Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, it is with great sorrow that I rise today to acknowledge the passing of my former colleague Dave Moore on January 28, and with great joy that I recall his memory and the happiness he brought to Minnesota television viewers for over thirty- four years. Dave Moore was hired by WCCO Television in Minneapolis for a series of announcing jobs in July of 1950. At the onset of daily newscasts at WCCO in 1957, Dave was placed at the helm of the 10 p.m. broadcasts. For the next thirty-four years Dave would become a fixture on Minnesota television and a true icon. It is difficult to imagine that in July of 1957 the management of WCCO, and quite possibly Dave himself, knew that Dave would become such an legend. Scores of Minnesotans would tune into WCCO news each night and hear Dave's friendly voice as he reported the news with his warm, yet serious, demeanor. Trained as an actor at the University of Minnesota, Dave reported the news with the spontaneity, flair, and wit that only an actor could provide. Dave's acting talents made it possible for him to venture beyond his role as an anchorman to his role on ``Bedtime Nooz'' where each Saturday night between 1962 and 1971 he would take a satirical look at current events. Dave's broadcasting success was acknowledged by a number of awards and honors, including the Mitchell V. Charnley Award in 1983, as well as being named Outstanding Broadcast Personality of 1991 by the Minnesota Broadcasters Association. In addition, ``The Moore Report,'' a documentary and public interest program hosted by Dave, won numerous awards, including the George Foster Peabody Award for its special titled ``Hollow Victory: Vietnam Under Communism.'' As a truly gifted orator, Dave used his talents to serve his community by doing volunteer reading for Radio Talking Books for the Blind, and making frequent visits to local elementary schools to read to the students. A native of Minneapolis, Dave was quite content with establishing his career in the his hometown, untempted by the possibilities available to a person of his talents. Dave was the most visible personality on WCCO when it was at its pinnacle, yet that did not cause him to shy away from the public. Dave often acted in community plays and could be frequently seen around Minneapolis simply participating in life in the city he loved as just another one of its ordinary citizens. Mr. President, I wish to offer my sincerest condolences to Dave's family and on behalf of the citizens of Minnesota reassure them that we all share in their loss. At the conclusion of his last broadcast on December 6, 1991, Dave expressed his sentiments by simply stating, ``There will be no maudlin, tearful farewell, just a simple, but very heartfelt thank-you to all of you for your support down through the years. I've been very touched by it.'' Thank you Dave, you touched us as well.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent to be able to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business, and also immediately following that Senator Harkin will be allowed to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, January 29, 1998, in open session, to receive testimony on the report and recommendations of the national defense.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 2:30 p.m. on Thursday, January 29, 1998, in open session, to receive testimony on the national security implications of enlarging NATO and the continued deployment of U.S. forces in Bosnia.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Thursday, January 29, 1998 beginning at 10:00 a.m. in room 215 Dirksen.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 29, 1998, to hold a hearing at 9:30 a.m. in SD-342 entitled Medicare Fraud Prevention: Improving The Medicare Enrollment Process.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Securities of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 29, 1998, to conduct an oversight hearing on market circuit breakers.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I just wanted to come to the floor here for a few minutes this afternoon to somewhat join in the debate, but also to add my support to Senate bill S. 1297, that is, renaming the Washington National Airport to the Ronald Reagan National Airport. I have been kind of saddened by the debate that I have been hearing today on S. 1297 and, again, to rename Washington National Airport as the Ronald Reagan National Airport. I simply cannot believe some of the things I have heard on the floor, that somehow this effort would require a quid pro quo. Mr. President, in diluting this effort, I think it is insulting that this legislation is being demagoged in this way. This should be a noncontroversial bill. It is a very fitting tribute to a very wonderful American hero. He was a President not just for Republicans, but he was a President for all people. And it should be passed. This bill should be passed before President Reagan's birthday, which occurs just a week from tomorrow, that is, February the 6th. What a great tribute it would be. You know, I am very proud that this Senate has taken the time to propose that such a fitting tribute be paid to Ronald Reagan. Again, I do not think that it should be turned in any way into a petty or partisan tirade. I have heard and had a chance to listen to a few of my other colleagues who have been to the floor. And they have delivered some real eloquent statements on what Ronald Reagan has done, what it has meant to them, what they feel that he has done for America. President Reagan inspired or maybe we could say reinspired a whole generation of Americans, millions of Americans, much in the same way that John F. Kennedy inspired Americans 20 years earlier in 1960. I believe that President Reagan is a man who wanted to leave a legacy, but not a legacy to himself. President Reagan was a man who wanted to leave a legacy to his children and grandchildren and to all Americans that America can be a better place if we only believe in ourselves and what we can do and strive to do better. I remember listening to him way back in 1976 when he first appeared on the national scene. And I listened to him--and this was at a time when I was not actively involved in politics --but the things he was saying in 1976 were things that I brought to my campaign as late as 1992 and again in 1994. And that was for a better America, a more responsible America, one that was going to deevolutionize Washington, DC, and put more of the control and power back into the hands of State and local governments, but most importantly back into the hands of individuals. He talked then about a tax cut, balancing the budget, which is all kind of the legacy that we now have the great opportunity to be talking about here as we begin the second half of the 105th Congress in 1998. I think he filled a void in many