Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, thank you very much. This is a very moderate and very straightforward amendment. All it does is simply adopt the funding of the Appalachian Regional Commission----

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, may I also ask what the pending business is before the Senate?

Mr. GRAMS. I send an amendment to the desk

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

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, this is a very moderate and a very straightforward amendment. It would simply adopt the funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission at the House-passed level of $10 million less than the Senate level and require that the commission provide a specific plan for future downsizing and elimination. Mr. President, this is not a new issue. We have debated it many times before, and I offered a very similar amendment last year. The reason I bring it up again is simple. I want to remind the American people that pork-barrel spending is alive and well in Washington, and Congress has demonstrated little courage to phase out or eliminate these costly types of programs. For a number of years, the Congressional Budget Office has recommended the elimination of the ARC as one of the many options for deficit reduction. Last year, both the Senate and the House passed a budget resolution calling for the elimination of ARC. This year, the House budget resolution has again assumed further savings from a phased-in downsizing of ARC. While the House-passed appropriations bill provides $155 million for the Appalachian Regional Commission and requires continued downsizing, the Senate bill grants $165 million-- that is $10 million more than approved by the House--and it does not address the question of downsizing. There are no persuasive justifications for the Senate funding level. The program should be terminated. Yet there appears to be no congressional will to end any program once it has been authorized. That is why I have sought to sunset Federal programs since I came to Congress. Mr. President, the Appalachian Regional Commission was created in 1965 as a temporary response to poverty in Appalachia. Let me say that again. In 1965, it was created as a temporary response to poverty in Appalachia. Today, over 30 years later, despite the infusion of more than 7 billion taxpayer dollars into the region, we are still pouring money into the area under the pretext of fighting poverty. If the Appalachia region is still impoverished, we should ask ourselves why we have spent so much money for so many years, and why poverty in this region requires still more Federal dollars than other poverty-stricken areas of our country. We should also question the real contribution the ARC has made to any long-term economic development of the Appalachia. A study conducted by scholar Michael Bradshaw in 1992 might help to provide us with some kind of an answer. After analyzing 25 years of Government policy in the region, Mr. Bradshaw concludes: The great paradox of Appalachian development since 1960 is that although relatively greater sums of money have been invested in central Appalachia, this part of the region has shown the lowest ability to increase its economic and social indicators relative to the rest of the United States. The region as a whole has made strides over the past 25 years toward improving conditions for attracting new sources of employment, but Mr. Bradshaw goes on to say that ``these changes have had more to do with external economic factors than with the influence of the ARC.'' Now, in the 1980's, there was strong growth in the area which mirrored the economic growth of the country at large. During this time, ARC funding was reduced by 40 percent. Did the region suffer? On the contrary. Taxes were cut and unemployment rates fell by 38 percent. That is how President Kennedy created jobs back in the 1960's, that is how President Reagan created jobs in the 1980's, and that is how we need to create jobs as we approach the year 2000. Mr. President, what does not make any sense about this program is that it is one of 62 Federal economic development programs that are under the jurisdiction of 18 different departments and agencies. Yet the ARC is the only major Government agency targeted toward a specific region of the country. Many of the projects funded by the ARC duplicate activities are already funded by other Federal agencies. For instance, the $104 million Appalachian highway development project provided by the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bill also falls under the jurisdiction of the Transportation Department's Federal highway program. Other projects of the ARC are funded by agencies such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development. As one Member of Congress rightly pointed out, ``What the Appalachian Regional Commission does is essentially allow 13 States in this country to double dip into infrastructure money, money to do economic development and money also to do highway and water construction and projects like that.'' While the ARC claims to allocate funds for the poor rural communities of Appalachia, these areas are no worse off than rural communities in Minnesota, in Arizona, or the 35 other States that do not benefit from ARC funding. In fact, in my home State of Minnesota, 12.8 percent of my constituents live below the poverty level, and that is a disturbing statistic. It is higher than many States which benefit from the ARC funding, such as Virginia, which is