Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my strong support for the Health Insurance Reform Act, and I commend the distinguished chairman from Kansas and the Senator from Massachusetts for drafting legislation which seeks to ensure affordable, accessible health insurance for all Americans. In September of 1993, President Clinton and the First Lady presented a sweeping health care reform proposal which they believed would resolve the health care problems facing many in our country. They said we needed to make insurance portable . . . they said we needed to protect individuals with pre-existing conditions . . . and they said we needed to bring down the rising costs of health insurance. I agreed with the problems identified by the President, however, I strongly disagreed with the solutions he proposed. Crafted during a year of closed-door meetings by the White House's Health Care Task Force, the Clinton plan set in place global budgets, price controls, tax increases, reduced choice and rationing--all housed within a massive, new layer of Federal bureaucracy. Fortunately, Americans recognized the President's plan for what it really was--a government takeover of the Nation's health care system, and they had the good sense to reject it. Mr. President, I believe government-controlled health care failed in 1994 because the President underestimated the ability and desire of Americans to make their own health care choices, free from government intrusion or control. Only by empowering consumers, rather than the Government, will we allow the marketplace to evolve into a quality, cost-effective, and responsive health care provider, able to offer affordable insurance to all Americans. While socialized medicine failed in 1994, Americans did embrace four important concepts which emerged from the health care debate: health insurance should be accessible, it should be affordable, it should be portable, and pre-existing conditions shouldn't disqualify anyone from obtaining health insurance. Those principles lie at the heart of the Health Insurance Reform Act. It is estimated that 43 million Americans went without health insurance in 1995. According to the Minnesota Health Care Commission, the number of uninsured Minnesotans has remained stable for the last 5 years at approximately 400,000 individuals, or nearly 9 percent of the State's population. That is below the national average of close to 15 percent uninsured but still too high. Mr. President, what keeps health insurance out of the reach of so many? The two main barriers are access and affordability. A majority of Americans under the age of 65 are insured through their workplace. Many job providers, however--small employers in particular-- find themselves shut out of the health insurance market when it comes to obtaining affordable coverage for their employees. And even insurance obtained through a job doesn't last forever, because few Americans stay with a single employer throughout their entire work career. Each year, 18 million Americans change insurance when a family member moves between jobs, often stranding them without insurance and usually forcing them to find new coverage. Many who are unwilling or unable to risk going without insurance just stay put. A Washington Post/CBS News survey found that one quarter of all American workers experience ``job lock''--they are staying in jobs they would otherwise leave because they are afraid of losing their health coverage. Another flaw of our insurance system is that it offers little protection to individuals or their family members suffering from major health disorders. Because they are victims of what are known as ``preexisting conditions,'' these Americans are denied insurance because of the cost they represent to the system. Americans who play by the rules, who buy health insurance when they are healthy, should be allowed to keep it when they get sick. This is why I supported Senator Jeffords' amendment which would have raised the lifetime cap on insurance policies. Individuals buy health insurance to not only ensure treatment for relatively minor medical problems--strep throat and the occasional broken bone, for example--but also to protect themselves against crippling accidents or catastrophic illness. It is important that these individuals continue to be covered by their private insurance company. If they are dropped, their only alternative is to spend-down their assets in order to qualify for Medicaid. This moves more patients into the Medicaid program, overloading the taxpayers and a system that is already buckling under heavy costs. This is unfair to those individuals who have played by the rules, and I will continue to work with the Senator from Vermont to address this issue. Expanding access to insurance, allowing individuals to move between jobs with insurance policies that can move with them, and preventing insurance companies from denying coverage based on a preexisting condition, is precisely what the Health Insurance Reform Act attempts to provide. The Federal Government's General Accounting Office estimates this legislation would open the door to health insurance for 25 million more Americans. Americans will no longer be forced to decide between taking a new job or losing their medical coverage--the Health Insurance Reform Act guarantees health care that is always there, regardless of where an employee works or even if they work at all. My own State of Minnesota embarked on reforming its health care delivery system long before most of the rest of the country. For three decades, we have debated these very same issues and worked long and hard to achieve portability, renewability, and the elimination of preexisting condition exclusions, thereby increasing the number of insured. Minnesotans have been innovative and progressive in reform of our health care marketplace. We have celebrated success and we have endured failure. While our system is far from perfect, our legislators, our health care community, and our constituents continue to work to improve the delivery of quality health care and guarantee its affordability in Minnesota. One of this bill's most beneficial aspects is the flexibility it gives States to create and administer their own health insurance reform programs--away from Washington's control. Under this legislation, States such as Minnesota, which have already implemented reforms, are exempted from any changes established by the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill. Furthermore, Minnesota has already enacted laws in the large group, small group, and individual markets which go beyond what is laid out in the Kassebaum-Kennedy legislation. That includes guarantee issue, guaranteed renewability, limits on pre-existing condition exclusions, a State risk pool for uninsurable individuals, and reforms to enhance and encourage the bargaining power of small businesses. The Kassebaum bill will have minimal effect on most of my constituents, but it will provide new portability and access protections for Minnesota employees and their dependents. It does so by requiring insurers to guarantee issue coverage to plans with 50 or more employees, which includes self-insured plans not currently providing these protections. I am disappointed that medical savings accounts are not part of the Senate bill. I am encouraged, however, by the large number of my colleagues who share the majority leader's commitment to including MSA's in the conference report. I believe MSA's would substantially enhance the legislation before us. While this legislation will go a long way toward expanding access to health insurance, I am still concerned that the bill does not provide enough affordable access. Keep in mind that health insurance which is accessible yet unaffordable will not improve the current problems in our marketplace. The inclusion of MSA's in this legislation is not a Republican issue or a Democrat issue--it is a Main Street issue. MSA's enhance portability and promote consumer choice, while they empower individuals with the same tax equity large corporations receive under our Tax Code. I am deeply concerned that many of those who claim to be advocates for the so-called little guy want to deny lower income Americans the choice of medical savings accounts. I believe MSA's are the best way we can put low-income wage earners on an equal footing with their corporate cousins in the health care marketplace. I received a letter last week from a coalition of rural Minnesotans based in Fergus Falls called Communicating for Agriculture. Comprised of farmers, ranchers, and agribusinesses, and boasting a national membership of 80,000, Communicating for Agriculture has been advocating an MSA-type plan since 1978. They write; Managed care is not an option to hold down health care costs since [rural Minnesota] has little or no competition in health care. Without competition, you can't have managed care. MSA's allow us to spend our medical dollars where it is most convenient. It also eliminates a great amount of administrative expense which is a major contributor to health inflation over the years. A recent study by Blue Cross and Blue Shield revealed that 43 percent of employees would definitely or probably switch to an MSA if given the opportunity. In light of this broad, public support for MSA's, we should at the very least allow individuals this choice. While the Kassebaum legislation is good and worth passing on its own merits, I certainly hope that the conference committee will adopt MSA's as part of the final version of our health insurance reform efforts this year. As I conclude, I want to assure my colleagues and my constituents that my position on the issues before us has not wavered since I first ran for public office in 1992: I strongly support legislation ensuring portability. I strongly support legislation ensuring limiting preexisting condition exclusions. I strongly support legislation providing tax equity for all Americans through medical savings accounts, and increasing deductibility to 100 percent. And I strongly support the efforts of this Congress to deliver these desperately needed reforms to the American people. As Congress prepares a final bill to send to the President, I will be working to ensure that provisions promoting greater access and affordability are incorporated into the final bill. Only through such comprehensive reforms will we encourage more Americans to purchase health insurance, thereby expanding the ranks of those with coverage and eventually making health insurance more accessible and affordable for all. Again, Mr. President, I strongly support this bill. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of Senator Brown. He has outlined the issue very, very well, as has the Presiding Officer, and as others. Mr. President, as Americans from across this great Nation demand true congressional reform and greater accountability from their elected officials, I rise today to strongly support this resolution which would impose term limits on Congress. When I ran for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1992, I made a firm commitment to the voters of Minnesota's Sixth District that I would support Federal term limits. When I ran for the Senate in 1994, I made that same commitment. And amidst a political climate of voter distrust and disgust with the system, I firmly believe that my strong support for term limits is one of the reasons I won both of those elections. On January 5, 1993, after I was sworn into public office for the first time, the very first thing I did was cosponsor a bill to establish term limits for Members of Congress: two 6-year terms for Senators, and six 2-year terms for Members of the House. After 2 years in the House, and now into my second year of serving in the Senate, my enthusiasm for term limits has not wavered. If anything, I am even more convinced that congressional term limits would be the single most important reform measure Congress could pass this session. When we look at the problems facing our Nation today, and the inability of Congress to deal with our skyrocketing budget deficit and national debt, much of the responsibility rests upon career politicians, because studies have shown, the longer elected officials are in Washington, the more they come to believe that government has all the answers. More spending will solve the problems. The longer they serve in Congress, the more likely they are to support even larger spending programs which means they believe--maybe they have been here too long--that Congress or Government has all the answers, not the individual. Congress is no longer the body of the people that was envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Instead of citizen legislators, it has become a body of professional politicians whose ultimate goal, again, is to spend the entire balance of their careers in public office. Public service has become the basis of their way of life. Again, I would like to add, public service in itself is not bad. But, again, too much power or control in the hands of too few for too long is bad. But when individuals have a vested interest in maintaining their elected positions, they are hardly the people you should entrust to reduce the size of Government and reform the institution that keeps them fed. Career politicians too often put their own short-term personal interest in seeking reelection ahead of the long-term good of the country. Too often, they are the first to cave in to special interests and too often, career politicians are the last people in Washington who really want to cut spending. And again, statistics show, the longer a person serves in Congress, the more spending he or she supports, because they believe Washington has all the answers. During the 1980's, it was easier to remove a member of the Soviet Politburo than it was to remove a Member of the U.S. Congress. The arrogance of power exhibited by these career politicians has led many voters to become disenchanted, frustrated with Congress' inability or unwillingness to put aside personal motives of protecting political careers and honestly deal with the Federal Government's budget problems. Fortunately, Mr. President, times have changed. Some of the most ardent opponents of term limits are no longer among us. I believe one of the reasons for this change is the commitment of so many of our new Senators and Representatives to the concept of term limits. And it is a message that resonates mightily across this country. National polls have shown time and time again that the American public overwhelmingly supports term limits. Throughout my campaign in 1994, I spoke with voters across my great State--Minnesotans young and old, Republican and Democrat, from factory workers to corporate executives. And these individuals impressed upon me the importance of term limits. Opponents of term limits claim that Congress will lose effective leaders, which it will. I will say there are many who have served many years and served well, but, at the same time, Congress will gain effective new Members, who will take up where others have left off. In the private sector, many corporations and factories replace their CEO's, every 5 to 10 years, mainly to get new life, new ideas, and new enthusiasm, new direction for their business, times change and needs change. In the words of former Minnesota Congressman Bill Frenzel, ``All the titans of Congress were pea-green freshmen once. They were good when they got there. Experience did not make them smarter. It just gave them more staff and made them harder to say no to.'' Like Congressman Frenzel, I, too, believe that ``Congressional term limits would restore balance to our system by extending to the legislative branch the noble precedent of term limits applied by the 22d amendment to the executive branch only. Both branches need limits.'' The 1994 elections were a mandate for change. Establishing term limits will deliver on a promise we made to the American people. It was a promise, I can assure you, from which this Minnesota Senator will not back down. Because service in this institution should be exactly what our forefathers intended it to be--that is, a temporary period of service to the Nation, followed by a return to our jobs, to the family business or to other careers, a return home, to live under the laws he or she helped to enact. We talk about the lack of faith Americans have in Congress and those who serve here. We joke about those polls which show Members of Congress at the lowest levels when it comes to the public trust. But, Mr. President, it is not a joke. We have got to restore the public confidence which has been stripped away by years of abuse by powerful, lifelong politicians. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that term limits are a first step toward restoring that trust. I believe that is a vital step. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this resolution which will go a long way toward restoring the faith of the American people in their elected representatives here in Washington. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, on a day set aside to recognize the importance of protecting our environment and preserving our natural resources, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in this frank discussion of the substantial progress we have made and the steps we have yet to take. But first, it is important to recognize that environmental protection is not a partisan matter. It is not about Republicans or Democrats. This is one issue which should bring us together, because on this issue, we share the same goal: We all want a clean America, where our children can breathe clean air and drink clean water. And there is not a man or woman in this Congress who would demand anything less for their families. I am so proud, Mr. President, that over the past 20 years, we have made such great strides toward achieving that goal. Our urban landscapes are no longer polluted by the thick, black smoke of industrial smokestacks. Our lakes and rivers are no longer the dumping ground for toxic sludge. We are recycling newspapers, glass, and plastics in record numbers. Through efforts such as the Conservation Reserve Program, Congress is working in partnership with the American people to ensure our generation leaves behind a cleaner Earth than the one we inherited. We acknowledge that government at all levels can and should play a strong role in protecting our environment. Maybe that is why the United States spends more per capita on environmental protection than any other Western, industrialized nation. The question is no longer whether or not we want to protect the environment--we all do. The question is, How do we achieve it? It is an interesting coincidence that just a week ago, the American people were filing their Federal income tax returns and thinking about Government and how it impacts the family finances. Today, exactly 1 week after Tax Day, we are marking Earth Day. And once again, the American people have an opportunity to think about Government--this time, its impact on the environment. But in the 26 years since Earth Day was first celebrated, Americans have grown concerned with Washington's environmental activism: What it is doing to jobs and salaries, and the bite it takes out of the family checkbook. What they are telling us is yes, government ought to protect the environment. But they are also saying it can do better by the taxpayers, too. And so they have asked this Congress to find a better balance, a ``different shade of green'' for Earth Day, 1996. Over the past two decades, the Federal Government has worked toward better environmental protection by passing new legislation and imposing necessary new regulations. But in our zeal to protect the environment, we have often neglected to consider the serious, unintended consequences of the actions we are taking here in Washington. We have cleaned up neighborhoods by clamping down on pollution, but we have handcuffed job-providers from finding better ways to achieve the same results. We have sought out and protected wetlands and other unique environmental areas, but we have often commandeered people's land, without compensation, to do it. We have demanded a great deal of the American people through our environmental regulations, but we have forgotten about the burdensome costs and confusing bureaucracies our vigilance have imposed on everybody. It is hard to measure the benefits of our well-intentioned, environmental safeguards when these Federal regulations come at such a high cost. The American people are telling us that Washington has gone too far, especially given the estimates that complying with environmental regulations cost an estimated $850 billion every year. That is $850 billion no longer available to pay higher wages and better benefits, and creating new jobs. Is it possible that the environmental policies of the past have a cost that can be measured in terms greater than just dollars? Could they be costing human lives as well? According to researchers at Harvard University, the answer is yes. Because the government has increasingly focused its precious resources guarding the public against minuscule, theoretical risks, they are ignoring much greater dangers--a situation Dr. John Graham of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis labels ``statistical murder.'' It is a policy, say researchers, that costs 60,000 lives every year. In other words, we have spent a lot of our taxpayers' hard-earned money on wasteful and nonproductive programs, rather than spending those dollars on finding a cure for, say, cancer, leukemia, or heart disease. That kind of micromanagement, undertaken at such a horrible cost, is the wrong approach. No wonder so many average Americans feel they are being victimized by oppressive environmental legislation. In many cases, the Government has caused more damage than it has improved, and our goal should be to balance environmental protection with the need for economic growth as well. We always talk about the best welfare program being a job, but we have unnecessarily lost thousands of jobs because we have ignored the end result of bad policy. If we are ever going to achieve balance, the solutions will not be dictated from Washington, DC, where layers of bureaucracy and waste cloud every decision. Sensible relief will only be found outside the beltway, by reining in the Federal regulators and giving our constituents the freedom to achieve the environmental goals everyone shares. The Government can set goals or limits, but we should then step back and let the creative genius of Americans work on the solution in less costly, innovative ways. Expensive, one-size-fits-all dictates from Washington are not the answer, nor is using old technology to treat new problems. If experience has taught us anything over the past 26 years, it is that wisdom and compassion does not flow from the Federal Government. That has clearly been the lesson of the Superfund program, a classic example of Washington-knows-best gone wrong. Let us look at the facts. Mr. President, 25 billion taxpayer dollars have been spent over the past 15 years cleaning up toxic waste sites on Superfund's National Priorities List. Yet as of today, only 12 percent of these sites have actually been cleaned up. Excessive administrative