of us with those words and that inspiration. I am very proud that this Senate is proposing this fitting tribute. Again, we are not renaming an airport that was originally named in honor of another individual. This is Washington National Airport. It is named after the City of Washington. Renaming the airport does not somehow politicize it. It would not convey some sort of partisan advantage, but it would simply provide, again, a tribute to a great American who has been honored by so many on both sides of the aisle. This isn't a time to count how many Republicans and how many Democrats have buildings or public facilities that are named after them. This legislation has been around for some time. It simply is not appropriate to make demands at the last minute to hold up this legislation. Mr. President, the City of Washington has a new airport terminal. It is a magnificent structure that speaks volumes about the pride that Washingtonians feel for this city. It is a fitting reflection of the pride that Americans feel as well for their National Capital. So again, I cannot think of a more appropriate time than now to give our airport a new name, especially when it is the name of a man who represents such hope and inspiration. Ronald Reagan embodies America, and by giving his name to that of our Capital City airport I think is an honor that he has earned and one that he deserves. So I am very proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. And I strongly urge my colleagues to end this debate, to come to the floor and support this legislation and let us pass it. So I compliment Senator Coverdell on his efforts on this. And again, I hope we can move this legislation forward and make sure that it is passed by the Senate and the House and signed by the President by next week so we can honor Ronald Reagan on his birthday on February the 6th. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, recognizing that January 31 marks the 30th anniversary of the invention of Scotch tape, I wanted to take a moment to honor its developer, Richard Drew, and all the employees of 3M who have followed in Mr. Drew's pioneering footsteps. Over the years, Minnesota-based 3M has been a leader in many different ventures. I have always appreciated the opportunity to work with 3M's employees on various regulatory, tax, and trade initiatives. Being able to think outside the proverbial ``box'' has together enabled us to demonstrate to government that given the flexibility, Minnesota companies can succeed as leaders. Just as Mr. Drew accomplished with his invention of Scotch tape, the employees of 3M continue to push the envelope, tackling real problems and developing common-sense solutions. And as with Scotch tape, society wonders how we ever got along without them. So on January 31, we will be recognizing the achievements of Richard Drew's achievements, but we also honor the spirit of ingenuity he sparked for all of 3M's employees.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today because after 16 years of denials, delays, and indifference on the part of the U.S. Department of Energy, the American taxpayers are about to find themselves saddled with the liability for our nation's nuclear waste. It is a liability they do not deserve, and one they most certainly cannot afford. Unfortunately, the President failed to warn them on Tuesday night during his State of the Union address that many of the achievements he acknowledged are at risk--threatened by a federal government failure so massive that it may take the taxpayers years, even decades, to burrow out from underneath it. What could be so potentially devastating? The failure of the U.S. Department of Energy to begin accepting the nation's spent commercial nuclear fuel. And, Mr. President, the taxpayers will inherit the responsibility for that failure just three days from now. At midnight on January 31, 1998, the DOE is required by law to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from sites across the nation. The clock was set in motion 16 years ago, upon enactment of the ``Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.'' Since then, utility ratepayers have been required to pay the federal government more than 13 billion of their hard-earned dollars in exchange for the promise that the DOE would develop and build a centralized repository for the safe and efficient storage of spent nuclear fuel. But that's yet another government promise that won't be kept. Today, 16 years later--with 7 billion of those ratepayer dollars already spent--the waste is piling up. Nobody at the DOE wants it--nobody at the DOE is prepared to claim it--and because there's no place to put it, nobody at the DOE would be ready to take it by the January 31st deadline anyway. That's just three days from now. At the same time energy consumers are pouring billions into the waste fund, ratepayers and utilities are continuing to pay for on-site storage at more than 70 commercial nuclear plants throughout the country. In other words, ratepayers are being forced to pay twice for nuclear waste storage--all because the Department of Energy has failed to meet its legal obligations to the American people. Sadly, these costs pale in comparison to the true catastrophe the DOE has in store for the taxpayers beginning just three days from now. The United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, in a ruling issued on November 14, said that not only is the DOE authorized to begin accepting waste on January 31, but also able to fulfill its contractual obligations to remove it. By failing to do so, the court ruled, the DOE makes the federal government liable for any damages resulting from even the smallest delay in performance. And we all know who foots government's bills. By failing to take possession of the nation's nuclear waste just three days from now, the DOE will in essence make the American taxpayer responsible for those damages. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the estimated cost of storing spent nuclear fuel at power plants across the nation through 2020 is $56 billion, with the federal government--the taxpayers--liable for every dollar. And when nuclear power plants begin to shut down because the utilities don't have the facilities to store fuel on site, the chain reaction of higher energy costs and lost jobs that are certain to follow represents yet another costly economic consequence of this federal folly. The impact on the environment of alternative energy sources must also be examined. How is it possible that all of this will be set into motion just three days from now, and yet it didn't merit a single sentence in the President's State of the Union address? Mr. President, it's ironic that, while the DOE has failed to meet America's nuclear waste storage needs, the DOE has resumed collecting spent nuclear fuel from a total of 41 other countries under the ``Atoms for Peace'' program. Similar to the large number of our states which are facing nuclear waste storage problems, countries from around the world are experiencing the same problems. The only difference is that their needs--not our own ratepayers' needs--are being met by our federal government. In fact, the DOE has completed ``urgent relief'' shipments of spent nuclear fuel assemblies from European nations to the agency's facility at Savannah River. It has also accepted nuclear spent fuel from Latin American countries. Ultimately, up to 890 foreign research reactor cores will be accepted by the DOE over a 13-year period. Mr. President, an important point to discuss when it comes to these foreign nuclear waste shipments is how they are transported once they reach the continental United States. Nuclear assemblies from these 41 countries have been and will continue to be transported by rail and truck to the Savannah River Facility. The safety record of these shipments speaks for itself. The federal government won't accept commercial spent nuclear fuel, but it's actively accepting nuclear waste from many American universities. Nuclear waste from research reactors at our finest educational institutions is being accepted at the DOE's Savannah River facility. Again, this nuclear waste is being safely transported by rail and truck across the nation. These shipments serve as a very small portion of the 2,400 shipments of high-level nuclear waste that have already been shipped across the United States, including naval spent fuel. So, Mr. President, transportation is no longer a question of technology but becomes one of politics. I understand the rationale behind reducing our international nuclear dangers by collecting and transporting spent fuel within our borders. But what I and many others cannot comprehend is how our government has made it a priority to help foreign countries with their nuclear waste problems while simultaneously ignoring the concerns right here in our own country. Our ratepayers are paying the bill to take care of our own waste problem. Yet that isn't being addressed but our ratepayers and our taxpayers are paying to help foreign countries do the same thing. The President on Tuesday also failed to mention that the costs of missing the January 31st deadline will be borne as much by grandma and grandpa as they will by any corporate executives or Members of Congress. He didn't mention that nuclear power is a fuel that burns nothing, thereby helping us achieve cleaner air and a better environment. He failed to mention that the costs of his global warming treaty will be even higher for every American if we continue to shut down nuclear power plants in favor of coal-burning technologies. Most regrettably, he failed to offer any kind of explanation into why his administration supports the Department of Energy as they unlawfully stick it to the American taxpayers. It therefore falls to Congress to step forward and offer a solution. Along with my colleagues, Senators Murkowski and Craig, I've coauthored legislation that will protect the American public from the costs they face from this impending crisis. Our bill will reform the current civilian nuclear waste program to avoid the squandering of billions of dollars of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money. It will eliminate the current need for on-site storage at our nation's nuclear plants, keep plants from shutting down prematurely due to lack of storage space, and maintain stable energy prices. Our bill will also assure that transportation of nuclear waste will continue to be conducted in a safe manner. The ``Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997'' passed both houses of Congress last session by overwhelming, bipartisan votes. While conferees have yet to be appointed, a veto threat from the White House continues to prevent a responsible solution from becoming law. Again, a veto threat from the White House on this issue continues to prevent the responsible solution from becoming law. As representatives of the people, it's the responsibility of the government to ensure that every taxpayer dollar entrusted to us is spent in a responsible and meaningful way. In the case of nuclear waste storage, the government has failed this most important of tests. While the DOE waits, and hides behind courtroom appeals, and shirks responsibilities it is legally bound to accept, Americans across our country can expect yet more rate increases and yet higher taxes from a government that's either too afraid or to incompetent to act. Just three days from now, who's going to explain that to the taxpayers? Americans deserve to hear from their leader on this issue. They deserve and expect a rational explanation for the Administration's inaction on their behalf. Silence, Mr. President, is not the answer they so desperately need. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, January 28, 1998 beginning at 10:00 a.m. in room 215 Dirksen. Also hearing on confirmation on pending nominations.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 28, 1998 at 9:30 a.m. to hold an open hearing and at 2:30 to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, January 28, 1998, in open session, to receive testimony on the report and recommendations of the National Defense.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, the American taxpayers sat down last night to listen to their Chief Executive speak about the state of the union and the future of our country. Bill Clinton knows how to give a good speech, and as we have come to expect, last night's was filled with lots of proposals and promises and reminders of some of the successes of the past year. It is true--our nation has seen some good times recently. By returning accountability to Washington, we have brought the Federal deficit under control and reduced unemployment to its lowest levels this decade. We have cut taxes for working families for the first time in 16 years. The markets have soared to all-time highs and the economy is churning out rewards for anyone willing to work. Americans are feeling good about their country and about their futures. Unfortunately, their President failed to warn them last night--even once during his 75-minute speech--that many of the achievements he acknowledged are at risk, threatened by a Federal Government failure so massive that it may take the taxpayers years, even decades, to burrow out from underneath it. What could be so potentially devastating? The failure of the U.S. Department of Energy to begin accepting the Nation's spent commercial nuclear fuel. And, Mr. President, the taxpayers will inherit the responsibility for that failure just 4 days from now. After 16 years of denials, delays, and indifference on the part of the U.S. Department of Energy, combined with the politics of special interest groups, the American taxpayers