Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to honor Ms. Katherine Koch-Laveen as Minnesota's Teacher of the Year for the year 2000. This is certainly a high honor, as I note that 98 Minnesota educators were nominated for this award, and their accomplishments were reviewed by 18 judges. It is all the more impressive considering Minnesota's public schools reputation for academic excellence. I also commend the 98 nominees for this honor, 28 of whom were chosen as ``teachers of excellence,'' and 10 of whom were further chosen for an ``honor roll'' of teachers. School teachers that excel at their craft are critically important to the intellectual development of their students, and help shape the student's vision for what they can accomplish in their lives. I still can vividly remember the excellent educators that taught me at Zion Lutheran Christian Day School in Crown. Excellent teachers motivate, show enthusiasm for inquiry, and instill in their students a passion for learning that often continues for a lifetime. A great educator gives the student a core foundation of knowledge about a subject, and a curiosity about the topic that drives a student to study and research more extensively long after they have left that particular class. Great teachers also make sacrifices for their students. It's no secret that in today's high-tech, knowledge-based economy, Ms. Koch- Laveen could probably find a more financially rewarding profession, especially with her science background. And our great teachers need to be rewarded financially, so that we do not lose too many to industry. But ultimately, I have to believe that what keeps them in the classroom is the intangible reward of seeing their students excel, and having a group of students come in to a class with little knowledge about a topic and have them leave with a firm grasp of core concepts, a desire to learn much more, and an excitement to apply what they have learned in ``real world'' situations. And I hesitate to use the term ``real world,'' because these days there is probably nothing more real world than a high school classroom. So congratulations and thank you, Ms. Koch-Laveen, for your commitment to excellence and dedicated service to your students, your community, and to Minnesota. Thanks also to the other hardworking Apple Valley teachers here today that strive for excellence in the classroom and shoulder so much responsibility for Minnesota's future. It has been a pleasure to be here.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today it is my pleasure to pay tribute to the United States Navy as it celebrates the 225th anniversary of its founding. The Navy can be proud of a distinguished heritage, a heritage longer than that of the United States itself. Because of the dedicated service of our nation's sailors, Americans can feel secure that our shores are free from foreign aggression, and the world's oceans and seaways are open for peaceful commerce. The recent terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole, resulting in the death or presumed death of 17 sailors, reminds us of the personal risk that the members of our Navy bravely face every day, in peacetime as well as wartime. On October 13, 1775, the Second Continental Congress authorized the acquisition of ships and establishment of a navy. Within a few days, a Naval Committee was established to coordinate the purchase of ships and the recruitment of personnel, and to draft rules regulating the Navy's administration. Although the Continental Navy of the Revolutionary War was rather humble compared to today's Navy--it was made up of only 40 vessels at its peak--it played an important role in the miraculous success of the American Revolution. The Navy was able to seize almost 200 British ships as prizes, including many off the British coast, and this forced the British to divert valuable warships to the protection of transport convoys. It was in one of these raids that the legendary John Paul Jones uttered his immortal words: ``I have not yet begun to fight!'' And this spirit of unflagging courage and selfless discharge of duty has animated the hearts of every sailor since. Our Founding Fathers saw the role of the Navy as important enough to merit specific mention in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which empowers Congress to ``provide and maintain a Navy.'' As American history has unfolded since then, the U.S. Navy has distinguished itself in every major armed conflict in the history of our country, from the War of 1812 and the Civil War all the way to the Gulf War and the conflict in Kosovo. As we enter the 21st century, the U.S. Navy is without question the preeminent sea power in the world. On October 2, 2000, the active fleet contained 318 ships and 4,108 aircraft, and over 373,000 active-duty personnel filled the Navy's ranks. The U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis provides its midshipmen with an academically rigorous curriculum, and no less important, leadership and character development. This rigorous preparation continues at a more advanced level at the Naval War College, which teaches the latest naval doctrine and strategy to senior and mid-level officers. Thanks to these prestigious institutions, the U.S. Navy boasts the finest and best qualified naval officers in the world, and the ability to face with confidence any challenge to American security. According to the Navy, its mission is to ``maintain, train and equip combat-ready naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas.'' No matter where a sailor serves, whether on an aircraft carrier, submarine, battleship, cruiser, or naval base, his or her contribution is vital to fulfilling this mission. The Navy's worldwide reach allows our country to maintain U.S. national security through dominance of the seas, a dominance made possible by a combination of highly trained service members and highly sophisticated technology. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank in particular those Minnesotans who have served, or are currently serving, in the Navy. I am proud of them, and they should know that their sacrifices on behalf of the cause of freedom are not taken for granted by their friends and neighbors in Minnesota. I'm sure my colleagues will join me in recognizing the rich heritage and dedicated service of the United States Navy on its anniversary.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my views toward Federal implementation of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and my support for a strong national rural telecommunications policy. One of the most important responsibilities of a United States Senator is to exercise appropriate oversight of Federal regulatory agencies to ensure sound policy and the wisest use of taxpayers dollars. Toward this end, I have carefully monitored the Federal Communications Commission's implementation of the 1996 Telecommunications Act in an attempt to ensure that this agency follows the intent of Congress in developing a strong national rural telecommunications policy. I am proud to have supported the historic 1996 Telecommunications Act which deregulated the telecommunications industry for the first time in 62 years. I believe this Act has begun to reach its promise of a competitive marketplace, lower prices, and greater consumer choice in services for every American. Since its passage, the telecommunications industry has grown dramatically, creating 230,000 more jobs nationwide, generating an additional $57 billion in revenues, and fostering an environment in which billions of dollars has been invested in telecommunications infrastructure. Despite this promising news, I am very concerned that the FCC's implementation of the Act has stifled the expansion of some of these benefits into rural parts of Minnesota. As a former small businessman, I often hear about the regulatory burdens experienced by my state's entrepreneurs and businesses. As someone who spent 23 years in the broadcasting industry, I also understand their frustration with the far-reaching regulatory authority of the Federal Communications Commission. It has become very clear to me that the administrative and regulatory burdens imposed upon small telecommunications providers reflect the Commission's neglect for the unique needs of rural telecommunications companies and their need for fairer regulatory treatment. The concerns of rural telecommunications companies are underscored in a letter sent to me by Farmers Mutual Telephone Company General Manager Robert Hoffman, who wrote, ``My concern with the FCC is all the additional filings and requirements they are placing on small telephone companies. A couple of years ago we didn't have any filings with the FCC. Now we have about ten annual filings which are confusing and labor intensive, and thus expensive for companies of our size. The FCC has no sympathy for small rural telecommunications companies.'' As my colleagues know, this de-regulatory law has been the subject of litigation from the moment it was enacted due to what many perceive to be the FCC's over-regulatory approach to its implementation. Far too often, the Commission's rules have gone beyond Congressional intent. In particular, I am disappointed by the Commission's implementation of sections of the Act which are intended to preserve universal service assistance and the deployment of advanced telecommunications services. I am sure that my colleagues would agree that universal service assistance is the cornerstone of an effective rural telecommunications policy. In implementing the 1996 Act, the Commission has thus far failed to adhere to the important universal service principles established by Congress under this law. The Act specifically required the joint board on universal service and the FCC to base their universal service policies upon the following principles: the ability of quality services to be provided at just, reasonable and affordable rates; that all regions of the country should have access to advanced telecommunications services; that telecommunications services should be comparable to services in urban areas; and that universal service should be supported by specific and predictable funding mechanisms. Congress should clearly do more to hold the Commission's feet to the fire to ensure that there is proper implementation of universal service support. I have worked hard in Congress to ensure that the decades-long policy of universal service is preserved and advanced and that there are adequate revenues to maintain rural networks. Earlier this Congress, I wrote to FCC Chairman Kennard to express my opposition to any proposal which would transfer authority over the Universal Service Fund to the Department of Treasury. I believe that such an approach would undermine universal service policy and could have an adverse impact upon small telephone carriers and the communities they serve. More importantly, this plan would place the Universal Service Fund at great risk of manipulation by the federal government and the excessive spending habits of Members of Congress. I am pleased that the Administration has finally agreed that is not ``public money'' and has withdrawn this ill- advised plan. I also believe that the Rural Utilities Service telephone loan program is vital to the development of a strong rural telecommunications infrastructure, and an essential component of