costs and a bloated bureaucracy have eaten away a lot of the money, while billions of dollars have gone to line the pockets of trial lawyers, who continue to delay Superfund's important work. The lawyers are benefiting while the American taxpayers get burned. The end result? Fewer hazardous sites are being cleaned up and more Americans are being put at risk. Clearly, the Superfund program is broken. Congress has an opportunity this year to reform Superfund and redirect the taxpayers' dollars away from the bureaucrats and lawyers, and toward meeting the original intent of the law: and that was cleaning up the environment. The Endangered Species Act is another well-intentioned, but problematic, piece of legislation. I have always believed the Federal Government can assist landowners in being the best stewards of their lands. But the Endangered Species Act provides an incentive for them to actually harm endangered species. Under the act, if a landowner is told by the Government that their property is home to an endangered species, they are stripped of their ability to use their own land. Not only are they deprived of that land--and the enjoyment and revenue it might generate--but they are also denied any compensation from the Federal Government. While that is obviously not the intent of the Endangered Species Act, it has become an unfortunate, perverse byproduct of the legislation. One way Congress could improve the endangered species legislation is to provide incentives for property owners that would enable them to protect the environment, instead of forcing them into desperate actions when they've been threatened by Federal bureaucrats. Mr. President, what is most often lacking in Washington's attempts to improve the environment through regulation is an effort to get the big picture--a scientific approach to assess the various risks, and then direct resources where they can do the most good. Risk assessment and cost-benefit analyses are commonsense approaches undertaken out in the real world, but sorely missing in the Federal Government. When businesses or individuals make important decisions, they usually perform their own version of a risk assessment. To best serve the taxpayers--who deserve to know what kind of bang their getting for their bucks--Federal agencies ought to be targeting their resources in the same way, eliminating overzealous regulation by asking the Environmental Protection Agency to focus on real solutions to real problems. This will not only free up more funds for financially strapped Federal agencies, but also provide a higher level of environmental and public health protection. Giving our job creators more flexibility in meeting national standards is another way to eliminate the pervasive command and control approach that has infected many Federal programs. A pilot program called Project XL is proof that these efforts do work. I have been working on Project XL with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota-based 3M, and the EPA. This popular program allows participating companies to come up with their own methods to go beyond minimum environmental compliance. Allowing business to best determine how to meet all Federal standards is an innovative idea that should be expanded. As long as those standards are met, the path traveled to reach compliance should be open to experimentation. And finally, the Federal Government needs to promote a better partnership between all levels of government, job providers, environmental interest groups, and the taxpayers. The most effective way for the Federal Government to play a strong role in protecting the environment is to do it in concert with those closest to the problems. Local solutions, not Washington domination. That means setting reasonable national standards and giving technical advice to State and local governments and businesses. I have always believed that Minnesota taxpayers and our elected officials in St. Paul are much more aware of local problems and how to solve them than Washington will ever be. ``It is not easy being green,'' went the lyrics of a popular song from the 1980's. Maybe not, if being green in the 1990's means promoting an environmental agenda that flies in the face of common sense and treats the taxpayers with contempt. Americans are looking for a different shade of green, Mr. President, an approach to the environment that strengthens the protection of our precious natural resources, promotes better health and safety measures, and helps rein in the exploding regulatory costs that are threatening people's paychecks. Government does have an important role in ensuring a strong environmental safety net. But we can do better. In closing, Mr. President, by reforming the system and providing balance, we will enhance environmental cleanup and preservation while we protect landowners from undue Government interference, reduce costly, arbitrary regulations, and ultimately, save more lives. So, Mr. President, on Earth Day, 1996, that is the shade of green this Congress is working to deliver. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I wanted to note I am a strong supporter of this term limits resolution, and I will engage in this debate again next week as well and plan to vote for this.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize an outstanding Minnesotan who has been chosen as the national Teacher of the Year. A resident of Worthington, MN, Mary Beth Blegen has been teaching for 30 years. This year she was selected as the national Teacher of the Year for her significant contributions to education. Mary Beth Blegen teaches social studies and English at Worthington Senior High School. Her principal, Bruce Blatti, describes her as a teacher who cares for her students inside and outside of the classroom. Mary Beth Blegen's theater arts background allows her classroom to become an interactive learning center where student participation is an integral part of the process. Whether it is history, humanities, or English literature, she allows her students to form their own ideas, discuss them and implement them. This environment allows her to listen to her students and engage in conversation that enables students to bring out the best in themselves. Teachers like Mary Beth Blegen represent the key to America's future. As our children face the challenges of the 21st century, it is dedicated educators like Mary Beth Blegen who accept the challenge of turning the young people of today into the leaders of tomorrow. Mr. President, I hope that you and the rest of my Senate colleagues will join me in congratulating one of America's outstanding educators.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I was wondering if I could ask the Senator from Missouri a question regarding just what he has said about this petition bill which the groups are trying to help with on the World Wide Web and Internet. Where do you find the most of the support coming from? Who has been out there knocking on the door offering their support, and, maybe more importantly, who has not been there when we have needed this type of help and support?

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, if there is 1 day that dramatically highlights the growing anxieties of middle-class Americans, it is April 15. During this tax week of 1996, I want to share some thoughts on taxes, Congress, and a certain word that has crept into a place of prominence here on Capitol Hill. Since the opening days of the 104th Congress, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have come to the floor repeatedly to talk of ``extremism'' and ``extremists.'' These are not words to be tossed around lightly, and yet more than 100 times over the past 16 months, those are the very words they have used to describe the work of this Congress. ``Extremist'' has become the mantra of the minority, repeated over and over when all the arguments have been exhausted and refuted, and name calling is all that remains. The Contract With America ``is simply the wish list of the extreme faction of one political party,'' says one. ``The sweeping and extremist approach in this bill poses a grave threat to all Americans, especially children,'' says another. And finally, ``If moderation does not prevail, this level of extremism will ultimately take our country backward, not forward, and the damage will be felt not by us, but by generations to come.'' Of course, the rhetoric has not been confined to this Chamber alone, or to the other body. The Clinton administration, and particularly the President and Vice President, have repeatedly engaged in it as well, as they recite from the pages of this well-worn script. In just seven news conferences and speeches last year, Vice President Gore used some version of the word ``extremist'' 22 times in describing our efforts to reform the way Government undertakes the people's business. ``Extremist groups.'' ``Extremist measures.'' ``Extremist factions.'' ``The extremist, radical members of their caucus.'' ``An extremist set of priorities.'' ``An extremist agenda.'' You would think from all the dramatics that something truly horrible is going here. So, Mr. President, what's happening that has my Democrat colleagues running so scared? What is Congress doing that is so radical, so dangerous, so wrong, so extreme? Here are the shocking highlights: We accomplished what a quarter century of Congresses couldn't when we balanced the Federal budget. This Congress is not willing to let our children and grandchildren collapse under a load of debt that we have created. We have taken responsible steps to control spending, reining in the Federal Government and reducing its role as the dominating force in American life. Working families would keep billions of their own money under the tax plan passed by Congress. We offered families a $500 tax credit for each child, eliminated the marriage penalty that discriminated against married couples, and helped bring and keep families together through adoption and elderly care tax credits. We are also not willing to sit by and let Medicare dissolve into bankruptcy. Under legislation passed by this Congress, seniors would be assured that Medicare--for some, their only link to health care insurance--would be rescued from its impending insolvency. Our plan to reform the welfare system encourages recipients to seek a life beyond their monthly welfare checks, while it protects the American taxpayers from the abuses of the past. Mr. President, have my colleagues across the aisle become so insulated from the public and isolated from reality that they have forgotten what qualifies as extreme out in the real world? Our work on behalf of the Nation's families, taxpayers, senior citizens, children, and job providers could hardly be considered extreme. Far from it--what we have accomplished is exactly what the American people sent us here to carry out. So how do you think it makes them feel to see their dreams for the Nation dismissed on the Senate floor as the notions of extremists? If you really want to talk about extremism, there is a good reason why so many American families have April 15 circled on that calendar taped to the refrigerator door. They have experienced extremism in their Government right where it hurts the most--the family wallet--and they are reminded of that fact every year when tax day rolls around. Under the current administration, Americans are paying more in Federal taxes this year than they have ever paid before. President Clinton started the trend with his recordbreaking $241 billion tax hike in 1993, which raised taxes on every member of the middle class. Add to that the new taxes imposed by the President in his