Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I take a few minutes this morning to talk about today's pending nomination, and also some of the problems that are surrounding one of our most important issues, and that is the storage of this country's nuclear waste. Mr. President, as the full Senate takes up the nomination of Federico Pena to become the next Secretary of Energy, I rise today to discuss an issue of critical importance that has become necessarily linked to the Pena nomination again, that is our Nation's nuclear waste storage problem. I say the two are linked because it has been the failure of the very agency Mr. Pena has been appointed to lead--the U.S. Department of Energy--to carry out its legal obligations that has led to the nearly critical situation in which we currently find ourselves. It is this very failure on the part of the DOE which threatens utility ratepayers today and taxpayers in the future. For the Senate to fully appreciate the gravity of the situation, I believe that a brief summary of the history of this problem is in order. Since 1982, utility ratepayers have been required to pay the Federal Government nearly $13 billion of their hard-earned dollars in exchange for the promise that the Department of Energy would transport and store commercially generated nuclear waste in a centralized facility by January 31, 1998. However, with this deadline less than a year away and with over $6 billion spent by the Department of Energy, there has been very little progress to date toward keeping this 15-year-old promise of establishing a centralized Federal storage facility. In fact, though there has been measurable progress at the Yucca Mountain, NV facility, a permanent repository will not be completed until well into the next century. Mr. President, the 80 nuclear wastesites on this chart graphically illustrate the extent of this growing problem. Clearly, if the DOE is to meet the January 31, 1998 deadline, it must begin accepting nuclear waste at an interim storage facility, yet, that has not happened. In fact, the DOE recently notified States and utilities that it would not accept their commercial nuclear waste despite the law and the Federal court's effort to enforce it. Worse yet, even in the face of significant taxpayer liability for such irresponsible behavior by the Federal Government, the DOE has failed to offer a single constructive proposal to even begin the process of fulfilling its responsibility to the American people. Despite those facts, utility ratepayers are still being required to pay for a mismanaged program. In fact, over $630 million from the ratepayers go into the nuclear waste fund each year--without any tangible benefits or results to show for them. Our Nation's utility consumers and their pocketbooks aren't just hit once, either. Because of the DOE's failure to act, ratepayers are currently being forced to pay their hard-earned dollars to store waste onsite at commercial utility plants--a burden that would not be necessary had the Energy Department lived up to its legal obligations. Take, for example, 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 the State of Minnesota. But as time went on and the DOE continued to ignore their 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, then the utilities had to go to their States to ask for additional onsite storage or else be forced to shut down those 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 2002. Mr. President, the cost associated with this onsite storage is simply staggering--ratepayers in our service area alone have paid over $50 million for these costs and are estimated to pay another $111 million by the year 2015, in addition to the required payments to the Federal Government, the nuclear storage fund. To make matters worse, storage space will run out at Prairie Island in 2002, 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 up to $100 million for onsite storage and yet again for increased energy costs. And Minnesota is not alone in facing this unacceptable situation. Thirty six other States across the Nation will be facing similar circumstances of either shutting down their energy-generating capacity or continuing to bail out the Federal Government and its failure to act. Ratepayers are not the only ones who face serious consequences because of inaction by the DOE; taxpayers are threatened as well. Last year, the Federal courts ruled that the DOE will be liable for damages if it does not accept commercial nuclear waste by January 31, 1998. Under current law, these damages will not be paid for by anyone at the DOE, it will go to the American taxpayers--at an estimated cost of somewhere 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. What's worse is that while our States, utility ratepayers, and taxpayers are being unfairly punished by the Department of Energy's inaction, the Federal Government has been active in meeting the interim nuclear waste storage needs of foreign countries. Under the Atoms for Peace Program, the DOE's has resumed collecting nuclear spent fuel from a total of 41 countries. In fact, since last September, the DOE Savannah River facility had already received foreign spent fuel from Chile, Columbia, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, and Canada. 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. In addition, our Government is actively helping other countries reduce their nuclear waste stockpiles. With the Department of Defense spending up to $400 million on designing and constructing an interim nuclear waste storage facility in Russia to help dismantle the cold war threat, the world will certainly be a safer place. Now, Mr. President, as a Senator who is concerned about our national security needs, I understand the rationale behind reducing our international nuclear dangers. 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; not only that, but denying it has the responsibility and is going to court to stop it. It seems clear to me that while States, utilities, and ratepayers have kept their end of the bargain, the DOE has not done its part. And that sends the wrong message to the American people about trusting the promises of the Federal Government. Maybe that's why the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, 46 State agencies and 36 utilities have joined forces in a lawsuit to stop ratepayers' payments into the nuclear waste fund and to escrow $600 million that will soon go into the fund. For too long, our States, utilities, and ratepayers have acted in good faith, relying upon the Federal Government to live up to its obligations. Evidently, they have had enough of the DOE's excuses for inaction and have proposed their own recourse. This issue has created strange bedfellows as well. In a recent interview, former DOE Secretary Hazel O'Leary agreed that action on interim site is needed as soon as possible. It's unfortunate that Secretary O'Leary waited until she was free from the administration to openly support interim storage, but I think her comments point not only to the need to resolve the interim storage impasse but also the political nature of this issue--again, I say the political nature of this issue. It is not science or technology, it's politics. She specifically stated that certain high-ranking officials connected with Vice President Al Gore see this issue in terms of politics, not policy. In addition, the former head of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management under the Clinton administration, Daniel Dreyfus, believes the DOE must move to meet the January 31, 1998, deadline. Key labor unions have even joined the fight to restore the DOE's promises. J.J. Barry, president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, recently wrote me, saying I am calling on you and your colleagues to put partisan politics aside for the good of our nation and America's workers and their families. We must address this problem now or else face serious economic and environmental consequences later. Please support passage of S. 104. I am also pleased that we have received the support of the Building and Construction Trades Union in this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters of labor support be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. GRAMS. