Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues urging the release of Wei Jingsheng, currently imprisoned in China for his efforts to promote democracy in China. Serving his second long-term sentence, Mr. Wei is seriously ill without access to proper medical care. He has served nearly 18 years in various prisons and labor camps and will not be released until 2009. It is doubtful he will last that long without medical attention. I hope the leaders of China will grant Mr. Wei's release as an humanitarian gesture that would show the world that China has a commitment to improve the human rights of its citizens.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to commend my friend and colleague, Chairman Jeffords, for the exemplary work he has done in regard to the reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. That this is the first time in 22 years that Congress has attempted major changes to its law with any likelihood of success speaks volumes about the time, energy, and commitment Senator Jeffords and others have devoted to it. Over the last 5 months, I have listened to the concern of school board members, students, parents, principals, teachers, and administrators from all over Minnesota on the issue of IDEA. Primarily, each of these groups stressed concern over proliferating litigation, program inflexibility in regard to discipline, and the tremendous cost burdens associated with the mandates that have been placed on our schools. In regard to the issue of discipline, this legislation provides additional flexibility to deal with children who are disruptive in the classroom or who are otherwise a danger to themselves or others. Clearly, this is an instance where the interests of the child and the interests of sound learning in the classroom must be carefully balanced to ensure that neither are breached. Unfortunately, current Federal law dictates that a child may only be removed from school if the parents consent to removal or if the student brings a firearm to school. Mr. President, this is not balance at all. This legislation makes considerable strides toward restoring some balance by returning more decisionmaking to the people who know best, and that is those who actually teach our children. Another issue is litigation. According to a study done by the Minnesota State Legislature, one of the largest factors contributing to the increased costs in educating their children is the cost of special education. Unfortunately, too many of these expenses have nothing to do with buying things such as Braille for the visually impaired or providing instruction for children with disabilities. Many of these expenses are legal fees resulting from litigation between schools and the parents of children with disabilities. In light of the limited resources available to pay for the mandates imposed by IDEA, this is a glaring flaw that is ripe for reform. Toward this end, S. 717 requires States to establish a mediation system and provides incentives for parents to avail themselves of mediation instead of litigation to amicably resolve their differences. The one issue that is not addressed in this legislation, however, and it is, in my view, a critical one, is the issue of funding. The Senator from Vermont has urged Senators to wait for another day to tackle this issue. The Senator's objection to dealing with funding at this juncture is not based on substance but, rather, on process, and I fully appreciate these constraints. We need to pass this bill. However, because I believe the issue of funding is so vital to the success of IDEA's reforms, I must reluctantly part paths with the chairman. I believe the funding issue should be addressed now. As Senator Gorton has pointed out, IDEA is an unfunded mandate on our 50 States and our schools. As such, consistent with the spirit, if not the letter, of the unfunded mandates legislation we approved last Congress, the mandate imposed by IDEA should either be repealed or it should be paid for. As it stands, the Federal Government pays a mere 7 percent of the total cost we impose on our schools through IDEA. It is my considered opinion that the Federal Government should put its money where its mouth is. In short, Congress must fully appreciate the consequences of its actions. If Congress places a premium on a desired goal or sets a priority for States or local governments to attain, the Federal Government must ante up or then reconsider that mandate. And because I believe IDEA serves an important role in the education of our disabled children in Minnesota and throughout the Nation, in this case I believe Congress should ante up. Accordingly, if it is offered, I will support the Gregg amendment to fully fund the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. In conclusion, Mr. President, I just wanted to say again I support S. 717 because it does improve upon the commitment we have made to disabled students in Minnesota and throughout the country. Although I wish it would have gone a little farther, I support the Gregg amendment, as I said, because it backs up this profound commitment. But in my view, if we at the Federal level really desire to help our Nation's schools, we will finish the jobs we started. Beyond this, the Federal Government's next job in furthering the education of our children is to step aside and allow parents and school boards to do the job they were designed to do and not the Federal Government. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment by Senators Conrad, Dorgan, Grams, Wellstone, Daschle, and Johnson. This is an amendment that is strongly supported and promoted by all six Senators in the three States devastated by the flooding of the Red River as well as the Minnesota River. It will increase the funds available in the bill for community development block grants from $100 to $500 million from funds offset from FEMA. While I appreciate the $100 million request by the President for CDBG funds, included in the supplemental, it was evident to me as I surveyed the damage in my own State, that $100 million for all 23 States covered in this bill, was not enough. Therefore, I am grateful to my colleagues, Senators Bond, Mikulski, Stevens, and Byrd for supporting this additional request, since I am well aware of how difficult it is for the committee to find the needed offsets. I am grateful also to the efforts of Lynn Stauss, the mayor of East Grand Forks, MN, who traveled to Washington to communicate the needs of his city to Senate leaders yesterday. Mayor Stauss had particular concerns that the $100 million in the bill, combined with limited FEMA funds, would not be enough to help the flood communities complete the mitigation process involved with actually moving homes and businesses off the flood plain. It seems reasonable to increase CDBG funding in the bill to allow these devastated communities to start the relocation process with the certainty they need to sign construction contracts and start the rebuilding before the Minnesota winter complicates that process. Further, one of FEMA's goals is to move people off the flood plain to minimize future flood losses. This funding will facilitate that process. I am pleased that the committee has made a commitment to address our funding needs through the supplemental conference committee as well as additional funding needs in the 1998 appropriations cycle and future supplementals. Since we are still paying for the 1993 floods in Minnesota, I am aware that the rebuilding effort is long-term, and I appreciate the concern and commitment of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to help us recover. Again, on behalf of Minnesota flood victims, I thank my colleagues on the committee, and all of my Senate colleagues for their support of this amendment.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, as we know, the eyes of thousands of residents of Minnesota and North Dakota and South Dakota have been watching this debate today. I want to thank the chairman, Senator Stevens of Alaska, and all the others who have worked on this, like my colleague from Minnesota and the Senators from the Dakotas, for helping to provide flexible funding for the flooding disaster that ravaged our State and the Dakotas. We look to our colleagues in the House now to ensure that this additional money and community development block grants are preserved and the dollars make it into the hands of those who need it in these communities. I wanted to take a moment to say thank you very much, Mr. President, for all their hard work and for all the hard work on the floor. I know the eyes and ears of Minnesotans and South Dakota and North Dakota residents have been watching and they thank you as well.

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, I would like to make a few brief comments about the Government shutdown prevention plan contained within the supplemental appropriations that would protect flood victims and every American whose paycheck depends upon the Federal Government by preventing future shutdowns of the Federal Government. In the 104th Congress, as a result of disagreements between Congress and the President during the budget process, we witnessed the longest shutdown of the Federal Government in history. The shutdown created enormous financial damage, emotional distress, and just plain inconvenience for millions of Americans. Hundreds of thousands of Americans could not receive their social services, such as Medicare benefits, or travel overseas, or visit national parks and museums. Small business owners and local communities lost millions of dollars. Federal employees were furloughed with the fear of not getting paid. Even our troops stationed overseas were affected by the shutdown. But the most serious damage caused by the 27-day shutdown was that it shook the American people's confidence in their Government and elected officials. We have not yet undone that damage, but we have the opportunity to do that today. We need to restore the public's faith in its leaders by demonstrating that we have, indeed, learned from our mistakes. Now, we can all point fingers at who was the cause of this shutdown. But the inclusion of the Government shutdown prevention plan will send a clear message to the American people that we will no longer allow them to be held hostage in future budget disputes between Congress and the White House. I am surprised by the opposition to this plan, and one has to ask the question, why would they oppose it? Each of us have differences in philosophy on policy and budget priorities. Often we do not necessarily agree on these priorities, but there are essential functions of the Federal Government that provide critical services to the American people, and those services must continue, regardless of our budget