Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Depository Institution Affiliation Act, which has been drafted by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Alfonse D'Amato. This landmark piece of legislation will modernize the archaic laws that govern our financial services industry. Passage of this legislation will benefit consumers, increase the availability of venture capital for job creation, and bolster the international competitiveness of America's financial services industry. There is a clear need to modernize the outdated laws that govern America's financial services industry, because financial services play a vital role in our daily lives. We take out loans to go to college, to buy a car, and to purchase a home. We buy insurance to provide greater security to ourselves and our families. We make investments throughout our life so that we may retire in comfort and dignity. Today, technological advancements and increased innovation in the delivery of financial services make it easier than ever for consumers to get loans, purchase insurance, and invest their earnings. Unfortunately, our archaic and burdensome laws governing financial institutions continue to discourage, rather than encourage, such advancement and innovation. The laws to which I am referring are not those governing the safety and soundness of financial institutions, such as setting minimum capital requirements or requiring periodic oversight by Federal or State regulators. Safety and soundness laws and regulations are beneficial and necessary, as they enhance the security of the consumer whenever he or she deposits money in a bank or purchases an insurance policy. The outdated laws to which I am referring are the laws that create barriers to competition by artificially compartmentalizing the three major sectors of financial services--banking, securities, and insurance. For example, under the Banking Act of 1933, more commonly known as the Glass-Steagall Act, banks are generally barred from directly investing in corporate securities, underwriting new corporate issues or sponsoring mutual funds. Under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, securities underwriters, insurance underwriters, and nonfinancial companies are generally prohibited from owning banks or being owned by a bank holding company. These outdated financial institution laws hurt consumers by artificially increasing the costs of financial services, reducing the availability of financial products, and reducing the level of convenience in the delivery of financial services. These laws hurt small businesses--an engine of job growth in the American economy--by artifically limiting the amount of equity capital available for expanded activity. These laws weaken the international competitiveness of America's financial institutions by prohibiting them from offering the range of financial services that foreign financial institutions may offer. It should be noted that the Glass-Steagall Act--which created the compartmentalized structure of financial services that we have today-- was based upon the false premise that the massive amount of bank failures that occurred during the Great Depression was caused by the securities activities that these banks conducted. However, just the opposite is true: Diversification in financial services actually increased the safety and soundness of the banks. Between 1929 and 1933, 26.3 percent of all national banks failed. However, the failure rate for those banks that conducted securities activities was lower. Of the national banks in 1929 that either had securities affiliates or had internal bond departments, only 7.2 percent had failed by 1933. The message from these statistics is clear: We should encourage competition and diversification, not discourage it. Last year, Congress passed a bipartisan and comprehensive legislative initiative to reform the Telecommunications Act and stimulate competition and innovation in the telecommunications industry. Similar action is needed this year to stimulate the growth and global competitiveness of our financial services industry. The Depository Institution Affiliation Act creates a new Financial Services Holding Company structure that will permit banks, thrifts, securities companies and insurance companies to affiliate and cross- market their products. This structure will do this while maintaining consumer protections and the safety and soundness of the Federal deposit insurance system. This legislation will greatly benefit consumers. The D'Amato bill's termination of affiliation restrictions will significantly increase competition in the financial services industry. Consumers' costs in the purchase of insurance, securities and banking products will be lowered. The bill's termination of crossmarketing restrictions will increase consumer convenience, as consumers will be able to do one-stop shopping for all of their financial services needs. The D'Amato bill does all of this while maintaining the statues and regulations that protect consumers from fraud and discrimination. This legislation will maintain the safety and soundness of the Federal deposit insurance system. The D'Amato bill protects banks from being affected by affiliate and holding company insolvency by implementing firewalls that prohibit affiliates from raiding the insured bank. As added protection, it requires that if a bank becomes anything less than satisfactorily capitalized, the Financial Services Holding Company must immediately divest of the bank. This legislation will provide for competitive equality among all financial services providers. Its provisions have been carefully crafted to provide a level playing field for banks, thrifts, securities companies and insurance companies. This charter up approach will permit all of these companies to become Financial Services Holding Companies, and will not prevent current financial institutions from conducting any activities that they currently conduct. In closing, I look forward to supporting Chairman D'Amato in his efforts to pass financial modernization legislation. It is my hope that 1997 will be the year that we join together and create a bipartisan bill that will reform our laws so that America's financial institutions will be able to compete, innovate and grow to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Depository Institution Affiliation Act, which has been drafted by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Alfonse D'Amato. This landmark piece of legislation will modernize the archaic laws that govern our financial services industry. Passage of this legislation will benefit consumers, increase the availability of venture capital for job creation, and bolster the international competitiveness of America's financial services industry. There is a clear need to modernize the outdated laws that govern America's financial services industry, because financial services play a vital role in our daily lives. We take out loans to go to college, to buy a car, and to purchase a home. We buy insurance to provide greater security to ourselves and our families. We make investments throughout our life so that we may retire in comfort and dignity. Today, technological advancements and increased innovation in the delivery of financial services make it easier than ever for consumers to get loans, purchase insurance, and invest their earnings. Unfortunately, our archaic and burdensome laws governing financial institutions continue to discourage, rather than encourage, such advancement and innovation. The laws to which I am referring are not those governing the safety and soundness of financial institutions, such as setting minimum capital requirements or requiring periodic oversight by Federal or State regulators. Safety and soundness laws and regulations are beneficial and necessary, as they enhance the security of the consumer whenever he or she deposits money in a bank or purchases an insurance policy. The outdated laws to which I am referring are the laws that create barriers to competition by artificially compartmentalizing the three major sectors of financial services--banking, securities, and insurance. For example, under the Banking Act of 1933, more commonly known as the Glass-Steagall Act, banks are generally barred from directly investing in corporate securities, underwriting new corporate issues or sponsoring mutual funds. Under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, securities underwriters, insurance underwriters, and nonfinancial companies are generally prohibited from owning banks or being owned by a bank holding company. These outdated financial institution laws hurt consumers by artificially increasing the costs of financial services, reducing the availability of financial products, and reducing the level of convenience in the delivery of financial services. These laws hurt small businesses--an engine of job growth in the American economy--by artifically limiting the amount of equity capital available for expanded activity. These laws weaken the international competitiveness of America's financial institutions by prohibiting them from offering the range of financial services that foreign financial institutions may offer. It should be noted that the Glass-Steagall Act--which created the compartmentalized structure of financial services that we have today-- was based upon the false premise that the massive amount of bank failures that occurred during the Great Depression was caused by the securities activities that these banks conducted. However, just the opposite is true: Diversification in financial services actually increased the safety and soundness of the banks. Between 1929 and 1933, 26.3 percent of all national banks failed. However, the failure rate for those banks that conducted securities activities was lower. Of the national banks in 1929 that either had securities affiliates or had internal bond departments, only 7.2 percent had failed by 1933. The message from these statistics is clear: We should encourage competition and diversification, not discourage it. Last year, Congress passed a bipartisan and comprehensive legislative initiative to reform the Telecommunications Act and stimulate competition and innovation in the telecommunications industry. Similar action is needed this year to stimulate the growth and global competitiveness of our financial services industry. The Depository Institution Affiliation Act creates a new Financial Services Holding Company structure that will permit banks, thrifts, securities companies and insurance companies to affiliate and cross- market their products. This structure will do this while maintaining consumer protections and the safety and soundness of the Federal deposit insurance system. This legislation will greatly benefit consumers. The D'Amato bill's termination of affiliation restrictions will significantly increase competition in the financial services industry. Consumers' costs in the purchase of insurance, securities and banking products will be lowered. The bill's termination of crossmarketing restrictions will increase consumer convenience, as consumers will be able to do one-stop shopping for all of their financial services needs. The D'Amato bill does all of this while maintaining the statues and regulations that protect consumers from fraud and discrimination. This legislation will maintain the safety and soundness of the Federal deposit insurance system. The D'Amato bill protects banks from being affected by affiliate and holding company insolvency by implementing firewalls that prohibit affiliates from raiding the insured bank. As added protection, it requires that