latest budget, and Americans will be paying a half trillion more in taxes than we did before President Clinton took office. That is an additional $758 every year, for the next 10 years, for every taxpayer in this country. The American people say that is extreme. The tax load has become such a burden that Tax Freedom Day--the day we are no longer working just to pay our taxes and can begin keeping that money for ourselves--will not arrive this year until May 7. That is the latest ever. It means working Americans have been on the job from January 1 through today, and have not been allowed to keep even a dime of their own money. That will not happen for another 20 days. And by the way, families in my home State of Minnesota will have to wait even longer. Because State taxes in Minnesota are higher than the national average, my constituents are forced to hold out an additional 8 days until their Tax Freedom Day arrives. And the calculations for Tax Freedom Day do not include the additional days we are forced to work to cover the heavy costs of Washington's unnecessary and burdensome regulations as well. If it did, we would not be marking our freedom until the first week of July. That is a cruel joke, considering that is when we are also celebrating Independence Day. The American people say that is extreme. When President Clinton was elected in 1992, Federal taxes on a median-income American family--Federal taxes on a median-income American family--totaled $12,770. By last year, that same family was paying a total of $14,813 in taxes--over $2,000 a year more per median family since 1992. And now 26.5 percent of every family's income goes directly to Washington. That is not exactly what the American people had in mind. In a survey conducted last year, they were asked what percentage of their income should reasonably go to paying taxes. This was for all levels of government, including social security taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, and property taxes. Across the board, regardless of income group, age, education, gender, race, or political affiliation, the answer was the same: most people said a maximum tax burden of 25 percent would be fair. No wonder they are feeling squeezed today. Far from the 25 percent tax rate they think is reasonable, the typical American family faced a total tax burden--and that includes Federal, State, and local taxes--of 38.2 percent of all their income in 1995. That is more money going to Washington than families spend for food, clothing, shelter, and transportation combined. The American people say that is extreme, too. I know that is what Minnesotans are saying. I held a series of town meetings back home last week, in a part of the State where life can be tough and money doesn't come easy. It is home to hard-working people who sometimes hold down two jobs, and spend as many as 7 days a week on the job, struggling to stay afloat. They ask nothing more of their Government than the opportunity and freedom to make something of their lives. But high taxes continue to block the way. We talked about taxes at every stop over the recess, and how 40 years of Washington's economic extremism have trapped working families short of their dreams. They are frustrated. They do not see where their tax dollars are going, or how those dollars are directly improving their lives and their communities. And given that, they do not understand how Congress can keep coming after them for more. During one of our stops, a college student pulled me aside after my town meeting in Duluth. He said, ``It seems like the federal government is reaching deeper and deeper into our pockets, but in my case, I don't have any more to give.'' He went on to say, I don't qualify for student aid, so I'm working for my tuition and rent. I'm paying all these taxes, but none of it comes back to benefit me. So please--cut my taxes and let me keep my own money.'' People do not understand what is happening in Washington. The crowds at my town meetings wanted to know why the President campaigned on a promise to balance the budget and cut their taxes, but then vetoed the balanced budget and tax relief bill passed by this Congress, and, by the way, passed the largest tax increase on its own. I had to admit that I did not understand either. ``Chalk it up to election-year politics,'' I said. Would the President come around and sign your bill this year, they wondered? I had to say, ``It doesn't look good.'' ``Not this year. Not this President.'' And the people just shook their heads. Listen to the people, Mr. President--they will tell you just what they told me. Cutting taxes for working families is not extreme. Preserving Medicare is not extreme. Giving people opportunities to pull themselves out of poverty is not extreme. If anything is extreme about our government, it is the past practices of a Congress and President willing to steal from tomorrow's kids to finance another Federal handout or social program or pork project today. That is what the people sent us here to change. Mr. President, there are despicable people in this world--assassins, bombers, terrorists--who are filled with such rage and contempt that they deserve to be branded as ``extremists.'' But in America, a man or woman who works themselves to the bone, who struggles to put food on the table and keep a sturdy roof over their family's heads, who just wants to sign their tax return knowing that this government does not take their tax dollars for granted anymore--is not an extremist. Yet, Mr. President, any time my colleagues dismiss the people's taxpayers' agenda as extreme, they pin that label on every one of those Americans. During tax week, 1996, my colleagues would do well to acknowledge the debt of gratitude we owe the American taxpayers. After all, their sacrifices have built this massive Federal Government. I leave you with this question--during tax week, 1996, when Washington's burden has become too much and the people are begging for our help, what is this Government willing to sacrifice in return?

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing the Department of Energy Abolishment Act of 1996. I do this on behalf of the ratepayers and taxpayers in my home State of Minnesota and across America who have handed over their hard-earned dollars for years in exchange for a bloated bureaucracy. It is for their sake that we embark on this journey to bring real accountability to the Federal Government--the first step is the elimination of the Energy Department. In 1977, the U.S. Department of Energy, or DOE, was created to address the energy crisis which had paralyzed our Nation throughout that decade. It was assumed then that the creation of a Cabinet-level Energy Department would serve as a preemptive strike against future energy emergencies. But I'm sure that no one who served in Congress at that time envisioned the problems that DOE would create, rather than solve. I do not doubt that the DOE was established with good intentions, but like many of the relics of the seventies, it has outlived its usefulness and public support. And like many of the outdated and wasteful taxpayer-funded programs of that era, the DOE should come to an end. In my opinion, there are three main reasons for eliminating the DOE. First, the DOE serves no real mission. The DOE was created in response to the energy crisis and to protect us from similar emergencies in the future, a noble cause. Yet, the problems for which the DOE was established to address never materialized. Oil supplies eventually rose while prices dropped. The need for a national energy department became less apparent. Even so, the DOE continued to grow, with its bureaucrats working overtime to justify the Department's existence by branching out into areas only marginally related to national energy policy. Their effort is readily apparent when you realize that 85 percent of the DOE's budget is spent on activities with no direct relation to energy resources. The bulk of those dollars go toward the cleanup of radioactive waste from nuclear weapons facilities and for overseeing storage of our Nation's nuclear waste--programs better suited respectively for the Defense Department and the Army Corps of Engineers. I share the sentiments expressed by former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger who says: ``The Department of Defense, today, with the appropriate leadership and management, is the best place for responsibility for the nuclear weapons stockpile in all its aspects, to be vested, including clean-up activities. Maintaining a separate chain- of-command, and all associated overhead in DOE is a costly and cumbersome arrangement that we can no longer afford.'' The DOE is also responsible for national energy research--such as the development of alternative energy; promoting energy conservation; and ensuring affordable power and access to it by consumers. But after nearly 20 years and hundreds of billions of tax dollars, the DOE has little to show for it, except a few porkbarrel programs and a lot of excuses. Second, the DOE has failed to carry out the duties it has been handed. Perhaps the best example of this failure is the DOE's refusal to address the responsibility to accept and store our Nation's nuclear waste. There are 34 States, including my home State of Minnesota, with nuclear facilities in danger of running out of storage space for their spent nuclear fuel. In spite of this impending crisis and the DOE's legally mandated deadline of accepting nuclear waste by 1998, it has taken no real action in addressing the problem. Worse yet, through a surcharge on their monthly energy bills, electric utility customers have already contributed $11 billion to a nuclear waste trust fund established to create a permanent storage facility, nearly half of which the DOE has already spent. But as we approach 15 years of inaction on the part of the DOE, the waste still sits, posing a potential environmental risk to the people of Minnesota and across the country. Finally, the DOE is an affront to the taxpayers who are forced to watch nearly $16 billion of their hard-earned dollars go each year to feed this bureaucratic monstrosity. It currently takes 20,000 Federal bureaucrats and another 150,000 contract workers to carry out the DOE's agenda. Even in the absence of another energy crisis like that which led to its creation, the DOE's budget has grown by 235 percent since 1977--a particularly alarming figure given our current national debt of over $5 trillion. In his State of the Union Address, President Clinton declared that ``the era of big government is over.'' And I agree. What better way to carry out this pledge than to start dismantling an agency with no mission, no purpose and no legitimate future? That is exactly what the Department of Energy Abolishment Act does. As this chart shows, our legislation would dismantle the DOE, while transferring the legitimate functions of government to other agencies and departments. In doing so, it will eliminate DOE's upper-level bureaucracy, saving taxpayers an estimated $19 to $23 billion over 5 years and $5 to $7 billion annually thereafter--a refreshing change for the millions of Americans who filed their tax returns yesterday. At the same time, it will peel away another level of Federal bureaucracy which has grown at the expense, not benefit, of the taxpayers, while addressing the future energy needs of this Nation. Most importantly, it will send a clear signal to the American people that Congress heard their message in the elections of 1994 and is prepared to protect the taxpayers by giving them a smaller, more effective Government. First, the Department of Energy Abolishment