differences. Now, consider the devastation caused by the flooding in Minnesota and the Dakotas in recent days. I have heard some declare that the supplemental appropriation that is before us today will be the answer to all of our problems. That could not be further from the truth. What would happen if a budget shutdown in Washington forced a Government shutdown just as it did 2 years ago? Minnesotans who have struggled against the floods could find themselves victimized a second time if their rebuilding efforts were stopped. This natural disaster has already been an exhausting nightmare for Minnesotans, and we cannot tolerate a manmade disaster on top of it. Mr. President, I will work not to allow the citizens of Minnesota to be used as chips in some sort of high-stakes budget contest. Therefore, I support the critical provision within the disaster relief bill that will prevent a future Government shutdown. I believe this is the only way to stop the politics, to ensure that Congress and the President are committed to keeping the Government open, and protect our flood victims from any gamesmanship in Washington. Now, last Friday, a budget agreement was reached between the White House and negotiators in Congress, and as a result some of my colleagues have argued there is no longer any need for this language. Well, if they did not intend to use the threat of a shutdown as a tool to extract more of what they want in budget talks, why would they oppose it? I think a provision like this is kind of like insurance. We always hope we never need it, but it would be there if we did. Last week's agreement does much to take the political pressure away from the current debate, which would allow us to focus more on the merits and the necessity of the shutdown prevention language and whether it is sound policy to have such a plan in place to prevent future shutdowns. More often than not, the lack of a Government shutdown prevention plan has yielded a ``money grab'' at the end of each fiscal year, as Members take advantage of the last-minute rush to pass a budget and avoid a shutdown by loading it up with pork projects. The merits of the spending are not debated at all, and programs are funded based not on merits but, many times, on political leverage. As a result, billions of hard-earned taxpayers dollars are wasted in the process. Mr. President, the American people should not be held hostage to the efforts of those who want to keep alive the threat of future Government shutdowns for their own political purposes. We cannot allow for the possibility of a Government shutdown in the future that would prevent us from addressing the longer term needs of those Minnesotans who are trying to rebuild their lives in the wake of the flood. We must ensure we have a plan in place that will keep the Government up and running in the event the budget agreement is not reached. Again, Mr. President, the Government shutdown prevention plan is sound policy. It is wise policy. It is also responsible policy. It is the right priority. And, by the way, it cuts nothing, and it allows the Government to do its job. I urge all my colleagues to vote against the Byrd amendment.

Mr. GRAMS. I would like to remind my colleagues that our CDBG request is based on very preliminary loss figures. There are many residents of communities along the Red River Valley who still have not returned to their homes. It will take months before we have a better idea of what the total losses will be. As a result, all of us in Minnesota, North and South Dakota hope we can count on the support of the Appropriations Committee to help meet our future needs during the 1998 appropriations process, or, if necessary, in future supplemental requests. I realize that the rebuilding effort will take some time, and I would request the support of my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, to help us fund additional disaster relief beyond this supplemental request as the true losses are determined.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, a good deal has been said about the terrible devastation in Minnesota in the Red River Valley and along the Minnesota River. When we visualize the disaster, we picture communities like Ada, Granite Falls, East Grand Forks, Montevideo, Breckenridge, Moorhead, and Warren submerged in river water. I have seen most of these communities first hand and have at once anguished over their loss and admired them for their courage. We tend to overlook some other folks in Minnesota who were equally devastated by the terrible floods that came so soon on the heels of a very long and blistering cold winter. We tend to overlook the same folks who, year-in and year-out, are charged with an enormous responsibility: feeding the world. It is estimated that over 3 million acres of prime farmland were under water at the height of the flooding. These are the same acres that Minnesota farmers use to produce much of the world's supply of potatoes, wheat, sugar, barley, corn, and soybeans. In short, without any exaggeration, this disaster upset the bread basket of the world. But, I am inexpressibly proud to report to my colleagues that it takes more than ``hell and high water,'' as the Grand Forks Herald put it, to keep Minnesota's farmers down. As a matter of fact, despite the absolutely staggering statistics--3 million acres under water, the loss of 2,300 farm homes, 2,500 farm buildings, 