at 9.4 percent; Maryland, at 11.6; Pennsylvania, at 11.7; and Ohio, at 12.6 percent. So these States benefit from ARC funding because of poverty levels, yet my home State of Minnesota, which does not, of course, enjoy ARC funding, is at 12.8 percent. But do Minnesotans have a Federal program designed just for them? Of course not, and I am not advocating that we should. To pay for something like the ARC on a nationwide basis would require billions of dollars, funded either by cutting more from other programs, borrowing money from our children, increasing the deficit, or by raising taxes. The first option is unlikely. The remaining three are completely unacceptable. Already, for every dollar the taxpayers of my State send to the Federal Treasury, they receive only 82 cents of Government services. For every dollar they send to the Federal Treasury, Minnesotans receive only 82 cents worth of the Government's services, but the States which benefit from ARC funding receive on average $1.21 for every tax dollar they contribute. So for every dollar they send in, they get $1.21 back from Washington, while in my State of Minnesota, for every dollar we send in, we get 82 cents back. Minnesota has been a good neighbor and has contributed more than its fair share, but when Minnesotans see $750,000 of ARC funds spent on a summer practice stadium for the National Football League's Carolina Panthers, this is a huge slap in the face. My point, Mr. President, is not that Minnesota and other States with high poverty levels in this country should get more Federal assistance but that there is a compelling reason to reduce the funding for ARC and compelling reasons to continue downsizing a program that has outlived its original mandate. It is ineffective, it is expensive, and it simply does not work. American taxpayers can no longer afford such extravagant spending. It is time to let this important region of our country benefit from the same myriad of programs that serve other poverty areas. These programs can be improved and streamlined to help stimulate economic development and thereby provide needed Federal assistance to all of the country. Our first priority, however, is to balance our budget, provide tax credits for working Americans, and to create an environment that will stimulate job growth and help to boost all salaries. So, Mr. President, although I strongly believe that the ARC should be terminated, my amendment does not zero out funding for the ARC, nor does it reduce it significantly, but it simply reduces the level of funding to that already approved by the House, and that is to take the $165 million in the Senate bill and to match it with the $155 million currently in the House bill. I urge my colleagues to support this moderate amendment. Congress should show the American people at least a little courage by slowing down this Federal spending ``Energizer Bunny,'' or we could say the ``Energizer Piggy,'' which keeps going on and going on and going on. I also ask unanimous consent to add Senator McCain as an original cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. GRAMS. If there is no further debate, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.

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 the current business be set aside so that I may offer an amendment.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the legislation before us to reform our failed welfare system. I commend the majority leader for getting this legislation to the floor--I know it has taken a concentrated effort to bring us to this point. Since the beginning of the 104th Congress, we have been debating the state of this Nation's welfare system. Everyone understands that the system is broken. It encourages illegitimacy. It fails to recognize the importance of marriage and family. It offers no hope or opportunity for those Americans who are trapped within its layers of bureaucracy. Of course, it was not supposed to be this way. After signing the 1964 Welfare Act, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, ``We are not content to accept the endless growth of relief rolls or welfare rolls,'' and he promised the American people that ``the days of the dole in our country are numbered.'' The New York Times predicted the legislation would lead to the restoration of individual dignity and the longrun reduction of the need for Government help. In 1964, America's taxpayers invested $947 million to support welfare recipients--an investment which President Johnson declared would eventually, quote, ``result in savings to the country and especially to the local taxpayers'' through reductions in welfare caseloads, health care costs, and the crime rate. Yet, 30 years later, none of those predictions have materialized, and the failure of the welfare system continues to devastate millions of Americans every day--both the families who receive welfare benefits and the taxpayers who subsidize them. Despite a $5.4 trillion investment in welfare programs since 1964, at an average annual cost that had risen to $3,357 per taxpaying household by 1993: One in three children in the United States today is born out of wedlock. One child in seven is being raised on welfare through the Aid to Families with Dependant Children Program. And our crime rate has increased 280 percent. Mr. President, those are the kinds of devastating statistics which until the 104th Congress were ignored by the bureaucratic establishment in Washington. Those are the statistics this legislation will finally address. By rewriting Federal