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to address the Senate as if in morning business for up to 12 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS. After this exchange of letters, I still felt troubled by Mr. Pena's inability to provide specific answers about how he and the Clinton-Gore administration intend to resolve our Nation's nuclear waste storage problem. Because I have not received a sufficient response to date, I objected to an effort to expedite full consideration of Mr. Pena's nomination late last week. Since that time, however, I had a telephone conversation with the Secretary-designate over the nuclear waste issue. While I am still concerned with his continued lack of specific answers, I was pleased to hear Mr. Pena agree with me and the Federal courts that any resolution of this issue ultimately involves Federal responsibility. Contradicting what DOE Under Secretary Grumbly stated before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last month, Mr. Pena provided verbal assurances of his commitment that our nuclear waste storage situation is a Federal problem worthy of a Federal solution. But what that means is taxpayers will still be asked to pay extra for the DOE's failure to do its job, and it creates the possibility of taxpayer liability high enough to make the public bailout of the savings and loan collapse seem small in comparison. While I am not completely satisfied with Mr. Pena's overall incomplete response to this quickly approaching crisis and will vote against his nomination based on his inability to provide specific answers, I will not object to moving his nomination forward for the sake of advancing this debate. For this reason, I hope that as the new DOE Secretary, Mr. Pena will play an active role in pulling the administration's head out of the sand and becoming a constructive player in this debate. Specifically, it is my hope that Mr. Pena will show the necessary leadership and push the administration to support the common-sense solution crafted by Senate Energy Chairman Frank Murkowski, Senator Larry Craig and myself. We will mark up this bill in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee tomorrow, and I believe the chairman will deliver a bipartisan resolution. With the January 31, 1998 deadline fast approaching, the administration and Congress owe the States, ratepayers, and the taxpayers nothing less than the assurance that promises made by the Federal Government will be promises kept. Exhibit 1 Washington, DC, March 4, 1997. Mr. Federico Pena, Secretary-designate, Department of Energy, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Pena. As the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee further deliberates on your nomination as Secretary of the Department of Energy (DOE), I'm writing to solicit your views on recent comments made concerning our nation's failed commercial nuclear waste disposal program. As you know, the DOE has announced that it will be unable to meet its legal deadline of January 31, 1998 to begin accepting commercial nuclear waste despite a mandate by a federal court and the collection of over $12 billion in ratepayer's funds. As a result of this failure, the Court of Appeals will decide the appropriate amount of liability owed by the DOE to certain utilities, possibly putting taxpayers at risk because of the Department's lack of measurable action. Meanwhile, the federal government continues to collect and transport foreign-generated spent fuel for interim storage without any apparent technical or environmental risks. In light of these activities, it was no surprise that former DOE Secretary Hazel O'Leary recently contradicted the Clinton Administration's longstanding objection to resolving the centralized interim-storage impasse for our ratepayers and, ultimately, our taxpayers. Her comments on the need to move forward with a temporary waste storage site upon completion of the viability assessment at Yucca Mountain reflect the bipartisan, common-sense reforms contained in S. 104, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration has ignored this reality by failing to become a constructive player in this process. Although I am disappointed that Mrs. O'Leary's comments came after her tenure as Secretary, I applaud her courage in expressing her views honestly and thoroughly. I strongly believe that the next DOE Secretary must provide the committed leadership necessary to resolve this critical situation while in office. With this in mind, I want to know your specific thoughts on Mrs. O'Leary's comments that the DOE should move forward on a temporary nuclear waste storage site next year at Yucca Mountain if a viability assessment is completed at the permanent site. If you disagree with Mrs. O'Leary, I want to know what specific alternatives you would propose to meet the federal government's legal obligation to accept nuclear waste by January 31, 1998. For too long, our nation's ratepayers and taxpayers have been held hostage to what has become a political debate. They deserve better and, more importantly, deserve an immediate solution to this issue. For that reason, I expect a specific, constructive response to my questions before the Senate votes to confirm your nomination. Sincerely, Rod Grams, U.S. Senator.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, as the Senate further deliberates on the nomination of Federico Pena to become the next Secretary of Energy, I rise again to discuss an issue of paramount importance to our Nation's ratepayers and taxpayers: nuclear waste storage. While I have already discussed on this floor the long history of this debate, I believe a brief review of this history is warranted. Since 1982, energy consumers have been required to pay almost $13 billion into a trust fund created to facilitate the disposal of our Nation's commercial nuclear waste. In return for such payments, nuclear utilities and their ratepayers were assured that the Department of Energy would begin transporting and storing nuclear waste in a centralized Federal repository by January 31, 1998. This deadline is less than a year away. Over $6 billion of the ratepayer's money has been spent by the Department of Energy, with very little progress being made by the Department in living up to the Federal law which requires the DOE to accept commercial nuclear waste. In fact, late last year, the DOE politically punted their problem by notifying utilities and States that it would not meet the deadline, despite a Federal court's ruling that it must do so or be liable for substantial damages. Since then, the Department has failed to set forth a single, constructive proposal to meet its legal obligations, thereby threatening the interests of ratepayers and ultimately the taxpayers. Who will be most affected by the lack of DOE action? Obviously, ratepayers come to mind. As I have stated before, our Nation's energy customers have already paid almost $13 billion into the Nuclear Waste Fund. At the same time, since the DOE has not met its obligations to accept nuclear waste, utilities and ratepayers have paid and will continue to pay for onsite storage at over 70 commercial nuclear powerplants. In other words, ratepayers are being hit twice because the Department of Energy has failed to meet its legal obligations to the American people. In addition, the Energy Department's failure to move nuclear waste out of the States affects not just our Nation's consumers; it compromises our taxpayers as well. Last year, the Federal courts ruled that the DOE will be liable if it does not accept commercial nuclear waste by January 31, 1998. But under current law, no one at the DOE itself will have to pay the damages-- that bill will go to the American taxpayers at an estimated cost of 40 to 80 billion taxpayer dollars. This staggering and irresponsible potential damage liability and the DOE's reluctance to provide specific answers to resolve this situation should be an affront to the President, the Vice President, the Congress and more importantly, the American taxpayer. To make matters worse, DOE officials under the Clinton-Gore administration have not only avoided specific responses to this fiasco, but have openly indicated that the States--not the Department--have the responsibility to address the problem in the absence of action by the Federal Government. In other words, in the last hours, the DOE is saying that it will not meet its responsibility and is tossing the ball to the States and the ratepayers to handle the DOE's mistake. For example, in a recent hearing before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, DOE Under Secretary Thomas Grumbly argued that nuclear waste storage problems facing States like Minnesota are not the Federal Government's responsibility. Mr. President, I find that attitude completely arrogant, devoid of the facts, and a threat to the viability of long-term energy resources for the American public. In 1982, States, utilities and through them, ratepayers, signed a contract with the Federal Government to dispose of commercial nuclear waste, a contract upheld by the courts last year. With that understanding, States planned for limited onsite temporary storage capacity, relying upon the Federal Government's fulfillment of its contractual obligation. Yet, as the years passed, it became apparent that the Federal Government would not keep its word, prompting threats of potential energy crises in States with limited storage space. For example, the depletion of storage space in my home State of Minnesota will mean that one of our utilities will lose its operating capacity by 2002 if the Federal Government does not act soon. This plainly means that consumers in Minnesota would not only lose 30 percent of their energy resources but would also have to pay higher energy prices--estimated as much as 17 percent more--as a result of Federal inaction. Therefore, ratepayers will not get hit just once or twice, but potentially three times, if a resolution is not found on a national level. The crisis facing both our ratepayers and taxpayers is simply unacceptable. The American people do not deserve excuses and inaction; they need real answers from the Clinton-Gore administration. They need leadership on this issue--not a crass political debate arising out of Presidential politics. With that in mind, I took the opportunity to ask Secretary-designate Federico Pena of his specific and definitive views to resolve this issue. Since I believe the American people deserve answers from their leaders, I sent a letter to Mr. Pena asking for a detailed response outlining the specific steps he would urge to meet the January 31, 1998, deadline. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks an exchange of letters.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Today, when the Energy and Natural Resources Committee took up Mr. Pena's nomination, I voted ``present,'' as I had announced I would several weeks ago. As the author of legislation to eliminate the Department of Energy-- legislation prompted, in part, by the nuclear waste fiasco--I had decided that I could not in good conscience vote for Mr. Pena's nomination to head up a department that should not continue to exist. Yet, at the same time, I did not want to cast a vote that would be misinterpreted as a vote against Mr. Pena personally. Since then, I have grown increasingly troubled, however, for the reasons that I have outlined here today, by Mr. Pena's inability to provide specific answers about how he and the Clinton-Gore administration intend to resolve our Nation's nuclear waste storage problem. Again, he has to get these answers from the administration. And it is Clinton-Gore that have to make these decisions. We in the Senate have our own proposal, and that is our bill S. 104. That is the Murkowski-Craig-Grams bill, which won the support of 63 Senators last year. As a Senator representing Minnesota ratepayers who already have paid over $250 million in exchange for no tangible benefit, representing taxpayers who may be held financially liable for the Federal Government's failure to act, and representing citizens concerned about protecting our environment, I believe that the Senate must not rush ahead in confirming Mr. Pena's nomination before we receive from him a specific and constructive response to our questions. Now, while I hold out hope that we will receive such answers from Mr. Pena in the immediate future, I am willing to work with my colleagues in ensuring that a final vote is not taken before a specific, constructive response is given. Accordingly, I would object to any unanimous-consent agreement to bring up Mr. Pena's nomination for a vote at this time. The Senate cannot simply allow itself to be lulled by vague promises to work together on this issue. Fifteen years of unfulfilled promises should have taught us that lesson. Again, with the January 31, 1998, deadline fast approaching, we have our own responsibility to the American people to ensure that the obligations of the Federal Government are satisfied. We owe them nothing less.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of our Nation's taxpayers and ratepayers in seeking to reaffirm the promises made to them by the Federal Government well over a decade and a half ago. Given that the Energy and Natural Resources Committee this morning reported out the nomination of Federico Pena to be the new Secretary of Energy and that full consideration by the Senate on his nomination is likely to occur soon, I find it both necessary and timely to reignite today the debate on our Nation's nuclear waste storage problem. Since 1982, our nuclear energy ratepayers have been required to pay over 12 billion of their hard-earned dollars to the Federal Government. And that was in exchange for the promise to transport and store commercially generated nuclear waste in a centralized Federal facility by January 31, 1998. Unfortunately, this obligation has never been met by the DOE, which has already spent over 6 billion of those ratepayer dollars, yet has little to show in exchange for that massive investment. Today, our ratepayers continue to pay into the Nuclear Waste Fund, as well as for on-site storage at commercial nuclear facilities across the Nation, including the one at Prairie Island in southeastern Minnesota. So now ratepayers are being asked to pay twice for the storage of nuclear waste. Even as 41 States wait for the Department of Energy to fulfill its promise to begin accepting domestic nuclear waste, the Federal Government continues to accept, transport, and store spent nuclear fuel from Federal facilities and foreign research reactors. For national security reasons, the Federal Government is even helping to pay for an interim storage facility in Russia. Yet, Mr. President, despite the strides we are making toward interim storage of foreign and Federal waste, the situation has grown critical for our own nuclear utilities and ratepayers. For example, even though the Federal courts have ruled that the DOE will be liable if it does not accept commercial nuclear waste by January 31, 1998--thereby putting taxpayers at risk for the Federal Government's inaction--the DOE has shrugged off this legal mandate, claiming that it will not be able to meet the deadline. Even worse, the DOE has yet to recommend the specific action it would take in order to accept any of our commercial nuclear waste. So again, it can accept foreign or Federal nuclear waste, transport and even pay for interim storage in Russia, but yet our Government says it cannot handle what it is under contract and obligation to do for our nuclear waste. I find this very troubling, particularly for my fellow Minnesotans, who stand to lose up to 30 percent of their energy resources if a solution is not found soon. Mr. President, the clock is ticking. In 1994, the Federal Government's failure to live up to its promise of accepting nuclear waste sparked a prolonged and controversial debate in the Minnesota State Legislature over whether to continue on-site storage at Prairie Island. While the legislature eventually voted to extend storage capacity until 2002, it would not have been forced to do so had the DOE met its legal obligation to begin accepting waste from Minnesota. At every turn, the DOE's response to this growing problem has been one of sheer arrogance and inaction. For example, when asked by me at an Energy Committee hearing how the DOE expected to resolve the situation facing Minnesota, DOE Undersecretary Thomas Grumbly argued that the problem was a State issue, in spite of the fact that the Federal government signed a contractual, legally binding agreement with utilities and the States to accept their waste by January 31, 1998. He said, take that back to the States. That is your problem, not theirs. In other words, now that the DOE has elected not to meet its responsibility, it has simply buried its head in the sand in a brazen attempt to avoid accountability. Instead of taking action, the Clinton- Gore administration is making excuses--trying once again to take a national policy problem and turn it into a crassly political debate. Unfortunately, the losers of this cynical gamesmanship are the American people. Maybe that is why 46 State agencies and 36 utilities recently sued the Department of Energy to stop requiring future payments into the Nuclear Waste Fund and to escrow over $600 million in current payments. If the Clinton-Gore administration does not wake up and take action, this lawsuit will mark only the beginning of a costly legal process to force the Federal Government to own up to its responsibilities. Because obviously, if a solution is not reached now, taxpayers, consumers, and those who care about the environment will be left stranded. That is the reality--and some of those who once argued the loudest against resolving this issue have come to the very same conclusion. For example, last month, former Department of Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary contradicted Vice President Gore's longstanding objection to meaningful action on this issue. Her comments on the need to move forward with a temporary nuclear waste storage site after the completion of a viability assessment at Yucca Mountain reflected the national will to resolve this issue. Although I am disappointed that Mrs. O'Leary's honest assessment came after her tenure as Secretary, I strongly believe the next Department of Energy Secretary must provide the commitment, the leadership necessary to immediately resolve this critical situation. Again, it is not a technical problem. It is not a problem of science. It is a problem of political will to be able to make that political decision within the administration to accept this responsibility and to provide the answers. With that in mind, I, like many of my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, took the time to ask Secretary-designate Pena his views on resolving this issue. Unfortunately, he failed to give specific and definitive answers to our questions during his confirmation hearing. Because I do not believe the Senate should confirm Mr. Pena's nomination before we have received specific answers, I sent a letter asking Mr. Pena for a detailed response outlining the exact steps the department plans to take in order to meet the January 31, 1998, deadline. Yesterday, I received a letter from Mr. Pena that failed to articulate any specific solution. So in response, I again sent him another letter reiterating my question, and I hope to hear back from him today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that our correspondence be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