3,400 pieces of farm equipment, countless fences, 10,000 head of cattle, hogs, and sheep, 130,000 poultry, 2.3 million pounds of milk, and 15 percent of Minnesota's stored crop--Minnesota farmers have not shrunk from their occupation, or indeed, their avocation. Minnesota farmers have not shrunk from their job of feeding the world. In fact, I want my colleagues here to know that within 1 week of this calamity, every farmer that could manage, was back in the field. Mr. President, when one reflects on all the adversity Minnesota farmers have experienced in recent years--highlighted by the drought of 1988, the floods of 1993, the harsh winter storms in 1996 and 1997, and now the flooding--it instills in me a solid respect for our Minnesota farmers who work through whatever Mother Nature throws at them--and sometimes even get the best of her. But, just like everyone else, even the hardiest of people need a hand from time to time. And, this is such a time. That is why I am pleased that the disaster relief we now consider provides some $18 million in additional emergency loan assistance and $77 million in emergency conservation cost-share dollars. I am also pleased this legislation, which I trust will have speedy consideration and passage, provides $50 million for a livestock indemnity program to help livestock producers. Mr. President, on behalf of Minnesota farmers and ranchers, I am grateful for the commitment Congress and the President have made to those who guarantee America has the most abundant, most affordable, and most wholesome food supply in the world. Consistent with this commitment, I hope the administration, particularly the Department of Agriculture, will help our farmers through this difficult time. Specifically, in recent days, I have expressed to the Secretary of Agriculture my concern and the concern of many farmers and Farm Service Agency personnel in Minnesota over some very important matters. First, I am concerned the existing emergency loan assistance (ELA) Program may not assist all our disaster-stricken producers as the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Small Business Administration assist homeowners and businesses. Second, under current Federal Crop Insurance Corporation regulation, I am concerned that farmers may not be able to plant in time to ensure their crops are fully insured until fully harvested. And, third, I am concerned about many of our farmers who lost program or non-program crops in storage since these crops were largely uninsured. In the interest of equity for Minnesota's disaster-stricken farmers, I hope the Secretary will use his existing authorities to work with me to prevent these inequitable results. Mr. President, some time ago, Rudyard Kipling fondly wrote about the one who could: watch the things [he] gave [his] life to, broken, and stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools . . . [or] make one heap of all [his] winnings, and risk it on one turn of pitch-and- toss, and lose, and start again at [his] beginnings, and never breathe a word about [his] loss. I suspect Rudyard Kipling would have had a profound respect for Minnesota farmers.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a provision in the fiscal year 1997 supplemental appropriations bill which has received little attention so far, but would fund $100 million to begin paying U.S. arrears to the United Nations. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations, I believe U.N. reform should be one of Congress' top foreign policy priorities this year. I know that this view is shared by the Republican leadership and other influential Members in both the House and Senate. There is general consensus among Republicans, and, perhaps, even some agreement among Democrats, that the only way to get real reforms enacted at the United Nations is by linking the payment of U.S. arrears, in legislation, to their achievement. The appropriation of $100 million in fiscal year 1997, which is even earlier than the administration had requested, for a down payment on U.S. arrears demonstrates congressional seriousness on this issue. I want to thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, and Senator Gregg, chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary, for working so closely with the Foreign Relations Committee on this provision. In the past, there has not always been such a cooperative spirit between the authorizing and appropriating committees on funding for foreign affairs and, therefore, I very much appreciate the efforts that Senators Stevens and Gregg have made to consult with those of us on the Foreign Relations Committee. Indeed, I am supporting this fiscal year 1997 appropriation to pay U.S. arrears because the bill specifically states that such funding must be subsequently authorized. The language reads that ``none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act for payment of U.S. arrearages to the United Nations may be obligated or expended unless such obligation or expenditure is expressly authorized by the enactment of a subsequent act.'' This language explicitly reinforces the role of the Foreign Relations Committee in authorizing or approving any funding for U.S. arrears. Therefore, let me make absolutely clear what I believe must happen before this $100 million appropriation for fiscal year 1997 can be expended. First, as I stated earlier, any legislation