are about to find themselves saddled with the liability for our Nation's nuclear waste. It is a liability they do not deserve, and one they most certainly cannot afford. The clock has been ticking relentlessly for 16 years, and on Saturday night, at midnight, the clock will finally run out on the taxpayers on this issue. After a decade and a half of playing ``cat-and-mouse'' with the Congress and the courts, it appears as though the DOE may be successful in ducking out of its responsibility. But that can only happen if Congress allows this Administration to get away with it unchallenged. Mr. President, I stand before you today to pledge that this Senator will not let that happen. For 16 years, the public has been assured that by January 31st, 1998, just 4 days from now, the Federal Government would take responsibility for storage of the Nation's commercial spent nuclear fuel. Since enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, energy ratepayers have been charged a one-mill fee per kilowatt-hour in exchange for this ``promise.'' Each dollar collected is from a consumer located in one of the 34 States that benefit from nuclear energy. Only those who benefit from the lower-cost nuclear power--not the general public--would supposedly fund the waste storage. Dutifully, ratepayers around the country have paid their fees--to the tune of some $13 billion. For Minnesota alone, this translates into more than $271 million. For 16 years, these fees have poured into the Nuclear Waste Fund based upon a legal--and contractual--obligation that the waste would be removed. Today, with $7 billion of those ratepayer dollars already spent, the waste is piling up. Nobody at the DOE wants it, nobody at the DOE is prepared to claim it, and because there is no place to put it, nobody at the DOE would be ready to take it by January 31 anyway. Again, that is just 4 days from now. At the same time, energy consumers are pouring billions into the waste fund, ratepayers and utilities are continuing to pay for on-site storage at more than 70 commercial nuclear plants throughout the country. In other words, ratepayers are being forced to pay twice for nuclear waste storage, all because the Department of Energy has failed to meet its legal obligations to the American people. As troubling as this expensive delay has been, that fact alone is not the greatest affront to the American public. What I find most troubling is the financial risk the DOE has dumped at the feet of the taxpayers, because suddenly, every one of them will soon be on the hook for the nuclear waste debacle. Since coming to Congress in 1993, I have watched the Energy Department play a protracted game of ``would not, could not, should not'' with the States, the ratepayers, and the Congress. It is a bob- and-weave strategy the DOE has had 16 years to perfect. In 1994, the DOE argued that it would not accept the nuclear waste by 1998 because the law did not require it to do so. At that time, Minnesota was threatened with a premature shutdown of its Prairie Island nuclear facility, again, due to a lack of on-site storage. The DOE's claim exacerbated an already difficult situation for the State legislature and Minnesota residents, as the State faced the very real possibility it would lose up to 30 percent of its energy resources. But the Energy Department's flippant response at the time was, ``It's your problem, not ours.'' And so the States went to court. They sued and they won. In July of 1996, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the nuclear waste was the DOE's problem and that the January 31st deadline did apply. When the DOE argued that they would not take the waste, the court told them, ``yes, you will.'' Over the next few months, the DOE was silent on the issue. And so the States wrote to the department asking of its plans to comply with the court decision. The following month, the Department of Energy responded by writing to utilities soliciting their ideas on how they would cope with a failure by the agency to meet the deadline. Having exhausted the ``would not'' argument, the DOE was now arguing in essence that they ``could not'' comply with the law. In June of 1997, the DOE, in direct defiance of the 1996 court order, again asserted that delay was unavoidable due to ``acts of Government in its sovereign capacity,'' and once again made it the States' and utilities problem, not theirs. So back to court went the States and utilities. Last November, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, the same court that ruled the year before, again affirmed that the Department of Energy's obligation to accept the nuclear waste. The panel stated explicitly that the federal government could not surrender its responsibility or liability, and alluded to whether the DOE was putting the taxpayers on the hook for its failure to comply. Mr. President, the estimates of potential damages and awards have put the dollar figure as high as $80 billion, and some believe it could go significantly higher. That is a public bailout of immense proportions that would rival the savings and loan bailout. It was never the intent of Congress to put the taxpayers at risk when it enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Nor is that the desire of the 34 States that have nuclear waste stored on-site; they would rather see the waste removed so the production of low-cost power can continue. Still, the Energy Department persists in opposing the people at every turn. Mr. President, on December 29th, 1997, just a few weeks ago, the Department of Energy filed a ``Petition for Rehearing'' in an effort to nullify the earlier court rulings. This most recent stunt by the DOE reflects their new position that they ``should not'' be held responsible--technically or financially--primarily because these lawsuits have been heard in the wrong court. After the DOE's cries of ``would not, could not, should not,'' it is now up to Congress to respond in the positive: we will protect the taxpayers; and we can develop a solution for resolving the nuclear waste storage crisis; and we must enact the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997 as soon as possible, legislation I have coauthored with my friends and colleagues, Senators Craig and Murkowski. Mr. President, our legislation would set in motion the implementation of a timely and environmentally sound waste solution, and was adopted by overwhelming, bipartisan votes last year in the Senate and House. Nevertheless, with conferee appointments pending, a veto threat from the administration may yet derail the bill. So once again, the Department of Energy is blocking the will of the people. The taxpayers have the most to lose if the Department of Energy prevails and we accept the status quo. These are hard-working Americans who have to keep a budget and account for their spending, and they expect the Federal