if a bank becomes anything less than satisfactorily capitalized, the Financial Services Holding Company must immediately divest of the bank. This legislation will provide for competitive equality among all financial services providers. Its provisions have been carefully crafted to provide a level playing field for banks, thrifts, securities companies and insurance companies. This charter up approach will permit all of these companies to become Financial Services Holding Companies, and will not prevent current financial institutions from conducting any activities that they currently conduct. In closing, I look forward to supporting Chairman D'Amato in his efforts to pass financial modernization legislation. It is my hope that 1997 will be the year that we join together and create a bipartisan bill that will reform our laws so that America's financial institutions will be able to compete, innovate and grow to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I commend the chairman, the Senator from Utah, for all the hard work he has done on this amendment. Mr. President, it was 2 years ago I rose as a freshman Member of this body to express my strong support for a constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget. ``There is no question that Congress must pass a balanced budget amendment and send it to the States for ratification.'' That is what I said here on the Senate floor. I thought that with the will of the American people behind us, at that time we had every reason to be optimistic about its passage. Well, here we are again, 2 years later, debating the same question we debated in 1995. And I am here once again to call for the passage of the balanced budget amendment. We have already heard many of the arguments in support of Senate Joint Resolution 1, and I will not use this opportunity to repeat them all. But let it simply be said that there are indeed many. However, the release of the President's budget just this morning illustrates just how difficult it is to produce a balanced budget void of gimmicks and accounting tricks, and illustrates the very real need for the balanced budget amendment. Mr. President, this morning we got a first glimpse of the President's budget for fiscal year 1998. After a quick review of this massive document, I must say my initial feeling has been mixed. On the one hand, I am pleased that the President has agreed to many of our goals, such as a balanced budget by the year 2002, tax relief for American families, and Medicare reform, and a strong national defense. On the other hand, I am very concerned about what I see as serious flaws included in the President's plan. Let me begin my observations with the President's education proposals, which he described in his State of the Union Address as ``My No. 1 priority for the next four years.'' The President proposes $51 billion for education spending next year. That is an increase of 20 percent, rising to nearly $60 billion by the year 2002, a 40-percent increase. This includes $36 billion in tax incentives for education and training; $5 billion for school construction; $1.2 billion for a new reading program; and increased funding to connect schools to the Internet. Mr. President, we all agree that there exists a strong correlation between education and steady economic growth. Investing in the skills and abilities of the future U.S. work force will enable us to achieve and maintain high levels of knowledge and productivity in the workplace--helping to improve our standard of living and ability to remain globally competitive. However, the core question is not whether the Government should invest in education, but how those taxpayer dollars should be spent-- and, ultimately, whether more spending is the answer to our education problems. The United States has outspent every other G-7 country in education and leads in the attainment of secondary and university degrees. Our total government spending in all levels of education as a percentage of GDP has increased from 4.8 percent in 1985 to 5.1 percent in 1993--the highest among the G-7 countries. Eighty-four percent of our population successfully completes secondary education--once again, that is the highest among the G-7 countries. Twenty-four percent of our population receive a college or university diploma, a percentage more than twice that of Germany, the United Kingdom and France. It is significantly greater than that of Japan. Despite hundreds of billions of dollars in education spending and hundreds of Federal programs, American students continue to perform poorly compared to students in other countries, particularly in terms of basic science and math skills. The science and math scores of our students are the lowest among Canada, France, Italy, Switzerland, Taiwan, and Korea. Our Scholastic Aptitude Test scores among college-bound students have barely increased over the last decade, and remain below those scores attained in the 1960's and 70's. We are spending more and achieving less. Clearly, this proves that spending more money on education is not the solution. If it were, the United States would have long been No. 1 in the world in attaining academic success. Unfortunately, throwing more money at the problem appears to be this administration's only solution. The administration would do well to look at my State of Minnesota, where a recent study conducted by the St. Paul Pioneer Press showed that the school districts with the highest per-student spending produced test scores that were among the lowest. The President's education plan fails miserably at addressing the real issues that face our Nation. This is unacceptable. We must dedicate ourselves to improving our education system, but we must do it right. First and foremost, in my view, an honest education budget should be one that restores and revives our traditional values in American education: It should ensure our current resources are used efficiently; it must have incentives built into Federal programs to reward students as well as teachers who improve their performance; it must focus on improving basic science and math skills of our primary and secondary school students; it must ensure a crime- and drug-free learning environment; it must ensure that taxpayer dollars are actually helping educate our youth. Now let me turn to the President's tax proposals. I am pleased the President has acknowledged the tremendous good we accomplish by allowing working families to keep a little bit of their own money through the child tax credit. The President has moved one step closer to the $500 per-child tax credit my Republican colleagues and I have long been advocating, and we welcome him on board. However, there still exists a big gap between his proposal and ours. First of all, the President's child tax credit has too many limitations. For instance, the President extends his tax credit only to preteen children, those under 13 years of age, taking away the tax credit dollars just when families need them most. In the President's budget, the tax credit begins at only a $300 per-child for the first 3 years and is finally increased to $500 in the year 2000. Moreover, the President's plan begins phasing out the tax credit for families with a combined income of $60,000, with more limited credits for families making as much as $75,000. Finally, the President's tax credit would not be available unless deficit reduction targets are met. Now these limitations greatly dilute the purpose of child tax relief. The extensive debate we have undertaken in the past 2 years over fiscal policy has helped us understand that working families are indeed overtaxed. In fact, families today spend more on taxes than on food, clothing, and shelter combined. A $500 per child tax credit--without limitation--is more appropriate and necessary to allow families to make more of their own spending decisions. As a long-time advocate for tax relief, I would prefer a zero capital gains tax on all investment incomes. While I do applaud the President's proposal to provide a capital gains tax cut for homeowners, his plan is really just a small step forward. It is hard to justify the exemption of this type of investment gain from other investments, such as the individual who chooses to live in a relatively modest home and invest in stocks and perhaps the formation of a small manufacturing company. Why should those individuals be taxed more harshly than those who invest in a personal residence? In my view, a general cut in the capital gains tax must be provided to encourage savings, and to treat all investors equally. The current tax system discourages national savings and investment, which will adversely affect our long-term economic growth. Fundamental reform is needed to change the system. The President's budget includes tax cuts totaling $98.5 billion, with most of it going toward the family tax credit, education tax subsidies, and expanded IRA's. However, the Clinton budget proposes new tax increases targeted at airline passengers, small and large investors, and the Nation's job providers totaling some $76 billion. We can do the math ourselves: The President's budget leaves a net tax cut of just $22.4 billion. I do not believe that is what the American people intended when they re-elected the President to a second term. Another serious concern lies with the President's proposed new entitlement spending. If the President is serious about adding another $60 billion in new entitlement spending, he must show us why we need new spending programs when we have yet to repair the ones we already have. Finally, Mr. President, I remain concerned about the economic assumptions the White House has relied upon in drafting its plan, which are significantly more optimistic than the projections of the Congressional Budget Office. The President's budget has not yet been scored by the CBO. Once it is, it may very well be $70 billion short of our deficit targets. President Clinton came here to Capitol Hill just over one year ago and stood in the House Chamber to declare that, ``The era of big government is over.'' I am afraid that sentiment is not reflected within the 2,418 pages of the President's budget. I had hoped for bold steps from the President in addressing the very real need to control the growth of the Federal Government. But what we received today were more like baby steps, the first tentative wobbles of an infant. Under the President's budget, Washington will actually spend 3.5 percent more in the next fiscal year than we are today. While the President's budget appears to reach balance in 2002, more than 60 percent of his deficit reduction are slated to come after he has left office. Leaving those tough decisions not to the Clinton White House, but the administration of the Nation's next Chief Executive. Mr. President, I commend the President for the blueprint he has prepared for us, and I look forward to working with him and my colleagues to improve on and implement these historic changes in our Government. In the administration's budget, we have before us a good foundation on which to build that bridge to the 21st century the White House is so fond of speaking about. But without addressing some of the serious concerns I have outlined today, I am afraid that bridge may collapse before we are able to cross it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I introduce legislation aimed at improving government as we know it. The Department of Energy Abolishment Act of 1997 comes after nearly two decades of debate. The basic question has always remained the same: Why should we expend taxpayer dollars on this Cabinet-level agency? And today, we ask the same