Act accomplish these goals by immediately eliminating the Cabinet-level status of the DOE and creating a 3-year resolution agency to oversee the transfer, privatization and elimination of the various DOE programs and functions. Then, the legislation sets about dismantling the DOE structure. Under title I of the bill, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] is transformed into an independent agency. This is similar to the FERC status prior to the creation of the DOE. The pending cases before the Energy Regulatory Administration [ERA] are transferred to the Department of Justice with a 1-year resolution deadline. Furthermore, the DOJ is instructed to utilize alternative dispute resolution whenever possible. The activities of the Energy Information Administration [EIA] are transferred to the Department of Interior [DOI], which will have the discretion of maintaining or privatizing EIA activities. The basic science and energy programs within the DOE structure are handled in two ways. Those activities not being conducted by the DOE laboratory facilities are transferred immediately to the DOI. Once at the DOI, the Secretary of Interior has the discretion of determining which functions or programs constitute basic research and can recommend transfer to the National Science Foundation [NSF] for further study and recommendation by an independent science commission which is also established to look at the DOE labs. For those activities which are more commercial in nature, the Secretary has 1 year to recommend to the Congress a plan for permanent disposition of these functions. These activities can then be assumed by the private sector, focusing Government dollars toward fundamental research initiatives. Under title II of the bill, the three defense labs--Sandia, Lawrence Livermore, and Los Alamos--are all transferred to the Department of Defense under the civilian management and control of a new defense nuclear programs agency. The remaining nondefense laboratories are transferred to the NSF for review by a non-defense energy laboratory commission. The Commission can recommend restructuring, privatization or concur with the bills closure language. Furthermore, if the commission identifies additional labs or functions which are national security related, the commission can recommend a transfer of functions to one of the defense labs or a transfer of those facilities to the DOD. Once the commission has submitted its recommendations, Congress has fast-track authority to consider the report and enact the recommendations. Failure by Congress to act will result in closure of facilities within 18 months of the reports issuance. Under title III of the bill, the Power Marketing Administrations [PMA's]--Bonneville, Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western--are transferred to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The General Accounting Office is then instructed to conduct an inventory of the PMA assets and liabilities. The GAO is then instructed to perform a study of the options available which protect the interests of the current customers and taxpayers and submit it to the Congress. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve [SPR] and the Naval Petroleum Reserve are addressed under title IV of the bill. The SPR is transferred to the DOD where a GAO study is ordered to determine alternatives to maintaining the reserves. Once complete, the Secretary of DOD has the discretion to determine the amount to maintain or sell. The Naval Petroleum Reserve, however, is ordered to be sold within 3 years under the direction of the resolution administrator. If the sale is not completed within this timeframe, the Secretary of Interior is instructed to administer the balance of the sale. The largest portion of the DOE's budget, defense-related provisions, are addressed under titles V & VI of the legislation. All national security and environmental management programs are transferred to a newly created, civilian-controlled Defense Nuclear Programs Agency [DNPA]. This includes stewardship of the weapons production facilities and the stockpile. The environmental restoration activities at the defense nuclear facilities are also transferred to the new DNPA to coordinate ongoing DOD cleanup activities. DOE's current cleanup programs have wasted billions of dollars with little progress in their efforts at sites such as Hanford. This transfer is aimed at refocusing taxpayer dollars to cleanup, rather than duplicative bureaucracies. Title VII of the legislation transfers the civilian waste program to the Army Corps of Engineers. Site characterization activities continue at the Yucca Mountain site, and Area 25 of the Nevada Test Site is named as the interim storage site. This temporary site is consistent with legislation currently pending before the U.S. Senate. Also, the GAO is instructed to conduct a study of options for program privatization initiatives. These changes to the civilian waste program represent the best way to ensure the Federal Government meets its obligation to begin accepting waste by 1998. The merits and importance of this legislation have been recognized not only by Secretary Weinberger, but also by two men who know the DOE inside and out--former Energy Secretaries Donald Hodel and John Herrington. I am delighted that our legislation has their support, as well as the support of the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Citizens Against Government Waste. I would like to close by quoting Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman who in 1977 likened a national energy agency to a Trojan Horse, saying ``[I]t enthrones a bureaucracy that would have a self- interest in expanding in size and power and would have the means to do so.'' Over the years, we have witnessed Dr. Friedman's prediction come true--and all at the cost of hundreds of billions of wasted taxpayers' dollars. As a result, the DOE has managed to see its 19th anniversary this year. It should not be around for its 20th. It is time to put this Trojan Horse out to pasture.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I wanted to express my concern over the increase in the public debt limit which occurred under a unanimous- consent agreement on the Thursday before the Easter recess. Having earlier expressed in a letter to the Republican leadership my intention to oppose an increase in the debt limit if it was not directly connected to a balanced budget. I believe this unanimous-consent agreement hangs over this Congress like a black cloud, marking a dark day for the American taxpayers. The Congress had done the hard work of putting together a balanced budget that would have put this Nation on the glidepath to eliminating the deficit. Furthermore, it represented our best hope for tackling our $5 trillion debt. Yet the President carelessly vetoed the bill and its key reforms which would have restored solvency to our Medicare System and ended welfare as we know it. All the while, he has sat at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, clamoring for more spending. Mr. President, I believe yesterday's vote was a white flag of surrender, and a retreat on our pledge to protect the American taxpayers. Nothing in this bill ensures any progress will be made with this Administration in attempting to reach a balanced budget agreement. Instead, we promised this President we would increase the credit limit on the Nation's charge card by $600 billion--an amount the Congressional Budget Office estimates will be exceeded by next summer. And what did the taxpayers receive in return? The promise of bigger government, a bigger debt, and more of the status quo. I will acknowledge that the bill did contain two riders which I have supported. The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act is similar to a measure I had supported earlier this month. And as a cosponsor of the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act, I had advocated passage of this bill earlier this year. But I do not believe seniors or small business should be held hostage to an increase in the debt limit. Unfortunately, they were used to mask the fact that yesterday's vote dragged us deeper into financial chaos. While the Federal Government's impending financial crisis may have been averted by this debt limit increase, the President must understand that our action does not absolve him of his responsibility in derailing the first real balanced budget produced by a Congress in over 25 years. Given that track record, we cannot allow another increase to occur without the enactment of a balanced budget plan. The Nation's credit card is ready to snap under the heavy load we have already heaped upon it--the American taxpayers are no longer willing to shoulder that burden.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing the Department of Energy Abolishment Act of 1996. I do this on behalf of the ratepayers and taxpayers in my home State of Minnesota and across America who have handed over their hard-earned dollars for years in exchange for a bloated bureaucracy. It is for their sake that we embark on this journey to bring real accountability to the Federal Government--the first step is the elimination of the Energy Department. In 1977, the U.S. Department of Energy, or DOE, was created to address the energy crisis which had paralyzed our Nation throughout that decade. It was assumed then that the creation of a Cabinet-level Energy Department would serve as a preemptive strike against future energy emergencies. But I'm sure that no one who served in Congress at that time envisioned the problems that DOE would create, rather than solve. I do not doubt that the DOE was established with good intentions, but like many of the relics of the seventies, it has outlived its usefulness and public support. And like many of the outdated and wasteful taxpayer-funded programs of that era, the DOE should come to an end. In my opinion, there are three main reasons for eliminating the DOE. First, the DOE serves no real mission. The DOE was created in response to the energy crisis and to protect us from similar emergencies in the future, a noble cause. Yet, the problems for which the DOE was established to address never materialized. Oil supplies eventually rose while prices dropped. The need for a national energy department became less apparent. Even so, the DOE continued to grow, with its bureaucrats working overtime to justify the Department's existence by branching out into areas only marginally related to national energy policy. Their effort is readily apparent when you realize that 85 percent of the DOE's budget is spent on activities with no direct relation to energy resources. The bulk of those dollars go toward the cleanup of radioactive waste from nuclear weapons facilities and for overseeing storage of our Nation's nuclear waste--programs better suited respectively for the Defense Department and the Army Corps of Engineers. I share the sentiments expressed by former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger who says: ``The Department of Defense, today, with the appropriate leadership and management, is the best place for responsibility for the nuclear weapons stockpile in all its aspects, to be vested, including clean-up activities. Maintaining a separate chain- of-command, and all associated overhead in DOE is a costly and cumbersome arrangement that we can no longer afford.'' The DOE is also responsible for national energy research--such as the development of alternative energy; promoting energy conservation; and ensuring affordable power and access to it by consumers. But after nearly 20 years and hundreds of billions