Government to exercise that same accountability with their tax dollars as well. With so many Government agencies and programs fighting for limited funds, how can the taxpayers possibly afford a multi-billion-dollar bailout of the Energy Department? How can the Nation's energy consumers afford additional on-site storage, early decommissioning costs, alternative fuel purchases to compensate for lost power? How can they afford refinancing the billions wasted from the Nuclear Waste Fund? How will the economy handle the loss of jobs and productivity that will certainly follow when energy costs begin to soar and generating facilities begin to shut down? How is it possible that all of this will be set into motion just 4 days from now, and yet it did not merit a single sentence in the President's State of the Union Address last night? The President last night also failed to mention that these costs will be borne as much by grandma and grandpa as they will by any corporate executives or Members of Congress. He did not mention that nuclear power is a fuel that burns nothing, thereby helping us achieve cleaner air and a better environment. He failed to mention that the costs of his global warming treaty will be even higher for every American if we continue to shut down nuclear power plants in favor of coal-burning technologies. And most regrettably, he failed to offer any kind of explanation into why his administration supports the Department of Energy as they unlawfully stick it to the American taxpayers. While the DOE waits, and hides behind courtroom appeals, and shirks its responsibilities that it is legally bound to accept, Americans across our country can expect yet more rate increases and yet higher taxes from a government that is either too afraid or too incompetent to act. How can we face ourselves come Sunday morning--just 4 days from today--if we simply step back and quietly allow this to happen? We could not, we should not, and we will not. So finally, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to reassure their constituents that come midnight on Saturday, the people will not be forgotten, that they will return to Washington next week and fulfill their oath to protect the taxpayers and ensure that their Government fulfills its obligation to them, and that we will never allow such a failure to happen again. Thank you very much, Mr. President. And I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, as we reconvene today for the second session of the 105th Congress, there is important work ahead of us. I am certain my colleagues join me in acknowledging that regardless of the headlines and the commotion that is going on outside this chamber, the Senate cannot be distracted from its responsibility to carry out the will of the people. America's families, its taxpayers, have great expectations of us, and we must not let them down. So I look forward to what we can accomplish together on their behalf. I have to admit, though, that I have mixed feelings about the session ahead of us. I think Will Rogers explained my predicament best when he said, ``This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer.'' When the baby finds the hammer, somebody almost always gets hit over the head. In 1998, the ``hammer'' is the much-anticipated budget surplus, and I am afraid it may very well be the taxpayers who get whacked by it. Earlier this month, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the federal deficit would decline sharply this year from its original estimate of $125 billion to $5 billion. It also forecast a $14 billion surplus in 2001 and a total of $665 billion in surpluses by the end of the next decade. Now, tax dollars are always considered ``free money'' by the big spenders here in Washington, and the thought of all that new ``free money'' is creating a feeding frenzy here on Capitol Hill. The rush to spend is like something right off the Discovery Channel, like the free- for-all that results when a pack of hungry predators gets hold of a piece of raw meat. A ravenous creature in its own right, Washington will attack a pile of tax dollars and spend, spend, spend until it is all gone--until the bones have been stripped of every last morsel of meat. Mr. President, with all due respect to my colleagues in both chambers, I am disgusted by this ``stampede to spend,'' and angry that it is being championed on both sides of the political aisle. I am a Republican, elected by the people of Minnesota to carry out my promise to lower their taxes and rein in a federal government that has grown out of control. Republicans gained control of Congress because we are the champions of the taxpayers--the American people trusted us to carry out our promise when we said, ``Elect a Republican majority and we will help you build a better life for yourselves and families by curbing Washington's impulse to spend your precious tax dollars.'' They certainly did not elect Republicans thinking we would build a bigger, more expensive government the first chance we got. Not only are we rushing to join the spending stampede, but we are doing it before the budget is actually balanced, before a surplus actually exists, before even a single surplus dollar makes its way into the federal treasury. If this is a race to prove who can be the most ``compassionate'' with the taxpayers' dollars, it is a race nobody is going to win, and one the taxpayers most certainly will lose. When is Washington going to understand that you cannot buy compassion? And Washington cannot give something to Americans, without taking more from Americans. I hear the big spenders say that Americans are struggling so Washington needs to do more. And ``more'' always means taking more from Americans so Washington can control, shape, and direct our families and our lives. Who is going to stand up in this chamber for the taxpayers if the Republicans will not? If our party is abandoning our commitment to fiscal responsibility--the commitment that built a congressional majority--we are abandoning the taxpayers as well. And do not think the taxpayers have not noticed. One of my constituents, Dale Rook of Beardsley, Minnesota, summed up the feelings of many in a recent letter: ``It appears that the Democrats are still in control of both Houses of Congress,'' he wrote. ``Why? What has happened to the Republican Party?'' he wrote. A lot of us are asking that very same question. Of course, the Republicans do not have a monopoly here when it comes to spending. I am deeply troubled by what is happening on Capitol Hill among both parties, and every taxpayer ought to be as well. And as a Senator representing the nation's families--America's hard-working, taxpaying families--I pledge that they will not be forgotten. Let me speak specifically about the deficit and the anticipated surplus. Both Congress and the President have rushed to claim the credit for the decline