question. Following a year's worth of discussions on the blueprint I am putting forth, much progress has been made. When the 104th Congress began to tackle this issue, we looked at three main issues. First, we examined the fact that the Department of Energy no longer has a mission--which is clearly reflected by the fact that nearly 85 percent of its budget is expended upon nonenergy programs. Next, we studied those programs charged to the DOE and reviewed its ability to meet the related job requirements. And finally, we looked at the DOE's bloated budget in light of the first two criterion--determining whether the taxpayers should be forced to expend over $16 billion annually on this hodge- podge collection. Nearly a year later, this Nation continues to grow increasingly dependent upon foreign oil--in total contrast to the DOE's core mission. Even in light of this administration's focus on alternative energy, the DOE expends less than one-fifth of its budget on energy- related programs. And after examining key DOE mission programs, such as the Civilian Nuclear Waste program, it is clear that the goals of those missions are not being met. So we are challenged to either accept the status quo or move to change it. I must admit that the status quo may be easier in the short- term. But in the context of the proverbial big picture, we cannot afford to turn our backs. Besides the fact that it is the role of Congress to oversee taxpayer expenditures and ensure a fair rate of return on their investments, this Nation is faced with a national debt in excess of $5.3 trillion. However, gaining consensus on the need for change is easier than effecting such change. So, last year I worked with the Senate Task Force on Government Agency Elimination to develop a blueprint. Under the direction of the former Senate Majority Leader, Senator Dole, I worked with Senators Faircloth, Abraham, and Stevens to study proposals on the DOE. After months of discussions with experts in the fields of energy and defense, we introduced legislation--legislation which is the core of the bill I am introducing today. Let me be the first to state that the ideas contained within this bill are not all of my own. Just as the idea to eliminate the Department of Energy is not a new one--since its creation in 1978, experts have been clamoring to abolish this agency in search of a mission. This bill represents the comments and input of many who have worked in these fields for decades, but like all things--I consider it a work in progress. As many of our colleagues will recall, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on this very bill last September. During the hearing, we received testimony from such distinguished witnesses as the Former Assistant Energy Secretary Shelby Brewer and the Former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger in support of the proposal. Having either directly run these programs, or relied upon them, they provided strong firsthand evidence as to the detriment of leaving things as they are. The committee also received testimony from the current Acting Secretary and then-Assistant Energy Secretary, Charlie Curtis, who testified in support of improving the delivery of the Department's missions, at lower cost, for the benefit of the American people. His testimony focused upon how the DOE was working to improve its efforts to fulfill various missions, and how changing horses midstream would derail the DOE's efforts. In his remarks, Mr. Curtis dismissed the DOE Abolishment Act because the DOE did not believe it appropriate to entertain matters of this moment and complexity in the context of a bill which has as its proposed objective changing the organizational structure and fate of the Department of Energy. What the DOE fails to recognize is that the conclusions--to abolish the DOE--arise from an analysis of the Department's activities, rather than from any antigovernment ideology or mere desire to reduce government spending, as pointed out by Dr. Irwin Stelzer of the American Enterprise Institute. Supporters of the DOE Abolishment Act have always agreed that there are core functions performed by the DOE which must continue to be done, but the DOE has yet to provide a compelling argument as to why the DOE itself must continue to exist or successfully respond to our reasons for its elimination. But Mr. Curtis' objections are understandable when placed in the context of remarks by Nobel-prize economist, Dr. Milton Friedman: ``The Department of Energy offers an excellent example of a major difference between private and government projects. If a private project is a failure, it will be closed down; if a government project is a failure, it will be expanded. * * * It is in the self-interest of the Government officials in charge to keep the project alive; and they always have the ready excuse that the reason for failure was the lack of sufficient funds.'' So today, I am joined by my colleagues, Senator Abraham of Michigan, Senator Ashcroft of Missouri, Senator Faircloth of North Carolina, Senator Hutchinson of Arkansas, Senators Kyl and McCain of Arizona and Senator Stevens of Alaska, in reaffirming congressional intent to change the Department of Energy as we know it. Under the Department of Energy Abolishment Act of 1997, we dismantle the patchwork quilt of government initiatives--reassembling them into agencies better equipped to accomplish their basic goals; we refocus and increase Federal funding toward basic research by eliminating corporate welfare; and, we abolish the bloated, duplicative upper management bureaucracy. First, we begin by eliminating Energy's Cabinet-level status and establish a 3-year Resolution Agency to oversee the transition. This is critical to ensuring progress continues to be made on the core programs. Under title I, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] is spun off to become an independent agency, like it was prior to the creation of the DOE. The division which oversees hearings and appeals is eliminated, with all pending cases transferred to the Department of Justice for resolution within 1 year. The functions of the Energy Information Administration are transferred to the Department of the Interior with the instruction to privatize as many as possible. And with the exception of research being conducted by the DOE labs, basic science and energy research functions are transferred to Interior for determination on which are basic research, and which can be privatized. Those deemed as core research will be transferred to the National Science Foundation and reviewed by an independent commission. Those that are more commercial in nature will be subject to disposition recommendations by the Secretary of the Interior. The main reasoning behind this is to ensure the original mission of the DOE--to develop this Nation's energy independence--is carried out. With scarce taxpayer dollars currently competing against defense and cleanup programs within the DOE, it's no surprise that little progress has been made. However, by refocusing dollars into competitive alternative energy research--we will maximize the potential for areas such as solar, wind, biomass, and so forth. For States like Minnesota, where the desire for renewable energy technologies is high, growth in these areas could help fend off our growing dependence upon foreign oil while protecting our environment. Under Title II, the laboratory structure within the DOE is revamped. First, the three defense labs are transferred to the Defense Department. They include Sandia, Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore. The remaining labs are studied by a nondefense energy laboratory commission. This independent commission operates much like the Base Closure Commission and can recommend restructuring, privatization, or a transfer to the DOD as alternatives to closure. Congress is granted fast-track authority to adopt the Commission's recommendations. Title III attempts to assess an inventory of the Power Marketing Administration's assets, liabilities, and so forth. This inventory is aimed at ensuring fair treatment of current customers and a fair return to the taxpayers. All issues, including payments by current customers must be included in the General Accounting Office's [GAO] audit. Petroleum reserves are the focus of title IV. The Naval Petroleum Reserve is targeted for immediate sale. Any of the reserves that are unable to be disposed of within the 3-year window will be sold transitionally from the Interior Department. With the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, it is transferred to the Defense Department and an audit on value and maintenance costs is conducted by the GAO. Then, the DOD is charged with determining how much oil to maintain for national security purposes after reviewing the GAO report. Under titles V and VI, all of the national security and environmental restoration-management activities to the Department of Defense. Therefore, all defense-related activities are transferred back to Defense, but are placed in a new civilian controlled agency--Defense Nuclear Programs Agency--to ensure budget firewalls and civilian control over sensitive activities such as arms control and nonproliferation activities. And the program which has received much criticism as of late, the Civilian Nuclear Waste Program, is transferred to the Corps of Engineers. This section dovetails legislation adopted by the Senate last Congress. A key element is that the interim storage site is designated at Nevada's test site area 25. Building upon legislation I introduced last Congress, the GAO is directed to recommend privatization options and provide cost saving estimates for the overall program. For 35 States, including my home State of Minnesota, timely resolution to the nuclear waste issue is essential. The continued impasse over the designation of interim and permanent waste sites implies additional slippages in the DOE's legal requirement to accept nuclear waste by 1998. Minnesota stands to lose nearly 30 percent of its energy resources shortly after the turn of the century, but 34 other States face similar crisis. Having paid over $250 million into the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund, Minnesota's ratepayers want resolution, not the continual foot-dragging we have seen from the DOE. And when we look at the $12 billion collected to date in contrast to the lack of progress over the past 15 years, it is clear that the status quo is not working. That is primarily the impetus behind today's announcement by the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition that they are petitioning the Courts for approval to stop payments to the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund. Until the Court order in July, the DOE even denied accountability for the program. It is time for a change if we want results. This legislation provides that change. Overall, outside models estimate savings between $19 and $23 billion in the first 5 years, and approximately $5 to $7 billion annually thereafter. This is in sharp contrast to the former Secretary's Strategic Alignment Initiative, which boasts unconfirmed savings of $14 billion but no savings in the outyears. In introducing this bill, our goals are to build upon the issues raised during last year's hearing; to hold additional hearings in conjunction with those who have expressed concerns over the Department of Energy--including Senator Brownback of Kansas, chairman of the Government Affairs Subcommittee on Government Management Oversight; and, to move forward on implementing a widely supported proposal. And, in the coming weeks, Representative Tiahrt of Kansas will be introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives in the near future. Contrary to proponents of the status quo, the momentum is far from being derailed. In fact, if we were to look at the Department of Energy's own Report on External Regulation issued in December 1996, even its own working group recommended transferring the regulation of its nuclear facilities to outside entities. The report concluded that by through external regulation, and adoption of the private sector's safety culture, program safety and public confidence would be greatly enhanced. We agree. And we would like to see such concepts applied across the board to DOE's programs--and the DOE ultimately eliminated. We welcome any input to that end from the administration. And so looking back over the past year--examining how the debate has transformed from one of whether or not to maintain the status quo, to one of how to change it--I am encouraged over the progress we have made. Today, we mark the beginning of the debate on achieving our goal of streamlining government and improving the delivery of government services at lower costs to the American taxpayers. One year from now, it is my hope that we will be working toward the implementation of a restructuring plan on the Department of Energy.