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

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I want to congratulate my colleague from Utah on all the great work he has done during this very, very important debate on the balanced budget amendment. Mr. President, if recent history is any indication, we know that promises are never going to balance the budget, good intentions are never going to balance the budget, renewed commitments are never going to balance the budget, and pledges of cooperation are never going to balance the budget. Left on its own, we know that Congress itself will never balance the Federal budget. In the 1 minute that I spend delivering this statement, the national debt will increase by more than $500,000. In the past 24 hours, it has grown by over $721 million. Over the last three decades, the national debt has mushroomed to more than $5.3 trillion. The question you have to ask is, where will it stop? At what point do we say enough? What will it take to convince Washington that we are strangling the financial future of our children and our grandchildren with the noose that is being knotted by our very own hands? Mr. President, after all the promises, intentions, commitments, and pledges have failed, our last best hope rests with passage of the balanced budget amendment. In the name of America's children, I urge my colleagues to vote yes. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to again express my strong support for the balanced budget amendment. I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee for providing a forum which has encouraged debate on all sides of this critically important issue. The public has been well served by these many hours of discussion. Mr. President, let me describe the need for the balanced budget amendment by comparing it to a situation to which many Americans can relate. By repeated abuse of a high-interest credit card, your debt is rapidly mounting until you reach the point of maxing out. You're barely paying enough to cover the minimum monthly payments--let alone make any dent in the principal--and your debts threaten to consume the entire family budget. With every available dollar being funneled into your credit card payments, there is no money left over to meet your daily needs or invest in your family's future. You, the overextended consumer, are left with only two viable options: Either file for bankruptcy or drastically cut your spending. If you're so far in debt that you see nothing in your future but despair, you may seek out the help of a credit counseling service. I guarantee they'll take one look at the horrendous mess you've created and demand you come up with an immediate plan for climbing out of debt. They'll tell you there are only three options that will return you to financial solvency: Discipline, discipline, and discipline. Now imagine that scenario multiplied several trillion times, where the reckless consumer is not an individual but the Federal Government itself. That's very much the predicament the United States will soon face. As Washington continues to spend dollars it does not have, each annual budget deficit is added to the balance of the overall national debt. The national debt today stands at $5.3 trillion, or $20,000 for every American man, woman, and child. The debt is increasing by $721 million every day, and $1 in every $7 Federal tax goes to service just the interest on a debt so massive. If an individual acted with equal irresponsibility, the consequences would be severe. The Federal Government, however, simply writes another IOU in the name of our children and grandchildren and keeps right on spending, demanding services today that it wants our kids to pay for tomorrow. In recent years, the credit counselors--in this case, the American taxpayers--have been scrutinizing Federal spending and demanding that the Government be accountable for every tax dollar. But instead of hearing ``discipline, discipline, discipline,'' Washington somehow hears it as ``spend, spend, spend.'' And spend it does--even when every ounce of common sense demands that it should not. Despite all the recent talk about controlling Federal spending, there is no reason to believe Washington has fundamentally changed its ways. Without the constitutional protections of a balanced budget amendment, the outlook for our fiscal future is grim: The national debt will continue to explode, America will eventually run out of IOU's, and a bankrupt nation will surely follow. For an entire generation--more than three decades--Washington has talked about eliminating the deficit. ``[My program] is the surest and soundest way of achieving in time a balanced budget,'' said President John F. Kennedy in his State of the Union Address in 1963. That sentiment has been echoed by every President since Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. The fact that we haven't balanced the budget since 1969 demonstrates that talking about balancing the budget is far easier than actually doing it. Many budget balancing plans have been proposed over the years, yet even the most well-intentioned of them have not brought about balance, just larger deficits. The pervasive growth of government makes it painfully obvious that in a government where politicians exhibit compassion by spending other people's money, we cannot be assured our budgets will ever balance without the moral authority of the Constitution to enforce it. The latest budget proposal from the White House illustrates the real need for a balanced budget amendment. Although President Clinton's plan is billed as being balanced, it really isn't--the deficit would increase next year and early reports from the Congressional Budget Office say the Clinton plan would remain about $80 billion short of balance in 2002. Seventy-five percent of the President's deficit reduction would not occur until after the year 2000, meaning the Clinton administration will never have to make the tough choices it will take to eliminate the deficit. In other words, talk about it but leave it up to somebody else to do it. And most disturbing, instead of cutting spending and asking Washington to sacrifice, the President's budget raises taxes by $76 billion and asks, once again, that the taxpayers step forward and sacrifice. I can think of no more compelling justification for enacting the balanced budget amendment. Despite guarded optimism in Washington about reaching agreement this year to balance the budget, surveys show most Americans do not believe the deficit will be eliminated by the target date of 2002. They realize that all the laws, goals, plans, and pledges may not be strong enough to hold back the tide of rising deficits. Even if the budget were to be balanced in 2002, there is nothing to stop a future, less-vigilant Congress from picking up where the big spenders left off. The constitutional protections guaranteed by the balanced budget amendment remain our best hope of enforcing future fiscal restraint. Mr. President, I am greatly disappointed by the efforts of some of our colleagues who have chosen to use Social Security as a shield to disguise their opposition to the balanced budget amendment. Most of us have come to the conclusion this is nothing more than a transparent political ploy to defeat the amendment, while playing to the fears of senior citizens by demagoguing the Social Security issue. I have absolutely no doubt that if the Social Security concerns were erased today, another problem with the amendment would crop up tomorrow, and we would once again find ourselves in the position of being a single vote short of passage. This is already evident through the lineup of amendments we have been considering the last few weeks. I wonder if my colleagues are aware of the massive tax increase the American people would be forced to accept if we did indeed factor Social Security surpluses out of the budget process. Between 2002 and 2007 alone, the tax hike required to bring the budget into balance would amount to $706 billion. Yes, $706 billion.