of tax dollars, the DOE has little to show for it, except a few porkbarrel programs and a lot of excuses. Second, the DOE has failed to carry out the duties it has been handed. Perhaps the best example of this failure is the DOE's refusal to address the responsibility to accept and store our Nation's nuclear waste. There are 34 States, including my home State of Minnesota, with nuclear facilities in danger of running out of storage space for their spent nuclear fuel. In spite of this impending crisis and the DOE's legally mandated deadline of accepting nuclear waste by 1998, it has taken no real action in addressing the problem. Worse yet, through a surcharge on their monthly energy bills, electric utility customers have already contributed $11 billion to a nuclear waste trust fund established to create a permanent storage facility, nearly half of which the DOE has already spent. But as we approach 15 years of inaction on the part of the DOE, the waste still sits, posing a potential environmental risk to the people of Minnesota and across the country. Finally, the DOE is an affront to the taxpayers who are forced to watch nearly $16 billion of their hard-earned dollars go each year to feed this bureaucratic monstrosity. It currently takes 20,000 Federal bureaucrats and another 150,000 contract workers to carry out the DOE's agenda. Even in the absence of another energy crisis like that which led to its creation, the DOE's budget has grown by 235 percent since 1977--a particularly alarming figure given our current national debt of over $5 trillion. In his State of the Union Address, President Clinton declared that ``the era of big government is over.'' And I agree. What better way to carry out this pledge than to start dismantling an agency with no mission, no purpose and no legitimate future? That is exactly what the Department of Energy Abolishment Act does. As this chart shows, our legislation would dismantle the DOE, while transferring the legitimate functions of government to other agencies and departments. In doing so, it will eliminate DOE's upper-level bureaucracy, saving taxpayers an estimated $19 to $23 billion over 5 years and $5 to $7 billion annually thereafter--a refreshing change for the millions of Americans who filed their tax returns yesterday. At the same time, it will peel away another level of Federal bureaucracy which has grown at the expense, not benefit, of the taxpayers, while addressing the future energy needs of this Nation. Most importantly, it will send a clear signal to the American people that Congress heard their message in the elections of 1994 and is prepared to protect the taxpayers by giving them a smaller, more effective Government. First, the Department of Energy Abolishment Act accomplish these goals by immediately eliminating the Cabinet-level status of the DOE and creating a 3-year resolution agency to oversee the transfer, privatization and elimination of the various DOE programs and functions. Then, the legislation sets about dismantling the DOE structure. Under title I of the bill, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] is transformed into an independent agency. This is similar to the FERC status prior to the creation of the DOE. The pending cases before the Energy Regulatory Administration [ERA] are transferred to the Department of Justice with a 1-year resolution deadline. Furthermore, the DOJ is instructed to utilize alternative dispute resolution whenever possible. The activities of the Energy Information Administration [EIA] are transferred to the Department of Interior [DOI], which will have the discretion of maintaining or privatizing EIA activities. The basic science and energy programs within the DOE structure are handled in two ways. Those activities not being conducted by the DOE laboratory facilities are transferred immediately to the DOI. Once at the DOI, the Secretary of Interior has the discretion of determining which functions or programs constitute basic research and can recommend transfer to the National Science Foundation [NSF] for further study and recommendation by an independent science commission which is also established to look at the DOE labs. For those activities which are more commercial in nature, the Secretary has 1 year to recommend to the Congress a plan for permanent disposition of these functions. These activities can then be assumed by the private sector, focusing Government dollars toward fundamental research initiatives. Under title II of the bill, the three defense labs--Sandia, Lawrence Livermore, and Los Alamos--are all transferred to the Department of Defense under the civilian management and control of a new defense nuclear programs agency. The remaining nondefense laboratories are transferred to the NSF for review by a non-defense energy laboratory commission. The Commission can recommend restructuring, privatization or concur with the bills closure language. Furthermore, if the commission identifies additional labs or functions which are national security related, the commission can recommend a transfer of functions to one of the defense labs or a transfer of those facilities to the DOD. Once the commission has submitted its recommendations, Congress has fast-track authority to consider the report and enact the recommendations. Failure by Congress to act will result in closure of facilities within 18 months of the reports issuance. Under title III of the bill, the Power Marketing Administrations [PMA's]--Bonneville, Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western--are transferred to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The General Accounting Office is then instructed to conduct an inventory of the PMA assets and liabilities. The GAO is then instructed to perform a study of the options available which protect the interests of the current customers and taxpayers and submit it to the Congress. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve [SPR] and the Naval Petroleum Reserve are addressed under title IV of the bill. The SPR is transferred to the DOD where a GAO study is ordered to determine alternatives to maintaining the reserves. Once complete, the Secretary of DOD has the discretion to determine the amount to maintain or sell. The Naval Petroleum Reserve, however, is ordered to be sold within 3 years under the direction of the resolution administrator. If the sale is not completed within this timeframe, the Secretary of Interior is instructed to administer the balance of the sale. The largest portion of the DOE's budget, defense-related provisions, are addressed under titles V & VI of the legislation. All national security and environmental management programs are transferred to a newly created, civilian-controlled Defense Nuclear Programs Agency [DNPA]. This includes stewardship of the weapons production facilities and the stockpile. The environmental restoration activities at the defense nuclear facilities are also transferred to the new DNPA to coordinate ongoing DOD cleanup activities. DOE's current cleanup programs have wasted billions of dollars with little progress in their efforts at sites such as Hanford. This transfer is aimed at refocusing taxpayer dollars to cleanup, rather than duplicative bureaucracies. Title VII of the legislation transfers the civilian waste program to the Army Corps of Engineers. Site characterization activities continue at the Yucca Mountain site, and Area 25 of the Nevada Test Site is named as the interim storage site. This temporary site is consistent with legislation currently pending before the U.S. Senate. Also, the GAO is instructed to conduct a study of options for program privatization initiatives. These changes to the civilian waste program represent the best way to ensure the Federal Government meets its obligation to begin accepting waste by 1998. The merits and importance of this legislation have been recognized not only by Secretary Weinberger, but also by two men who know the DOE inside and out--former Energy Secretaries Donald Hodel and John Herrington. I am delighted that our legislation has their support, as well as the support of the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Citizens Against Government Waste. I would like to close by quoting Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman who in 1977 likened a national energy agency to a Trojan Horse, saying ``[I]t enthrones a bureaucracy that would have a self- interest in expanding in size and power and would have the means to do so.'' Over the years, we have witnessed Dr. Friedman's prediction come true--and all at the cost of hundreds of billions of wasted taxpayers' dollars. As a result, the DOE has managed to see its 19th anniversary this year. It should not be around for its 20th. It is time to put this Trojan Horse out to pasture.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, tucked into the 2,000-page, 9-pound-11- ounce stack of documents that make up President Clinton's latest budget was a small booklet that many people might have overlooked. That booklet is called ``A Citizens Guide to the Federal Budget.'' I would like to read to you a couple of the paragraphs from chapter 2, and that chapter deals with where money comes from and where it goes. It says: In a typical American household, a father and mother might sit around the kitchen table to review the family budget. They might discuss how much they expect to earn each year, how much they can spend on food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and perhaps a vacation, and how much they might be able to save for future needs. If they do not have enough money to make ends meet, they might discuss how they can spend less, such as cutting back on restaurants, movies or other entertainment. They also might consider whether to try to earn more by working more hours or taking another job. If they expect their shortfall to be temporary, they might try to borrow. This is from the ``Small Citizens Guide to the Federal Budget.'' I agree with every word of that--the situation it describes is precisely what American families are facing today. But then the booklet continues and says: Generally speaking, the Federal Government plans its budget much like families do. Generally speaking Mr. President, the Federal Government plans its budget nothing at all like a family across the country has to do. A family does not have unlimited access to a credit card access that has allowed the Federal Government to amass a national debt of more than $5 trillion. A family would not be allowed to spend beyond its means forever--it would reach its credit limit and the family would eventually have to tighten its belt and begin paying back its debt. The Federal Government, on the other hand, just continues to steal from our children. A family does not have the resources of foreign investors they can turn to when the bill come due. The Federal Government does, and expects the taxpayers to foot the bills and the massive interest payments those bills generate. And finally, a family could not impose hundreds of millions of dollar worth of new taxes and fees on its friends and neighbors to help offset its own extravagant spending. But the Federal Government can, and it does. For years, I have used the story of the family sitting around the kitchen table as an example of how middle-class Americans understand budgeting in a way Washington never will. The methodical, commonsense approach to reconciling expenses against revenues represents everything that Washington is not. So to suggest that the Federal Government's free-spending, unaccountable ways have anything in common with the way the working- class people of this Nation plan