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today, with the support of my colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, to introduce an important health care proposal that is designed to improve our emergency medical system and to ultimately benefit our constituents who depend on these services. The area is one I believe has not received the attention that it deserves. In a nation where some 268,000 Americans turn to the 911 emergency response system for help every single day, our population relies on the readiness, efficiency and the quick response of our emergency medical system. It is something on which the American people have come to depend, a service we nearly take for granted. We don't know when we need it, but we want it to work well when we do. The men and women who risk their lives in delivering emergency care are true heroes, yet their desire to improve the services they provide is rarely recognized by Congress. The nightly news is filled with the stories of local emergency response problems. You may recall the tragedy in Philadelphia in 1994 when a young boy died on the steps of his church after being beaten. It took police 40 minutes to respond after the first 911 call was received. Here in the District of Columbia, some residents have waited for more than 25 minutes before an ambulance responded to their 911 medical emergency. Far too often, Congress fails to respond until there is a national crisis, but we can't afford to wait for a crisis to occur before we respond to the needs of our emergency medical system. Patients' lives are at risk if Congress doesn't begin to help the system become more efficient. Currently, emergency medical service providers are not consulted when Washington is formulating national policy which affects their ability to respond in a timely and in an efficient manner, and there is no coordinated Government focus on EMS, no collection of national data and statistics which I believe would help Congress and the administration develop more effective policies to help improve EMS. Furthermore, there is no lead EMS agency to provide guidance and direction to Congress and the States when implementing Federal policies concerning Medicare reimbursement issues, emergency management planning, or the effect of Federal regulations on EMS providers. This lack of coordination often negatively impacts providers of EMS and our constituents who rely upon them. Later this year, Congress will be reauthorizing the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, for which its supporters will be asking for $26 billion in transportation spending, and yet the emergency medical services communities will likely not have a voice in improving our transportation system. That is the very system they depend upon to ensure that when they are dispatched to a patient in need of emergency medical services, the highway design or newest technologies will allow them to respond quickly and efficiently. EMS providers need a seat at the table. I find it ironic that we expect so much from our EMS system and yet, when they seek assistance, we continue to ignore their 911 call for help. That is why I am today introducing the Emergency Medical Services Efficiency Act of 1997. My legislation sets out a blueprint for responding to the needs of our emergency medical system and begins to address just a few of their concerns Washington has long ignored. First, the Grams-Graham bill will require Medicare to reimburse for ambulance services provided for emergency medical care based on the original diagnosis by a prudent layperson, instead of the ultimate diagnosis determined by health professionals in the emergency room. Mr. President, the division of emergency medical services for the city of St. Paul, MN, prepared a list for me of just some of their 1996 emergency ambulance transports that began as a 911 call for help, but were eventually denied payment by Medicare. Among the cases where payment was denied include a 79-year-old female, on several prescription medications, who had fallen in the night and was suffering from vertigo; a 72-year-old male, on numerous prescription medications, who had fallen on the sidewalk, had lacerations on his arm, a cut over his right eye, and was confused; and also a 95-year-old female who awoke confused and weak, possibly suffering from a stroke. In each of these incidents, emergency services personnel responded to what they believed to be medical emergencies. Even though the cases were ultimately ruled nonemergencies, the EMS providers should have been reimbursed by Medicare for the emergency transport service that they provided. As Joseph A. Grafft, EMS Manager for the FIRE/EMS Center at Metropolitan State University in St. Paul noted in a letter to me, ``Ambulance providers are not physicians and do not diagnose patients. They deal with presenting symptoms and give care based on these symptoms. The physicians diagnose and make the final determination. Ambulance providers should not be penalized for doing their job.'' Our bill ensures that Medicare reimbursements are based on the original diagnoses of the 911 callers. At the same time, we do not seek reimbursements for medical conditions that are clearly not life- threatening. Second, our bill establishes two separate advisory councils comprised of emergency service providers and others. The first will advise the Health Care Financing Administration on issues pertaining to Medicare reimbursement. The second advisory council will make recommendations to the administration and Congress in regard to improving the efficiency and coordination of our emergency medical system. Third, our bill will designate a lead-EMS agency, to be established at the direction of the Secretary of Transportation in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Secretary will make recommendations to Congress as to which functions should be transferred to the Transportation Department in order to streamline and coordinate the EMS system. Finally, our bill directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish a national database for the collection of statistics relating to the delivery of emergency medical services within our national transportation system and national emergency response system. The Secretary will set forth the appropriate criteria for national data collection in consultation with State EMS agencies to ensure the least burdensome data collection reporting procedures. We would hope this database could be tied to an existing data collection system. I believe these four provisions will begin to address a few of the needs that the EMS community has brought to my attention. This bill will allow Congress, the President, as well as State and local officials to have the resources and also the facts they need to make necessary improvements in emergency medical care to patients. Dr. Daniel Hankins, president of the Minnesota Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, made that point eloquently in a recent letter to me. He said, ``For too long EMS has been forgotten when health care legislation has been proposed.'' He went on to say, ``EMS is a small, but crucial part of the overall health care system. It is in most rural areas the only lifeline for access into emergency care. It is a fragile safety net . . . that is only held together by the dedication of the many volunteers that comprise the EMS system.'' Mr. President, I am pleased that I am joined today by the senior Senator from the State of Florida in the introduction of this legislation. We are proud to have a large number of organizations--organizations dedicated to improving emergency medical care--supporting our legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a complete list of these organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, Mr. President. The Emergency Medical Services Efficiency Act is not the answer to all of the problems. But it is the first step in addressing the concerns of a very important segment of both our health care and transportation systems. This bill is a blueprint for further improvements in emergency medical services to help all Americans. By introducing today's legislation early in the session, it is my hope that we will call attention to the needs of EMS providers and move forward to a more comprehensive bill, one that addresses additional concerns that are equally important to the EMS community as those we have addressed here today. Over the next few weeks, I will be working with EMS providers in Minnesota and throughout the country to look at improving four key areas: regulatory oversight, technology improvements in medicine and transportation, insurance reimbursement issues, and the EMS functions which should be transferred and streamlined under the Department of Transportation. Senator Graham has worked tirelessly to ensure that the definition of ``prudent layperson'' apply not only to ambulance service but also to care provided at emergency departments. In our second bill, it is our intent to include Senator Graham's new language to ensure that patients are not denied reimbursement for emergency care because they failed to obtain proper certification or authorization from their insurance provider. I look forward to working with the American Association of Health Plans, which today announced new policies to clarify how health plans should cover emergency care, in developing an appropriate legislative solution. The legislation we introduce today and our subsequent work will be part of an ongoing effort we hope to include in the newly drafted Rural Health Improvement Act. This important overall effort, in which I have also been involved, will help ensure that rural areas are not overlooked in our desire to improve health care delivery. So finally, Mr. President, I look forward to working with Senator Graham, Senator Thomas, and others in the months and weeks ahead to improve emergency medical services for patients and providers and ensure the most efficient use of scarce tax dollars. The American people expect--and of course deserve--nothing less. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that in its first printing, the following Senator be added as an original cosponsor to the Department of Energy Abolishment Act of 1997, a bill to eliminate the Department of Energy: Mr. Hagel of Nebraska.

