Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, as we discuss the topic of voluntarism, I rise today to acknowledge a group of individuals who are making a very big difference, a tremendous difference as the people of Minnesota are fighting the floodwaters that have paralyzed so much of our State. The men and women of the Minnesota National Guard have stepped up these last several weeks and served with distinction under what have been very deplorable conditions. Battling a rising river is back- breaking work in itself. It is nearly impossible when combined with the ice and the extreme cold produced by a blizzard. Yet those are the conditions that the Guard endured as they worked side by side with the residents of Minnesota's flood devastated communities. Well over 2,000 National Guard troops have been called up to assist in both preventing flood damage and cleaning up when the waters finally begin to recede. These are men and women who have full-time jobs and lives outside the Guard and take time away from their other responsibilities to fulfill an obligation they feel to Minnesota and its communities. Many of the mayors and elected officials within the declared disaster area told me that the Guard has been such an integral part of their flood response efforts that they cannot imagine being without their assistance. The National Guard have always been instrumental in so many ways, in so many communities, that it is nearly impossible to list every activity in which they have been involved. Now, as the flood waters began to rise, they helped with the sandbagging that saved so many homes and buildings. They went door to door, urging residents to leave before the waters forced them to go. They put their engineering expertise to work, finding ways to ward off the flooding. And when it came time to evacuate, the National Guard played a key role moving Minnesotans to safety, whether by helicopter or truck, and helped evacuate nursing homes and hospitals. When all the residents were gone, they were there to guard the deserted towns and kept away sightseers and potential looters. The Guard's water purification units and electrical generators have been invaluable during the flooding. The members of the Minnesota National Guard have served with little sleep and under the worst of conditions, but they have continually exceeded our expectations and they deserve a great deal of the credit for leading us through this time of crisis. Without the Guard, I think it is safe to say that a great many more lives would have been lost and a great deal more property would have been damaged. They have earned the respect and the deep gratitude of all Minnesotans and I salute them for standing with us and I thank them for their service. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I want to take a little bit of time this afternoon to talk about voluntarism, the subject we are debating on the floor this afternoon, and to add to that a discussion about the supplemental disaster appropriations bill that we will hopefully take up this week, dealing with the flood waters of northwest Minnesota and northern North and South Dakota. I think it is a shame a bill that is so plain and so simple and so necessary as the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997, or S. 543, has been stopped from coming to the floor of this Senate for debate. I think it is kind of ironic when you look at what has been going on in Philadelphia over the weekend, the talk of voluntarism. You do not have to attend a conference in Philadelphia to find voluntarism, Mr. President. If you want to discuss that subject, you need to look no further than those Minnesota communities that have been so devastated by flood waters. In the Midwest we consider ourselves independent. We proudly celebrate our differences, yet we also take great pride in knowing that when our communities call on us, that we are very quick to come together. We have seen that happen so many times during the flooding. I have heard some of my colleagues talk against this bill on voluntarism and how really we need a program of training because you have to have people trained in order to come in and perform adequate or good volunteer work. That might be true in some cases, but that does not get to the heart or the point of this bill. There is not much time to do on-the-job training when there is an accident, when somebody is caught in a burning car, when they have fallen off a bridge, or another disaster has befallen them such as the flooding of Minnesota. In Moorhead, the dedication of our young people impressed me as they worked alongside their parents and neighbors in filling sandbags against the rising waters. They did not get training for that ahead of time. That was on-the-job training, something they had to do at the time. In East Grand Forks, an army of volunteers fed the hungry, found shelter for the homeless, and comforted thousands more as the Red River swallowed an entire community. People have been evacuated from their homes, people were moved out of nursing homes and hospitals. This was all done on an emergency basis, by volunteers who offered their help and their time. Again, they do not have time for training. They react to the situation that is needed. In Ada, Mr. President, when the easiest thing in the world would have been to give up what seemed to be a hopeless battle against the rising river, nobody gave up. Over and over again, I witnessed simple acts of fellowship, demonstrations of stewardship, and above all, voluntarism, neighbors helping neighbors, and was reminded of the spirit that brought us together as communities and that will keep these communities together, I believe in the future. Voluntarism is a lofty goal and it usually shows itself in times of emergency, but you cannot just pass it by mere legislation. The anguish that rose every day with the flood waters has not been confined to those communities along the Red River or the Minnesota River. That pain has been felt in every corner of my State, and Minnesotans have responded with a tremendous outpouring of not only sympathy, but real, tangible offers of help. The volunteers were there when we needed them. The telephones at the Red Cross and the Salvation Army have been ringing constantly as people asked where can they send donations. Thousands have called the State's emergency operation center to sign up as volunteers for the long weeks of cleanup to come. Scout troops are also pitching in, churches are taking up special offerings, schools and families from parts of the State not touched by the floods have offered to host students without homes and teachers without classrooms. That is the spirit of voluntarism that Americans are capable of. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to argue and to urge my colleagues to support the supplemental disaster appropriation, again, that we hope to take up yet this week in the Senate. The breadth of the flooding in Minnesota and the Dakotas has been difficult to comprehend. If you have not been there, if I had not seen it, I would not have believed that a pair of raging rivers could produce such widespread devastation. The cost has been enormous, both in the financial costs which may run well over $1 billion just on the Minnesota side, and the emotional and personal costs to our fellow Minnesotans, many of whom watched their homes, farms, businesses, and basically their possessions just literally washed away. I inspected the flood damage last week with President Clinton and also the week before with Vice President Gore. Without hesitation, they all assured me that the taxpayers of this Nation would stand with the people of Minnesota today and they would be there and remain with us until every family that had lost a home would have a home, and every life that had been turned upside down would somehow be righted again. Again, we cannot make everybody whole, but we need to be able to be there with whatever help and assistance we can afford. Senate majority leader Trent Lott made a similar pledge last Friday when he met with Governor Carlson of Minnesota and myself to talk about the promises that Washington has made, and promises we will make sure it lives up to. It is imperative we bring the disaster aid legislation to the floor and we pass it this week. There are thousands upon thousands of Americans who are depending on us to meet our responsibilities and also to deliver the aid that we have promised. To avoid Government's possible disruptions in future funding, we should also have a good Government contingency plan in place to make sure that the Government has the ability to continue supporting in the areas that it can, with aid and other supports. This is the way to ensure that the needs of our flood victims in Minnesota will be met now and will be met in the near future and in the long run. After all, the aid we are promising, the aid that we will debate this week on the floor, $488 million that the President has requested for the Midwest flooding and the Red River Basin will only be 20 percent or 25 percent of what the long-term aid and dollars are going to be. If we do not reach agreement that we will be able to keep the Government running to assure that the Government will be there in October, in November, they could be without the Government assistance they are depending on. This is good Government. It would help to take politics out of the process, because if we cannot come to terms on a budget agreement down the road, we cannot afford to have our flood relief efforts halted because of that. Now, this is not playing games with the flood victims, as we have heard the charges here on the floor today. It would cost no money. We are not asking for additional money. We want to put in place a process, and this should have been there last year, it should have been there 2 years ago, and it should be there next year if it is needed, this is not playing games with any of the flood victims, with their families, or their possessions or their future. This is to help guarantee that the aid and the help and the supplies will be there. It is an effort to take politics out of the process, because if the budget debate that we have this year does not result in a total budget, we do not want any part of this Government to shut down. We want to make sure that the Government is up and running and that nobody--no Government service, no Government program, no Government employee, no people relying on those type of services--will be held hostage. I am right now disturbed by the political gamesmanship that is already being played, talking about this, going on, while our constituents are out there waiting for aid, emergency aid, short-term funds and long-term, that we need to pass this bill immediately this week. It is the responsible thing to do, again, because the disaster aid today nor the Federal services, and again the programs and employees that we should keep funding, must not be held political hostage in the near future. So we have to make sure that we pass some reasonable and some good Government contingency plans along with this. I hope it is part of this bill. I hope it has overwhelming support to ensure that these obligations are met. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, we need to assure the people of Minnesota and North Dakota that the Senate stands behind them,. . . . and that the entire Congress and the President stand behind them as well. I urge swift action on my legislation and the emergency supplemental appropriations, which I expect will have the overwhelming, bipartisan support of my colleagues when it comes to the floor. Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson and his staff have been here in Washington these past two days, working with my staff and that of my colleagues to ensure Federal officials are doing everything in their power to help our residents put their lives back together. Director James Witt and his team at FEMA have been outstanding. I can say with confidence that everyone here understands the gravity of the situation and the magnitude of the work that remains.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to speak about a subject this morning dealing with the flood situations back in Minnesota, and North Dakota and South Dakota as well. 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 flood waters of the Red River and Minnesota River. It is impossible to describe the devastation the floods are causing in Minnesota and North Dakota because the enormity of the damage is far, far beyond what anyone has ever had to put into words. As I made my third trip into the flood disaster area this week, traveling with President Clinton and my colleagues in the Minnesota and North Dakota congressional delegations, I found myself searching for adjectives but finding none that could reflect the loss and heartache inflicted upon our neighbors. Their lives have been shattered. Entire communities--homes, schools, churches, hospitals, libraries--have literally been washed away. Thousands of residents have no home to go home to, so they crowd into shelters, unsure 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. At the moment, it does not seem like much of a life. By nature, Minnesotans are a stoic people. In a land where the temperatures can plunge to 30 degrees below zero in mid-winter and soar past a hundred in the summer, we have learned how to get on with life without too much complaining. But for many, the veneer is wearing a little thin. It is hard to be stoic when you have lost your home and your job. It is hard to look forward to tomorrow when all you have got is a cot on the floor of an airplane hanger, where you may be living for weeks. Mr. President, I am 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 will be to get the funds and assistance to rebuild through the supplemental appropriations bill that we will pass next week. Part of it will be the efforts of myself and my staff to listen to the concerns of our constituents, and to make sure they get speedy assistance from the agencies that are administering the State and Federal relief efforts. I would like to announce this morning that I am opening a new, temporary office in Crookston, with FEMA and other members of our delegation, and my staff will be immediately available to help out in the flood relief projects that are currently underway. While I will be involved in many efforts to ease the suffering of my constituents, I am here today to introduce--with my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Johnson--the Depository Institution Disaster Relief Act. This bill will complement the other relief efforts by making it easier for farmers, homeowners, small businesses, and local governments to rebuild from the devastation brought by the floods. The Depository Institution Disaster Relief Act will help speed up the pace of recovery for the flooded farms and towns. Our legislation 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 is 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 will ask Chairman Stevens to include this bill as part of the emergency supplemental that the Senate will likely be considering next week. I urge my colleagues to support my effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill's provisions be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 651, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code to exempt charitable gambling activities from Federal unrelated business income tax [UBIT]. Charitable gambling consists mostly of games such as pull tabs and raffles. The difference between charitable and regular gambling is where and how the profit is spent. Most of the income derived from charitable gambling games are spent in communities to fund activities such as Boy and Girl Scouts, Head Start, and city and school programs. In fact, charitable gambling and bingo games have become one of the most important sources to provide funding for many activities in communities for people of all ages. In my home State, Minnesota, charitable gambling pumped up $77.5 million in profits into a variety of community and charitable causes in 1995. The beneficiaries include youth recreation and eduction, as well as organizations serving the sick, handicapped, retarded and disabled and many other community programs. Many charitable gambling games are set up solely for the purpose of raising money for public projects, thus reducing the burden on taxpayers. For example, Minnesota Belle Plaine Friends of the Library charitable gambling was started 4 years ago for the purpose of helping fund a new library in town. Today, they have donated more than $105,000 to the library project. In 1978, President Carter signed into law a bill that classified bingo income as related business income. As a result, this charitable game is not subject to the Federal UBIT. But the law did not include other forms of charitable gambling. Consequently, the income of these charitable gambling games is taxed under the UBIT. Taxes take a big bite out of charitable gambling income. It has seriously undermined nonprofit organizations' ability to provide financial assistance for local activities. Here is an example of the revenue loss. Last year, the Minnesota American Legion donated $103,000 to the Cancer Research Center at the University of Minnesota. However, under current law, the income is subject to the UBIT. Only $5,150 of the $103,000 was a deductible contribution, and $97,850 was taxed at rates up to 38 percent. This is simply not fair. Charitable donations should be encouraged, not penalized, to fund more local initiatives, projects and programs that benefit our communities. That's what the bill is all about.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, we need to assure the people of Minnesota and North Dakota that the Senate stands behind them,. . . . and that the entire Congress and the President stand behind them as well. I urge swift action on my legislation and the emergency supplemental appropriations, which I expect will have the overwhelming, bipartisan support of my colleagues when it comes to the floor. Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson and his staff have been here in Washington these past two days, working with my staff and that of my colleagues to ensure Federal officials are doing everything in their power to help our residents put their lives back together. Director James Witt and his team at FEMA have been outstanding. I can say with confidence that everyone here understands the gravity of the situation and the magnitude of the work that remains.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to speak about a subject this morning dealing with the flood situations back in Minnesota, and North Dakota and South Dakota as well. 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 flood waters of the Red River and Minnesota River. It is impossible to describe the devastation the floods are causing in Minnesota and North Dakota because the enormity of the damage is far, far beyond what anyone has ever had to put into words. As I made my third trip into the flood disaster area this week, traveling with President Clinton and my colleagues in the Minnesota and North Dakota congressional delegations, I found myself searching for adjectives but finding none that could reflect the loss and heartache inflicted upon our neighbors. Their lives have been shattered. Entire communities--homes, schools, churches, hospitals, libraries--have literally been washed away. Thousands of residents have no home to go home to, so they crowd into shelters, unsure 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. At the moment, it does not seem like much of a life. By nature, Minnesotans are a stoic people. In a land where the temperatures can plunge to 30 degrees below zero in mid-winter and soar past a hundred in the summer, we have learned how to get on with life without too much complaining. But for many, the veneer is wearing a little thin. It is hard to be stoic when you have lost your home and your job. It is hard to look forward to tomorrow when all you have got is a cot on the floor of an airplane hanger, where you may be living for weeks. Mr. President, I am 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 will be to get the funds and assistance to rebuild through the supplemental appropriations bill that we will pass next week. Part of it will be the efforts of myself and my staff to listen to the concerns of our constituents, and to make sure they get speedy assistance from the agencies that are administering the State and Federal relief efforts. I would like to announce this morning that I am opening a new, temporary office in Crookston, with FEMA and other members of our delegation, and my staff will be immediately available to help out in the flood relief projects that are currently underway. While I will be involved in many efforts to ease the suffering of my constituents, I am here today to introduce--with my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Johnson--the Depository Institution Disaster Relief Act. This bill will complement the other relief efforts by making it easier for farmers, homeowners, small businesses, and local governments to rebuild from the devastation brought by the floods. The Depository Institution Disaster Relief Act will help speed up the pace of recovery for the flooded farms and towns. Our legislation 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 is 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 will ask Chairman Stevens to include this bill as part of the emergency supplemental that the Senate will likely be considering next week. I urge my colleagues to support my effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill's provisions be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 651, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code to exempt charitable gambling activities from Federal unrelated business income tax [UBIT]. Charitable gambling consists mostly of games such as pull tabs and raffles. The difference between charitable and regular gambling is where and how the profit is spent. Most of the income derived from charitable gambling games are spent in communities to fund activities such as Boy and Girl Scouts, Head Start, and city and school programs. In fact, charitable gambling and bingo games have become one of the most important sources to provide funding for many activities in communities for people of all ages. In my home State, Minnesota, charitable gambling pumped up $77.5 million in profits into a variety of community and charitable causes in 1995. The beneficiaries include youth recreation and eduction, as well as organizations serving the sick, handicapped, retarded and disabled and many other community programs. Many charitable gambling games are set up solely for the purpose of raising money for public projects, thus reducing the burden on taxpayers. For example, Minnesota Belle Plaine Friends of the Library charitable gambling was started 4 years ago for the purpose of helping fund a new library in town. Today, they have donated more than $105,000 to the library project. In 1978, President Carter signed into law a bill that classified bingo income as related business income. As a result, this charitable game is not subject to the Federal UBIT. But the law did not include other forms of charitable gambling. Consequently, the income of these charitable gambling games is taxed under the UBIT. Taxes take a big bite out of charitable gambling income. It has seriously undermined nonprofit organizations' ability to provide financial assistance for local activities. Here is an example of the revenue loss. Last year, the Minnesota American Legion donated $103,000 to the Cancer Research Center at the University of Minnesota. However, under current law, the income is subject to the UBIT. Only $5,150 of the $103,000 was a deductible contribution, and $97,850 was taxed at rates up to 38 percent. This is simply not fair. Charitable donations should be encouraged, not penalized, to fund more local initiatives, projects and programs that benefit our communities. That's what the bill is all about.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Senior Citizens Home Equity Protection Act. This bill will help protect low- income seniors from being gouged by people who are charging them massive and unnecessary referral fees when they receive a reverse mortgage through the Federal Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Insurance Demonstration Program. The Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Insurance Demonstration Program is a Federal program to benefit low- to moderate-income seniors that was authorized by section 417 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987. HECM provides an FHA guarantee for a special type of home equity loan for homeowners who are 62 years of age or older. HECM permits a senior citizen to borrow against the equity of his or her home. The senior receives cash through a reverse mortgage by either: First, a lump sum payment, second, a lifetime guaranteed monthly payment, third, a line of credit, or fourth a combination of monthly payment and line of credit. The HECM loan is repaid after the senior citizen passes away by his or her estate. Since the program's inception, approximately 20,000 loans have been closed. HECM is a good program, because it permits low-income seniors who are homeowners to be able to conveniently tap into their home equity. The median age of the participants is 76 years old and the median income level is approximately $10,000 a year. Unfortunately, a few companies are calling up seniors to let them know about the availability of HECM and then charging them a referral fee of 8 to 10 percent of the total loan. This is a scam, as the senior could contact a lender or HUD directly and not have to pay such a fee. The Senior Citizens Home Equity Protection Act responds to this problem. This bill amends section 255 of the National Housing Act to permit HUD, which manages this Federal program, to define and prohibit excessive referral fees for the HECM program. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill, and I commend Senator D'Amato for bringing this bill before us today. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, thank you very much. (The remarks of Mr. Grams pertaining to the introduction of S. 652 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the Chemical Weapons Convention [CWC] with the full complement of 33 conditions on U.S. participation, which are now being considered by the Senate. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have been reviewing and studying this treaty for over a year now and have had some serious reservations about the CWC throughout that process. Therefore, I believe the conditions in Senate Executive Resolution 75 are essential to ensuring that the CWC has real benefits for American national security and will be truly verifiable and effective. Before we commit the American taxpayers to paying more than $100 million annually for U.S. participation in the treaty, we owe them nothing less. Let me outline the conditions I believe are the most important. First, I am pleased the Clinton administration has finally reversed its long-standing position that the CWC would prevent U.S. soldiers from using tear gas to rescue downed pilots or to avoid deadly force when enemy troops are using civilians as human shields. Second, we must be sure that Russia will both comply with the existing chemical weapons destruction agreements it has already signed, and that it will ratify the CWC. Russia has the largest chemical weapons stockpile in the world and its compliance with earlier agreements will help the United States be more confident of its ability to monitor Russian compliance with the CWC. This is especially important given reports that Russia has already developed new chemical weapons programs specifically designed to evade the treaty. More than 15 months after the United States ratified the START II Treaty, Russia has refused to follow suit. What makes us think that if we join the CWC before Russia does, it will then follow our example? Third, the CWC will not protect American soldiers from chemical attack unless it has a serious and immediate impact on those countries that have hostile intentions toward the United States. This means that countries which are suspected of having chemical weapons programs and are sponsors of terrorism--such as Libya, Syria, Iraq, and North Korea--must participate in the CWC. Just this morning, a newspaper article reported that a prominent North Korean defector has warned that his former country is fully prepared to launch a chemical weapons attack on its neighbors. North Korea has not yet signed the CWC. Fourth, we need to provide as much protection as possible for U.S. Government facilities and businesses when faced with international inspections. While the CWC does allow the United States to refuse specific inspectors, it should be a matter of policy that we will not accept inspectors from terrorist states like Iran. We are certainly justified in suspecting that these inspectors would be intent on gaining access to classified or confidential business information. Fifth, I understand the administration has offered assurances that the United States will not seek to transfer chemical technology or information about chemical defenses to countries that might put it to harmful use. But because of the vagueness of the treaty language, we need to go further to prevent the proliferation of chemical weapons. We need to close off the possibility that other countries could use language in the treaty as cover for their desires to transfer chemical technology to countries like Iran. As we have seen in Iraq and North Korea, nuclear technology acquired supposedly for peaceful purposes can advance weapon capabilities. Sixth and finally, we need to be sure that the CWC is effectively verifiable, meaning that the United States has a high degree of confidence in its ability to detect significant violations. I strongly supported the START II Treaty because it met this traditional standard. If we don't think we can detect cheating under the CWC, it seriously calls into question the value of the treaty. Recently, there have been reports that China is selling chemical weapons components to Iran. Both countries have signed the CWC and, therefore, are supposedly committed to banning such activity. In conclusion, Mr. President, there are conditions in the current resolution of ratification for the CWC that address every single one of the concerns I have mentioned. I sincerely intend to support and vote for the Chemical Weapons Convention as long as the resolution of ratification is fortified with such strong conditions. They will help ensure that this treaty will have a real impact on the proliferation of chemical weapons and provide proven protection for U.S. forces. However, I understand that some of my colleagues may try to strip out these important conditions on the CWC. This would be very unfortunate and would cause me to reconsider my current support for the treaty. I urge my colleagues to vote against any killer amendments that would strike these conditions and, therefore, deprive the United States of assurances that the Chemical Weapons Convention is effective, enforceable and verifiable. The American taxpayers, who will be funding U.S. participation in the CWC, deserve a treaty that unquestionably and unambiguously advances our national security. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my visit to Minnesota last week to see firsthand the floods that have ravaged my State, as well as North and South Dakota, and the damage left behind in the water's wake. For the many Minnesotans who live and work in counties devastated by these floods, this continues to be a very difficult and emotional time. Let me say first that President Clinton has approved the request of Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson to declare an additional 25 counties a major disaster area. That would help to bring to 46 the total number of counties eligible to receive Federal disaster assistance. As Governor Carlson said in making his request to the President, this assistance will help to get people back into their homes. The worst may not be over for many Minnesotans, however, especially those in the Red River Valley. Upstream on the Red River at Breckenridge, over 400 people were evacuated yesterday from the southern section of the community. It appears that the river may have stopped rising, and efforts will continue today to try and save the rest of the city. There is still the danger that the river might crest all at once from Wahpeton south of Fargo to Grand Forks on the north because of water created by melting snow. Last Thursday, I traveled with Senators Conrad and Dorgan of North Dakota, Senator Wellstone of Minnesota, and other members of the congressional delegation, along with James Lee Witt, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Administration, to the cities of Ada, Moorhead, and many others. I traveled the next day with Vice President Al Gore to survey the damage in Breckenridge and elsewhere in western Minnesota. On Saturday, I visited Red Cross and emergency service centers with Minnesota Lieutenant Governor Joanne Benson. At each stop over those 3 days, we witnessed widespread devastation and the strength of Minnesota's community spirit, as we spoke with many citizens whose lives have been turned upside down by the floods. The disastrous flooding has severely disrupted the lives of many Minnesotans. Dreams of enjoying warm spring weather after a brutally long Minnesota winter has been replaced with efforts to ensure families and communities are safe and that adequate food, water, and shelter is available. I am pleased that both State and Federal tax filing deadlines have been extended for those taxpayers living within the disaster areas. Later this week, I will introduce legislation modeled after a bill I signed into law during the Midwest floods of 1993 to help ease lending regulations in those disaster-declared areas as well. This will make it easier for the restructuring of loans and prevent unnecessary foreclosures on farmers and other small businesses. The flooding--and the snow, the ice, and the cold that made relief efforts extremely difficult--has been an exhausting nightmare for those who are in it, and it has been agonizing for the rest of the Nation to watch. The Minnesotans I met with at the flood sites we traveled to have been tested time and time again. The floods of 1997 are creating an agricultural disaster as well. While hard numbers do not exist yet, more than 2 million acres of Minnesota cropland are now under water, affecting thousands of farms, and all of Wilkin County's 400,000 acres of cropland are flooded. In Clay County, it is 200,000 acres under water. It has been estimated that farmers who already lost more than $100 million due to the blizzards that caused the floods could now have flood losses totaling over $1 billion. Dairy farmers have been hit especially hard, forcing them to dump hundreds of thousands of pounds of milk because milk trucks could not reach them. The biggest problem has been getting out to the farms that are surrounded by water. Spring planting, which is normally just 2 weeks away, will be a problem in parts of southern Minnesota. Along the Red River Valley, more than 40 percent of the sugar beet crop is normally planted by the end of April. No one will be planting by then this year. According to the National Weather Service, flood warnings remain in effect until April 20 along the Mississippi from St. Paul to Red Wing, as well as for portions of the St. Croix and the Minnesota rivers. Red Cross volunteers have begun to close emergency shelters and are now distributing flood cleanup kits. By the end of last week, the Red Cross had served more than 55,000 meals to sandbaggers and those people in shelters. While tough times are still ahead, I was moved by Minnesotans coming together for the common goal of protecting and cleaning up their communities. In Ada, people are tense, weary from days of flood relief work, and still shaken by their losses. For those lucky enough to remain in their homes, the loss of heat and electricity were devastating in the harsh, winter-like conditions. You may have read the story of Ada residents Warren and Colleen Goltz. Although the Goltzes lost electricity as water in a nearby drainage ditch began to rise, they decided to stay in their house. Four feet of water seeped into the basement, ruining many of their possessions. They burned old newspapers in the fireplace to keep warm, but the temperature fell to 38 degrees. Finally, a friend arrived with a generator, another dropped off firewood, and another opened his house so they could use the phone. As Rev. Earl Schmidt of the Zion Lutheran Church of Ada said, ``It's going to make us much more caring for each other. I hope it makes us look to God more, obviously. And it's given us a quick lesson in survival.'' We have been inspired once again by people of Minnesota, who have rallied together for their communities as they always do when tragedy strikes. It is during critical times such as these that we finally understand the importance of neighbor helping neighbor. At a time when we rarely make the effort to get to know and appreciate our neighbors, Minnesotans in a great many of our communities have formed lasting bonds over this past week and found their civic spirit had been restored. Mr. President, I was equally impressed with the efforts of Minnesota's young people. All too often we hear and read about young people who are not responsible, who do not care about their community. Last week, I witnessed countless occasions when young and old worked together, filling and hauling sandbags, feeding those who had lost their homes, and finding them shelter. They set a remarkable example for the rest of the Nation. Much work has been done, but the most difficult work is yet to be accomplished, and that will be the cleanup that takes place over the next few months, after the news crews have moved on, the TV cameras have been hauled away, and the spotlight has shifted to another part of the country. I will be working with the Governor's office and with local officials to ensure that available Federal assistance will be distributed to those counties that so desperately need it. Mr. President, last week I witnessed neighbor helping neighbor and volunteers working side by side to help save their communities. It is this kind of determination that will lead people through these difficult times, as we deal with what one Minnesotan described as ``a flood frozen in place.'' Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, there are 365 days in each calendar year, but I can think of no other date that the American people await with such universal dread as April 15, tax day. However, there is one other date working Americans should look upon with equal disdain, and that is the date that says a great deal about the Federal, State, and local tax burden working families are expected to bear. That date is May 9, this year's tax freedom day. As it does every year, the Tax Foundation has calculated the date the average American stops working just to pay their share of the tax burden and begins working for themselves. This year, tax freedom day falls on May 9. And while the use of the word ``freedom'' in tax freedom day implies something to celebrate, working Americans have absolutely nothing to celebrate when it comes to their taxes. Tax freedom day falls a full day later this year than it did in 1996, meaning taxpayers must work 128 days before they can count a single penny of their salary as their own. Of those days, 44 will be spent paying personal income taxes; 38 days will be spent paying payroll taxes; sales and excise taxes, 18 days; property taxes, 12 days; corporate income taxes, 13 days; also 3 days will be spent paying miscellaneous taxes. When you total all that up, that is 128 days, Mr. President, 128 days in which the American people spend imprisoned by their own tax system. If the cost of complying with the tax system itself were included in the calculations, tax freedom day would be pushed forward another 13 days. The tax burden on middle-class Americans is rising rapidly. Taxpayers are now working an entire week longer to pay off their taxes than they were when President Clinton first took office in 1993. That sounds like Government getting larger and more expensive, not the ``era of big Government is over.'' If you calculate the tax load in hours and minutes, instead of days, Americans spend fully 2 hours and 49 minutes of each 8-hour workday laboring to pay their taxes. That is a great deal more than the 1 hour, 40 minutes it takes to pay for their family's food, clothing, and shelter. May 9 marks the arrival of Tax Freedom Day for the average State. Unfortunately for taxpayers in my home State, Minnesota ranks well above average in the tax burden my constituents are forced to bear. In 1997, Tax Freedom Day will not arrive in Minnesota until 4 days later, until May 13. Only five other States and the District of Columbia mark Tax Freedom Day as late or later than we do. There has never been a time in our history when the need for tax relief was so obvious and so great. Let us make 1997 the year we enact the $500 per-child tax credit. Let us make 1997 the year we kill off the death tax. Let us make 1997 the year we promote savings and investment by cutting capital gains. Let us not let another Tax Day go by before we deliver on our promise of substantial relief for the American taxpayers. Mr. President, it is not a normal practice of mine to quote poetry on the Senate floor. I prefer to leave the rhymes to those Senators who possess a more poetic nature than I. But because this is Tax Day, I would like to share the closing lines of a poem by Ogden Nash and then follow it up with a final comment. ``Abracadabra, thus we learn The more you create, the less you earn. The less you earn, the more you're given, The less you lead, the more you're driven, The more destroyed, the more they feed, The more you pay, the more they need, The more you earn, the less you keep, And now I lay me down to sleep. I pray the Lord my soul to take If the tax-collector hasn't got it before I wake.'' It was 1935 when Mr. Nash first published his poem warning of the dangers of a tax system run amuck. At that time in our history, the Federal tax rate was less than four percent. Now, I cannot imagine what kind of poem Mr. Nash would write today, at a time when Washington demands an average 28 percent of our income in taxes. And even if I could imagine what Mr. Nash would write I am not sure I would be allowed to read it on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, I would like to talk a little bit about tax day and, of course, the arguments going on here in the last few minutes about taxes and who should pay them, how much should be paid. I find it a little ironic, but perhaps not surprising, that efforts to get a couple of resolutions on the floor to approve or have the Senate go on record that the American taxpayer, the American family, the American working people need tax relief--we tried to get just a resolution approved under a unanimous-consent agreement, but it was denied. Many talk about tax relief. The only problem is there are many