standards and assessments from which local school districts can choose. Again, that is all my amendment asks for. It says it would clarify that there could be two sets of standards and assessments from which local school districts could choose--again, not the one dictated standard of how to get it done but leaving some options and allowing at least a second set of standards that parents and teachers could choose. For districts choosing the North Star Standard, students may be assessed at the classroom or local district level, not the State level. To ensure true accountability, the North Star Standard sets up strict reporting requirements. Teachers would have to provide parents a complete syllabus, information on the curriculum, homework assignments, and testing. Thus, the parents would know what their students are learning and what their children are being tested on, protecting against the temptation to ``dumb down'' any of the tests to make things look better. While academic rigor is currently being compromised in Minnesota through a system of standards and assessments that aren't challenging and involve time-consuming projects that take valuable time away from classroom instruction, it would be returned through local ``full disclosure'' requirements to parents. Local testing would be tied to the curriculum, and the testing would also include a nationally recognized test such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. The North Star Standard would also create an alternative, State-level set of academic standards that are clear, unambiguous, and present what a student should know, without dictating a specific curriculum or how teachers are to teach that body of information. In other words, we don't want tests written and then teachers teaching to the tests. I believe this standard is closer to what was intended under the ESEA of 1994. The theme of this reauthorization bill has been more State and local flexibility in exchange for accountability. I believe we can maximize that accountability if we leave it to local school boards and parents. The North Star Standard is an appropriate response to the shortcomings of the State-level standards and assessments experiment in Minnesota. I firmly believe that nothing we do here in Congress should inhibit the efforts of citizens to reform their school systems in a manner they choose, and that they know what is best for their children. Parents are the moving force behind development of the North Star Standard. These parents, some of which are current and former local school board members, feel passionately about the education of all children, and have carefully crafted a standard and assessment structure that they believe, and I believe, will improve the education of Minnesota students. Again, this amendment is designed not to create a mold for one size fits all, but to allow states to have two sets of standards and assessments and to allow a local school district and teachers the opportunity to choose their own assessment that meets the outcomes we all want. I urge my colleagues to help my constituents restore the proud history of excellent educational achievement in the Minnesota public schools by supporting this amendment when I have the opportunity to offer it later this week. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, the true spirit of Americanism cannot truly be captured in the pages of history. It is not found in our vast acquired lands, nor is it printed in our two-century-old Constitution. Americanism is felt and entrenched deep in our soul. It is the goose bumps we get when hearing the Star Spangled Banner and the emotional chills that run through our veins when witnessing the changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. The undying passion and loyalty we have for our nation is Americanism. John Adams understood this loyal, patriotic, American spirit when he wrote, ``Our obligations to our country never cease but with our lives.'' In fulfillment of that obligation, many lives have been sacrificed to guarantee our liberties for ourselves and our posterity. The loyalty and devotion demonstrated by the veterans of our Armed Forces must never be forgotten or discounted. Every year on May 1, our country takes the opportunity to celebrate that passionate allegiance and pay tribute to those before us who unselfishly ensured the continued success of America and strength of our democracy. Thanks to the efforts of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Congress mandated in 1958 that May 1 of each year shall be recognized as ``Loyalty Day.'' Across the nation, VFW posts express their steadfast commitment by sponsoring parades, hosting banquets and replacing worn flags in their communities. While Loyalty Day is an occasion to reminisce about past achievements, we should also take this opportunity to focus on our future. As history has repeatedly shown, challenges to our ideals of democracy are imminent. Each previous generation has shown valor in rising to face those challenges. Now the continued success of our nation relies on instilling in our young people an ardent appreciation for our American ideals, so they may be prepared to face future obstacles. Each of us in our own unique way can show our commitment to the ideals upon which this nation was founded. Whether flying the flag, visiting a monument, teaching a child the Pledge of Allegiance or simply thanking a veteran, I ask that you join me today in celebrating Loyalty Day. I encourage everyone to discover the passion of our forefathers and experience the pride of true Americanism.