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Grams pertaining to the introduction of S. 238 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I introduce legislation aimed at improving government as we know it. The Department of Energy Abolishment Act of 1997 comes after nearly two decades of debate. The basic question has always remained the same: Why should we expend taxpayer dollars on this Cabinet-level agency? And today, we ask the same question. Following a year's worth of discussions on the blueprint I am putting forth, much progress has been made. When the 104th Congress began to tackle this issue, we looked at three main issues. First, we examined the fact that the Department of Energy no longer has a mission--which is clearly reflected by the fact that nearly 85 percent of its budget is expended upon nonenergy programs. Next, we studied those programs charged to the DOE and reviewed its ability to meet the related job requirements. And finally, we looked at the DOE's bloated budget in light of the first two criterion--determining whether the taxpayers should be forced to expend over $16 billion annually on this hodge- podge collection. Nearly a year later, this Nation continues to grow increasingly dependent upon foreign oil--in total contrast to the DOE's core mission. Even in light of this administration's focus on alternative energy, the DOE expends less than one-fifth of its budget on energy- related programs. And after examining key DOE mission programs, such as the Civilian Nuclear Waste program, it is clear that the goals of those missions are not being met. So we are challenged to either accept the status quo or move to change it. I must admit that the status quo may be easier in the short- term. But in the context of the proverbial big picture, we cannot afford to turn our backs. Besides the fact that it is the role of Congress to oversee taxpayer expenditures and ensure a fair rate of return on their investments, this Nation is faced with a national debt in excess of $5.3 trillion. However, gaining consensus on the need for change is easier than effecting such change. So, last year I worked with the Senate Task Force on Government Agency Elimination to develop a blueprint. Under the direction of the former Senate Majority Leader, Senator Dole, I worked with Senators Faircloth, Abraham, and Stevens to study proposals on the DOE. After months of discussions with experts in the fields of energy and defense, we introduced legislation--legislation which is the core of the bill I am introducing today. Let me be the first to state that the ideas contained within this bill are not all of my own. Just as the idea to eliminate the Department of Energy is not a new one--since its creation in 1978, experts have been clamoring to abolish this agency in search of a mission. This bill represents the comments and input of many who have worked in these fields for decades, but like all things--I consider it a work in progress. As many of our colleagues will recall, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on this very bill last September. During the hearing, we received testimony from such distinguished witnesses as the Former Assistant Energy Secretary Shelby Brewer and the Former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger in support of the proposal. Having either directly run these programs, or relied upon them, they provided strong firsthand evidence as to the detriment of leaving things as they are. The committee also received testimony from the current Acting Secretary and then-Assistant Energy Secretary, Charlie Curtis, who testified in support of improving the delivery of the Department's missions, at lower cost, for the benefit of the American people. His testimony focused upon how the DOE was working to improve its efforts to fulfill various missions, and how changing horses midstream would derail the DOE's efforts. In his remarks, Mr. Curtis dismissed the DOE Abolishment Act because the DOE did not believe it appropriate to entertain matters of this moment and complexity in the context of a bill which has as its proposed objective changing the organizational structure and fate of the Department of Energy. What the DOE fails to recognize is that the conclusions--to abolish the DOE--arise from an analysis of the Department's activities, rather than from any antigovernment ideology or mere desire to reduce government spending, as pointed out by Dr. Irwin Stelzer of the American Enterprise Institute. Supporters of the DOE Abolishment Act have always agreed that there are core functions performed by the DOE which must continue to be done, but the DOE has yet to provide a compelling argument as to why the DOE itself must continue to exist or successfully respond to our reasons for its elimination. But Mr. Curtis' objections are understandable when placed in the context of remarks by Nobel-prize economist, Dr. Milton Friedman: ``The Department of Energy offers an excellent example of a major difference between private and government projects. If a private project is a failure, it will be closed down; if a government project is a failure, it will be expanded. * * * It is in the self-interest of the Government officials in charge to keep the project alive; and they always have the ready excuse that the reason for failure was the lack of sufficient funds.'' So today, I am joined by my colleagues, Senator Abraham of Michigan, Senator Ashcroft of Missouri, Senator Faircloth of North Carolina, Senator Hutchinson of Arkansas, Senators Kyl and McCain of Arizona and Senator Stevens of Alaska, in reaffirming congressional intent to change the Department of Energy as we know it. Under the Department of Energy Abolishment Act of 1997, we dismantle the patchwork quilt of government initiatives--reassembling them into agencies better equipped to accomplish their basic goals; we refocus and increase Federal funding toward basic research by eliminating corporate welfare; and, we abolish the bloated, duplicative upper management bureaucracy. First, we begin by eliminating Energy's Cabinet-level status and establish a 3-year Resolution Agency to oversee the transition. This is critical to ensuring progress continues to be made on the core programs. Under title I, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] is spun off to become an independent agency, like it was prior to the creation of the DOE. The division which oversees hearings and appeals is eliminated, with all pending cases transferred to the Department of Justice for resolution within 1 year. The functions of the Energy Information Administration are transferred to the Department of the Interior with the instruction to privatize as many as possible. And with the exception of research being conducted by the DOE labs, basic science and energy research functions are transferred to Interior for determination on which are basic research, and which can be privatized. Those deemed as core research will be transferred to the National Science Foundation and reviewed by an independent commission. Those that are more commercial in nature will be subject to disposition recommendations by the Secretary of the Interior. The main reasoning behind this is to ensure the original mission of the DOE--to develop this Nation's energy independence--is carried out. With scarce taxpayer dollars currently competing against defense and cleanup programs within the DOE, it's no surprise that little progress has been made. However, by refocusing dollars into competitive alternative energy research--we will maximize the potential for areas such as solar, wind, biomass, and so forth. For States like Minnesota, where the desire for renewable energy technologies is high, growth in these areas could help fend off our growing dependence upon foreign oil while protecting our environment. Under Title II, the laboratory structure within the DOE is revamped. First, the three defense labs are transferred to the Defense Department. They include Sandia, Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore. The remaining labs are studied by a nondefense energy laboratory commission. This independent commission operates much like the Base Closure Commission and can recommend restructuring, privatization, or a transfer to the DOD as alternatives to closure. Congress is granted fast-track authority to adopt the Commission's recommendations. Title III attempts to assess an inventory of the Power Marketing Administration's assets, liabilities, and so forth. This inventory is aimed at ensuring fair treatment of current customers and a fair return to the taxpayers. All issues, including payments by current customers must be included in the General Accounting Office's [GAO] audit. Petroleum reserves are the focus of title IV. The Naval Petroleum Reserve is targeted for immediate sale. Any of the reserves that are unable to be disposed of within the 3-year window will be sold transitionally from the Interior Department. With the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, it is transferred to the Defense Department and an audit on value and maintenance costs is conducted by the GAO. Then, the DOD is charged with determining how much oil to maintain for national security purposes after reviewing the GAO report. Under titles V and VI, all of the national security and environmental restoration-management activities to the Department of Defense. Therefore, all defense-related activities are transferred back to Defense, but are placed in a new civilian controlled agency--Defense Nuclear Programs Agency--to ensure budget firewalls and civilian control over sensitive activities such as arms control and nonproliferation activities. And the program which has received much criticism as of late, the Civilian Nuclear Waste Program, is transferred to the Corps of Engineers. This section dovetails legislation adopted by the Senate last Congress. A key element is that the interim storage site is designated at