[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 19 (Wednesday, February 3, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1173-S1175]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. GRAMS (for himself and Mr. Crapo):
  S. 359. A bill to establish procedures to provide for a taxpayer 
protection lock-box and related downward adjustment of discretionary 
spending limits, to provide for additional deficit reduction with funds 
resulting from the stimulative effect of revenue reductions, and to 
provide for the retirement security of current and future retirees 
through reforms of the Old Age Survivor and Disability Insurance Act; 
to the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, with 
instructions that if one Committee reports, the other Committee have 
thirty days to report or be discharged.


                taxpayer protection lock-box legislation

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I have a number of bills I want to 
introduce today. I want to start out by talking a little bit about the 
three bills dealing with budget reform, and then also an important bill 
leading to crop insurance reform.
  Mr. President, I rise today to introduce these bills that would 
reform the Federal budget process, strengthen fiscal discipline and 
restore Government accountability to ensure that taxpayers are fully 
represented in Washington.
  I commend Leader Lott and Chairman Domenici for including budget 
process reform as one of the top five priorities in the 106th Congress. 
I believe this should be our immediate priority as we prepare to make 
our budget process work better.
  Mr. President, the Federal budget process has become a reckless game 
in which the team roster is limited to a handful of Washington 
politicians and technocrats while the taxpayers are relegated to the 
sidelines.
  This has not only weakened the nation's fiscal discipline but also 
undermined the system of checks and balances established by the 
Constitution.
  The most recent example of this abusive process was the 1998 Omnibus 
Appropriation legislation. The bill included $520 billion in funding 
for many essential Government programs, representing 8 out of Congress' 
13 annual appropriations bills.
  But the entire negotiations were exclusive, arbitrary, and conducted 
behind closed doors by only a few congressional leaders and White House 
staff.
  Few Members of the Congress had any idea what was in the bill but 
were asked to approve it, without debate, without adequate review, 
without amendments, and without roll call votes.
  As a result, Washington broke the spending caps mandated in last 
year's Balanced Budget Act by spending more than $21 billion of the 
surplus for so-called ``emergency'' purposes.
  Budget negotiators magically invented a new smoke and mirrors budget 
term--``forward funding'' which shifted $9.3 billion into future 
budgets. Long-criticized ``backdoor spending'' thrived: for example, 
lawmakers sneaked $1 billion to fund programs to achieve initiatives 
under the Kyoto treaty. The White House has not sent up the Treaty and 
the Congress has many reservations about it.
  Without any policy consideration, hundreds of millions of taxpayer 
dollars went to fund such pork programs as, amazingly, caffeinated 
chewing gum research.
  The budget process is seriously flawed. Twenty-five years ago, 
Congress tried to change its budget practices and get spending under 
control by passing the Congressional Budget Act. Yet, over these 25 
years, our national debt has grown from $540 billion to $5.6 trillion.
  Spending is at an all-time high, and so are taxes. The budget process 
has become so complicated that most lawmakers have a hard time 
understanding it. Of course, that hasn't stopped the proliferation of 
budget gimmicks to circumvent the intent of the Congress.
  Before the situation explodes completely, Congress must immediately 
reform the budget process to ensure the integrity of our budget and 
appropriations process. We can begin in the 106th Congress by taking a 
few simple steps.
  The first step is to ensure our government's continued operation 
without any interruption. Last week, I introduced important legislation 
that would continue funding for the Government at the prior year's 
level when Congress and the President fail to complete appropriations 
legislation.

[[Page S1174]]

  Mr. President, we all still have a fresh memory of the 1995 Federal 
Government shutdown, the longest one in history, which caused financial 
damage and inconvenience to millions of Americans when the President 
refused to support a Balanced Budget Act and tax relief for Americans.
  However, the most serious damage done by the 27-day shutdown was that 
it shook the American people's confidence in their Government and in 
their elected officials.