authorizing payment of U.S. arrears must condition such payment on the achievement of specific, meaningful U.N. reforms. Second, legislation authorizing any payment of U.S. arrears must be a comprehensive, multiyear plan. I would not support a 1-year authorization bill, which would simply allow the $100 million appropriated in fiscal year 1997 to be expended, but would fail to outline a longer-term vision for how this issue should be addressed. U.S. arrears provide crucial and unique leverage that can help encourage the United Nations and its member states to finally enact budget, personnel, and structural changes that will have a lasting, positive impact on how the United Nations functions. We should not squander or dilute this leverage by failing to enact comprehensive legislation that lays out exactly what the United States expects from the United Nations in exchange for almost $1 billion. Republicans have developed and proposed a 5-year plan to repay all legitimate arrears to the United Nations as long as specified reforms are achieved. This 5-year plan is fiscally responsible because it gives Congress a reasonable opportunity to find funding for U.S. arrears within the international affairs budget, known as the 150 account. It is sensible because it gives the United Nations a realistic timetable for enacting some of the more difficult reforms. And it is accountable to the American taxpayers by ensuring that the dollars the United States sends to the United Nations will go toward a more efficient organization. Just last year, President Clinton proposed a 5-year repayment plan for U.S. arrears. But this year, the administration has declined to support our responsible approach and, instead, insisted that it wants all arrears paid in full by the end of fiscal year 1999. As part of this request, the administration asked that Congress provide $100 million for arrears in fiscal year 1998 to give it diplomatic leverage in negotiating U.N. reforms. With the provision in S. 672, Congress has indicated that it is willing to begin paying back arrears even sooner, provided that an authorization bill is enacted and provided that the United Nations meets the reform conditions stipulated in that bill for the release of arrears in fiscal year 1997. Mr. President, in the next few weeks, the Foreign Relations Committee will be moving toward its markup of the fiscal year 1998-99 State Department authorization bill. Included in that bill will be our 5-year plan for paying U.S. arrears in exchange for U.N. reforms. If the administration wishes to have funding available to pay arrears in fiscal year 1997 or in future years, it would do well to give this legislation more serious consideration and embrace its commonsense provisions to advance meaningful reform at the United Nations.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, when I served in the House of Representatives, I authored similar legislation back in 1993 during the Mississippi River flooding. My legislation then received bipartisan support. It was signed into law by President Clinton as part of the supplemental appropriations bill for disaster relief. Since this legislation worked well to help those flooded communities rebuild in 1993, I urge my colleagues to support it today.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, the Grams-Johnson amendment has the support of the Senate Banking Committee chairman and ranking member. I ask unanimous consent that Senator D'Amato, Senator Daschle, and Senator Bond be added as cosponsors to this amendment.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, we are going to be voting in a few minutes on the Grams-Johnson amendment that will help complement disaster relief efforts currently underway now in my home State of Minnesota, as well as North and South Dakota, by making it easier for farmers, homeowners, small businesses and local governments to help rebuild from the devastation that has been brought on by the floods. Our amendment, simply put, will permit Federal regulators to provide temporary and targeted modifications to current banking regulations. It will permit homeowners, farmers, and small businesses to have faster access to a larger pool of credit. It will also help banks and credit unions to reopen their doors faster to serve their communities. Also, Mr. President, the Grams-Johnson amendment is supported by the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and also the National Credit Union Administration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from NCUA in support of the amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRAMS

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