Nevada's test site area 25. Building upon legislation I introduced last Congress, the GAO is directed to recommend privatization options and provide cost saving estimates for the overall program. For 35 States, including my home State of Minnesota, timely resolution to the nuclear waste issue is essential. The continued impasse over the designation of interim and permanent waste sites implies additional slippages in the DOE's legal requirement to accept nuclear waste by 1998. Minnesota stands to lose nearly 30 percent of its energy resources shortly after the turn of the century, but 34 other States face similar crisis. Having paid over $250 million into the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund, Minnesota's ratepayers want resolution, not the continual foot-dragging we have seen from the DOE. And when we look at the $12 billion collected to date in contrast to the lack of progress over the past 15 years, it is clear that the status quo is not working. That is primarily the impetus behind today's announcement by the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition that they are petitioning the Courts for approval to stop payments to the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund. Until the Court order in July, the DOE even denied accountability for the program. It is time for a change if we want results. This legislation provides that change. Overall, outside models estimate savings between $19 and $23 billion in the first 5 years, and approximately $5 to $7 billion annually thereafter. This is in sharp contrast to the former Secretary's Strategic Alignment Initiative, which boasts unconfirmed savings of $14 billion but no savings in the outyears. In introducing this bill, our goals are to build upon the issues raised during last year's hearing; to hold additional hearings in conjunction with those who have expressed concerns over the Department of Energy--including Senator Brownback of Kansas, chairman of the Government Affairs Subcommittee on Government Management Oversight; and, to move forward on implementing a widely supported proposal. And, in the coming weeks, Representative Tiahrt of Kansas will be introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives in the near future. Contrary to proponents of the status quo, the momentum is far from being derailed. In fact, if we were to look at the Department of Energy's own Report on External Regulation issued in December 1996, even its own working group recommended transferring the regulation of its nuclear facilities to outside entities. The report concluded that by through external regulation, and adoption of the private sector's safety culture, program safety and public confidence would be greatly enhanced. We agree. And we would like to see such concepts applied across the board to DOE's programs--and the DOE ultimately eliminated. We welcome any input to that end from the administration. And so looking back over the past year--examining how the debate has transformed from one of whether or not to maintain the status quo, to one of how to change it--I am encouraged over the progress we have made. Today, we mark the beginning of the debate on achieving our goal of streamlining government and improving the delivery of government services at lower costs to the American taxpayers. One year from now, it is my hope that we will be working toward the implementation of a restructuring plan on the Department of Energy.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today, with the support of my colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, to introduce an important health care proposal that is designed to improve our emergency medical system and to ultimately benefit our constituents who depend on these services. The area is one I believe has not received the attention that it deserves. In a nation where some 268,000 Americans turn to the 911 emergency response system for help every single day, our population relies on the readiness, efficiency and the quick response of our emergency medical system. It is something on which the American people have come to depend, a service we nearly take for granted. We don't know when we need it, but we want it to work well when we do. The men and women who risk their lives in delivering emergency care are true heroes, yet their desire to improve the services they provide is rarely recognized by Congress. The nightly news is filled with the stories of local emergency response problems. You may recall the tragedy in Philadelphia in 1994 when a young boy died on the steps of his church after being beaten. It took police 40 minutes to respond after the first 911 call was received. Here in the District of Columbia, some residents have waited for more than 25 minutes before an ambulance responded to their 911 medical emergency. Far too often, Congress fails to respond until there is a national crisis, but we can't afford to wait for a crisis to occur before we respond to the needs of our emergency medical system. Patients' lives are at risk if Congress doesn't begin to help the system become more efficient. Currently, emergency medical service providers are not consulted when Washington is formulating national policy which affects their ability to respond in a timely and in an efficient manner, and there is no coordinated Government focus on EMS, no collection of national data and statistics which I believe would help Congress and the administration develop more effective policies to help improve EMS. Furthermore, there is no lead EMS agency to provide guidance and direction to Congress and the States when implementing Federal policies concerning Medicare reimbursement issues, emergency management planning, or the effect of Federal regulations on EMS providers. This lack of coordination often negatively impacts providers of EMS and our constituents who rely upon them. Later this year, Congress will be reauthorizing the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, for which its supporters will be asking for $26 billion in transportation spending, and yet the emergency medical services communities will likely not have a voice in improving our transportation system. That is the very system they depend upon to ensure that when they are dispatched to a patient in need of emergency medical services, the highway design or newest technologies will allow them to respond quickly and efficiently. EMS providers need a seat at the table. I find it ironic that we expect so much from our EMS system and yet, when they seek assistance, we continue to ignore their 911 call for help. That is why I am today introducing the Emergency Medical Services Efficiency Act of 1997. My legislation sets out a blueprint for responding to the needs of our emergency medical system and begins to address just a few of their concerns Washington has long ignored. First, the Grams-Graham bill will require Medicare to reimburse for ambulance services provided for emergency medical care based on the original diagnosis by a prudent layperson, instead of the ultimate diagnosis determined by health professionals in the emergency room. Mr. President, the division of emergency medical services for the city of St. Paul, MN, prepared a list for me of just some of their 1996 emergency ambulance transports that began as a 911 call for help, but were eventually denied payment by Medicare. Among the cases where payment was denied include a 79-year-old female, on several prescription medications, who had fallen in the night and was suffering from vertigo; a 72-year-old male, on numerous prescription medications, who had fallen on the sidewalk, had lacerations on his arm, a cut over his right eye, and was confused; and also a 95-year-old female who awoke confused and weak, possibly suffering from a stroke. In each of these incidents, emergency services personnel responded to what they believed to be medical emergencies. Even though the cases were ultimately ruled nonemergencies, the EMS providers should have been reimbursed by Medicare for the emergency transport service that they provided. As Joseph A. Grafft, EMS Manager for the FIRE/EMS Center at Metropolitan State University in St. Paul noted in a letter to me, ``Ambulance providers are not physicians and do not diagnose patients. They deal with presenting symptoms and give care based on these symptoms. The physicians diagnose and make the final determination. Ambulance providers should not be penalized for doing their job.'' Our bill ensures that Medicare reimbursements are based on the original diagnoses of the 911 callers. At the same time, we do not seek reimbursements for medical conditions that are clearly not life- threatening. Second, our bill establishes two separate advisory councils comprised of emergency service providers and others. The first will advise the Health Care Financing Administration on issues pertaining to Medicare reimbursement. The second advisory council will make recommendations to the administration and Congress in regard to improving the efficiency and coordination of our emergency medical system. Third, our bill will designate a lead-EMS agency, to be established at the direction of the Secretary of Transportation in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Secretary will make recommendations to Congress as to which functions should be transferred to the Transportation Department in order to streamline and coordinate the EMS system. Finally, our bill directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish a national database for the collection of statistics relating to the delivery of emergency medical services within our national transportation system and national emergency response system. The Secretary will set forth the appropriate criteria for national data collection in consultation with State EMS agencies to ensure the least burdensome data collection reporting procedures. We would hope this database could be tied to an existing data collection