  I am concerned that President Clinton would use this technique again 
to force Congress into spending more money. I believe we can do better 
for the taxpayers and believe my legislation, the Good Government bill, 
will help to do that.
  In May of 1997, I first proposed this as a stand-alone vote in an 
effort to pass the flood relief bill for Northern Minnesota. The Senate 
Democratic leader agreed and supported my proposal. I was able to 
obtain a commitment from the Senate leadership of both parties to 
pursue the legislation separately in the near future.
  Last summer, I sought to offer it as an amendment to an 
appropriations bill. This amendment, originally sponsored by Senator 
McCain, would have created an automatic procedure for a CR at the end 
of each fiscal year. Unfortunately, my efforts were not successful.
  If I had succeeded, we would not have had to go through the debacle 
last year's omnibus spending bill.
  Mr. President, we all have different philosophies and policies on 
budget priorities, and of course we will not always agree.
  But there are essential functions and services of the Federal 
Government we must continue to fund regardless of our differences in 
budget priorities. Program funding must be based on merits, not on 
political leverage.
  This legislation would continue funding for the Federal Government at 
100 percent of the previous year's level when Congress and the 
President fail to complete appropriations legislation at the end of any 
fiscal year.
  The virtue of this legislation is that it would allow us to debate 
issues concerning spending policy and the merits of budget priorities 
while we continue to keep essential Government functions operating. The 
American taxpayer will no longer be held hostage to a Government 
shutdown.
  Mr. President, there are still plenty of uncertainties involved in 
our budget and appropriations process, particularly this year. We must 
ensure that this good-government contingency plan is adopted to keep 
the Government up and running in the event a budget agreement is not 
reached.
  Another step we must take is to control our emergency spending. 
Emergency spending is spending over the budget allotment and is 
supposed to cover true emergencies, such as natural disaster relief.
  Instead, Congress and the Administration have used this as an 
opportunity to bust the budget for a lot of spending that is not 
emergency related at all. Most of this spending can be planned within 
our budget limits. Even natural disasters happen regularly--why not put 
something in our budget to pay for them?
  That is why I am introducing the ``Emergency Spending Control Act'' 
today as well. This legislation would require the President to submit a 
line item in his budget for natural disaster relief funding. The 
funding levels for this line item would be based on the average 
spending of the last five years on natural disaster relief.
  The amount in this line item would not be subject to the current 
spending caps. The funding of this budget line item must be used 
exclusively for natural disaster relief--any use for non-natural 
disasters is strictly prohibited.
  Mr. President, as a Senator whose State has been previously 
devastated by the 1997 flood of the Red and Minnesota Rivers, 
tornadoes, snow, ice and other natural disasters, I know how important 
enacting this legislation is not only for Minnesotans, but for all 
Americans.
  Fortunately, city mayors, the State of Minnesota, and the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency acted quickly in the Red River Valley, and 
the rebuilding process moved relatively fast.
  Local governments continue to work closely with my office and with 
State and Federal agencies to answer the many questions that still 
arise as people seek to rebuild their homes, their businesses, and the 
rest of their lives.
  We owe it to these Minnesotans and other Americans who have been 
faced with a natural disaster to require the President to submit a line 
item in his budget for natural disaster relief funding.
  Local and State officials should not be required to come to 
Washington and lobby for funding every time that a natural disaster 
occurs. We should not have to consider and pass separate ``emergency'' 
legislation which becomes a magnet for other so-called emergency 
spending. Disasters occur every year, we should budget for them.
  Mr. President, the second to the last bill I am introducing today is 
a bill to enforce and expand the statutory spending caps. Spending 
limits are a good tool to control spending--if the President and 
lawmakers stick to them. But since the establishment of statutory 
spending limits, Washington has repeatedly broken them.
  Washington set forth new spending caps in 1990 after it failed to 
meet its deficit reduction targets. In 1993, President Clinton broke 
the statutory spending caps for his new spending increases and created 
new caps.