policies and working in close partnership with the States, we can create a welfare system which will effectively respond to the needs of those who depend upon it, at the same time it protects the taxpayers. Our legislation sets in place the framework for meeting those needs by offering opportunity, self-respect, and most importantly, the ability for those who are down on their luck to take control of their own lives. And yes, we are asking something of them in return. The most significant change in our welfare system is that we will require able-bodied individuals to work in exchange for the assistance they receive from the American taxpayers. Mr. President, my colleagues and I have come to the floor repeatedly this session to suggest that our present welfare system promotes dependency by discouraging recipients from working. In fact, the Government routinely makes it so easy for a welfare recipient to skip the work and continue collecting a Federal check that there's absolutely no incentive to ever get out of the house and find work. And if someone actually takes the initiative to get a job, they risk forfeiting their welfare benefits entirely. Last year, during Senate consideration of the ``Work Opportunity Act,'' Senator Shelby and I joined forces to ensure that welfare recipients receive benefits only after they work. After all, American taxpayers are putting in at least 40 hours on the job each week, and are sometimes forced to take an additional job or work overtime hours just to make ends meet. I believe welfare recipients should be held to the same standards, the same work ethic, to which the taxpayers are held. Those beliefs are reflected in this legislation. Under our pay-for-performance provisions, welfare recipients will be required to work in exchange for their benefits. If an adult is not employed within 2 years, the benefits will stop. Is that enough of a push to make a difference? Yes, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It released a report this month which estimates these tough work requirements will put 1.7 million people who are currently on welfare into the work force. That is almost four times the number of welfare recipients who are working today. To ease their transition into the job market and help single parents find accessible and affordable child care, we fold seven major Federal child-care programs into a child care and development grant, with total funding of $22 billion over 7 years. In addition, Mr. President, our bill recognizes that locally elected officials--our State legislators and Governors--are more capable than their unelected counterparts in far-off Washington to administer effective programs on the State and local level. And so this welfare reform legislation will give States like Minnesota the flexibility to make their own rules and develop their own innovative programs, and in doing so assist those who need our help most. But despite all the good this legislation will accomplish, I must temper my enthusiasm with my disappointment that the only way to move this bill forward was to strip away its Medicaid reform provisions. Mr. President, the administration cannot hope to resolve the problems with the Medicaid system by turning its back and pretending these problems do not exist. At some point, they will be forced to deal with a system that is too unwieldy and unable to fully serve the needy. By demanding, by threat of veto, that we tackle Medicaid another day, the administration has ensured that political gamesmanship has won out over political will. The sensible Medicaid reforms outlined in the original reconciliation package would strengthen the system by increasing Medicaid spending from $96.1 billion in 1996 to $137.6 billion in 2002. That is an average annual rate of growth of 6.2 percent. States would be given additional flexibility in delivering care, while Federal protections would be maintained to ensure that those who need Medicaid's assistance will not be denied. Unfortunately, those reforms will now have to wait. But I can assure you that they will be revisited--if not by this Congress and this administration, then certainly by the next. Mr. President, the legislation before us today to overhaul our failed welfare programs is a positive step away from a system which has held nearly three generations hostage with little hope of escape. Only through its enactment can we offer these Americans a way out, and a way up. As Americans, we need to look within ourselves rather than continuing to look to Washington for solutions. Does anybody really believe the Federal Government embodies compassion, that it has a heart? Of course not--those are qualities found only outside Washington, in America's communities. Mr. President, there is no one I can think of who better exemplifies heart and compassion than Corla Wilson-Hawkins, and I was fortunate to have had the opportunity to meet her. She was one of 21 recipients of the 1995 National Caring Awards for her outstanding volunteer service to her community. Corla is known as Mama Hawk because, more than anything else, she has become a second mother to hundreds of schoolchildren in her West Side Chicago community, children who, without her guidance, might go without meals, or homes, or a loving hug. Mama Hawk gives them all that and more, and she and the many caring Americans like her represent the good we can accomplish when ordinary folks look inward, not to the Government--and follow their hearts, not the trail of tax dollars to Washington. Mama Hawk tells a story that illustrates how the present welfare system has permeated our culture and become as ingrained as the very problems it was originally created to solve. These are her words: When I first started teaching, I asked my kids, what did they want to be when they grew up? What kind of job they wanted. Most of them said they wanted to be on public aid. I was a little stunned. I said, ``Public aid--I did not realize that was a form of employment.'' They said, ``Well, our mom's on public aid. They make a lot of money and, if you have a baby, they get a raise.'' Mr. President, that is the perception--maybe even the reality--we are fighting to change through the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996. While there is more to accomplish, this bill is a good first step toward fulfilling a promise to truly end welfare as we know it.