system. I believe these four provisions will begin to address a few of the needs that the EMS community has brought to my attention. This bill will allow Congress, the President, as well as State and local officials to have the resources and also the facts they need to make necessary improvements in emergency medical care to patients. Dr. Daniel Hankins, president of the Minnesota Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, made that point eloquently in a recent letter to me. He said, ``For too long EMS has been forgotten when health care legislation has been proposed.'' He went on to say, ``EMS is a small, but crucial part of the overall health care system. It is in most rural areas the only lifeline for access into emergency care. It is a fragile safety net . . . that is only held together by the dedication of the many volunteers that comprise the EMS system.'' Mr. President, I am pleased that I am joined today by the senior Senator from the State of Florida in the introduction of this legislation. We are proud to have a large number of organizations--organizations dedicated to improving emergency medical care--supporting our legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a complete list of these organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, Mr. President. The Emergency Medical Services Efficiency Act is not the answer to all of the problems. But it is the first step in addressing the concerns of a very important segment of both our health care and transportation systems. This bill is a blueprint for further improvements in emergency medical services to help all Americans. By introducing today's legislation early in the session, it is my hope that we will call attention to the needs of EMS providers and move forward to a more comprehensive bill, one that addresses additional concerns that are equally important to the EMS community as those we have addressed here today. Over the next few weeks, I will be working with EMS providers in Minnesota and throughout the country to look at improving four key areas: regulatory oversight, technology improvements in medicine and transportation, insurance reimbursement issues, and the EMS functions which should be transferred and streamlined under the Department of Transportation. Senator Graham has worked tirelessly to ensure that the definition of ``prudent layperson'' apply not only to ambulance service but also to care provided at emergency departments. In our second bill, it is our intent to include Senator Graham's new language to ensure that patients are not denied reimbursement for emergency care because they failed to obtain proper certification or authorization from their insurance provider. I look forward to working with the American Association of Health Plans, which today announced new policies to clarify how health plans should cover emergency care, in developing an appropriate legislative solution. The legislation we introduce today and our subsequent work will be part of an ongoing effort we hope to include in the newly drafted Rural Health Improvement Act. This important overall effort, in which I have also been involved, will help ensure that rural areas are not overlooked in our desire to improve health care delivery. So finally, Mr. President, I look forward to working with Senator Graham, Senator Thomas, and others in the months and weeks ahead to improve emergency medical services for patients and providers and ensure the most efficient use of scarce tax dollars. The American people expect--and of course deserve--nothing less. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I have two quick orders of business.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to join with my distinguished colleagues, Mr. Murkowski, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Mr. Craig of Idaho, in introducing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. As a cosponsor of the legislation passed by the Senate during the 104th Congress, I believe this legislation represents the best means of ensuring that the Department of Energy meet its legal obligations to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel by 1998. Last year, nearly identical legislation was adopted by a strong bipartisan vote in the Senate. And with nuclear waste scattered over some 35 States, including my home State of Minnesota, it was no surprise that the national interest in resolving this issue is strong. However, a variety of factors, including a lack of action by the House of Representatives, led to the demise of the 104th Congress' bill. But support for enacting a real solution has never been stronger. Last July, the U.S. Court of Appeals reaffirmed that the DOE continues to have responsibility for permanently storing our Nation's commercial waste. It is no wonder, considering our nation's ratepayers have already contributed some $12 billion; over $250 million from Minnesotans alone. Having recently returned from Yucca Mountain, the proposed permanent storage site located in Nevada, I believe much progress has been made over the last year. But after 15 years and with nearly half the nuclear trust fund depleted, there still remains no measurable value and the American public is fed up with empty promises from their Federal Government. They deserve action now. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997 delivers such action. It provides all the tools necessary to break our interim storage impasse. Furthermore, it provides mechanisms to complete the characterization of Yucca Mountain and gets the program moving out of the current stalemate. With 1998 just around the corner, timely action on this legislation is critical. For States like Minnesota, which stand to lose nearly 30 percent of its overall energy resources, action should have occurred last year. And now, with the confirmation of a new Energy Secretary required, and the program in transition, Congress is faced with some tough challenges but our resolve must remain strong. And the introduction of this legislation today is our first step. In the coming weeks and months, we will be asking our colleagues to join us in supporting this long overdue legislation. Rarely does the Congress have the opportunity which meets the twin goals of protecting our environment and strengthening our economy. Mr. President, I hope that the support we had last Congress will be even stronger this year. I would encourage my colleagues to add their name today as cosponsors to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the bill introduced today by my colleagues, Senator Grassley and Senator Dorgan, to clarify the intent of Congress and to allow farmers and ranchers to use deferred payment contracts without tax penalty under the alternative minimum tax. Last year this Congress passed, and the President signed, the most sweeping reforms in agricultural policy in 60 years, giving our farmers and ranchers the freedom to farm. Farmers can now plant for the market, not for Uncle Sam. But our commitment to agriculture did not--and cannot--end there. We promised farmers and ranchers regulatory reform, free and fair trade, market-oriented tools to better manage their risk, and tax relief. Unfortunately, the Internal Revenue Service has caused us to radically depart from this commitment in regard to tax relief. By ruling that producers are subject to tax liability on deferred payment contracts in the year the contract is signed, instead of when he or she actually receives the payment, the IRS has dealt American agriculture a very serious blow. Cash-based accounting, as it is often called, is extremely important to Minnesota farmers because incomes fluctuate so radically from year to year depending on what Mother Nature decides to unleash on us. This is especially important in my home State of Minnesota because, as many of you know, some say it is the land of 9 months of winter and then 3 months of poor sledding. But adding further to the importance of cash-based accounting is the fact that farmers and ranchers are only paid once or twice a year. Understandably, many farmers and ranchers like to receive their payments in installments. And that is much the way school teachers do over the summer months. Getting paid in increments can ease their cash flow problems that might otherwise occur. Congress, to its credit, has always understood these unique circumstances and therefore always intended agriculture to have the benefit of cash-based accounting. As late as 1980, Congress reaffirmed this. But according to the IRS, this all changed in amendments to the Tax Code in 1986. I disagree. Without rehashing all of the arguments of why this decision is in error, let me offer just one. As one Rutgers University tax law professor observed, had this been the intent of the proposed changes to the Tax Code in 1986, surely there would have been large-scale opposition at that time. And, no doubt, the opposition would have been spearheaded by Senator Grassley, who sits on the tax writing committee. But there was not a word about it. Maybe that is why it took the IRS a decade to find out why. None of us want to point fingers at who is responsible for this mistake. We only want congressional intent carried out. If the most efficient way of accomplishing this end is to pass legislation to clarify things, then that is what we should do. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill. I commend Senators Grassley and Dorgan for their leadership on this issue. I urge timely consideration and passage of this extremely important bill.