more in this body who talk against tax relief. I have been a strong supporter of family tax relief, and I have been the author and have supported for the last 4 years an effort to get a $500-per-child tax credit across the board. That is not really enough, because when you look at how we support families and children, if we kept pace--and a lot of you just looked at your 1040 forms, 1040EZ forms, and you found out for every dependent you can deduct $2,550. If that had kept pace with inflation from 1955, it would be worth over $9,000. So over the last 20 or 30 years, somehow we have found children or families less worthy of tax relief than we do today. We talk about other tax relief, like the death tax, the estate tax. In other words, you have worked all your life, you have tried to put something away, as you are encouraged to do, to provide for your family after you are gone, to be able to leave your children or your spouse some money for the means of doing better. But yet, when you die, the Government wants to come in and take the majority of it. I think it was Paul Harvey who went through this the other day on the radio and talked about if you had a $3 million estate, by the time the Government got finished taking money away from you through penalties, et cetera, and the estate tax and everything else, your family would get $400,000, the Government would get $2.6 million of that. If you had an estate of $1.9 million, the tax on it would be 85 percent that would go to the Government. What kind of a message does this send to anybody? Does it tell you that you should save? ``Why? I'm going to save up all my money so that the day I die, the Government can come in and take 85 percent of it away from my kids.'' We talk about the death tax, and we talk about eliminating the estate tax. You worked all your life, you have already paid your taxes on those dollars. This is after-tax income, and yet, when you die, the Government says, ``That's not enough, we want the bulk of whatever you have in your savings account and cap gains tax.'' There is always talk about how it is only a tax cut for the wealthy. Granted, there are people who have money who are going to benefit from this, but it is capital they are going to reinvest. When we talk about being able to provide an economy for working families in this country, we need to grow, and that needs investments, it needs capital, no matter where it comes from--foreign investors, local, domestic. We need those dollars. Right now, it is estimated that $7.5 trillion is locked up in old investments; in other words, in companies that maybe are not as efficient as new companies, old products that could be replaced by new, because of penalties of taking your money out of one investment to put into another, and the Government is standing there to grab a majority of it. In other words, people cannot afford to take it out of one investment because the Government is going to confiscate a large part of that. So those investments remain locked up. What we are saying is cap gains would release a flood of new investments into new jobs, new companies, new products; it would expand the economy, it would provide new revenues. I know my time is going to run out, but let me talk quickly about tax cuts. We always hear these charges of where did the deficit go wrong, and they all go back and blame it on Ronald Reagan in 1981. He said, ``Let's have some tax relief for Americans,'' and he pushed through a tax relief package. During 1981 to 1990, revenues to the Federal Government nearly doubled. They increased 99.4 percent--99.4 percent-- but that was not enough because this Congress spent 112 percent. They spent far exceeding even the growth in the revenues. They say, and we have seen the charts this morning, ``Let's look at where the blame is; the blame is the Reagan-Bush administrations because that is when the deficits went up, and let's give all the credit to President Clinton because this is where the deficit is coming down.'' Let's retrace that. During the Reagan-Bush administrations, who controlled the purse strings? Who was in control of Congress? I don't want to throw stones, but I think everybody knows. It was controlled by Democrats. Who controlled spending? Ronald Reagan suggested and was able to get through tax relief under the premise that for every $1 in tax relief, there would be a $2 reduction in spending. But once the revenues came in, the eyes got big and people just could not resist being the good guy on the block and taking your money and spending it. In fact, they spent it so fast they even outspent a rapidly growing economy. Who was to blame? It was not Reagan or Bush, it was the democratically controlled Congress spending the dollars. Let's look at the last 4 years. They say in the last 4 years, deficits have actually gone down. From 1993 to 1995, they went down because Bill Clinton got through the largest tax increase in history. Again, who passed it? It was Congress who passed it, and that was controlled by the Democrats. So we did have deficit reduction but, again, because of tax increases. In fact, this Congress has raised taxes once on average every 22 months. The last 2 years, under a Republican controlled Congress, deficits continued to go down, but because of reductions in spending. Here we have a difference in philosophy. We could balance the budget if we take 80 percent of everything you make. We can probably balance the budget and still increase spending, but it would come out of somebody's pocket. I don't know, it does not seem to make sense. In a recent USA/CNN poll, 70 percent of Americans said they wanted tax relief, meaningful tax relief. Not this give-and-take, smoke-and- mirrors, a little bit here, little bit there, targeted what you believe as tax relief, not what they believe you should have but what you believe you should have. Let's look at 5 years. The Government is going to take $8.6 trillion from you over the next 5 years, and we are asking in tax relief one penny on every dollar. Somehow, you are going to hear from this body that we cannot live with 99 cents on the dollar, but you, as taxpayers, sure can give it all up. Somehow you can make the sacrifice, tighten your belt, spend less on your children, education, food, clothing, shelter, homes, maybe a night out for pizza, but do not let Congress take one penny on the dollar less than what they want to spend. By the way, that would not even be enough. The support for taxes, I still support--let's look at DC and the budget in DC.

Mr. GRAMS. I was going to wrap this up by saying the District of Columbia has problems with their budget, and what has been the proposed solution? Give them tax relief. I think the whole country has a serious problem, taxpayers have a problem, just like what is facing Washington, DC, and I think they need tax relief as well. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, thank you.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, if there's one part of the status quo that is working within our Nation's overall nuclear waste disposal program, it is the way in which the Federal Government is actively meeting the needs of foreign countries. It is not working for domestic spent fuel, but our program seems to be working very well in meeting the needs of spent nuclear fuel from foreign countries. As this map shows, the DOE has resumed collecting spent nuclear fuel from a total of 41 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 252 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, as I learned during a recent trip to the Savannah River site, up to 890 foreign research reactor cores will be accepted by the DOE over a 13-year period. So they can take it from foreign countries and handle it safely, but somehow they cannot handle domestic spent nuclear fuels. 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. These photographs illustrate just one of the means by which shipments of foreign-generated fuel are being transported to the DOE's facility. Here, my colleagues can clearly see how foreign nuclear waste is being loaded on to railcars at Charleston Harbor and then shipped to the Savannah River facility. The safety record of these shipments speaks for itself. The Federal Government is also actively accepting nuclear waste from many of our universities nationwide. As this map indicates, 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. Chairman Murkowski also spoke extensively on this safety record earlier today. There has not been one accident nor any release of nuclear fuel. These shipments serve as a very small portion of the 2,400 shipments of high-level nuclear waste that has already been shipped across the United States, including naval spent fuel. So, Mr. President, as the distinguished chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has indicated, 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. Under this scheme, our Nation will have a disjointed nuclear waste storage policy: one that works for our universities and foreign nations and another that has failed and will soon be partially administered by the actions of the Federal Court of Appeals. It seems clear to me that while States, utilities, and ratepayers have kept their end of the bargain, the DOE has not. That sends the wrong message to the American people about trusting the promises of the Federal Government. The Federal Government is living up to its promises in the Atoms for Peace Program. It is accepting spent nuclear fuel from 41 countries. They have lived up to that policy, that agreement, and that contract, but somehow they can't live up to contracts with the American ratepayers. Despite widespread support for action to create an interim storage site--including support from former DOE Secretary Hazel O'Leary and Dan Dreyfus, the former administrator of the civilian nuclear waste program under the Clinton administration--the DOE has failed to offer a substantive alternative to our legislation. Although the Department's new Secretary, Federico Pena, now admits that a Federal solution is needed to resolve our interim storage problems, he recently indicated in a meeting with nuclear utility executives that the DOE is still unwilling to move commercial spent fuel. Instead, the DOE offered a proposal to compensate utilities for on-site storage. In other words, they will not accept it. But the DOE says it is willing and offered a proposal to compensate utilities for on-site storage. Unfortunately, this proposed compensation scheme does little but needlessly spend the taxpayers' money while continuing the failed status quo. In other words, it just wants to collect more money from the taxpayers and then pay it out as compensation. So you are going to take it from one pocket and put it into another. It is still the taxpayers who are going to be left holding the bag, not the Department of Energy, not their budget, not the