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Senator Murkowski yields time.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, anyone who has followed this contentious debate will agree achieving this legislative solution has been a very difficult process, but it is a process that we cannot afford to wait until after the next election to resolve. The Department of Energy is legally bound to begin accepting spent fuel in the next few years, and yet, until this Congress, we have not identified even a temporary storage location, let alone finish suitability tests on a permanent one. And the pressure by the States for a solution continues to build. Over 30 States across this Nation have commercial and nuclear waste that is now stored inside their borders. Unless Congress enacts a permanent solution soon, States, like my home State of Minnesota, will lose between 20 and 30 percent of their overall energy supply shortly after the turn of the century. The irony is that the ratepayers of my State have already paid $250 million-plus to the Federal Government for the promise that the waste would be removed. Nearly two decades later, ratepayers are no closer to getting rid of their nuclear waste than they were before the Department of Energy gave its written promise to remove it. Mr. President, I would also like to add that that has led Minnesota's Department of Public Service Commissioner Sanda to call for the halting of the ratepayer contributions to this fund. While this decision is pending before Minnesota's Public Utility Commission, the State of Iowa has also just begun a similar process, announcing a notice of inquiry into such an option. The movement across the Nation has begun. The failure to enact S. 1936 will have a cascading effect across the Nation, and then it will truly require a taxpayer bailout. But S. 1936 would change that. Under S. 1936, we will put into place the mechanism to begin spent fuel removal and storage. That will happen before the end of this century. This legislation enables the Federal Government to live up to its legal obligations to the taxpayers and also to live up to its moral obligations to the citizens of this country and also to the environment. By naming an interim storage site at area 25 of the Nevada test site, this bill unties the hands of the Secretary of Energy. Since the current Secretary requested such legislative action in a hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee last year, one would wonder why this administration remains adamantly opposed to an initiative that fully empowers the DOE to move forward with the program, and particularly since the administration claims to want a permanent solution to this environmental crisis. This is not the first time that the administration or the DOE has dragged its feet. Last year, I met with the Secretary and members of the Civilian Waste Program to discuss Minnesota's waste problem. While the DOE appeared sympathetic to the plight of Minnesotans, they could not foresee anything near having an interim site completed prior to the year 2003 and for a cost of less than $300 million. Since this was significantly beyond the cost and the time projections for other private storage initiatives that were under development outside of the DOE, I introduced legislation to privatize the DOE interim storage facility. But then miraculously the DOE's own projections were nearly halved by both time and cost by the time we had the next Senate hearing. So it is amazing how many tax dollars can be saved by the mere, simple introduction of competition into this process. That is why I was pleased to have the opportunity to work with the author of this legislation, Senator Craig, and the chairman of the Energy Committee to ensure the maximization of private-sector participation. Furthermore, Mr. President, I believe it also sets the stage for further privatization of the overall program. Mr. President, there are many key elements of S. 1936 which have far- reaching benefits, but I believe the greatest benefit of the bill is that it does provide a real workable and environmentally safe solution for Minnesota's and also the Nation's spent nuclear fuel. Since I came to Congress in 1993, resolving this issue for Minnesota has been one of my highest priorities. Today we begin the process of doing just that. So on behalf of my constituents, the men and women and children of Minnesota, I want to thank the authors of S. 1936 for providing us with a reason to restore the people's faith in their Federal Government. As we put aside the politics and get down to the work ahead of us, I look forward to the remaining debate as an opportunity to also move forward resolving this most difficult crisis. I urge all of my colleagues to support S. 1936 when this body begins full consideration of the measure. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Minnesota Department of Public Service, Office of the Commissioner, St. Paul, MN, June 6, 1996. Hon. Rod Grams, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Grams: I am writing to thank you for your support of Senate File 1271 (S.F. 1271). Passage of S.F. 1271 this session is crucial to our Nation's taxpayers/ratepayers. Entities as diverse as the Nuclear Energy Institute and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners have calculated cost savings of five to ten billion dollars to United States taxpayers/ratepayers if S.F. 1271 becomes law. We must succeed in our effort to stop the Department of Energy and the Clinton Administration from imposing these unnecessary costs on the Nation. I has come to my attention that opponents to S.F. 1271 have stated that since not all Americans are served by utilities that own nuclear generating stations, those citizens will not benefit from the cost savings contained in S.F. 1271. As the Commissioner of your home state's lead energy policy agency, I can assure you that argument is flat out wrong. I trust the following discussion will illustrate this point. For reliability reasons, our Nation's electrical grid is divided into several regional power pools. The Mid-Continent Power Pool (MAPP) serves our home state, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, portions of Montana and Wisconsin, and the Canadian provinces of Manitoba an Saskatchewan. In addition to ensuring the reliable delivery of electrical energy, MAPP serves as a clearinghouse for spot and intermediate term market for energy and capacity transactions. MAPP executes transactions between electric utilities that have lower cost generation and those that have higher cost generation. Given that energy produced by Northern States Power Company's Prairie Island and Monticello nuclear plants are among the lowest cost units in the MAPP region, there are certain times of day and seasons of the year when energy from those plants is sold by NSP to other utilities in MAPP. While our records do not allow us to match the sale of energy from specific plants for resale to other utilities, energy from Prairie Island and Monticello formed part of sales made by NSP to the following utilities that serve Minnesota ratepayers in 1995: \1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ This information is taken from the Northern States Power Company's 1995 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Form 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cooperative Power Association; Interstate Power Company; Minnesota Power Company; Otter Tail Power Company; Missouri Basin Municipal Power Agency; United Power Association Minnkota Power Cooperative; Dairyland Power Cooperative; Southern Municipal Power Agency; City of North St. Paul; City of Olivia; City of Shakopee; City of Winthrop; City of Delano; City of Glencoe; City of Truman; City of New Ulm; City of Sleepy Eye; City of Blue Earth; and City of East Grand Forks. The utilities listed above have been benefited from the ability to substitute lower cost purchased power from NSP. Had they used their own plants to generate their power, the energy costs would have been higher. Those higher energy costs would translate into higher rates for consumers. I should also note that the Nuclear Waste Fund's (NWF) one mil per kilowatt hour fee is included in the price these utilities pay for power purchased from NSP. As a result, ratepayers from the utilities listed above also pay into the NWF. Consequently, it is without question that the vast majority of Minnesotans pay into the Nuclear Waste Fund via their electric rates and that all Minnesotans benefit from NSP's nuclear facilities, regardless of which utility provides their power. The same is true for electric consumers in North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Wisconsin, as well as virtually all consumers across the country, even those whose primary utility does not use nuclear fuel to generate electricity. Thanks again for your continued support for S.F. 1271. Sincerely, Kris Sanda, Commissioner.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I commend the majority leader for his leadership in bringing S. 1936 to the Senate floor. I also commend my colleagues, Mr. Craig and Mr. Murkowski, for their tireless efforts in creating a bipartisan solution to this national crisis, because S. 1936 will ensure a safe solution to the problem of nuclear waste storage for the 21st century and beyond. I believe this is the most critical piece of environmental legislation that Congress will consider this decade, if not for this century. When our grandchildren look back at this historic debate, they should read that we fulfilled a pledge to resolve this Nation's spent nuclear fuel crisis, and we did it in an economically and environmentally friendly way. This challenge has eluded us for nearly 15 years, but as the critical 1998 deadline rapidly approaches, Members from both sides of the aisle, from Alaska to my home State of Minnesota to Florida, have come together to devise a national solution. I firmly believe that S. 1936 represents our best hope, and today we stand ready to move ahead with this plan. Over the last few days, we have heard from some of our colleagues that this legislation is unnecessary. Some have argued that we could leave the spent fuel at its current sites until we find a permanent place to put it. Some have argued that resolving this issue would put the taxpayers on the hook rather than those who are responsible. But what my colleagues fail to mention in their statements is that the ratepayers are taxpayers. Every American, directly or indirectly, has benefited from nuclear power, and they are already on the hook, so to speak. After all, ratepayers nationwide have already paid over $10 billion into the nuclear waste trust fund. Mr. President, I have two letters regarding this point. One comes from Commissioner Kris Sanda of the Minnesota Department of Public Service, and another comes from a CEO of a Minnesota utility. I ask unanimous consent to have both printed in the Record immediately following the text of my full statement.