our national commitment to universal service. I have repeatedly written the Senate Appropriations Committee to urge funding for the Rural Utilities Service telephone loan program. I firmly believe that RUS telephone loans have helped to improve telephone service in rural and high cost areas. Through RUS financing, telephone borrowers have made significant improvements to telecommunications services throughout rural Minnesota. My oversight of the FCC has also included efforts to make it easier for rural telecommunications carriers to meet the requirements of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or CALEA. In meeting with small telephone carriers from Minnesota earlier this year, I learned about the difficulty many carriers face in meeting the June 30, 2000 CALEA compliance date. I agree that the FCC should grant a blanket extension of the compliance date so that rural carriers will not face a $10,000 penalty for each day that they were not in compliance with CALEA. For these reasons, I was pleased to join this past April with twenty- five of my Senate colleagues in a writing the Commission to urge that it extend the June 30, 2000 CALEA compliance date for software upgrades by small carriers by one year. I regret that the Commission has a different interpretation of the needs of rural carriers in meeting this compliance date. I expect that the Commission's new process by which individual carriers could petition for and receive extensions to comply with CALEA has been time consuming and burdensome for small telephone carriers. I would be supportive of legislative action to address problems with CALEA compliance. During this Congress, I have also worked with the Minnesota Association for Rural Telecommunications and the Minnesota Telephone Association to encourage local phone competition in Minnesota by urging the Commission to address the petition filed by the State of Minnesota in 1997 on whether its ``Connecting Minnesota'' proposal between the state and a private company was consistent with the rights-of-way criteria established through Section 253 of the Act. Not surprisingly, it took the Commission nearly two years to analyze and rule upon the State of Minnesota petition. Rural consumers may witness additional entrants into local television markets following the Federal Communications Commission's decision to deny the petition. Bringing technology to rural areas has always been a top priority for me. As a member of the Congressional Internet Caucus, I have supported policies to address the growing concern in Minnesota about the ``digital divide'' and access to the Internet. High-speed Internet access is a key to improved economic development in rural communities and important to Minnesota's farmers, schools, small businesses, and hospitals. For these reasons, I strongly disagree with the Commission's interpretation of section 706 of the Act which requires the agency to encourage the deployment of high-speed Internet access and other advanced communications services to rural Minnesota. In my view, inaction by the FCC in removing barriers to the deployment of advanced telecommunications services can be overcome through the enactment of incremental proposals that complement marketplace solutions. More specifically, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the ``Universal Service Support Act'' introduced by Senator Conrad Burns and endorsed by the National Telephone Cooperative Association. This legislation will lift the regulatory caps imposed upon the Universal Service Fund that limit the amount of support that can be directed to rural telephone companies that serve high-cost areas of our state. These regulatory caps are inconsistent with the de-regulatory framework established by the 1996 Act and an unnecessary barrier to allowing further the further deployment of advanced telecommunications services in rural communities. I believe that we can also prevent rural communities from becoming technology ``have nots'' through repeal of the federal telephone excise tax. The 3 percent telephone excise tax was first established to fund the Spanish-American War of 1898 but has since become an obstacle to community investment in technology. I am proud to be a cosponsor of legislation to repeal this ``Tax on Talking'' and save taxpayers billions annually. There is no single solution to closing the digital divide and I also support S. 2572, the ``Facilitating Access to Speedy Transmission for Networks, E-commerce and Telecommunications Act,'' also known as the ``FASTNET Act.'' This legislation will relieve mid-size telephone companies of excessive reporting requirements that are a barrier to additional company investment in Internet services that would serve rural communities. This legislation was passed unanimously by the House of Representatives and I hope that it will be considered by the Senate soon. Congress should also consider proposals that will authorize the Rural Utilities Service to provide low-interest loans to companies that are deploying broadband technology, as well as legislation that will analyze the feasibility of allowing low power television stations to provide data services to rural areas. As we embark on the 21st Century, it is vital that Minnesota's high- tech businesses serving rural areas are not left behind in our new e- commerce economy. During this session of Congress, I was an early and strong supporter of the enactment of ``E-SIGN,'' electronic signature legislation that will facilitate the growth of electronic commerce into rural Minnesota. This new law grants legal effect to electronic online electronic signatures that will enhance the ability of rural companies to complete business