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I proudly rise today in recognition of National Science and Technology Week. Since 1985, the National Science Foundation has used this opportunity to celebrate and bring awareness to the scientific and technological wonders that encompass our lives. American spirit and determination have created advancements our society could not have imagined a mere 50 years ago. As the world embraces the new information age, our quality of life has been the benefactor. Telecommunications and the Internet have brought billions of people together, while biotechnology research gives hope to solving many of our world's medical mysteries. Environmental technology allows increased sustainability of our precious natural resources and space sciences open up new and exciting worlds. Science, education, and community organizations all over the U.S. are participating in National Science and Technology Week. Clearly, promoting the awareness of science and technology to the public benefits everyone. In particular, piquing the interest of children has been proven to instill a lifetime of learning. The importance of a strong scientific education is indisputable, for the skills we learn as children prove invaluable on a daily basis in adult life. Here in Congress, the legislative process utilizes scientific reasoning methods to pinpoint problems, research solutions, experiment, and choose the best course of action. I am proud of my efforts during the 106th Congress to secure $5 million in funding for improvements to the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and National Park Services operations in the new Science Museum of Minnesota. Our state-of-the-art museum allows all Minnesotans the opportunity to experience wonders of science ranging from a face-to-face encounter with a polar bear to navigating a virtual towboat down the Mississippi River. I encourage all our citizens to plan a visit soon. As National Science and Technology Week activities are conducted across the country, it is my hope that all Americans reflect on the significance of science and technology in our society. In science, as in all of life, the only barriers we cannot overcome are those we do not attempt. Please join me this week in celebrating our achievements and potential.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Minnesota members of the National Grange. This week is Grange Week, which celebrates the oldest U.S. rural community service, family- orientated organization with a special interest in agriculture. In recognition of its members in Minnesota, and across the United States, I want to take this time to reflect on the accomplishments of the National Grange during the past 133 years. Organized in 1867, the National Grange assisted farmers who were trying to dig out of financial troubles that plagued them after the Civil War. Today, this organization continues to advance the best interests of agriculture and promote the family values that are rooted so deeply in rural America. This commitment is easily seen in the Grange's involvement in many local service projects, such as organizing community response teams to cope with disasters, assisting in community development revitalization, volunteering at local schools, and promoting farm and home safety, along with other important activities. In my home state of Minnesota, the State Grange has been influential in the development of many key projects and services since 1867. Around the turn of the century, the State Grange played a crucial role in helping farmers and people in rural areas get home delivery of their mail and take part in rural electrification projects. They also helped form the University of Minnesota School of Agriculture. Mr. President, because its members understand the importance of the family farm and the communities they reside in, it is easy to see why the Grange has been so successful in its many endeavors. I am pleased to make this statement on behalf of the Minnesota Grange, and I wish them well and commend them for their many hours of volunteer service-- service that is vital to all our communities.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, on May 6-8, 2000, more than 1200 students from across the United States will be in Washington, D.C. to compete in the national finals of the We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program. It is an honor for me to announce that a class from Stillwater Area High School will represent the state of Minnesota in this national event. These young scholars have worked very hard to reach the national finals and through their experience have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. The names of the students are: Chad Anderson, Ellen Andersen, Luke Anderson, Sara Apel, Rob Cole, Alexis DuPlessis, Melissa Ellis, Kim Garvey, Elissa Green, Kyle Knoepfel, Joey Korba, Amy Kruchowski, Kirsten Lindquist, Beth Manor, Emily Michnay, Alex Nelson, Steve Peterson, Chris Richter, Chris Siver, Stefan Tatroe, Melissa Zanmiller. I would also like to recognize their teacher, Kathleen Ferguson, who deserves much of the credit for the success of the class. The We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The three-day national competition is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress. These hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges. The students testify as constitutional experts before a panel of judges representing various regions of the country and a variety of appropriate professional fields. The students' testimony is followed by a period of questioning by the simulated congressional committee. The judges probe students for their depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. Columnist David Broder described the national finals as ``the place to have your faith in the younger generation restored.'' The program provides students with a working knowledge of our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the principles of democratic government. Members of Congress and their staff enhance the program by discussing current constitutional issues with students and teachers and by participating in other educational activities. I am confident the class from Stillwater High School will represent Minnesota well and I wish these young ``constitutional experts'' all the best.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. J. Res. 3, the proposed constitutional amendment to establish certain rights for victims of violent crime. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislative proposal introduced by Senators Kyl and Feinstein. I have always cherished the basic freedoms established by the United States Constitution. This precious document provides important rights to every American--rights which have encouraged their active participation in the functions of our Republic. For example, the First Amendment encourages free speech and association, while the 19th and 26th Amendments were ratified to protect the voting rights of women and eighteen-year-old citizens. As we debate the merits of the proposed Crime Victims Constitutional Amendment, I am reminded of the constitutional rights guaranteed to persons accused of crime. These include the right: to a speedy and public trial by jury; to know the nature of the accusation; to confront witnesses; to counsel; and rights against excessive bail, fines, or cruel or unusual punishment. These rights promote the involvement of the accused in court and should not be diminished by Congressional action. In recent years, Congress has enacted legislation that seeks to establish certain rights for victims of crime, including the 1990 Victims Rights and Restitution Act, which required federal law enforcement agencies to make their best efforts to ensure that crime victims are treated with fairness and respect. Most recently, we enacted the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 and the Victims Rights Clarification Act of 1997, which sought to allow crime victims to observe court proceedings even if they were expected to testify during the sentencing hearing. Additionally, all fifty states now have either constitutional amendments or statutes that seek to protect the rights of crime victims. Despite these efforts by Congress and the States, I am very concerned that the United States Constitution does not protect the rights of victims and promote their involvement in the criminal justice process. In my view, the Crime Victims' Rights Amendment is the most effective way to address the current imbalance between the rights of defendants and victims within the Constitution. As a constituent from St. Paul recently wrote, the proposed amendment will, ``Prevent victims from being victimized twice. First, by the crime, then by the judicial system when they learn that those accused have all the rights.'' These concerns are shared by the Department of Justice, constitutional scholars, and various victim advocates such as the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The proposed constitutional amendment to protect the rights of crime victims is not a new concept. As my colleagues may know, it was first recommended in 1982 by President Reagan's Task Force on Victims of Crime. Since its initial introduction during the 104th Congress, Senators Kyl and Feinstein have worked tirelessly to improve this proposal and preserve the rights of defendants and the authority of prosecutors. Importantly, the Crime Victims' Rights Constitutional Amendment received strong, bipartisan support upon its passage by the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month. I would not support a proposal to change the fundamental character of the Constitution or eliminate the basic freedoms that it provides to Americans. However, I also believe that the rights of crime victims are not trivial to the needs of our nation and are worthy of protection under the Constitution. Passing additional laws or state constitutional amendments that may be ignored by federal and state court comes at the expense of those who have fallen victim to violent crime and who expect equal justice from the criminal justice system. In addition, we must not forget that many crime victims are afraid of being victimized again and face retaliation by criminal offenders. We must ensure that victims feel respected throughout the criminal justice process. I believe establishing certain constitutional rights for crime victims will help to encourage greater reporting of crimes and cooperation with law enforcement. The Crime Victims' Constitutional Amendment would allow for greater participation in the criminal justice system in a manner completely consistent with constitutional amendments that have established a citizen's right to participate in other government processes. I respectfully disagree with those who suggest that the Crime Victims' Constitutional Amendment conflicts with the principle of federalism. As someone who has worked to maintain the distinction between federal and state responsibility, I am pleased that this amendment provides an appropriate level of flexibility to the States. Specifically, this amendment would allow the States to pass legislation to define ``victims of crime'' and ``crimes of violence.'' It would also allow States to determine the degree of ``reasonable'' notice to public proceedings or the release or escape of a criminal offender that will be provided to crime victims. Ultimately, it will be three-quarters of the States that must decide whether to consider and ratify this amendment. Passage of this amendment will not impose any rights upon the States without careful and lengthy consideration by the State legislatures. In fact, this amendment has been endorsed by 49 of our nation's Governors, the elected officials who are most concerned about unnecessary federal mandates being imposed upon the States. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has indicated that this amendment will not impose additional costs upon the States. I also understand the concerns of those who suggest that the Crime Victims' Rights Amendment will disadvantage defendants during court proceedings. However, the amendment does not deprive the accused of any of their constitutional rights. It would ensure respect and basic fairness for crime victims through a constitutional right to be notified of court proceedings; to attend all public proceedings; to be heard at crucial stages in the process; to be notified of the offender's release or escape; to consideration for a trial free from unreasonable delay; to an order of restitution; to have the safety of the victim considered in determining a release from custody; and to be notified of these basic rights. In proclaiming the first ``Victims Rights Week'' in 1981, President Reagan stated, ``For too long, the victims of crime have been the forgotten persons of our criminal justice system. Rarely do we give victims the help they need or the attention they deserve. Yet the protection of our citizens--to guard them from becoming victims--is the primary purpose of our penal laws. Thus, each new victim personally represents an instance in which our system has failed to prevent crime. Lack of concern for victims compounds that failure.'' Mr. President, I firmly believe that the Crime Victims' Rights Amendment will help to restore public confidence in the criminal justice system and give crime victims the protection they deserve. The high number of crime victims in our society underscores the need to pass this amendment and send it to the States for their careful consideration. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this important public safety initiative.