Secretary of Energy Mr. Pena, but the taxpayers. In other words, they don't want to solve the problem. They just want taxpayers to continue to pay for their mistakes. It signals to the ratepayers that the Federal Government has no intention of moving commercial nuclear waste in the near future, despite a Federal court mandate. Moreover, continuing the policy of noncentralized storage facilities may lead to the premature shutdown of one nuclear plant in Minnesota-- compromising 30 percent of the State's energy needs and significantly increasing ratepayer costs. Again, this is not only typical to Minnesota. Many other States face the same problem. Many utilities are facing the same problem. Ratepayers could be paying the same increase in power because, again, of the lack of action by the DOE. In recent communications to the Senate, DOE Secretary Pena and the President's Office of Management and Budget yet again indicated the Clinton administration's opposition to our legislation to move nuclear waste from the over 80 sites around the Nation. Speaking of the need for a long-term, permanent repository, the letters failed to address any specific alternatives to our legislation or how the Federal Government will address future taxpayer liability in light of the DOE's failure to live up to its 1998 contractual deadline. They offer no alternative except to sit back and say, yes, they will adhere to any court-ordered compensation because it is no money out of their pocket. They can just delay or defer any kind of an agreement or answer and will not live up to their contractual deadline. In the last week of debate on this legislation, we have negotiated with Senator Bingaman and others who want to resolve our interim nuclear waste storage needs. Some important and constructive changes to our bill have resulted from that. Although I oppose one change that moves the construction of the interim storage facility back 1 or 2 years, a number of reforms have been made to address the concerns of the administration. Among them are helpful provisions strengthening radiation protection standards, preemption of State and Federal laws, environmental concerns, and funding for the civilian nuclear waste program. These important changes should help persuade some of my colleagues to support this commonsense environmental protection bill, and it should also help pave the way for the President to sign this legislation based on sound policy and not to veto it due to political concerns. Again, this is not oversight. It is not over technology. It is not over the safety record of transportation of spent fuel. It is basic, raw politics. And above all, Congress has an obligation to protect the American public from the estimated $40 to $80 billion they face in liability expenses. Our bill will reform our current civilian nuclear waste program to help avoid the squandering of billions of dollars of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money--not that the Federal Government hasn't wasted enough recently, but with tax day tomorrow, this should also come as more important to taxpayers to say they don't want billions more dollars squandered. It will eliminate the current need for onsite storage at our Nation's nuclear plants, keep plants from shutting down prematurely due to the lack of storage space, and maintain stable energy prices. Mr. President, for too long our States, our ratepayers and taxpayers have been threatened by a policy of inaction. As reported out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and amended in the Chamber, this legislation sets up a time line for the DOE to finally live up to its promises again while helping to protect our environment. As a result, this bill has broad bipartisan support across the Nation. It deserves to be passed overwhelmingly on behalf of the American public. In closing, I urge my colleagues to cast politics aside and to take a giant step forward by voting for this very much-needed legislation. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support S. 104, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. This much needed legislation will help protect the American taxpayers and ratepayers and resolve our Nation's growing nuclear waste storage problem. As many of my colleagues know, the Department of Energy will not live up to its 15-year promise to collect commercial nuclear waste into a centralized repository. Unfortunately, with over $6 billion of ratepayer's money already spent by the Federal Government, a permanent repository will still not be completed until well into the next century. The map behind me illustrates the result of this failed policy: The creation of over 80 nuclear waste storage sites across our Nation. From coast to coast and from one international border to another, over 41 States have been affected by the lack of action. As my colleagues can see, this is not a regional problem; it's a national problem demanding a Federal solution. Mr. President, the Federal Government should no longer be allowed to forget its commitment to the American public. Last year, the Federal court of appeals agreed that this was a Federal problem when it ruled that the Department of Energy will be liable for damages if it does not accept commercial nuclear waste by January 31, 1998. Under current law, no one at the DOE will be held personally liable for any assessed damages; the bill will go to the American taxpayers at an estimated cost between $40 and $80 billion. Such a tremendous liability burden on taxpayers would make the public bailout of the savings and loan collapse seem small in comparison. Many others agree that a Federal solution is needed immediately. Frustrated with the DOE's inability to resolve our nuclear storage problem, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, 48 State agencies, and 38 utilities have joined forces to ask the Federal courts to suspend ratepayer's payments into the nuclear waste fund, which finances the Federal Government's commercial nuclear waste program. They are concerned that their constituents and customers are being asked to pay too many times for a failed policy. Take, for instance, the situation facing ratepayers in my home State of Minnesota. Since 1982, Minnesota's nuclear energy consumers have paid over $250 million into the nuclear waste fund believing that the Federal Government would fulfill its obligation to transport nuclear waste out of Minnesota. But as time went on and the DOE continued to ignore its responsibilities, utilities in Minnesota and around the country were forced to temporarily store their waste within the confines of their own facilities. When it became clear to many utilities that storage space was running out and the Department of Energy would not accept waste by the established deadline, utilities then had to go to their States to ask for additional onsite storage or else be forced to shut down their operations. For example, ratepayers in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin were forced to pay for onsite storage in cooling pools at Prairie Island in southeastern Minnesota. In 1994, with storage space running out, the Minnesota Legislature--after a bruising battle--voted to allow for limited onsite dry cask storage until the year 2004. Mr. President, the cost associated with this onsite storage is staggering. Ratepayers in the midwestern service area alone have paid over $25 million in storage costs and will pay an estimated $100 million more by the year 2015, in addition to the required payments to the Federal Government. To make matters worse, storage space will run out at Prairie Island just after the turn of the century, forcing the plant to close unless the State legislature once again makes up for the DOE's inaction. This will threaten over 30 percent of Minnesota's overall energy resources and will likely lead to even higher costs for Minnesota's ratepayers. In fact, the Minnesota Department of Public Service estimates that the increase in costs could reach as high as 17 percent, forcing ratepayers to eventually pay three times: once to the nuclear waste fund, again for onsite storage, and yet again for increased energy costs. And Minnesota is not alone in facing this unacceptable situation; 36 other States across the Nation are facing similar circumstances of either shutting down and losing their energy-generating capacity or continuing to bail out the Federal Government for its failure to act. So, Mr. President, when some of my colleagues speak about how well the status quo is working, I would simply point them to my home State of Minnesota where the status quo has failed dismally--to the detriment of the ratepayers and soon to the taxpayers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record recent letters from Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson and Minnesota Department of Public Service Commissioner Kris Sanda on the need to pass legislation correcting our Nation's nuclear waste program.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, I join my other colleagues this morning in talking about the dubious date of April 15, which comes upon us tomorrow. I rise today to speak briefly in support of what we call profamily and progrowth tax relief. I will focus on two of the most frequently asked questions, and that is: Why is it critical to provide tax relief this year, and then, can we do it while still trying to balance the budget? You always hear the question asked of the people: ``Do you want a balanced budget, or do you want tax relief,'' just like they are two separate questions and they cannot be one. I believe they are dual track and both have to be done at the same time. Before I begin, let me set one fact straight, and that is, over the next 5 years, the Federal Government will take away $8.6 trillion in taxes from the pockets of working Americans. What we are asking is that 2 cents of every dollar that the Government takes from the taxpayers-- again, I repeat, just 2 cents of every dollar--be returned to them in the form of tax relief. That is what S. 2, the Family Tax Relief Act is all about. It is 2 cents worth of tax relief. Too much? Well, I don't think so. Madam President, tomorrow will be the cruelest day of the year for millions of Americans as they rush to meet the April 15 tax filing deadline, and cruel is not only an appropriate word to describe the tax burden faced by working Americans, it is perhaps the best word. Taxes imposed on American families are at an all-time high, as we have heard from other colleagues this morning, and this year, tax freedom day-- that is the day when Americans stop working for the Government and start working for themselves--will be announced by the Tax Foundation this morning and it could come as late as May 9, which would be later than ever before. The average American family today spends more on taxes than it does for food, clothing, and