transactions and compete in our emerging digital economy. Rather than spend precious time and resources completing paper transactions, the E-SIGN Act will also allow consumers to pay bills, trade securities, and shop online for a home mortgage and complete the deal by striking a few keys on their computer. Finally, I am proud to have worked with my colleagues on the Senate Banking Committee to pass the ``Launching Our Communities Access to Local Television Act of 2000.'' The LOCAL TV Act would establish a $1.25 billion loan guarantee program to facilitate access to local television programming in rural Minnesota communities. I am very pleased that the Senate unanimously passed my amendment that will ensure that the National Cooperative Finance Cooperation is considered an eligible lender under the proposed loan guarantee program. The CFC is among several private sector lenders which have substantial experience providing multi-million loans in a cooperative environment and which have a track record of projects of this size in rural areas. I am confident that this legislation will be signed into law later this month. I am proud to have worked with consumers and Minnesota's rural telecommunications companies on these issues and other initiatives that will help our state and country to develop a strong rural telecommunications policy.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today I come to the floor to offer a tribute to a humble man. Yesterday, while I was in Minnesota, I received word that one of my former colleagues from the House of Representatives, Congressman Bruce Vento, had passed away after a battle with cancer. My tribute cannot adequately communicate his successful career, because to Bruce, words always paled in comparison to acts. Bruce was a tireless advocate for the residents of St. Paul, first in the State Legislature and, for the past 24 years, in the U.S. Congress. He was a man of his word and a man of principle. He was a man committed to doing the right thing for the right reason, no matter how long it took. Take for example his work on behalf of Hmong veterans--a large number of whom reside in his Congressional district. He worked on it for over a decade: educating his colleagues about the need to help their constituents and offering the compromises needed to get the job done. I was pleased that after his tireless work Congress after Congress, year after year, Bruce's effort paid off. Earlier this year, Congress passed and the President signed into law his legislation to facilitate citizenship to Hmong veterans who served with us in the Vietnam War. Bruce was an effective Congressman for the St. Paul area. We worked together on a number of fronts to support Minnesota and the people of St. Paul such as improving senior and low-income housing in St. Paul, supporting St. Paul's effort in becoming a Brownfields Showcase Community, and pursuing projects to improve the St. Paul Community. Bruce is best known for his efforts to protect the environment and to improve our national parks and wilderness areas. All Minnesotans will benefit from his work to ensure the outdoor activities we all enjoy will be there for our children and grandchildren. That is his legacy, and we are all proud and grateful for his achievements. Minnesotans were represented well by Bruce Vento, and he will be missed. To his family and friends, I extend my deepest sympathy.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a recent alliance which has been made between two internationally recognized biomedical web-portals or web-based information exchanges. This alliance, I believe will have a dramatic impact on the way biomedical information is exchanged and used in developing new medical devices, pharmaceutical products, and life-saving medical techniques. Mr. President, several weeks ago, I, along with my staff, had the pleasure of participating in an event hosted by the Swiss ambassador to the United States, Alfred DeFago, introducing the newly created alliance between MBBNet and Zurich MedNet. MBBNet, a web portal, administered by the University of Minnesota, together with over 900 medical biotech companies and programs, have been the driving forces behind the accumulation and distribution of medical research and open source information for academicians, medical professionals, and corporate researchers in Minnesota and the United States. Zurich MedNet shares the same history, being the largest medical and biotech cluster in Europe. Together these two exchanges, Zurich MedNet and MBBNet by electronically combining resources, are setting international boundaries aside and taking meaningful strides toward the development and improvement of medical education and innovative medical technologies both here in the United States and abroad. I am convinced that alliances like this will help shape the research and development strategies across all industries in the future and I am pleased that Minnesota has again stepped to the fore and provided that kind of leadership. We all stand to benefit. I look forward to other industries following the lead that Zurich MedNet and MBBNet have established, and I believe it is a positive step toward international cooperation others should seek to emulate. Mr. President, I would again like to thank Ambassador DeFago, and my colleagues that have helped and supported this endeavor, and I look forward to doing all I can to ensure the future success of this important alliance.