in the federal deficit. Mr. President, I think we should give credit where credit is due. In this case, the credit really belongs to the robust American economy and the working Americans who propel it. And Washington should not be allowed to take that away from American families, workers, and business. Washington should not gain more control of our spending. The economy, not any government action, has produced this unprecedented revenue windfall. These unexpected dollars have come directly from working Americans--taxes paid by corporations, individuals and investors. If the economy continues to generate 8 percent revenue growth as in recent years, we could soon enjoy unified budget surpluses. However, Mr. President, we must remember this is a surplus only under a unified budget. That means Social Security surpluses that the government borrowed to pay its bills are also counted in the projection. Payroll taxes from the current generation of workers provides far more money than is needed to finance benefits for today's retirees; the extra money is used for other government programs. Without borrowing from the Social Security trust funds, the real federal deficit could be $116 billion, rather than a $14 billion surplus in 2001. In fact, the total deficit will be nearly a trillion in the next ten years. This means we will see deficits, not surpluses, as far as the eye can see. In any event, if the budget surpluses, indeed, occur, with or without Social Security borrowing, the question of how to apply these surpluses remains critical. In my view, the right way to use any potential budget surplus is to return those funds to working Americans and their children in the form of meaningful tax relief, national debt reduction, and channeling them toward solutions to our long-term financial imbalances, thus ensuring our economy continues to grow. Since the unexpected revenue has come directly from working Americans, it is only fair to return it to them. Despite the first, tentative steps we took last year toward real tax reform for families, the tax burden on the American people is still historically high. It is sound policy to use part of the surpluses to lower the tax burden and allow families to keep a little more of their hard-earned money. Over the past 30 years, we have amassed a $5.5 trillion national debt thanks to Washington's culture of spending. A newborn child today will bear about $20,000 of that debt the moment he or she comes into the world. Each year, we sink more $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 is 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 $14 trillion, bankrupting our government if no real reform occurs. It is vitally important that we use the budget surpluses to finance these reforms, not to try to buy popularity-- spending in the name of compassion and need, while putting our entire futures at financial risk. If we fail to fix these long-term fiscal time bombs, the federal deficit could come back and haunt us in a catastrophic way, shattering the health of our future economy and placing an unbearable burden on our children and grandchildren. According to the CBO, the federal deficit would increase to $11 trillion and the national debt would balloon to $91 billion in 2035 without substantial entitlement reform. Some of my colleagues have suggested that we put the surpluses into the Social Security trust funds. I generally agree that we should build real assets for the trust funds by returning borrowed Social Security surplus into it. But our Social Security system is in serious financial trouble--a fiscal disaster-in-the-making that is not sustainable in its present form as the Senator from New Hampshire outlined a few minutes ago. Simply funneling money back into a broken system will not help fix the problem. It will not build the real assets of the funds for current and future beneficiaries and it does not address the flaws of the current pay-as-you-go finance mechanism. Without fundamental reform, the system will consume all the surpluses and go broke. Using the budget surpluses to build real assets by changing the system from pay- go to pre-funded is the right way to go. The wrong way is to spend all those dollars on new government programs, which is exactly what President Clinton has proposed to do, even before a surplus is realized. The President has recklessly planned to expand Medicare, rather than reforming it to preserve it from soon going broke. He is also seeking a $22 billion increase in child-care expenditures and subsidies. This is after Washington increased child care expenditures by 500% in the last two years, going from $4 billion to $20 billion a year just one year ago. Although I think it is good to bring tax credits back to the table, it is wrong for Washington to control daycare for American families. The President also wants to throw more money into federal education programs for local schools without addressing the real problems of the system. And advocating Washington take more control of education rather than State and local governments and local school boards. Despite the President's rhetoric that the era of big government is over, President Clinton, with the help of congressional spenders, has made it even bigger. Actual annual government spending has increased from $1.3 trillion to $1.6 trillion since Mr. Clinton took the White House, adding over $1.2 trillion to the national debt. Even under the `97 budget agreement, spending will increase to nearly $1.9 trillion in 2002, a growth of 18 percent over 1992 levels. Is there any sign of leaner government anywhere? No. Like the overweight diner who lunches on lettuce and peaches with the family then sneaks a pint of ice cream once the kitchen lights have been turned off, the enablers of big government profess their new-found fiscal restraint but hungrily pounce on your tax dollars at the first opportunity. We must never, never, never repeat the mistake we made in 1997. If you will remember, as soon as the CBO discovered a $225 billion revenue windfall that ``might'' be received by the federal government in the next six years, Congress and the President spent all of it, to expand existing programs and create new programs. Not a penny is left. Few wasteful and unnecessary programs were eliminated. The savings we achieved through welfare reform are almost completely wiped out. If the budget surpluses are not returned to the American people in the form of debt reduction or tax relief, I am absolutely certain Congress and President Clinton will spend them all for new and expanded government programs. When it is paid for by the taxpayers, Washington has never been able to resist raiding the freezer for that late-night pint of ice cream. Listen to what the people are saying. A Time/CNN poll conducted in mid January reveals that most Americans--78 percent of them--believe that spending the