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, we have heard a lot of talk from Washington recently about the hardships that are facing working Americans. Tax rates are up, job opportunities are down, interest rates are rising while paychecks are shrinking and take-home pay is not going anywhere at all. But the families trapped on this economic seesaw are feeling anxious and unsure about the future, and they are looking to the Federal Government for some change. Most everyone agrees that a fundamental responsibility of Congress and the President is to try to help ensure greater opportunities for working Americans, so men and women can seek better jobs that will lift their standard of living, and the real debate going on in Washington today centers around just how that should be accomplished. The Democrats in Congress are saying the answer is to simply raise the minimum wage. But that is a political smokescreen that flies in the face of reality, an attempt to mask a 40- year record of voting for policies that have actually lowered family incomes. The truth is that most minimum wage positions are either part-time jobs that are held by students, entry-level jobs for young people who are just trying to get into the work force, or second jobs held by men or women whose spouse is the primary breadwinner. Raising the cost of doing business by raising the minimum wage is probably going to mean even fewer of those jobs. Some statistics say as many as 600,000 of those jobs will be lost, killing work opportunities for young people and those families who depend on that second income. Besides artificially inflating salaries by hiking the minimum wage, it ignores the real concerns of many working Americans, working Minnesotans. Yes, they want better jobs that pay better salaries, but they have told me repeatedly that what matters most is not how much you earn but how much of your own paycheck you are allowed to keep after the Federal Government has deducted its taxes. We have debated the issue and put the issue of minimum wage to rest by passing that legislation yesterday. Yet, the issue of tax relief for families has been virtually ignored in the Democrats' ideas recently in their recently released blueprint for their 1996 campaign season that they have entitled ``Families First.'' They are billing their plan as a roadmap for the future of their party. Congressional Democrats have not created an agenda for change but have instead produced a byproduct of some ambitious political polling. They say that they are in favor of education, in support of welfare recipients working, and helping families and helping children. In other words, if a majority of Americans told the pollsters they liked it, then according to the Democrats, they like it, too. ``Some people say it is a tiny agenda, it is too modest or too bland * * * and my answer is that whatever it is, it is what people told us is their concern now.'' And these are the words of House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, in what really was a surprisingly forthright nod to the power of election-year polls. Let me say again what Richard Gephardt said. He said, ``Some people say it's a tiny agenda, it's too modest or too bland * * *'' Mr. Gephardt went on to say, ``and my answer is that whatever it is, it's what people told us is their concern now.'' Again, the results of their polling. This tiny agenda, however, comes with a massive price tag. Paying for the families-first promises could cost American taxpayers an additional $500 billion over the next 6 years. While the document is so intentionally vague that computing a precise cost estimate is next to impossible, it is clear that the cost would be enormous, especially if you add that new cost onto the $265 billion tax hike imposed by President Clinton and the Democrat-controlled Congress in 1993. If the families first title sounds familiar, well, it ought to because back in 1994, Republicans in the U.S. House championed a proposal we called ``Putting Families First,'' which I introduced along with Congressman Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas. We introduced the families-first bill in 1993; and in 1994 it became the Republican alternative; and in 1995 we worked it into our first balanced budget that we sent to the President last year. So the families first title is not new. Unlike the Democrats' families first, however, it was not a political statement, it was not a statement that we conjured up to coax voters in an election year. Our plan, our families-first version, was a well- reasoned alternative budget proposal that was specifically crafted to create new opportunities for working Americans, to give them those job opportunities and the better pay that they are talking about. The heart of our