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today I rise to applaud the support the March of Dimes provides for the Campaign for Healthier Babies Month. This month focuses attention on the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation and its many efforts to reduce the more than 150,000 birth defects which occur every year. Debilitating birth defects leave our kids unable to walk, hear, think, or fight off disease. However, with the support of organizations like March of Dimes, community health programs, and especially local advocacy groups, the number of children affected by some 5,000 different types of birth defects continues to steadily decline. Since 1960, infant deaths related to birth defects have been cut in half due to increased awareness and medical advances in both surgery and specialized care in neonatal intensive care units. The March of Dimes Foundation has played a major role in increasing the likelihood that children with birth defects will live to see their first birthday. Over the last decade, scientists have discovered that women who take a daily supplement of B vitamin folic acid in combination with a healthy diet--especially before pregnancy--greatly reduce the chances of their child being affected by birth defects. Another vital step in reducing the chances of birth defects is the accessibility of prenatal care. My own state of Minnesota has one of America's finest health care systems and, as a result, ranks in the top ten states with regard to low birth-weight and infant mortality. But there are many states that are not as fortunate, and I firmly believe recognition of this campaign will help drive change which can have a profound impact on prenatal and perinatal care. In the 105th Congress, the March of Dimes was instrumental in the passage of the Birth Defects Prevention Act, which established the first nationwide network of birth defects monitoring programs. I am confident the law complements March of Dime's efforts in the areas of both alcohol avoidance in preventing Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and the folic acid vitamin supplement program in preventing neural tube defects, NTDs. NTDs are among the most serious and common birth defects in the United States affecting some 2,500 babies each year, and are a result of an underdeveloped brain and spinal cord. The most common NTD is spina bifida, a leading cause of childhood paralysis. Birth defects like these can affect any family. As we head into the new millennium, filled with endless possibilities, I am proud and honored to be able to pay tribute to those whose tireless efforts result in dramatic reductions in the number of birth defects in the United States every year.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution along with Senator Wellstone which addresses a very tragic event in Kenya involving a native son of Minnesota, Father John Kaiser. Sixty-seven years ago, Father Kaiser was born in Perham, Minnesota and grew up in Maine Township near Fergus Falls. He attended St. John's Prep in Collegeville, along with former Senator Dave Durenberger, and St. John's University. He was ordained a Catholic priest in 1964 after attending St. Joseph's Seminary in England. His thirty-six years in the East African country of Kenya was spent building schools and helping the people. He was a strong supporter of human rights and justice for the poor and oppressed. He was their spokesman and a highly visible reminder to the Kenyan government of the injustices he sought to remedy. His courage in the face of death emboldened and strengthened the resolve of others in the human rights community to stand for principle--for law and order, decency and respect. The cattle herders and farmers in the Great Rift Valley, the helpless young girls who may have suffered abuse at the hands of government officials and the dedicated members of Father Kaiser's Mill Hill Mission have lost a champion--but not the principles on which he stood--justice and equity and human rights for all. I have addressed this issue at the highest level with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright during a recent Foreign Affairs Committee meeting. The resolution of this United States citizen's death is important to Kenya's credibility in the world community. We intend to see his assassins quickly brought to trial, and our Resolution reflects the desire of Congress to step-up the investigation into his death. I join Bishop John Njue, Chairman of the Kenyan Catholic Episcopal Conference in saying ``Do not be afraid''--we are with you.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Reclaiming my time, not to leave the impression that by any means this is an assault on Medicare, because the plan I have proposed and outlined is handled and complemented through Medicare. I know they like to always say the Republicans are making an assault against Medicare and somehow we want to end the program of providing this help and assistance to millions of seniors across the country. That is simply not true. This plan does nothing to make an assault on Medicare or the benefits it provides today, but it also does not turn a prescription drug program into a national prescription drug program run and handled by the Government, and that is basically my belief of what is outlined here. We will work to preserve and strengthen Medicare, and that includes adding an affordable prescription drug plan that will take care of the neediest of the seniors in our society today. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS. Because what we are trying to do is target those who need the help, and that is about 6 or maybe 10 percent of the population. What the Vice President is doing and what you are talking about is bringing 100 percent of Americans under a new national program where the Government is going to be the purchaser and the dispenser of these prescriptions. I reject that type of a plan.