budget surplus to reduce the national debt should be a top priority. Sixty-eight percent also favored using the surplus to cut federal income taxes. I`m hearing that same message in the calls, faxes, letters, and e- mails I have received this month. Here are the words of Mark Keppel of Minneapolis: I want you to know how strongly your constituency feel that you do not allow those feeding at the taxpayer trough to waste this opportunity to reduce our huge current debt burden. These tax collections are over-collections of our money, and we wish to either reduce our outstanding debt or have this surplus returned to us, not reallocated to new, unfunded projects. Can that be any clearer? Brian Tice, a 27-year-old constituent of mine from Anoka, was equally clear. ``If our country is bankrupted,'' he wrote, ``my lifetime of savings and my retirement will go down with it. I encourage you to stand firm against those . . . who will pressure you into spending the surplus on social and special interest programs.'' After hundreds of billions of new spending and over a trillion in new debts, President Clinton announced on January 5th that he will submit a balanced budget to Congress for the 1999 fiscal year. I am encouraged by his announcement. I welcome the President's intention to balance the budget. But why wait another year? The robust economy has offered us a historic opportunity to finally put our fiscal house in order. We should, and can, balance the budget this year by trimming just a few wasteful government-spending programs. Compared to nearly $1.7 trillion in annual government spending, a $5 billion spending cut is peanuts. And if we can achieve it, it will balance the federal budget for the first time since 1969, and think of the positive impact it would have on our economy. That is why my colleagues, Senators Brownback, Inhofe, Ashcroft, Allard, Hutchinson and myself sent a letter to the congressional leadership early this month, urging Congress and the President to work together to achieve a balanced budget this year, rather than the next year, by rescinding $5 billion from the 1998 budget. More importantly, the sooner we balance our budget the less pain we will suffer in the future. As I said earlier, the long-term fiscal time bombs we are facing require that we take action quickly. Escalating Social Security and Medicare costs pose the primary threat to the federal government's long-term solvency. We have only ten-year's time to fix Social Security. If it is mishandled, millions of Americans could suffer. Medicare is already in a horrific situation. It has accumulated over a trillion-dollar deficit and will soon be broke. Immediate action has to be taken to preserve and improve it. There are trillions of other federal unfunded liabilities that we cannot ignore. These include entitlement programs other than Social Security and Medicare: federal civilian and military pensions, railroad retirement benefits, federal insurance programs, bank deposit insurance, private pension insurance, and a huge portfolio of guaranteed loans, environmental cleanup, and deferred maintenance and life-cycle costs for equipment and infrastructure--all of which have some risk of going sour and costing the government substantial sums down the road. If we balance the budget this year, it will give us a little more time and a little more flexibility to focus on and fix these long-term financial liabilities. Mr. President, I began this statement by quoting Will Rogers. As I conclude, let me quote him once again: There is not a man in the country that cannot make a living for himself and family. But he cannot make a living for them and his government, too, the way his government is living. What the government has got to do is live as cheap as the people. Our immediate task should be to regain the confidence of the American people by achieving a balanced budget and keeping it balanced by shrinking the size of the government. That is, by asking government to live as cheap as the people. By doing so, we will reduce interest rates, increase national savings, create more jobs, provide more meaningful tax cuts, and generate more revenues. More importantly, we will shrink the financial burden for our children and grandchildren. As the Senate meets today to open the second session of the 105th Congress, I urge my colleagues to recall the promises they have made to the American taxpayers. Embrace those promises, and put the needs and desires of the people ahead of the impulse to leave a legacy of compassion--a legacy that could bury the taxpayers if left unchecked. Let us work with the President to achieve a balanced budget this year and begin a new era of government accountability. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, there are acts of courage and personal sacrifice that are so great that they should never be forgotten. There are acts which decades--even centuries--later still reverberate, and touch our soul as a nation. Surely, the heroic deeds of the ``Immortal Four Chaplains'' count among such acts. These four Chaplains sacrificed their lives to save the lives of others when the Dorchester, a transport ship, was torpedoed by a German U-boat off the coast of Greenland on February 3, 1943. During the 18 minutes that the Dorchester was sinking, the four Army Chaplains--a Jewish rabbi, a Catholic priest, and two Protestant ministers--worked to comfort the frightened men and direct them to safety. They distributed life jackets, and when there were no more in the storage locker, the Chaplains removed their own life jackets and gave them to waiting soldiers. Rabbi Alexander Goode did not ask whether the soldier that he was giving his life jacket to was Jewish; Father John Washington did not ask whether he was Catholic; Reverend George Fox did not ask whether he was Methodist; and Reverend Clark Poling did not ask whether he was Dutch Reformed. The Chaplains simply took off their own life jackets and gave them to the next in line. The Chaplains were last seen on the hull, with their arms linked together in prayer, consoling the men who remained on the ship with a final service. The way that they died is so poignant because it reflects the way that they lived--full of devotion to God and serving the needs of their fellow men. As one survivor noted, the Chaplains ``were always together . . . they carried their Faith together.'' Of the 902 servicemen, merchant seamen and civilian workers aboard the Dorchester, only 230 survived. Many of them owed their lives to the actions of the four Chaplains. Their heroic actions served as an inspiration to the survivors of the Dorchester; they should be an inspiration to us now. The courage of these four Chaplains, and their service to our country did not go unrecognized. Each was posthumously awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for services beyond the call of duty; memorials