plan was a $500 per-child tax credit that would benefit 529,000 Minnesota families. Nearly $50 million a year in tax savings would go just to the residents in my State of Minnesota. That is far more than the 12,000 heads of households in Minnesota who would be eligible for the boost in the minimum wage, according to data compiled by the Joint Economic Committee. So what would have done more good? It would have been better to pass some of the tax relief that we have advocated and called for rather than a smokescreen of just a small portion in the minimum wage. Putting families first sought to further strengthen families by reforming the broken welfare system, combating crime through new get-tough initiatives, by offering sensible health care reform while reducing the deficit by $150 billion. Republicans in both the House and the Senate embraced it as our alternative to the big taxing, big spending budgets of the past. As a potent prescription for dramatic change, putting families first offered a strong defense of the American family. The Democrats' version of families first is a placebo, a lackluster concoction that will masquerade as some new medicine, but in reality it offers no cures. Republicans followed through on putting families first by passing budgets in 1995 and 1996, balanced budgets, that built on that strong foundation. We have pledged to continue to fight for the $500 per-child tax credit, for additional tax relief to make it easier for businesses to be able to create those better paying jobs, and a balanced budget that will reduce interest rates and the amount that a family has to pay on their mortgage, on their car loans and student loans. Minnesota families deserve solutions, not a lot of empty slogans. If the Democrats are serious, if they are serious about trying to ease the tremendous burden faced by American workers, then they will drop the campaign theatrics and they will help join the Republicans in truly putting families first by turning our promises into law. I think they deserve nothing less than that. I thank you, Madam President, and I yield the floor. If there are no other speakers, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in issuing our call and asking our Democratic friends on the other side of the aisle to end that filibuster of the Kassebaum-Kennedy Health Insurance Reform Act. Most Americans probably are unaware that the Democrats are blocking a final vote for portable health insurance for millions of Americans, as our friend from Wyoming has pointed out this morning. Mr. President, our Founding Fathers established the filibuster as the parliamentary tool for use by the minority in the Senate to ensure that, unlike in the House of Representatives, any issue would have a full and open debate--without limitation by the majority. In the past, it was common to have only about one, maybe two filibusters throughout a session of Congress. Yet, despite President Clinton's remarks lately that the Senate Democrats ``have not abused the filibuster in their minority position the way Republicans did * * *'' their record shows differently. Unfortunately, the President and I disagree in our interpretation of the word ``abused.'' In the 102d Congress, when the Republicans were in the minority, we filibustered 40 times. Yet the Democrats, this Congress, have already filibustered more than 66 times and we still have another 6 months to go before the end of this legislative session. Mr. President, I will highlight just a few of bills that our Democratic colleagues have filibustered in the last 15 months. Those bills include term limits, the line-item veto, welfare reform, product liability reform, and others. Despite Republican willingness to compromise and to work with the minority to achieve legislation amenable to all, they have continued to filibuster legislation which national polls have shown most Americans want passed by overwhelming margins. Mr. President, I want to again emphasize that these are Democrat-led filibusters--nothing more and nothing less than Democrat gridlock. There is no question that the most egregious Democratic filibuster this session has been by the Senator from Massachusetts in his effort to delay final passage of the Health Insurance Reform Act. The Senate considered this legislation almost 2 months ago, yet the Senator from Massachusetts, the original coauthor with Senator Kassebaum, is filibustering this important bill because he wants to deny hard-working Americans the ability to put a portion of their pretax earnings into a savings account that would be designated for medical expenses. Mr. President, if you will recall earlier this year, the Senator from Massachusetts and the distinguished minority leader, a number of times, alleged that Republicans were holding up the bill, even refusing to allow a vote on it. Unfortunately, our desires to review the final legislation in consultation with our Governors, State health officials, industry officials, health and care providers, and, most importantly, our constituents, were perceived as objections or opposition to the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill. This, however, was not the story told by our Democratic colleagues. A final agreement for consideration was entered into on February 6 to debate the Kassebaum-Kennedy Health Insurance Reform Act on April 18 and 19, giving all 100 Senators ample time to consult, review, and improve, prior to floor debate. When all the statements were made and amendments considered, this body approved the Kassebaum-Kennedy legislation