their budgets is ludicrous. Librarians take notice: The Government will recommend that ``A Citizen's Guide to the Federal Budget'' be filed in the bookshelves along with the rest of the official Federal publications. I say it ought to go up alongside Louis L'Amour and the Harlequin Romances, because it is pure fiction. Mr. President, there is no question that families are facing tough times. Money is tight, and there is not much left at the end of the day to put away for savings. They are cutting back in order to make ends meet--skimping not just on entertainment, as the authors of ``A Citizen's Guide to the Federal Budget'' would have us believe, but too often on necessities like new clothes, insurance, or even groceries. Their credit card bills are straining under the load, They are working two or three jobs and taking on overtime hours just to make ends meet. But why are things so tight for American families? A close look at the President's latest budget offers some answers. In his State of the Union Address delivered just 2 months ago, President Clinton boldly declared that ``the era of big government is over.'' Big government presumably meant the high taxes that have squeezed the middle class, the gigantic bureaucracy that has made redtape a synonym for Washington inefficiency, and the wasteful spending that has drained the taxpayers of their precious dollars. But maybe big government means something different to the President. Under the budget he outlined Tuesday, big government is far from dead. In fact, it is off the respirator, breathing on its own and taking nourishment. The Clinton budget--the ninth budget he has sent to Congress in the last 12 months--is nothing more than the status quo his administration continues to deliver, because it calls for increasing Federal spending every year over the course of the 7-year plan, until we're spending nearly $1.9 trillion just after the turn of the century. The President claims he will pay for all that new spending with unspecified cuts in domestic programs sometime in the future. Most of the cuts would not come until after the year 2000, meaning Bill Clinton will never have to make any of those tough choices. As the President's budget grows, so does the Nation's debt, again, rising every year of the President's plan. By the time we have reached the year 2002, the national debt will have ballooned from $4.9 trillion this year to almost $6.5 trillion. That is an increase of nearly 27 percent in just 7 years. And where are the tax cuts the President has repeatedly promised American families? It is practically nonexistent. The President claims he is cutting, but in reality, most of his tax reductions are offset by new tax increases. This is unacceptable. It is nothing but token tax relief, and his child tax credit is a sham. It begins at $300 per child, is slowly ratcheted up to $500, and then eliminated just 2 years later. By the way, teenagers are too old to qualify. The President pays for all this big government not by controlling Washington's appetite for spending, but by spending the savings Americans have sacrificed over the last year toward a balanced budget. Other areas of the budget that demand the President's immediate attention are virtually ignored. He does practically nothing to save the failing Medicare system and bring it into the 21st century. Under the Clinton plan, Medicare remains a relic from 1960's that does not work in the 1990's, and will not survive much beyond it. His budget does not reform Medicaid, either. At a time when a bipartisan coalition of Governors is calling on Washington to entrust the States with managing this vital program, the President says Washington has all the answers. He does not make fundamental changes in welfare to control spending. The President would not ``end welfare as we know it''--he would extend welfare as we know it. The President's budget plan is just a bandage on a wound that's demanding emergency surgery. President Clinton is asking the American family to pay for his campaign and he needs to pay off Washington bureaucrats and special interest groups. His demand for billions of additional taxpayer dollars to finance bigger government, again, is consistent with his support for big Washington government. And President Clinton funds his new spending, again, through increased taxes, increased user fees, and one-time sales of assets financed directly by the taxpayers. Mr. President, I am a firm believer that privatization is crucial to reaching a balanced budget and protecting taxpayer dollars. But what is the point in selling off assets if we are just going to spend it on a bigger government? Asset sales should be dedicated to deficit reduction--if they are not, and are simply redirected by Congress into another Federal program, how are the taxpayers any better off than they were before the sale happened? Unfortunately, this budget will do nothing to help working Americans devastated by the Clinton crunch that has trapped them somewhere between the falling wages and the President's economy has generated, and the rising taxes the President's budgets have demanded. That is why families are having trouble making ends meet--the middle- class squeeze is squeezing them dry. A balanced budget would help, and the people deserve one, but the President's budget is not the answer. We have to inject a dose of reality into the proceedings: President Clinton can claim to support all of these goals, but every time he has had the opportunity to prove it, he has let us down. Congress passed a budget that balances in 7 years, protecting our children and grandchildren by freeing them from a legacy of debt and tax increases. Our budget lets taxpayers keep more of their own dollars, for spending on things important to families, not on things Washington thinks are important. Our budget says a life on welfare is not much of a life at all, and we offer encouragement to get people off the welfare rolls and into society. Our budget says seniors ought to have a Medicare system they can rely on, so we save it from bankruptcy and offer Medicare patients the same kind of health care choices that are now available to everybody except seniors. Our budget does all of that and more, and yet despite his claims that he endorses each of those goals, as we all know, the President vetoed every single one of those measures. So you can see why it is hard to get excited about the President's professed interest in a balanced budget, tax relief, and welfare and Medicare reform, when his commitment to them seems to go no deeper than the tip of his veto pen. The President met with the distinguished majority leader and Speaker Gingrich last week, and they will meet again. I wish them well, because negotiating with the President is like boxing with a jellyfish--it is hard to score any points when your opponent seems to have no backbone or any firm principles of his own. But if there is any hope of reaching an agreement on a budget this year, we will need to see some encouraging signs soon. So, Mr. President, on a closing note, if the Nation were to continue along the path outlined by the President and the congressional majorities which came before him, a pathway dominated by high taxes and big government, I am afraid we might begin to parallel the experiences of Sweden. There is this article from the Associated Press that appeared in the Minneapolis Star Tribune on March 15. In this article it describes what happens when a nation guided by the belief that as long as it was collecting plenty of taxes and building plenty of government, it could provide a good life for everyone. But that has met the realities of the 1990's. With a top income tax rate of 49.9 percent, Sweden ranks as one of the two highest-taxing countries in the world. ``But today,'' says this article, ``Swedes are deep in debt, taxed to the limit, edgy about unemployment, and cynical about the model in which they once took pride.'' Even Soviet leaders once praised Sweden's welfare state. But now, continues the story, ``the welfare dream is in crisis, along with the Social Democratic Party that built it.'' While Bill Clinton and the liberal establishment try to push America toward the kind of high-taxing, big-spending government Sweden has tried and is now rejecting, Sweden's Social Democrats are pushing for a balanced budget, tighter welfare rules, and entrepreneurship. ``There is a growing insight that you can't tax a society into equality.'' Let me say that again. ``There is a growing insight that you can't tax a society into equality.'' That is from a speechwriter for Sweden's retiring prime minister. Somehow, Mr. President, we have moved perilously close to following in Sweden's footsteps, but it is not too late to take a step back. If we are serious about giving our children a better future, the best thing we can do is to cut taxes, end the current spending frenzy, balance the budget, and begin paying off the national debt. ``Americans want a government that uses common sense when it makes decisions that affect their lives,'' concludes the administration's little budget primer. I agree, as long as we're talking about the common sense of a family crafting its budget around the kitchen table, and not the nonsense we too often craft around the conference tables here in Washington.

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 for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I thank you very much. On the heels of that request, I also ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak in morning business for up to 20 minutes to give two statements for the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, this week an historic agreement will be signed here in Washington that I believe embodies the enduring spirit of international commerce and what could be the promoting future of the Baltic States. On March 28, 1996, government officials from the Baltic country of Estonia will sit down with representatives from one of my constituents, NRG Energy, Inc., and pen a memorandum of understanding [MOU] that could lead to NRG jointly owning, as well as managing and operating, the major electric generation assets in Estonia. The agreement is a further step forward for Estonia, which is rapidly progressing into the global village. At the beginning of this decade, Estonia was one of the first nations to break from the old Soviet sphere of influence. Movement toward the West has been constant ever since. In 1991, Estonia became a member of the United Nations and it was welcomed into the World Bank in 1992. Today, the nation envisions itself as a member of the European Union and has submitted a formal application for inclusion. Estonia's coalition government, led by Prime Minister Tiit Vahi and Foreign Minister Siim Kallas, has forged swiftly ahead in developing the open markets necessary to bring the nation into the global economy. These leaders should be commended for their foresight and resolve in making free trade a cornerstone of the country's impressive economic maturity. Mr. President, the Estonians should be praised for their steady progress away from a command and control economy and toward free market principles. They share with a majority of Americans a strong belief that most often the private sector can better conduct business than the government. Already the Estonian Government has privatized more than 377 of its enterprises. This includes the remarkable undertaking of privatizing and modernizing its entire telecommunications sector which was jointly accomplished with contributions from Swedish and Finnish interests. Under the guidance of Arvo Niitenberg, former energy minister and current Estonian Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the most ambitious investment initiative to date is occurring in the electricity sector. For this endeavor, the Estonians looked to American expertise and know-how, and found these qualities in abundance with NRG. As a subsidiary of Northern States Power Company [NSP], a Minneapolis-based, multistate, investor-owned electric and gas utility, NRG has successfully brought the Minnesota penchant for hard work and a no-nonsense approach to international power projects in Australia and the former East Germany. No doubt, NRG's success around the globe will once again evidence itself in Estonia. The project entails an investment of up to $250 million by NRG for environmental upgrades and plant life extension in the Estonian electric company and NRG's management and operation of three powerplants totaling more than 3,000 megawatts through a stock company jointly owned with the Estonians. This represents almost the entirety of Estonia's power production in what is sure to be a win-win partnership in which NRG will apply its extensive and renowned expertise in emission reductions and operation of world class powerplants for the growing Estonian economy. Mr. President, the MOU to be signed this week is the consummation of an important partnership not only between NRG and the Estonians, but also between Estonia and the United States. I welcome the partnership being established March 28 at the State Department as not only the teaming of a nation with a company, but also the commencement of a lasting relationship between two nations.