to their sacrifice have been placed around the country, including in the Pentagon and the National Cathedral; a postage stamp entitled ``Interfaith in Action'' was issued in their memory; and in 1957, Congress declared the anniversary of the sinking of the Dorchester to be a day for the commemoration of the deaths and the heroic acts of the four Chaplains. Tragically, however, the memory of their selfless acts has faded. Aside from the American Legion, which has annually observed the anniversary of their deaths, few continue to recognize this somber occasion. I am proud to say, however, that some very special individuals in Minnesota are working to ensure that the legacy of the Four Chaplains lives on through The Four Chaplains Foundation, including: David Fox of Hopkins; Barbara Koch of Long Lake; Ardis Wexler of Edina; Kevin Applequist of St. Anthony; Phil Brain of Edina; Ambassador Robert Flaten of Northfield; Shiro Katagiri of Minneapolis; Representative Jim Rhodes of St. Louis Park; Helen Fulford of Bloomington; John Swon of Edina; Bettine Clemen of Minnetonka; and Vice President Walter Mondale of Minneapolis. These Minnesotans, joined by equally dedicated people around this nation, and the world, have established the Four Chaplains Humanity Prize to ensure that the spirit of these Chaplains is celebrated through a living memorial. This prize will be awarded to those who have been willing to put their lives in danger to grant assistance to persons of a different creed or color. Mr. President, it is fitting that on the 55th anniversary of the sinking of the Dorchester, and the 50th anniversary of the issuance of the commemorative stamp, Congress once again honors the memory of these four Chaplains by designating February 3, 1998 as ``Four Chaplains Day.'' We have a duty to make sure that a grateful nation never forgets their sacrifice, and continues to celebrate the ideals for which they stood.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, I rise to talk a little bit today about how I am extremely disappointed that the House passed the foreign operations conference report without the provisions of the State Department authorization bill attached to it. While the foreign operations bill does many positive things, its failure to include language to reorganize our foreign relations bureaucracy and establish benchmarks for the payment of U.N. arrears seriously flaws this bill. The proposals to reorganize our foreign policy apparatus and to attach the payment of U.S. arrears to U.N. reforms had been carefully worked out over many months. Unfortunately, my colleagues in the House of Representatives are holding these provisions hostage to the Mexico City policy. While I am a strong supporter of the Mexico City policy, I believe that debate on this issue should not hold up the important United States and U.N. foreign policy reforms. Now, if the State Department authorization bill dies in the House, the House has lost the Mexico City policy debate, and the only victory they can claim is that they have given the United Nations new money for the United States assessments, but with no reform strings attached, and they block a reorganization of our foreign policy apparatus that we have pursued for more than four years. That isn't a record they should regard with pride. As chairman of the International Organization Subcommittee, I worked hard to help forge a solid, bipartisan United Nations reform package. The Senate's message in crafting this legislation is simple and straightforward: The United States can help make the United Nations a more effective, more efficient, and financially sounder organization, but only if the United Nations and other member states, in return, are willing to finally become accountable to the American taxpayers. The reforms proposed by the United States are critical to ensure the United Nations is effective and relevant. We must reform the United Nations now and the United States has the responsibility to play a major role in this effort. If we do nothing, and the United Nations collapses under its own weight, then we will have only ourselves to blame. So I urge my colleagues to act now, or this window of opportunity may be lost for achieving true reform at the United Nations. But passing this U.N. package is not just about a series of reforms for the future. It impacts directly on the credibility of the U.S. mission at the United Nations right now. Ambassador Richardson has been pushing other member states to accept the reforms in this package in return for the payment of arrears. Now that package will not arrive. At this critical juncture, when the United Nations is facing down Saddam Hussein, and the United States is trying to keep the gulf war coalition unified, it is reckless for the House of Representatives to do anything that would undercut the negotiating position of Ambassador Richardson and Secretary of State Albright at the United Nations. And believe me, the failure to pass this legislation will have a negative impact on the conduct of our foreign policy. Madam President, the United States does not owe most of these arrears to the United Nations. It owes them to our allies, like France, for reimbursement for peacekeeping expenses. Under normal circumstances, I am the last one who could be expected to make a pitch for funding for France. But considering that France is one of the members on the Security Council that is going soft on Iraq-- soft on Saddam Hussein--depriving the United States Government the ability to use these funds as leverage is irresponsible. After all, our diplomats need carrots as well as sticks to achieve our foreign policy goals. Madam President, I am hopeful that my colleagues in the House will see the wisdom of adopting measures that will enhance America's ability to exert leadership in the international arena through the consolidation of our foreign relations apparatus and the revitalization of the United Nations. The State Department authorization bill should be allowed to pass or fail on its own merit--not on the merits of the Mexico City policy. This agreement is in America's best interest, and the best interest of the entire international community. Madam President, I yield the floor. I see no other Senators wishing to speak, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. This provision is not intended to limit the U.S. Mint's use of technology or approach to design. We intend for the Mint to develop a dollar coin that meets the needs of the public and is not subject to counterfeiting. If the Mint believes that a plated coin will offer the best approach to meeting its needs, then a plated coin could be developed.

Mr. GRAMS. The Senator from Tennessee has stated the situation exactly. The Committee is directing the Mint to develop the best possible dollar coin. We have not sought to limit the Mint or require a clad coin.