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the bill introduced today by my colleagues, Senator Grassley and Senator Dorgan, to clarify the intent of Congress and to allow farmers and ranchers to use deferred payment contracts without tax penalty under the alternative minimum tax. Last year this Congress passed, and the President signed, the most sweeping reforms in agricultural policy in 60 years, giving our farmers and ranchers the freedom to farm. Farmers can now plant for the market, not for Uncle Sam. But our commitment to agriculture did not--and cannot--end there. We promised farmers and ranchers regulatory reform, free and fair trade, market-oriented tools to better manage their risk, and tax relief. Unfortunately, the Internal Revenue Service has caused us to radically depart from this commitment in regard to tax relief. By ruling that producers are subject to tax liability on deferred payment contracts in the year the contract is signed, instead of when he or she actually receives the payment, the IRS has dealt American agriculture a very serious blow. Cash-based accounting, as it is often called, is extremely important to Minnesota farmers because incomes fluctuate so radically from year to year depending on what Mother Nature decides to unleash on us. This is especially important in my home State of Minnesota because, as many of you know, some say it is the land of 9 months of winter and then 3 months of poor sledding. But adding further to the importance of cash-based accounting is the fact that farmers and ranchers are only paid once or twice a year. Understandably, many farmers and ranchers like to receive their payments in installments. And that is much the way school teachers do over the summer months. Getting paid in increments can ease their cash flow problems that might otherwise occur. Congress, to its credit, has always understood these unique circumstances and therefore always intended agriculture to have the benefit of cash-based accounting. As late as 1980, Congress reaffirmed this. But according to the IRS, this all changed in amendments to the Tax Code in 1986. I disagree. Without rehashing all of the arguments of why this decision is in error, let me offer just one. As one Rutgers University tax law professor observed, had this been the intent of the proposed changes to the Tax Code in 1986, surely there would have been large-scale opposition at that time. And, no doubt, the opposition would have been spearheaded by Senator Grassley, who sits on the tax writing committee. But there was not a word about it. Maybe that is why it took the IRS a decade to find out why. None of us want to point fingers at who is responsible for this mistake. We only want congressional intent carried out. If the most efficient way of accomplishing this end is to pass legislation to clarify things, then that is what we should do. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill. I commend Senators Grassley and Dorgan for their leadership on this issue. I urge timely consideration and passage of this extremely important bill.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of House Joint Resolution 25, which was received from the House.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the joint resolution be deemed read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. That is fine. (The remarks of Mr. Nickles pertaining to the introduction of S. 9 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') (The remarks of Mr. Nickles, Mr. Grams, and Mr. Hutchinson pertaining to the introduction of S. 9 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Madam President.

Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for helping us in supporting this bill. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation, together with Senator Hutchinson, my distinguished colleague from Arkansas, a bill to provide the $500 per child tax credit for America's working families. We are pleased, as I said, to be joined by Senator Nickles, along with Senators Kyl and Coats, in introducing this bill. The November election sends us a very clear message that the American people want us to work together, to work together in a bipartisan manner, to balance the Federal budget, control the growth of Government, and to restore its accountability. While we see the tax burden increase on the middle class, working families need our help, and it is time that Congress and the President come together to deliver it. Since the opening days of the 105th Congress, a renewed spirit of cooperation has settled in over Washington. Instead of the partisan politics that have often and too often exploited our disagreements, the talk from the Capitol Building to the White House has centered on creating consensus. Just yesterday in his inaugural address the President affirmed this commitment when he said, ``The American people returned to office a President of one party and a Congress of another. Surely they did not do this to advance the politics of petty bickering and partisanship, which they plainly deplore.'' While a sign of that new commitment, I believe, is the strongest and the most compassionate statement this Congress and this President can make in 1997 on behalf of working families is to cut their taxes and to leave them a little bit more of their own money at the end of the day, the extensive debate that we have undertaken in the past 2 years over fiscal policy has helped us to understand that working families are indeed overtaxed. The child tax credit is appropriate and necessary to stimulate economic growth and to allow families to make more of their own spending decisions. The people of Minnesota sent me to Washington with their instructions to make the $500-per-child tax credit a top priority. Like struggling men and women nationwide, Minnesotans have seen what our outrageous tax burden has done to their families over the past 40 years. It is far from merely being a fact of life. Taxes today dominate the family budget. There is no better argument for tax relief than to consider that taxpayers today are spending more to feed their Government than they are spending to feed, clothe, and shelter their families. When we debated the $500-per-child tax credit in the last Congress, some of my colleagues expressed their concern that any tax relief now would jeopardize their efforts to balance the Federal budget. Balance the budget first, they said, and then cut taxes later. Their concerns missed a very important part. The budget will never be balanced or stay balanced until we decide that it is the people who should prosper under it and not the Government. Recent economic data reveal that despite a shrinking Federal deficit, the Government is in fact getting bigger, not smaller. Government spending and taxes continue to soar, and total taxation now claims the largest bite in the Nation's income in history. Without significant policy changes, the deficit will begin climbing again in fiscal year 1998 and reach over $200 billion by the year 2002. By enacting the $500-per-child tax credit we can begin turning back the decades of abuse which taxpayers have suffered at the hands of their own Government, a Government often eager to spend the taxpayers' money with reckless regard. The $500-per-child tax credit is the right solution because it takes power out of the hands of Washington's big spenders and puts it back where it can do the most good, and that is in the hands of families. Nobody outside of Washington's insulated fantasy world really thinks the Government can spend the family's dollars more efficiently than the family would. By leaving that money in the family bank accounts, taxpayers are then empowered to use it to directly benefit their own household. They can make the best decisions on how to spend those dollars. Beyond the direct benefits, families' tax relief can have a substantial and a 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 introduce enough revenue to balance the budget, just as it will never produce enough output and enough jobs.'' President Kennedy was able to put these theories to work in the early 1960's when he enacted significant tax cuts that sparked one of the few periods of sustained growth that we have experienced in the last half century. It was 20 years later when President Ronald Reagan cut taxes once again that reinvigorated the economy, which responded enthusiastically with 19 million new jobs that were created, and take-home pay grew 13 percent between 1982 and 1996. It is now President Clinton who has the opportunity to work alongside Congress as we cut taxes and generate a new era of growth in the economy and prosperity for American families. I am encouraged by his public cause for family tax relief, and in particular his words in support of the $500-per-child tax credit. With the President truly committed to working with us, there is every reason to believe that a plan that will balance the budget and reduce the tax load for working families will pass this Congress and be signed into law this year. We made a promise to middle class Americans that we would cut their taxes. We laid the groundwork for the $500-per-child tax credit in the 104th Congress, so now in the 105th it is time that we put aside politics and deliver on the promise. So I ask that S. 9 be introduced and properly referred.

Mr. GRAMS

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

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Murray of Washington.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Tomorrow morning there will be a period of morning business to accommodate several Senators who have requested time. Under a previous order, at 12 noon, the Senate will enter executive session in order to consider the nomination of Madeleine Albright to be Secretary of State. A rollcall vote is expected on that nomination at the conclusion or yielding back of the debate time, with that vote expected at approximately 2 p.m. tomorrow, if most of that time is used.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 10 a.m. on Wednesday, January 22; further, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there be a period for morning business until the hour of 12 noon, with Senators to speak for up to 5 minutes each, except for the following: Senator Grassley, 60 minutes; Senator Feinstein, 30 minutes; Senator Daschle, for 30 minutes.