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. JOHNSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you. Mr. President, we need to assure the people of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota that the Senate stands behind them, and the entire Congress and the President should stand behind them as well. I urge swift action on my amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriations, which I hope will have the overwhelming, bipartisan support of my colleagues when it comes to the floor. Mr. President, I also ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, this amendment has the support of the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Senator Alfonse D'Amato, and also the ranking member of that committee, Senator Paul Sarbanes. I ask unanimous consent that Senators D'Amato and Bennett be added as cosponsors to S. 652, the Depository Institution Disaster Relief Act.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, the Depository Institution Disaster Relief Act is a carefully crafted amendment. It has been reviewed and approved by the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve, and the FDIC be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I just want to rise today and talk a little bit about the supplemental bill and the needs that are awaiting in Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota as well. As a Senator whose state has been devastated by the flooding of the Red and Minnesota Rivers, I rise in strong support of the emergency supplemental that is before us. I have personally assessed the destruction on several occasions over the past few weeks. If I had not seen the damage myself, it would have been difficult to comprehend the severe impact the snows and floods have had on my State of Minnesota. My colleagues know of Minnesota's reputation for snow and cold. We are a hardy people and we pride ourselves on our ability to endure even the worst winters. But when we receive 3 years' worth of snow in a single season --that is more than 10 to 12 feet--even Minnesotans can reach their limit. To make matters worse, we have had to endure several straight years of above-average rainfall. With the arrival of spring this year, there was no place for the snow to go, other than into rivers unable to bear the melt-off. Many Americans watched the television coverage of Grand Forks, ND, and sympathized with the displaced residents of that community when the flood waters swept into town. They saw the burning buildings which have destroyed nearly a city block, all in a sea of water. But just across the Red River, on the Minnesota side, is East Grand Forks, a town of nearly 10,000 people. Their mayor, Lynn Stauss, whom I have talked to several times over the last few weeks, has had to deal with a town that has no water, has no electricity, and has no sewer system. When I was last in East Grand Forks, most of its homes and businesses were under water. Now that the waters are receding, assessment of the damage is continuing and, of course, the expenses are mounting. Willem Schrage, a Minnesota Department of Agriculture employee, returned to his home and found his basement backed up with 2 feet of sewage. Actually, he said he is one of the lucky ones, and says, ``Things could be worse. At least I still have my home.'' As you know, about 3 weeks ago, just as the spring thaw began to swell the rivers, Minnesota and the Dakotas were hit with another blizzard that dumped a couple of additional feet of snow. This contributed greatly to the severe flooding already predicted. At the time of year when farmers should be out in the fields, planting, they were out helping their neighbors sandbag to try to minimize the damage. Randy Tufton is an example of that. He is the director of the Farm Service Agency in Ada, MN, and wanted to spend his time helping farmers get the advice and financial assistance they need to cope with the floods. But instead, Randy found himself sandbagging his own home for several days. He had to travel by motorboat just to get to his house. Jerry Larson, a seed potato grower in the town of Climax, is another such example. Instead of planting this year, he is helping another farmer to try to save his home. Many of our farmers will be losing their homes and farm buildings to the floods. While some of them will be able to start planting after the water recedes, many are still unable to do so and may lose their income for this year. We had almost 2 million acres of farmland in our region under water. In the Red River Valley, one of the most fertile areas of the country, this is a crippling blow to our agricultural economy. Now we are coming to that time of year when high school students should be thinking about their proms and their graduation festivities. Instead, Don Vellenga, who is the superintendent of Ada Borup Public Schools in Ada is now meeting with FEMA officials to discuss replacing the high school, 67 percent of which has been damaged. There will be no prom this year at the high school and there will be no graduation ceremony either. Don Vellenga, by the way, after meeting with FEMA officials about the school during the day, goes home to a house that has 4 feet of standing water in the basement. In Breckenridge, at Breckenridge Elementary, Jeri Yaggie, president of the school board, is meeting with FEMA officials and wondering if the school will be replaced, as parents ask where their first graders will begin school this fall. Hospital administrators normally spend their time providing for the care of their patients. Laura Nelson, who is program director of Bridge Medical Services in Ada, is now looking for ways to get the additional money needed to replace the hospital there. In Moorhead, I was impressed by the dedication of our young people as they worked alongside their parents and their neighbors in filling sandbags against the rising waters. In East Grand Forks, there was an army of volunteers to feed the hungry, who found shelter for the homeless, and comforted thousands more as the Red River was swallowing an entire community. Their determination