housing combined. A typical median-income family can expect to pay nearly 40 percent of its income in Federal, State, and local taxes. This means, again, more than 3 hours of every 8-hour working day are dedicated just to pay taxes. In 1996, an average household with an annual income of between $22,500 and $30,000 paid an average of about $9,073 for food, clothing and housing, but they paid $11,311 in taxes. Households with incomes ranging from $45,000 to $60,000 averaged about $16,000 for basic necessities but paid more than $25,000 in taxes. If the hidden taxes that result from the high cost of Government regulations are factored in as well, a family today gives up more than 50 percent of its annual income to the Government. If you want to put that in context, 50 percent to taxes, if you go back to the Boston Tea Party, that was staged over a one-half of 1 percent tax when the Revolutionary War started and people thought they were being taxed too high at one-half of 1 percent. When the Government takes more, families get less. Between 1989 and 1995, the typical American family's real income fell by about 5.2 percent. Most economists point out that the decrease in income was the result of slow economic growth, and that is a direct result of higher Federal taxes. We all recognize the children are our future of our Nation and that families are the foundation of our society, but Washington's deficit spending and high-tax policies have systematically ignored our children's future and severely have undermined the basic functions of the family. We must abandon the policies and help restore the family to an economic position that is capable of fulfilling its vital responsibilities and, therefore, we should provide American families with meaningful tax relief, allowing them to keep more of their hard- earned money. Again, S. 2, the Family Tax Relief Act, is truly a progrowth, profamily tax-cut plan for working Americans. It will reduce taxes by $172 billion and with 95 percent of that tax relief going directly to middle-class families. I am proud we have built our plan around the $500 per child tax credit which the taxpayers in Minnesota have asked me to make a top priority. The $500 per child tax credit means real relief and will return nearly $500 million to overtaxed Minnesota families every year. Our plan will also expand individual retirement accounts for spouses and allow penalty-free withdrawal from an IRA for education, business startup and emergency expenses. It promotes savings in investment by lowering the antigrowth capital gains tax and takes on the damaging estate tax, or the death tax, that jeopardizes so many family businesses and farms. By enacting these tax cuts, we can begin turning back the decades of abuse that taxpayers have suffered at the hands of their own Government, a Government that has been too often eager to spend the taxpayers' money with reckless disrespect. As the Government takes money out of the hands of private citizens, the Government itself keeps expanding. Even though President Clinton has proclaimed otherwise, he said the era of big Government is over, but the era of big Government is far from over. Despite a shrinking Federal deficit, the Government is getting bigger not smaller. Total taxation is at an all-time high. So is total Government spending. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Government will spend $9.4 trillion over the next 5 years, much of it going toward wasteful or unnecessary Government programs, and tax relief is the right solution because it takes power out of the hands of Washington's big spenders and it puts it back where it can do the most good, and that is with families. By leaving $500 per child in the family bank account, taxpayers are then empowered to use it to directly benefit their household. If you wonder what kind of impact that could have on a family budget, consider that for a family with two children, the $500 per child tax credit could pay for 3 months of groceries, nearly 20 months of clothing for the kids or your home mortgage for a month and a half. The President's tax cut proposal, on the other hand, includes a mini- child-tax credit that only begins with $300 per child and increases to $500 per child 2 years later, but only to be eliminated entirely after that. Furthermore, the President's plan provides tax credit only to families with children under the age of 13. So only up to the age of 12, again greatly diluting its value. We have 18.3 million teenagers age 14 to 18 in this country. As we all know, family expenses soar during those teenage years, so excluding this age group from the benefits of family tax relief simply makes no sense. Let me focus for a moment also on the estate tax. Today, when a small business owner or a farm owner dies, the Federal estate tax confiscates 37 percent of his or her assets valued between $600,000 and $1 million. That rises to 55 percent of assets valued at more than $3 million. Gifts valued at more than $1 million to grandchildren are also taxed at 55 percent. Many, if not most, businesses are severely crippled or forced to close by this unfair tax hit. Family-owned and closely held businesses are the backbone of America's economy and a bedrock of the American culture. They must be preserved. I am reminded constantly by proud family farmers in my home State of Minnesota--like Andy Quin, who is a corn farmer from Litchfield, and Don Buhl, a pork producers from Tracy--that if we are to preserve our proud, rural traditions, we must ensure that farming remains an attractive and viable profession. Making it easier to pass the farm from one generation to the next should be a priority in Congress. I am also pleased that S. 2 includes a meaningful estate tax cut for small family business owners and for farmers. Beyond the direct benefits to families, tax cuts can have a substantial, positive impact on the economy as a whole. It was John F. Kennedy who observed that ``an economy hampered with high tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget just as it will never produce enough output and enough jobs.'' It was President Kennedy who said that. And he was able to put his theories to work in the early 1960's, when he enacted significant tax cuts that encouraged one of the few periods of sustained growth we have experienced since the Second World War. Twenty years later, President Ronald Reagan cut taxes once again. The reinvigorated economy responded enthusiastically as 19 million new jobs were created and take-home pay grew 13 percent between 1982 and 1989. Madam President, let me now turn to the other question of whether we are able to balance the budget and provide tax cuts at the same time. The truth is we can absolutely do both at the same time, as long as we have the political will to do it. Many States have already proved that this can be done. Some examples. While Washington was busy debating whether to give 2 cents of every dollar it collected back to working Americans, many States took action to lower their taxes. In the State of New York, Governor Pataki cut taxes 15 times, returning more than $3.5 billion to New Yorkers in just 2 years. By the end of Governor Pataki's term, $13 billion will be returned to New Yorkers. What is remarkable about New York is that the Governor provided tax cuts while balancing the budget. What is more, New York ran a $400 million surplus and it put the money into the State's rainy day fund for the first time since 1978. Governor Rowland of Connecticut also cut taxes and balanced the budget. He turned deficits into a $250 million budget surplus in only the first full fiscal year of his term. Many other States, including New Jersey, Mississippi, Michigan, Iowa, and Arizona, have done the same. My own State of Minnesota is another example. When Gov. Arne Carlson was elected to office in 1990, he inherited a deficit greater than $1.8 billion and a government that was spending 15 percent faster than the rate of inflation. But the Governor cut spending by making the tough choices that elected officials are supposed to make, decisions that cut wasteful spending and cut taxes. Thanks to that dedication, Minnesota today finds itself with a stronger economy, more jobs, and an unemployment rate of just 3.8 percent--that is well below the national average--and a $2.3 billion budget surplus. Now the Governor is planning to cut income taxes by 22 percent. By balancing the budget and lowering taxes, those States have produced remarkable economic results: The 10 States that cut taxes the most have seen strong job growth, a 10.8-percent increase compared to a national average of 5.9 percent. And also the top 10 tax-hiking States, they registered a zero job growth during that same period. No wonder even the State of Maryland has recently adopted a plan to cut tax by 10 percent. Madam President, I strongly believe we should follow the tax-cutting trend at the Federal level. By implementing profamily, progrowth tax relief and creating a tax system that is more friendly to working Americans and more conducive to economic growth, Congress and the President can make our economy more dynamic, our businesses more competitive, and our families more prosperous as we approach that 21st century. I strongly disagree with those who insist the deficit cannot be reduced as we simultaneously provide tax relief. The States have shown us that the deficit can be reduced, the budget can be balanced, and taxes can be cut at the same time. After eliminating wasteful, redundant, and needless spending from the Federal budget, we can still allow for a spending increase while providing tax relief to working Americans. To omit tax cuts from the budget resolution is not acceptable to Republicans seeking to deliver on our commitment to return money to the taxpayers. Therefore, I support the alternative budget prepared by Senator Gramm, a budget Democrats and President Clinton have supported that is based on the President's own numbers. It is a compromise for us that includes tax relief. I also disagree with the suggestion that we should delay any tax cuts or separate our budget agreement from tax relief. Again, the taxpayers have been very clear on this: A recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll shows that 70 percent of Americans want us to keep tax relief in our budget plan. Despite what you hear from the arguments on the other side, 70 percent of Americans want us to keep our pledge to cut taxes. Madam President, as I close, I am certain there is nothing we can ever do to make tax day an occasion to celebrate. But it is within our power to make it a great deal less painful. So we have made a promise. We must keep that promise. And let us give back that 2 cents on every dollar to America's hard-working families. Madam President, thank you very much. I yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Monday, April 14, 1997, beginning at 1:30 p.m. in room 215 Dirksen.