  But in 1997, the President could not live within his own spending 
caps, and he broke them again. Last year, President Clinton proposed 
over $22 billion of so-called ``emergency spending'' in the omnibus 
spending legislation and again broke the caps.
  Again and again, Washington lowers the fiscal bar and then jumps over 
it at the expense of the American taxpayers.
  This is wrong. Mr. President. If we commit to living within the 
statutory spending caps, we must stick to it. We must use every tool 
available to enforce these spending limits.
  My legislation will help Congress to enforce its fiscal discipline by 
creating a new budget point of order to allow Congress to exceed 
spending limits only if two-thirds of its members vote to do so.
  In addition, my bill would extend the limits beyond the year 2000. 
Doing so will ensure that spending increases won't grow faster than the 
income growth of working Americans.
  There are many other budget process reforms I support as well, 
promoted by other Senators. One I would like to highlight is the 
biennial budget, which is proposed by our distinguished colleague, 
Senator Domenici. Biennial budgeting will allow us to examine our 
fiscal discipline as well as providing valuable time for our oversight 
responsibilities.
  If the Congress adopts each of these changes, it will ensure a budget 
process that serves the best interests of the nation, allows careful 
policy and spending deliberation, and strengthens our political 
institution of government through representation as established by the 
Constitution.
  Mr. President, finally I want to take a few minutes to introduce a 
bill which takes an important step toward improving the nation's 
federal crop insurance program--and that is a bill that I have 
introduced, the ``Crop Insurance Reform Act.''
  Last year, we witnessed devastating circumstances come together to 
create a crisis atmosphere for many of our nation's farmers. I know 
that in my own state of Minnesota, multiple years of wet weather and 
crop disease--especially scab--coupled with rising production costs and 
plummeting commodity prices have devastated family farms in record 
numbers.
  With the increased opportunities that accompany Freedom to Farm come 
increased risks. We've seen this first hand.
  Freedom to Farm can work, but a necessary component of it, as I have 
argued repeatedly, is an adequate crop insurance program. This 
component has been missing so far. One of the promises made during 
debate of the 1996 Farm Bill was that Congress would address the need 
for better crop insurance.
  We must not let another growing season pass without having instituted 
a new, effective crop insurance program.
  This overhaul is a major undertaking, and instituting a program of 
comprehensive reform should be and is now a legislative priority.

[[Page S1175]]

  In fact, the President has included a number of ideas for reforming 
the federal crop insurance program in his recent budget proposal. Most 
importantly, the President has suggested increasing the federal 
subsidies on crop insurance premiums and eliminating disparities in 
subsidy rates. Essentially, this is similar to legislation I introduced 
last year and am introducing again today. Unfortunately, while the 
President claims to support crop insurance reform, he has failed to 
identify any money in his budget to fund it. However, now that he has 
recognized the urgency of the situation, I hope we can work together to 
accomplish meaningful reform.
  Furthermore, we must resume the debate now so that we can have the 
best system in place in time, and that we can do it in time for the 
year 2000 crops. The bill I am introducing today is a first step. It is 
the result of months of work from my Minnesota Crop Insurance Work 
Group.
  The Work Group consists of various commodity groups, farm 
organizations, rural lenders, and agriculture economists. We have also 
worked closely with USDA's Farm Service and Risk Management Agencies. 
But it was my primary intention to assemble a committee of farmers and 
lenders--people who know the situation and have seen the problems 
firsthand.
  The Crop Insurance Reform Act is designed to address the coverage 
decision a farmer must make at the initial stages of purchasing crop 
insurance. Producers have been telling us that they need better 
coverage, but that it is currently too expensive.
  My bill will allow more options for producers to choose from when 
making risk-management decisions. It essentially provides farmers with 
an enhanced coverage product at a more affordable price.
  Currently, producer premium subsidies range from nearly 42 percent at 
the 100 percent price election for 65 percent coverage, to only 13 
percent at the 100 percent price election for 85 percent coverage. 