-- That dwarfs the record-breaking $265 billion tax increase President Clinton ushered through Congress in 1993. As their share, taxpayers in my home State of Minnesota could face a total Federal tax hike of about $12 billion. That is an average household tax increase of $1,085 per year. And again, that is just from 2002 to 2007. Mr. President, Social Security is facing serious problems, and reforms are needed to ensure that retirement benefits will continue to be available to all Americans. But taking Social Security off budget does nothing to help the trust fund remain solvent. We all know that, by law, any Social Security surpluses must be invested in Treasury securities. Without serious reform, as long as the Government is allowed to grow and to continue its deficit-spending ways, it will still borrow from the trust fund, leaving nothing but IOUs to future beneficiaries. Therefore, first and foremost, we must overhaul the way Washington spends taxpayer dollars by imposing some constitutionally mandated fiscal discipline. We must pass the balanced budget amendment and we must take appropriate actions to protect and preserve the trust fund. While I understand the arguments of those who have supported the various Social Security amendments during this debate, a more reasonable approach would be to take Social Security off budget after the budget is balanced. Congress should begin considering legislation that ensures Social Security benefits will be payable for the current and future generations, stops the use of trust fund surpluses on other Government programs, and puts real assets in the Social Security trust fund. For now, let us face it: we will never achieve a balanced budget if Social Security is taken off budget and omitted from our deficit calculations. President Clinton himself has come to that very conclusion. Mr. President, a bipartisan coalition in Congress is committed to passing a balanced budget amendment in 1997 because we believe the taxpayers deserve a responsible Government that pays its bills and saves for the future. We also support passing the balanced budget amendment in 1997. Ending deficits and lowering the national debt will free up public and private resources for more productive and innovative uses in the global economy of the 21st century. On a more personal level, working Americans will benefit directly when a balanced budget leads to lower interest rates that could save a middle-class family about $125 a month in lower mortgage, car, and student loan payments. The 105th Congress has a historic opportunity and obligation to leave a legacy of responsible governing for the generations to come. The path is well marked: To one side leads the road to bankruptcy and America's fiscal ruin; to the other, the path of political promises which may or not be kept; while directly ahead lies the trail of discipline, discipline, discipline we must--pursue the road to prosperity and accountable governing marked by passage of the balanced budget amendment. Mr. President, I thank you. I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I am also pleased to be here this morning and to join with my colleagues in introducing the Medicare Payment Equity Act, as the Senator from Wyoming has just outlined. The passage of this legislation, I believe, is critical in righting the wrongs in the Medicare system against States like Minnesota, Kansas, Wyoming, and some of the other more rural States in the country. There are three points I would like to emphasize, just to add to what the Senator from Wyoming has already said. First, again, to reiterate, the Medicare reimbursement formula is just plain unfair. While every American pays the same payroll tax to the Medicare trust fund, Minnesotans find themselves with the second-lowest reimbursement rates in the Nation. By the way, every county in Minnesota falls below the national average in the terms of Medicare reimbursement. Second, the Medicare reimbursement formula discourages quality health care. My State of Minnesota has been consistently recognized throughout the Nation as one of the most innovative, one of the most efficient and cost-conscious States in the terms of health care. Yet these very same qualities, the traits which should be encouraged, not discouraged, have skewed the Medicare formula against our providers and also against our beneficiaries. Finally, the Medicare reimbursement formula discriminates against senior citizens who live in rural areas of America. These older Americans already face fewer health care options than those who live in urban centers. That is due to the lower reimbursement rates received by health plans. However, there is no incentive for them to offer managed care services. So that means fewer choices for the senior citizens who are living in rural parts of the United States. So, Mr. President, the system needs to be changed and that is exactly what our legislation does. By making fundamental corrections to the Medicare reimbursement formula, this bill will restore equity, it will help to expand access, and will also help to ensure a greater array of health care choices to beneficiaries in States like Minnesota as well as across rural America. It will change the system, and I am very proud to join my colleagues in introducing this very important piece of legislation. Again, I am pleased to be here to join my colleagues again in reintroducing and supporting the Medicare Payment Equity Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Burns' legislation, the Promotion of Commerce On-Line in the Digital Era (Pro- CODE) Act of 1997 and am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of the bill. This is important legislation which will create the proper balance between encryption technology export interests as well as national security interests. The administration's encryption policy was disappointing to me, since it tipped the balance too far in the direction of security and law enforcement concerns, risking important privacy rights of producers and users of cncryption technology. Again our Government has found itself in the position of creating unilateral export controls that will do only one thing--essentially terminate export opportunities for U.S. companies. To limit U.S. companies from exporting encyrption technology at 56 bits without a costly key recovery system will simply price us out of the market. Many of our allies are ready to sell far more sophisticated technology without a key recovery system. It's not hard to see who will pick up most of a growing encryption technology global market. Also, key recovery is not needed for encryption technology sold domestically or imported. If U.S. companies are forced to sell only the technology including the key recovery for cost savings reasons, it's also not hard to see how quickly the domestic market will dry up in favor of imports. The solution is not import controls. The Burns bill is the solution that 18 Senators of both parties have supported today. Senator Burns' bill protects national security interests. It would not allow exports over what is available from our allies. It also allows Commerce to prohibit specific exports where there is substantial evidence the technology will be diverted or used by terrorists, drug dealers and other criminals. Further, it creates an Information Security Board designed to get industry and law enforcement interests together to address this important issue. I am sensitive to law enforcement and national security concerns, but the holes in the administration's policy are enormous and smack of politics more than sound policy. Criminals and terrorists will simply not use U.S. technology, or they will find a way to circumvent the key recovery system. Also, they can use encryption technology within the U.S. without the same scrutiny. Senator Burns has described the many problems and questions raised by a key recovery system held by a third party, so I won't belabor them. But the privacy concerns are real. I can't imagine why users would want to buy a product that simply puts at risk unwarranted release of the encrypted material. No matter how many protections can be built into the key escrow system, there is no way to avoid some misuse or abuse of the system. Senator Burns should be congratulated for his effort to correct this policy. I applaud his efforts and strongly support them as chairman of the International Finance Subcommittee of the Banking Committee which has jurisdiction over many export control issues.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Burns' legislation, the Promotion of Commerce On-Line in the Digital Era (Pro- CODE) Act of 1997 and am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of the bill. This is important legislation which will create the proper balance between encryption technology export interests as well as national security interests. The administration's encryption policy was disappointing to me, since it tipped the balance too far in the direction of security and law enforcement concerns, risking important privacy rights of producers and users of cncryption technology. Again our Government has found itself in the position of creating unilateral export controls that will do only one thing--essentially terminate export opportunities for U.S. companies. To limit U.S. companies from exporting encyrption technology at 56 bits without a costly key recovery system will simply price us out of the market. Many of our allies are ready to sell far more sophisticated technology without a key recovery system. It's not hard to see who will pick up most of a growing encryption technology global market. Also, key recovery is not needed for encryption technology sold domestically or imported. If U.S. companies are forced to sell only the technology including the key recovery for cost savings reasons, it's also not hard to see how quickly the domestic market