repeatedly reminded me of the spirit that brought us together as communities and will keep us together as communities. It was a week ago today, that I spoke about the flooding crisis before a joint session of our Minnesota State Legislature. I was proud to be accompanied by seven Minnesotans who know all too well the struggle it has taken to fight the floods. They were representatives of the towns that have suffered some of the worst damage, and they deserve our appreciation for guiding their communities through this nightmare. I want to take a moment to mention them by name. They were: Mayor Russell Onstad of Ada, Mayor Kal Michels of Breckenridge, Mayor Donald Osborne of Crookston, Mayor Lynn Stauss of East Grand Forks, Mayor David Smiglewski of Granite Falls, Mayor Jim Curtiss of Montevideo, and also City Council President Millie McLeod of Moorhead, who was there for Mayor Lanning at the meeting. They have served their neighbors well during these trying times. FEMA has done an outstanding job in Minnesota, and I would like to personally thank the staff, from the Director Mr. Witt, all the way down, for their yeoman-like efforts to be on the scenes and to help provide assistance to Minnesotans and those in North and South Dakota. When I inspected the flood damage with President Clinton, I was assured that the Government would help the people of Minnesota recover from its devastation. A week ago, the majority leader and our floor leader here today, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, made similar pledges during meetings with Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson and me. I would like to thank Senator Stevens for reporting out the emergency supplemental so rapidly. We all know how difficult it is to determine the exact extent of damage until the cleanup and the rebuilding is underway, but I believe the committee did an outstanding job to address the needs of the 23 States that have suffered disasters over the past few months. The total $5.581 billion for disaster relief is desperately needed. The $100 million for CDBG, the EDA money, and the assistance provided by USDA, including the livestock indemnity program in the supplemental, are crucial for Minnesota, where losses could add up to more than $1 billion once we have been able to accurately assess our damages. Governor Carlson expressed his support for the President's requests of $2.3 billion for FEMA and $100 million for CDBG in the supplemental when he was here in Washington as well last week. At the same time, he recognized that once we obtain an accurate accounting, additional relief could be pursued through the 1998 appropriations process, and/or a future supplemental request that would be made by the President. I am also pleased that the committee included language I supported that would provide more flexibility in the granting of CDBG funds. That language was useful to the State of Minnesota, as you know, after the 1993 Mississippi River flooding and was requested by the State for this year's flood as well. Some have raised concerns that it is too early to fully estimate the extent of the damage and therefore we may find ourselves with inadequate funding in this bill. To address those concerns, I am working with my colleagues from North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota on an amendment that would add additional funding for CDBG and EDA that represents a better estimate of what we believe the damages will be in our three States. The amendment would also include funding for meeting the education needs of displaced students in our States plus several other smaller items that are not covered yet in the bill. The amendment would be a compromise among the three States and hopefully the appropriators, who believe they have addressed our needs for the remainder of this fiscal year and prefer to consider longer- term rebuilding requests through the regular appropriations process. It would be offset with current budget authority. Mr. President, earlier I discussed some of the devastation faced by Minnesota farmers, many of whom are still not sure when they can begin planting for this year. I strongly support the efforts by Secretary Glickman to help farmers through authorization of CRP grazing, increasing the Emergency Loan Assistance Program, deferring payments for FSA borrowers, and inclusion of more farm losses under FEMA itself. Since it is uncertain whether existing agriculture or FEMA programs will address the needs of all Minnesota farmers, I have also asked Secretary Glickman to consider extending the delayed planting deadline for crop insurance, as well. I have requested clarifications on how, or whether, the disaster relief would cover soil erosion and other run-off problems. I have asked the Secretary to consider using existing authority under CCC to address the grain storage losses of Minnesota farmers, as well as other property losses suffered by farmers who may not currently qualify for the Emergency Loan Assistance Program. Mr. President, I want to note again that earlier this afternoon I offered my amendment, the Depository Institution Disaster Relief Act of 1997, or more commonly referred to as DIDRA, which would facilitate and increase the availability of credit in the disaster areas of all 23 States. It is noncontroversial, costs nothing, and is supported by the Banking Committee chairman and ranking