Although the Risk Management Agency has recently provided better 
product options, the relatively low subsidy levels at the higher ends 
of coverage make them cost prohibitive.
  My bill will put in place a flat subsidy level of 31 percent across 
the 100 percent price election and at all levels of coverage.
  This will adjust the producer premiums to make better coverage more 
affordable, thereby removing the incentive from purchasing lesser-grade 
coverage. The Crop Insurance Reform Act puts the focus of the coverage 
decision on what really matters: and that is the type of coverage which 
would be needed in the event of a disaster or loss, rather than simply 
making the decision based upon up-front costs.
  When farmers are armed with the necessary risk management tools, I 
believe everybody will save. The government saves in ad hoc disaster 
payments, arguably the most expensive way to address any kind of 
financial crisis. But more importantly, the family farmer saves.
  This bill is part of a continued effort to reform Federal Crop 
Insurance.
  Over the next few months, I will continue to work with my Crop 
Insurance Work Group, and my colleagues, Senators Lugar and Roberts, to 
craft a comprehensive program which directly benefits producers and 
also will be here to protect the taxpayers.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, the second bill I am introducing with my 
good friend, Senator Crapo of Idaho, is lockbox legislation.
  Before being elected to the Senate in 1998, Mike Crapo led the fight 
to enact the Lock Box legislation in the House of Representatives. His 
version of the Lock Box legislation was passed by the House of 
Representatives on four different occassions, both as a free standing 
bill and as an amendment. I am pleased to have Senator Crapo as a 
partner on this legislation in the Senate.
  Mr. President, our short-term fiscal situation has improved greatly 
due to the continued growth of our economy. It is reported that we may 
end up with a unified budget surplus of over $80 billion this year and 
a $4.5 trillion surplus in the next 15 years.
  Of course, tax dollars are always considered ``free money'' by the 
big spenders here in Washington, and the thought of all that new ``free 
surplus money'' is creating a feeding frenzy on Capitol Hill.
  If we don't lock away this increased revenue for the taxpayers, the 
government will spend every penny of it. Despite the rhetoric about 
reserving it all for Social Security, Washington has already spent $30 
billion of last year's budget surplus.
  We need a lockbox to dedicate any increased revenue in the future and 
return it to the taxpayers as tax relief, debt reduction, and Social 
Security reform.
  Since the unexpected revenue has come directly from working 
Americans, I believe it is only fair to return it to them. The tax 
burden on the American people is still historically high. It's sound 
policy to use our non-Social Security surplus to lower the tax burden 
and allow families to keep a little more of their hard-earned money.
  Over the past 30 years, as I mentioned, we have amassed a $5.6 
trillion national debt thanks to Washington's culture of spending. A 
newborn child today will bear over $20,000 of that debt the moment he 
or she comes into the world. Each year, we sink more than $250 billion 
into the black hole of interest payments, which could be better spent 
fighting crime, maintaining roads and bridges, and equipping the 
military. It's sound policy to use part of any surpluses to begin 
paying down the national debt and reducing the financial burden on the 
next generations.
  The budget surpluses also give us a great opportunity to address our 
other long-term financial imbalances. Federal unfunded liabilities 
could eventually top $20 trillion, bankrupting our government if no 
real reform occurs.
  It's vitally important that we use the entire Social Security surplus 
exclusively for Social Security, and we should even use a portion of 
the non-Social Security surplus to finance Social Security reforms.
  If we don't lock in the surplus, Washington will spend all of it to 
expand the government. That's what they are doing now. Last month 
alone, President Clinton proposed 41 new programs. The spending 
increases he outlined could reach $300 billion a year, the highest 
increase proposed by any President in our history.
  Mr. President, we must never, never, never repeat the mistake we made 
in 1997 and 1998, and allow Washington take a huge bite into the 
taxpayers' money. We must do everything we can to ensure we reserve any 
increased revenue for Social Security, tax relief and debt reduction.
                                 ______