will dry up in favor of imports. The solution is not import controls. The Burns bill is the solution that 18 Senators of both parties have supported today. Senator Burns' bill protects national security interests. It would not allow exports over what is available from our allies. It also allows Commerce to prohibit specific exports where there is substantial evidence the technology will be diverted or used by terrorists, drug dealers and other criminals. Further, it creates an Information Security Board designed to get industry and law enforcement interests together to address this important issue. I am sensitive to law enforcement and national security concerns, but the holes in the administration's policy are enormous and smack of politics more than sound policy. Criminals and terrorists will simply not use U.S. technology, or they will find a way to circumvent the key recovery system. Also, they can use encryption technology within the U.S. without the same scrutiny. Senator Burns has described the many problems and questions raised by a key recovery system held by a third party, so I won't belabor them. But the privacy concerns are real. I can't imagine why users would want to buy a product that simply puts at risk unwarranted release of the encrypted material. No matter how many protections can be built into the key escrow system, there is no way to avoid some misuse or abuse of the system. Senator Burns should be congratulated for his effort to correct this policy. I applaud his efforts and strongly support them as chairman of the International Finance Subcommittee of the Banking Committee which has jurisdiction over many export control issues.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. So are we. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. GRAMS. I am happy to yield.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today and I want to pay tribute to the University of Minnesota basketball team, who last night clinched their first Big Ten title in 15 years. As you know, the Golden Gophers defeated the Michigan Wolverines 55 to 54, in a hard-fought, come-from-behind victory. Down by four with under a minute to play, the Gophers' confidence, determination, and faith led them to victory. This is truly an accomplishment that all Minnesotans can be proud of. Under the leadership of coach Clem Haskins, the Gophers have shot, rebounded, and passed their way into the national spotlight as a team to be taken seriously in the upcoming NCAA tournament. With the great play of senior guard Bobby Jackson, junior guard Eric Harris, junior forward Sam Jacobson, and senior co-captain centers John Thomas and Trevor Winter, along with the rest of the Big Ten championship team, the Golden Gophers have set a school record 25 victories in a single season, with three regular season games to play. Among the notable accomplishments this team has achieved have been their two victories over Michigan, an overtime victory over Indiana, and a season sweep over our border rival Iowa Hawkeyes. This team has been on a mission all year to gain respect, not only from the Big Ten but also from the Nation, after having all its starters returning from last year from a team that was not invited to play in the NCAA tournament. As you can see, these Golden Gophers took matters into their own hands and earned the qualifying bid from the NCAA by winning the Big Ten title outright. From the land of 10,000 frozen lakes, this Minnesota Golden Gopher basketball team has provided warmth and excitement to fans statewide in an otherwise very cold and long Minnesota winter. Again, Mr. President, I want to congratulate Clem Haskins and his Big Ten championship team from the University of Minnesota, and wish them all the best in their final regular season games and when they go for it all in the upcoming NCAA tournament.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, in short, a Federal judge cannot even find the merit behind the compact. But, despite earlier misgivings, the Department seems resigned to embarking on what appears to be the herculean task of making some sense out of the compact in order to save it from a court. Now, Mr. President, I believe this Congress has a unique opportunity to save an overcrowded court some time, help the Department focus its energies on the consolidation and reform of milk marketing orders, and do it all while guaranteeing New England consumers and dairy producers in 44 States a little fairness. We can do this by passing the Dairy Fairness Act. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I see some of my other colleagues who have helped sponsor this legislation, including Senator Kohl and Senator Feingold, are on the floor, and I yield some time to them if they would like to add their support to this bill.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, to introduce the Dairy Fairness Act. In short, this bill repeals the provision in the 1996 farm bill creating the so-called Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. Senator Feingold and I offer this legislation with 10 other colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, for two basic reasons: Fair process and sound policy. The compact sets a very dangerous precedent by violating both. Let me be specific, first regarding process. Back in the 103d Congress--to give history--the Senate Judiciary Committee held a business meeting to consider the compact, without the benefit of a prior public hearing, and reported the bill to the floor. The full Senate never considered it. A House Judiciary subcommittee held a hearing on the proposal, but eventually sent it to full committee without a recommendation because the vote was evenly divided for and against the compact. The bill died in full committee. It is important to note that the official Department of Agriculture witness at the House hearing stated the administration had no position and twice stated that, we believe this is a matter that warrants further review and consideration. In the 104th Congress, the compact was the subject of not one single hearing in either the Judiciary Committee or the Agriculture Committee of the Senate. Nor was it the topic of a single hearing in counterpart committees in the House. The importance of all this is that veteran lawmakers knew, at best, that the Department of Agriculture was not sure about the compact. And, 11 freshmen senators and 87 House freshmen knew little-to-nothing about the compact because of the lack of any public record. Despite this, the compact was exhumed from its crypt and found its way into the Senate's version of the farm bill. Fortunately, many of my colleagues and I led a successful bipartisan effort to strip the compact from the farm bill. The House had never included the compact in its version. Now, here is the kicker. The compact never had ample consideration in the 103d Congress. It never had a single hearing in the 104th. The compact was not included in the House version of the farm bill. And, it was stripped out of the Senate's version. But the compact came back to life in conference. It was included in the 1996 farm bill and, due to time constraints on passage of farm legislation, as we know, the compact became law. Now, my purpose in reciting this litany of events is not to disparage the respective committees for not considering the compact. They have their priorities. Nor do I mean to disparage those in the conference committee for agreeing to the compact. They worked hard to present a timely and--aside from the compact-- excellent farm bill for farmers who were already making planting decisions, if not already planting at the time the bill was passed. Now my point is best summarized by the late Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who said that ``the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes can be carried out.'' I would like to think that my colleagues in what's been called the most deliberative body in the world would want nothing less for the compact or any other proposal. Unfortunately, the compact never faced the test and, as a consequence it has never been accepted. Mr. President, there is no doubt about it, the compact circumvented a very important process. In regard to policy, the scenario does not improve. In a nutshell, the compact would permit a six-State compact commission to fix prices for that region's dairy producers. Yet, simple economics tells us that the higher minimum price set by the commission will result in even more milk production in the six-State region--which is great news for producers in those six States. But the overproduction will undoubtedly further depress producer income for every other region of the country. Unfortunately, as many of my colleagues know, producer income nationally is already so depressed that the Secretary announced some emergency steps to correct the problem including the purchase of $5 million in cheese and advanced cheese purchases for the School Lunch Program. In the Midwest, it's reported to be so bad that small- and mid-sized producers aren't even recovering the cost of production. But despite all this, the compact will drive national dairy prices down even further