member, and my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Johnson. I urge support from all of my colleagues. Mr. President, the funds provided by the emergency supplemental will facilitate the cleanup effort, which has just begun. We know it will take many months and possibly several years. The worst part of a disaster like this is the aftermath, when the extent of the damage finally sinks in to all who have suffered losses. It is a time when we need to reach out to those within the disaster area and let them know they have our full support. It is gestures like that of the California woman who contributed $2,000 apiece to thousands of suffering flood victims as one we will remember for some time. She is one of many heroes of the floods whose efforts will never be fully recognized. To ensure that I am thoroughly appraised of every step in the cleanup, I have opened an office in Crookston with FEMA to have staff on location to provide whatever assistance we can to facilitate available relief. I want to assure my constituents that I will not allow them to be forgotten now that the flood waters have receded. Mr. President, I again want to thank the Senate for its efforts to facilitate this needed relief legislation.

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

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

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, as you know, over the past several weeks, towns and farms in Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota have been battered by the floodwaters of the Red River. It is impossible to describe the devastation that the flooded Red River is causing in Minnesota and North Dakota, because the enormity of the damage, so far, is far beyond what anyone has ever put into words. The lives of those who live in the flooded areas have been shattered. Entire communities--homes, schools, churches, hospitals, libraries-- have literally been washed away. Thousands of residents have no home to go to, so they crowd into shelters, unsure yet of what the river will leave behind when it finally releases its hold. Many cannot sleep because there is so much uncertainty. They cannot bathe because there is no running water. They cannot make plans because there are so many unanswered questions. Mr. President, I have been working with the Governor of Minnesota and my fellow Senators in the flood area to assess how to address the needs of these deserving people. Part of our effort has been to get the funds and assistance to rebuild through the supplemental appropriations bill that will, hopefully, pass today or tomorrow or Wednesday at the latest. Part of it has been to listen to the concerns of our constituents and to make sure that they do get speedy assistance from the agencies that are administering the State and Federal relief efforts. While I have been involved in many efforts to ease the suffering of my constituents, I am here today to offer as an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill, along with my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Johnson, the Depository Institution Disaster Relief Act. This amendment will complement the other relief efforts by making it easier for farmers, homeowners, small businesses and local governments to rebuild from the devastation that has been brought by the floods. Amendment No. 54 (Purpose: To facilitate recovery from the recent flooding across North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota by providing greater flexibility for depository institutions and their regulators, and for other purposes)

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, the Depository Institution Disaster Relief Act will help speed up the pace of recovery for flooded farms and towns. Our amendment will permit homeowners, farmers, and small businesses to have faster access to a larger pool of credit from the banks and credit unions that serve their communities by ensuring that there will be no regulatory roadblocks to local lending. It will permit Federal banking and credit union regulators to make temporary exceptions to current laws that act to reduce access to banks and credit unions in disaster areas. It will also permit Federal regulators to provide temporary relief from regulations so that it will be easier for flood victims to get loans. The temporary regulatory relief offered by this bill is strictly limited to those counties in Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota that have been declared Federal disaster areas. Because of its targeted scope and limited duration, it will permit flood victims to rebuild their homes, farms, and businesses without compromising the integrity of our banking system. When I served in the House of Representatives, I authored similar legislation in 1993 during the Mississippi River flooding. My legislation received bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Clinton as part of the supplemental appropriations bill for disaster relief. Since this legislation worked well to help flooded communities rebuild in 1993, I am here to urge my colleagues to again support this amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this amendment's provisions be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I also ask that I may be allowed to speak in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

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