Mr. GRAMS. That is the deductible. The individual would pay 25 percent of the cost of the prescription, and then if they were at an income level you are talking about, it would be a $150 deductible with no caps or limits for the year; not the $4,000 you are talking about.

Mr. GRAMS. Twenty-five dollars of the prescription.

Mr. GRAMS. Yes.

Mr. GRAMS. For the month, yes.

Mr. GRAMS. Yes----

Mr. GRAMS. It would cover 100 percent of everything over a $25 copay and a $150-a-month deductible for those who are in that income level or above.

Mr. GRAMS. I am trying to defend the plan I have offered, and that is my MEDS program.

Mr. GRAMS. I am not here to try to defend or put words in----

Mr. GRAMS. Not to belabor this debate, and it is good we are talking about it because the American people need to hear it, but over that amount of money you are talking about, we would still have a $25 copay, the $150 deductible, and then no cap at all on coverage. If you were at that income level, you would probably pay, at most, $175 per month for the whole year or $175 per month per year.

Mr. GRAMS. I disagree with the Vice President--if I may reclaim my time--and I will tell you why. Because, as you said, when it goes into effect in 2002, it is not fully implemented for 6 to 8 years. You might start off with a low payment, but it escalates to $50-a-month premiums fully implemented, and it does provide you have to pay 50 percent, up to $4,000. To compare that with my MEDS plan, we have a $25 copay per month, $300 per year. We do not have a cap for people below 135 percent of poverty. So they will get any amount of drugs for $300 a year compared to the President's $4,000. For some who are on the edge of poverty, they do not have the $4,000, I say to the Senator, to pay for this.

Mr. GRAMS. So you are saying the President's plan, when fully phased in, will be only $25 per month or are you talking about the initial plan with the coverage available with the caps and coverage?

Mr. GRAMS. We have tried, but we have not had it scored yet and have not been able to get the numbers, but some of the projections we have say it will be under $40 billion a year, not the 258 or 253 the Vice President is talking about.

Mr. GRAMS. My understanding is that in order to be a part of the Vice President's plan of receiving prescription drug coverage, one must pay a $50 premium per month, or new tax, in order to be involved in the system. You have one choice, one chance to get in or you are left out. So you are putting pressure on seniors at whatever age. Then, when you average in what an average senior consumes today in prescription drugs, it is very little if any benefit at all.

Mr. GRAMS. But his plan is not voluntary. You can voluntarily get in, but when you do not get in, you can't reapply. That is my understanding.

Mr. GRAMS. Correct.

Mr. GRAMS. That is not true. The Senator from Florida is inaccurate because in my own plan, my MEDS program is a copay and also has deductibles built in depending on wages or income. It is worked through Medicare and through the HCFA program. So, no, I do not oppose a shared responsibility or liability but one that is a benefit to seniors, and not one that drains their pocketbooks for little or no benefit.