in 44 States in order to boost producer income in 6, even though the 6 have traditionally received higher class I prices in the first place. The compact is patently unfair. The inequity it creates for dairy farmers in 44 States is exactly the problem the Framers of the Constitution thought Congress would protect against in providing us with the power to regulate commerce among the States. Now, I understand that even more States are pondering the idea of a compact of their own. I cannot underscore how destructive this course is: using government-condoned, anticompetitive programs to the disadvantage of other domestic producers in other regions of the country. In an era of freer and fairer trade, I find it very troubling that what we don't want to do with our foreign competitors, we're now doing to ourselves. That's no way to encourage a national industry and that's no way to compete abroad. Of course, it is not just dairy producers who are hurt by the compact. According to Public Voice, a leading consumer advocacy group, the compact will cost New England consumers over $300 million in just 3 years, especially affecting the region's poor, and drive up the cost of Federal, State, and local food nutrition programs. Indeed, the St. Paul Pioneer Press, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Boston Herald--whose employees as New Englanders are ostensibly served by the compact--have called it ``noxious,'' ``absurd,'' an ``ugly precedent,'' and the ``OPEC of milk.'' The compact is being challenged in Federal court. In fact, last week, the court issued an order allowing the Secretary of Agriculture 45 days to bolster his arguments for the compact before the case proceeds any further. But what was most telling was the tenor of the order and I'll offer just an excerpt. The order reads: As the Court tried to make plain in its December 11, 1996 Opinion, [the court] could not even tell whether anyone at the Department of Agriculture had read all the comments in the administrative record or just counted them since the only expressed reason . . . for his finding of compelling public interest . . . was that 95 percent of the comments . . . supported the implementation of the Compact. But, a simple head count will not do . . . particularly in view of the numerous concerns the Secretary himself expressed [about the Compact]. Those concerns, expressed in four paragraphs, overshadow the four reasons, expressed in two sentences, that the Secretary gave for finding a compelling public interest. I ask unanimous consent to have the order printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I appreciate that. (The remarks of Mr. Grams, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Feingold pertaining to the introduction of S. 322 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. SHELBY addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to talk a little bit this morning about the balanced budget amendment and really how important it is to our children, our grandchildren, and really to the future of this country. As a nation, we find ourselves at a very critical juncture. The choices we face today are stark: It is either stagnation or growth, poverty or prosperity, hope or hopelessness for our Nation's children. Throughout the history of this world, great nations have risen and great nations have fallen. Many have perished simply as a result of one fatal fiscal miscalculation at a critical time--a time at which we find ourselves today. We must move forward because we have a moral obligation to pave a trail and to light the way. Yet, a single misstep as we enter into the 21st century could cast our children off the path and into darkness. Now, despite the improvement of our short-term fiscal outlook in the past decade, we face great danger from the fiscal imbalances ahead that swing over us like a sword dangling from a thread. Without a balanced budget amendment to address these risks, I am afraid that the national debt will destroy this Nation. The debt today stands at over $5.3 trillion, and the cumulative damage of the national debt to the economy over the past 40 years has been enormous. Our Nation has fallen from its perch as the world's greatest creditor to become the world's greatest debtor Nation in history. A child born today enters the world already $20,000 in debt and faces an additional $1,300 every year just to pay the interest on that debt. By the year 2007, the national debt will rise to $8.5 trillion, and children born then will inherit a share of nearly $30,000. That is $30,000, whether poor, middle-class, or well off. Every child in every household in this land is affected. Now, as historian John Steele Gordon writes in his new book, ``Hamilton's Blessing: The Extraordinary Life and Times of Our National Debt,'' the size of the debt itself is not the problem--it is the fact that we have run it up to such extraordinary levels without justification. Gordon's research shows that in the first 184 years of our independence, the Nation borrowed a total of $300 billion to fight the wars that made and preserved our Nation. But he goes on to say that, in the last 36 years, we have taken on more than 17 times as much new debt--at first, in an attempt to maximize economic output, but in recent years, as he explains, no good reason whatsoever has been the cause behind this. Mr. President, the imbalance between the Government's entitlement promises and the funds it will have available to pay for them will alone bankrupt this Nation. Now, the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform has warned us that in the year 2012, projected outlays for entitlements and interest on the national debt will at that time consume all tax revenues collected by the Federal Government. In 2030, projected spending for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Federal employee retirement programs alone will consume all of our tax revenues, leaving nothing to educate our kids, to keep their streets safe, to cure their diseases, or to protect the environment. Shortsighted politicians repeatedly refuse to make tough choices, and the knowledge that we have no clear public policy to address this imbalance darkens our future even more. Although the solutions to our problems are anything but simple, we must not shy away from them any longer. The balanced budget amendment will force Congress and the administration to work together to defuse this time bomb. Without it, the deficit spending will continue, and that is despite all the rhetoric from both Congress and the White House to the contrary. Even if we indeed balance the budget through a statutory requirement, we all know that this is not a guarantee that our budgets will balance in the future. Our national debt will take several generations to eliminate now. We not only need the will to balance the budget, but we also need the means to follow through, to keep the budget balanced, and to begin to return the borrowed money. We need the balanced budget amendment. Talking about the protection of our children, without addressing the long-term risks that are poised to imprison them is corrupt. Mr. President, I have heard my colleagues many times on the other side of the aisle this week raise the word children as if it were a protective shield. ``We can't enact the balanced budget amendment,'' they say, ``the education of our children will suffer.'' ``We can't enact the balanced budget amendment, the nutritional health of our children is at stake.'' ``We can't enact a balanced budget amendment, our children's medical needs will go unserved.'' They have also used the phrase that we have attacked children because they are the path of least resistance. Well, we know the work that we undertake every day in this Chamber has a profound effect on every American child, just as it affects every taxpayer, every working family, and every senior citizen. I am certain there is not a single Senator in this Chamber who would deny a child a good education, deny a child a hot meal, or deny a doctor's tender care. Yet, through our own greed, we have denied that very same child a future free of a debt that they did not incur and which they do not deserve to bear. Now, I ask you this, Mr. President: Who was protecting our children while Congress amassed a debt of $5.3 trillion? Those children were not here to be able to say don't do that. We took the path of least political resistance when we put our children into debt. They did not have a voice on this Senate floor to stop us from doing that. Who stood up for America's children while Congress signed their names to a mortgage that they will never be able to escape? Who came to the floor of this Chamber crying out for the children when we sacrificed their financial security for another piece of pork, or another Federal program? I will tell you this, Mr. President. The same Senators who today raise the shield of children as their argument against the balanced budget amendment were nowhere to be found when America's children needed them most. Only the balanced budget amendment will protect our children from the suffocating excess of a Congress free to spend dollars that it does not have. So, Mr. President, the legal authority of the balanced budget amendment will ensure that we do not drown our children in a sea of debt. The moral authority of a higher power demands that we do nothing less. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, as the new chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations, I am pleased to offer my support for the nomination of Bill Richardson to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Many of us have followed Congressman Richardson's globe-trotting missions to assist captured Americans in hostile circumstances. I want to express my personal appreciation for the successful effort he made two years ago to obtain the release of Bill Barloon in Iraq, since Mr. Barloon's brother lives in my home State of Minnesota. We were very grateful. I have no doubt that the lessons Bill Richardson has learned from these missions, which one newspaper dubbed ``daredevil diplomacy,'' will serve him well at the United Nations. Often, it seems the United States must use just the right mix of aggressive persuasion and diplomatic negotiations to convince the other 184 member states at the United Nations to go along with even minor reforms. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have long had an interest in the reform and revitalization of the United Nations. But late last year, I was given the opportunity to become personally involved in some of the controversial issues surrounding this body when President Clinton appointed me to be a congressional delegate to the U.N. General Assembly. From October to December, I made three trips to the United Nations to participate in its activities. These included not only meeting with a wide range of U.N. officials and representatives from other nations, but also speaking before the U.N. budget committee--known as the Fifth Committee--and also the General Assembly itself. This experience reinforced my two key beliefs about the United Nations. First, that a properly structured United Nations can be a useful international forum and a vital tool for American foreign policy. And second, that it is also an unbelievably complex and bureaucratic organization which is crying out for an overhaul. Last month, I was encouraged by the visit to Washington of the new U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, and by his assertions to Congress that additional reforms are in the offing. I know many of us look forward to reviewing the reform package he has promised to develop by September of this year. During both his public testimony and in a private meeting with me, Bill Richardson pledged unprecedented consultations with Congress on U.N. issues. I deeply appreciated that promise and know that Mr. Richardson, as a member of Congress himself, understands the importance of genuine interaction between the executive and legislative branches on foreign policy. In that vein, there are some matters at the United Nations that I believe require immediate attention and I hope to begin working promptly with soon-to-be Ambassador Richardson to address them. To begin with, I am alarmed by the lack of resources currently being made available to the U.N. Inspector General, known as the Office of Internal Oversight Services, or the OIOS. This office is one that would not exist without American advocacy and, I might add, without the pressure of legislation mandating that some United States contributions to the United Nations be withheld until it was created. The OIOS is charged with rooting out waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement at the United Nations. According to the Undersecretary- General who runs the office, it does not always receive the cooperation it needs from all U.N. staff and member states. This is unfortunate because the purpose of the OIOS is to save money and make more effective use of U.N. resources. All member states should remember that money wasted is money that will not help meet the goals of programs that they themselves mandated the U.N. undertake. My immediate concern is that the budget of the OIOS has been cut dramatically this biennium, including a reduction of $700,000 just in 1997. It also has 12 posts which have not been filled, giving it an especially high vacancy rate for U.N. offices. In fact, my understanding is that the OIOS has only about 10 trained investigators to handle the massive job of U.N. oversight. Not only is this simply unacceptable, but it causes us to question whether the U.N. Inspector General's office is truly independent. Now I hope one of Mr. Richardson's first priorities will be to sit down with Secretary-General Annan and figure out how to bring the OIOS up to full strength. This means not only filling vacant posts for 1997, but making sure there is funding in the 1998-99 budget outline to continue those posts into the next biennium. It also means making sure the OIOS has sufficient resources to support the activities of its investigators. We have heard enough excuses on this issue and it's time for it to be resolved. The United States has declared that one of its reform goals is to expand the U.N. Inspector General's authority to all agencies and programs throughout the U.N. system. I strongly support this reform goal, but question how it can be accomplished when the OIOS is having great difficulty meeting its current responsibilities. Another issue which has caused deep congressional concern is the loss of the U.S. seat on the U.N. Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, known as the ACABQ. This is the first year since the founding of the United Nations that the United States has not had a position on this crucial budget committee. Without this seat, it will be even more difficult for the United States to get access to important technical budget information at the very time we are trying to enforce fiscal restraint and a no- growth budget at the United Nations. I would recommend Mr. Richardson take three important steps with regard to the ACABQ: First, he must make sure the U.S. mission to the United Nations and Congress will continue to have access to important budget information whenever necessary. Second, he should ensure that any matters involving the commitment or reprogramming of U.N. funds are considered in the General Assembly's Fifth Committee, on which the United States still has a seat, rather than only by the ACABQ. Now third, it is clear the United States must regain its seat during the next elections for the ACABQ in 1998. Given the stunning loss of the last U.S. candidate, Mr. Richardson and the State Department need to fully consult with Congress before nominating our next ACABQ candidate. Mr. President, before I close, I want to say a few words about the major U.N. issue facing Congress this year, which is the President's request for $1 billion to pay United States arrears to the United Nations. Given what I understand so far of the President's plan--and I still have yet to see anything on paper from the administration--I must express my disappointment with his U.N. reform proposal. First of all, I am dismayed by the reluctance, if not outright refusal, of the administration to link incremental payment of U.S. arrears to specific U.N. reforms mandated by law. Clearly, this general approach has been successful on a series of reforms ranging from the creation of the U.N. Inspector General to the ongoing implementation of a no-growth budget. Second, I am concerned the administration is focusing narrowly on simply reducing U.N. budgets and assessments to the United States. While I agree that mandating budget reductions can force U.N. bureaucrats to prioritize funding and programs, this is only part of the picture. There are a whole series of management reforms that also deserve to have the leverage of U.S. arrears behind them. The point is that we don't just want a less expensive United Nations, but one that is more manageable and efficient. Third, I have reservations about the President's request for $921 million as an advance appropriation for fiscal year 1999. These reservations are heightened if such funding will not be legislatively conditioned on mandatory reforms. My personal view is that this appropriation should not be rushed through Congress just so the President can have it in his pocket for safekeeping. We should consider this funding in the normal authorization and appropriations process so that it can be examined in the context of all budget priorities. I understand that Secretary Albright will be coming to Congress tomorrow to discuss the President's proposal so I will defer other comments until after that meeting. However, as an opening bid in the negotiations over how to resolve U.S. arrears and guarantee U.N. reform, the administration's plan seems to be falling short. Therefore, Mr. President, I hope negotiations between Congress and the administration can proceed quickly so that we can begin discussing a serious, comprehensive U.N. reform agenda. To that end, I look forward to working with our next United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, on a close and productive basis to strengthen the relationship between the United States and the United Nations.