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 9, 1997, to hold a hearing.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, on March 20, my dear friend and former colleague, Senator Dave Durenberger, lost his father, George Durenberger, at the age of 90. But, because the Senate was just beginning its recess at that time, I did not have the opportunity to pay respect to my friend and the much- celebrated life of his father. It is for this purpose that I rise today. It has been said that, ``the worst sin against our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them; that is the essence of inhumanity.'' George Durenberger, the parent, the teacher, the coach, must have been acutely aware of this because there was not indifference in him. He saw worth in every person he met and rewarded them with a first chance, a second, and a third. In short, George Durenberger never gave up on anyone. Beyond all his other contributions, George Durenberger will be most remembered for his abiding faith in people. According to newspaper accounts, George Durenberger was one of the ``best known and most well-liked men in Central Minnesota.'' By the same accounts, ``Big George'' as he was often called, was ``a legend.'' Coming to St. John's Abbey and University in Collegeville, MN in 1924 as a student, George Durenberger obtained hero status as the star offensive center on the football team, the first three time All- Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference award winner, and also the captain of not only the football team but the basketball team as well. Upon graduation in 1928, Durenberger became a professor and coach at St. John's and, over the course of 44 years, served as head coach of the football, basketball, and baseball teams--and sometimes all at once. Durenberger served as athletic director for both St. John's University and St. John's preparatory school athletics for all but 2 of his 44 years at St. John's. Many Minnesotans still recall that it was George Durenberger who started the round robin system of intercollegiate competition in the Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference. And, some still remember the national recognition he gained through his ace athletic program to condition the 87th Airborne Detachment for World War II. Perhaps, these accomplishments figured into St. John's decision to name the college's athletic field complex, the ``George Durenberger Field.'' But, I believe that what contributed most to his Herculean stature can be best expressed in George Durenberger's own words: A coach should be judged not only on his ability to produce winning teams, but also on whether or not he has made a positive contribution to the moral, mental, social and emotional growth of his students. George Durenberger was the epitome of a teacher. He knew and loved people. He saw the good in them--even when they could not see it in themselves. ``The young men who came to St. John's in the early forties from the small towns of Minnesota and North Dakota were very much in need of a role model,'' recalls former Minnesota Supreme Court Justice John Simonett. ``Then we met `Big George'. And we looked up to him--both literally and figuratively.'' George Durenberger lifted spirits, recalled another St. John's alumnus, ``I always left George feeling better about myself.'' George Durenberger ``was the first person I met as a student at St. John's in 1924,'' remembered Fred Hughes, a St. Cloud attorney and former University of Minnesota Regent, ``and to this day, he remains the best.'' And, consider what the Hill newspaper's Al Eisele, who attended St. John's, had to say. Mr. Eisele said, ``George Durenberger was as much a part of the modern history of St. John's University as the Benedictine monks who founded it 150 years ago.'' Durenberger, ``a physically imposing man with a booming voice and outgoing personality,'' as described by Eisele, ``helped shape the lives of thousands of young men.'' As athletic director, Durenberger was such a forceful man, noted Eisele, that he even got the monks to exercise. In closing, Eisele remarked that Durenberger and his wife Isabelle were ``surrogate parents to many * * * and an inspiration to all.'' George Durenberger never left St. John's until he died. He loved the institution and all the people and memories that came with it. However, this love was not connected to stubborn consistency but to confection. George Durenberger, said one friend, ``was driven by a vision of a `better city' ,'' something akin to the city referred to in the book of Hebrews. Another book in Scriptures, Proverbs, states, ``Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.'' According to George Durenberger's eldest son, my friend and former colleague, ``All my desire for public service and for making the world a better place than I found it, came from him.'' That was Dave Durenberger. In this way, and in so many others, George Durenberger made a very profound and lasting contribution to the world. All he withheld from the world was indifference. Mr. President, I offer George Durenberger's wife, Isabelle; his daughters, Constance and Mary; his sons, George Mark and Thomas; his nine grandchildren and two great grandchildren; and most especially I offer his eldest son, my dear friend, David Durenberger, my most heartfelt sympathy. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield back the remaining part of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I just want to take a few minutes today to discuss the devastating floods that are paralyzing much of my home State of Minnesota. Most of the Nation knows we are experiencing some of the worst flooding in our history this week, and due to the severe snowfall of this past winter, damage is expected to surpass that of the disastrous 1993 floods. Not only are Minnesotans fighting against the rising floodwaters, but they are doing it in the wake of a blizzard that brought snow, ice, and bitterly cold temperatures to our State this weekend, as well. It has truly been an ordeal--my heart goes out to those who are working desperately to save their homes and land, and my thanks go to the thousands of Minnesotans who have stepped forward this week to help their friends, families, and neighbors. It is reassuring to know that our communities share a collective heart, and can be counted upon to come together during tough times. Now that President Clinton has approved our request that Minnesota be declared a disaster area, Federal money for flood victims is available in 21 Minnesota counties. That will enable cleanup efforts to get underway, and help families and individuals whose homes and property have been damaged or destroyed. As of this past Monday, Minnesota Gov. Arne Carlson had activated more than 1,000 of the state's 11,000 National Guard troops to assist with sandbagging, emergency evacuation, and other flood-related duties. The Guard has been tireless in their desire to help and we thank them for that as well. The disastrous floods have severely disrupted the lives of many, many Minnesotans, whose primary concern now is to ensure that their families and communities are safe, with adequate food and shelter. That being the case, I have requested that Commissioner Richardson of the Internal Revenue Service extend the tax filing deadline for those taxpayers living within the disaster area. Considering the many challenges Minnesotans will face in the next few weeks, cleaning up and rebuilding their lives and communities, extending the April 15 deadline is crucial. I hope Commissioner Richardson will act immediately to grant the extension. Mr. President, we are used to harsh winters in Minnesota, but even we Minnesotans have never seen anything like this. Earlier this winter, heavy snows resulted in a Presidential disaster declaration for snow removal in 55 Minnesota counties. That rapidly melting snow has now caused extensive flooding on virtually every river and tributary in the State. This past weekend, the situation was compounded when Minnesota was hit by a combination ice storm and blizzard. Freezing rain and snow downed countless utility lines in northwestern Minnesota, leaving more than 50,000 residents without power. Some power has been restored, but it is estimated that other areas may be without power for another 7 days before repairs can be completed. The weekend storm, along with the severe snows of this past winter, will make flooding this spring some of the worst in our history. For communities along the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers east and south of Montevideo and south of Anoka, which includes the Twin Cities metro area, the worst flooding is on the way and record and near-record crests are expected there. The same is true along the north-flowing Red River along the Minnesota-North Dakota border. In Ada, in the State's northwestern corner, three-quarters of the town's 1,700 residents have been evacuated from their homes. The flooding has been an exhausting nightmare for those who are in it, and agonizing for the rest of the Nation to watch. Yet, we have been inspired once again by the people of Minnesota, who have rallied together for their communities as they always do when tragedy strikes. Young and old are working side by side to save their communities, filling and hauling sandbags, feeding those who have lost their homes and finding them shelter, and making sure the volunteers are well cared for. I read the comments of Marvin Patten of Granite Falls, who does not have flood insurance and whose living room is flooded under 18 inches of water. He said, ``At first I sat and cried, but after a few days you realize that we will manage.'' Shortly after the mayor of Granite Falls pleaded for sandbagging volunteers, he told a reporter that ``everybody in town showed up. Just like that. Amazing. I am stupefied.'' Now, as I read comments like those and speak with Minnesotans who live in the flooded areas, I cannot help but think it is during critical times such as these that we finally understand the importance of community, of neighbor helping neighbor. Those are the qualities that make us Minnesotans. I want to take this opportunity to thank God for the mercy he has granted and the blessings he has bestowed upon our families and communities. It is within His strength that we find our own. Mr. President, I heard the remarks of my colleague from Minnesota earlier this afternoon, and I appreciate his words and his efforts on behalf of the people of our State. We stand together with our colleagues from North and South Dakota, who are facing devastation in their States equal to our own. When disaster strikes, we are not Republicans or Democrats. We are representatives of the people, and we will do whatever we must to protect our citizens when their lives, homes, and property are threatened.