by a margin of 100 to 0. Despite our diverse membership, the unanimous vote shows our strong support for expanding health insurance to more Americans. Even President Clinton urged passage of this legislation in his State of the Union Address early this year. Mr. President, in light of President Clinton's support, the unanimous Senate support, and the millions of cries from American people who desperately need this legislation, I believe it is reprehensible that the Senator from Massachusetts has decided to filibuster the joint priority of health insurance reform for political power rather than good policy. Since it has been 2 months since we debated the Kassebaum-Kennedy legislation, I want to highlight again what the Senator from Massachusetts is denying to 15 million Americans who will benefit from this legislation. First, portability, ensuring that when an individual wants to change a job they can take their health care with them. They will not lose it. Next, limiting preexisting condition exclusions. That is, ensuring that individuals who have played by the rules when they are healthy get to maintain their health insurance when they are diagnosed with a potentially costly medical condition. We should not allow insurance companies to only insure the healthy. If this were to occur, taxpayers would be required to pay for their care under the Medicaid Program, which we all know is having difficulty sustaining its current number of beneficiaries today. Most importantly, Mr. President, this Democrat filibuster is denying working Americans the opportunities to save money to pay for unexpected health care costs. A recent study reported by the Bureau of National Affairs stated in its June 6 edition that a Workplace Pulse Survey of 1,000 workers, conducted back on May 20 to May 24 by the Marketing Research Institute, for Colonial Life & Accident Insurance and the Employers Council on Flexible Compensation, found the following: 87 percent of respondents believe that Congress should allow medical savings accounts to be tax free; 4 of 10 full-time working Americans, with health insurance, would be more likely to change jobs if Congress enacted legislation mandating the portability of their insurance. Now, the Senator from Massachusetts alleges that medical savings accounts are only for the wealthy; yet, one of the wealthy groups who would benefit from MSA's is a group the Senator usually rallies behind, and that is the United Mine Workers. Currently, the United Mine Workers have medical savings accounts; however, they do not get fair tax treatment because they are taxed on the amount that they have in those savings accounts for health care. Mr. President, continued efforts by a few Senators on the other side of the aisle are undermining the ability of this body to prove to the American people that we do listen, we do care, and that we can come together on important issues to find a compromise and ultimately enact serious and sensible health insurance reform legislation. Now, the definition of compromise, according to Webster's, is ``meeting halfway, coming to terms by giving up part of a claim.'' Mr. President, Republicans have compromised. Over the last few weeks, the majority leader has sent numerous compromise proposals to opponents of MSA's, and they still complain that our proposal is too broad. I disagree. Mr. President, when President Clinton has indicated his support for the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill, the Senate passed the same bill unanimously and we have continued to compromise on the main issue of concern for the Senator from Massachusetts who claimed earlier this year that Republicans were denying a vote on the bill, I find it all very suspicious in this year of Presidential elections. We should pass the Kassebaum-Kennedy conference report, and we should urge the President to sign the bill at the earliest date possible, again, so that 15 million Americans awaiting its enactment can go to bed knowing that they have portable health insurance. Mr. President, I yield the floor to my good friend from Wyoming.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that Senators have until 10 a.m. on Wednesday to file second-degree amendments to the DOD authorization bill.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, June 26; further, that immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that the Senate then resume consideration of S. 1745, the DOD authorization bill, and the cloture vote with respect to S. 1745 occur immediately.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, this second cloture vote, if necessary, will occur on Thursday, June 27, 1996, and also Senators should be reminded that all first-degree amendments to the DOD authorization bill must be filed by 1 p.m. on Wednesday, June 26, in order to qualify under the provisions of rule XXII.

Mr. GRAMS

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

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 1219 not be considered the pending business.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, there will be a rollcall vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the DOD authorization bill at 9:30 a.m. Regardless of the outcome of that vote, the Senate is expected to continue consideration of that bill throughout the day on Wednesday with rollcall votes expected. A late- night session is anticipated in order to make substantial progress on the DOD authorization bill.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. It is a sense of the Senate.