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, as farmers in Minnesota and across the Nation enter this year's planting season, I rise today in support of the farm bill conference report Congress will consider later this week. In the coming days, the Senate and the House, and ultimately the President, will have to make a choice: we will either revolutionize Federal agriculture policies as outlined in this conference report, or we will continue the failed, Washington-knows-best policies of the past 60 years. But that choice should be very clear, Mr. President. After considerable delay, this much-needed legislation will give our agriculture communities a reasonable and responsible policy roadmap for the future. In the short term, decisions about planting, equipment purchases, fertilizer and seed sales, and credit will no longer hang in the balance. In the long term, farmers will have less Government interference from Washington, giving them the flexibility to plant for what the marketplace demands--not what traditional Government crop payments have dictated. I am also proud to note that this legislation is comprehensive and balanced when it comes to protecting our environmentally sensitive lands. Foremost among these environmental provisions is the Conservation Reserve Program, more commonly known as the CRP. I have heard from many of my Minnesota constituents, including farmers and sportsmen and women, who are pleased to see that the CRP and Wetlands Reserve Program were recognized, maintained, and strengthened because of their high success rates. In Minnesota, these programs will further protect our highly erodible lands while expanding hunting and fishing opportunities. Mr. President, overall this bill offers tremendous benefits to Minnesota's agriculture community, which already ranks among the Nation's most productive in many of the traditional raw and processed commodities. For individual Minnesota farmers, this legislation will help meet the needs of the growing number of value-added cooperatives and their customers who benefit from products such as ethanol. This in turn will help Minnesota's rural communities, which depend on high-output agriculture and value-added products for a large portion of income and jobs. Farmers and others dedicated to protecting the environment will not be the only individuals helped by this legislation. The American taxpayers will also benefit from the $2 billion in total budget savings that will go toward balancing the Federal budget. No longer will this portion of the agricultural budget serve as a potential runaway entitlement, as we saw happen after the 1985 farm bill. Instead, taxpayers and farmers will now know well in advance the specific amount of Federal dollars involved in food production. But while I enthusiastically support much of this bill because it works on behalf of both Minnesota's farm community and the American taxpayers, I must raise my strong concerns about its potential harm to Minnesota's dairy industry. For years, dairy producers and processors in the Upper Midwest have struggled against the harmful impact of the archaic Federal milk marketing order scheme. This complex set of regulations has played a key role in the loss of over 10,000 dairy farms in Minnesota over the last decade--an average of nearly three farms every day. I am pleased to see that this legislation pays some attention to reform of those archaic Federal dairy policies, specifically with the proposed consolidation of milk marketing orders and the elimination of costly budget assessments on producers. However, I must state for the record that continuation of milk marketing orders makes little sense, particularly when most other commodities in the bill are subject to declining Federal payments over a 7-year period. Continuing the milk marketing orders is disappointing, but the bill's inclusion of the Northeast Dairy Compact provokes even greater concern among the members of Minnesota's dairy industry. It should trouble my colleagues and their respective dairy industries when Congress authorizes more regulatory burdens and interstate trade barriers. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened during conference negotiations on the farm bill with the mysterious resurrection of the Northeast Dairy Compact. Mr. President, many of my colleagues rightly thought the compact idea to be effectively defeated after we voted 50 to 46 to strike it out of the Senate's farm bill. However, despite the clear message sent by the Senate, the compact has reappeared in the conference report. Many of the compact's supporters will say that this is a compromise. After all, the Secretary of Agriculture will now have to decide whether to allow the New England States to create a compact. If authorized by the Secretary, the compact would only exist until the implementation of milk marketing orders takes place, which is 3 years from now. Perhaps they are right. But we are still creating a bad precedent by making it easier for any region to set up its own monopoly. The Senate previously voted against the compact because it would ultimately result in a proliferation of antitrade barriers between the States and regions. At a time when we are trying to open up global markets for our Nation's farmers, it makes no sense to encourage protectionism within our own borders. Yet, that is exactly what the dairy compact would do. In response to the compact, other regions will work to get similar regional monopolies enacted. For far too long, regional politics have made many farm programs the way they are today--archaic, unfair, unwise, and unworkable. The purpose of this farm bill is to remove Government interference in the agricultural decisionmaking process and reduce the regional conflicts that have plagued our farm policy for years. Creation of the Northeast Dairy Compact would accomplish just the opposite--it would expand the role of government across America at the expense of free-trade opportunities. I will not stand for that and neither should any other Senator who voted against the compact last month. I urge my colleagues to join me in standing up for small dairy farmers across the country by cosponsoring a bill which I am introducing today to repeal the Northeast Dairy Compact. Instead of compromising on free-market principles and retreating into the past, my bill will move America's dairy industry forward. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that the farm bill before us is obviously not a perfect piece of legislation. It does indeed have weaknesses, but I believe those weaknesses are outweighed by those provisions which move us in a more market-oriented direction. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to support the conference report on behalf of rural America, and on behalf of the taxpayers.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, they are going to be handing out the Oscars tonight in Hollywood, honoring the film industry's best efforts at creating fantasy and make-believe. Well, we create a lot of that in Washington, too, and if it were a movie, the latest Clinton budget would be taking home the award for ``Best Special Effects.'' After all, it is a document that makes the impossible appear possible. It disguises reality with the smoke and mirrors that are staples of any good special effects team. It is such a creative effort, in fact, that you have to wonder whether Steven Spielberg and George Lucas somehow had a hand in it. Yes, the President's budget would be right at home amongst the glitzy phoniness of Tinseltown. And at a cost to the taxpayers of more than $1.6 billion this year, it is a big-budget production that makes the $175 million lavished on ``Waterworld'' look like a drop in a water bucket. But like any movie, the more often you see it, the more you start noticing the special effects and the more time you spend trying to figure out how they did. And suddenly it is not all so magical anymore. Unfortunately for President Clinton, the American taxpayers have had almost a week to study his proposed budget for fiscal year 1997, and I think they have begun to figure it out. After eight earlier tries by the President over the last 13 months, the taxpayers were hoping this budget would reflect the changes they called for in 1994: They want a workable balanced budget, real tax relief for middle-class Americans, an end to welfare as we know it, and the reforms needed to save entitlement programs from bankruptcy. But after carefully reviewing the President's recommendations, I have to report that this budget does not deliver. In fact, as hard as it is to believe, President Clinton's budget takes the status quo and makes it even worse. He requests over $61 billion more in nonentitlement spending than he proposed in his own minibudget last month. He pays for that increased spending by raising taxes and fees by more than $60 billion. Furthermore, he delays nearly 60 percent of his promised spending reductions until the last 2 years of his plan, making this a paper budget only, with no hope of ever being implemented. By perpetuating bigger government, more spending, and higher taxes, this document is an affront to the American taxpayers. One area of this budget I find particularly frustrating is the funding for the Cabinet-level Department of Energy. If we have indeed entered a time in which ``the era of Big Government is over,'' as President Clinton proclaimed in his State of the Union Address, there should be no place in the budget for this $16 billion relic. At a time when taxpayers are demanding that Congress be accountable for each and every dollar we spend, Secretary O'Leary and the President have submitted a budget plan that ensures the continuation of DOE's bloated bureaucracy at the expense of responsible, accountable Government. Perhaps they believe that spending enormous amounts of tax dollars on DOE will mask the fact that the Energy Department no longer has an energy mission of its own. Since the oil crisis that led to its creation in the 1970's evaporated, DOE has expended its resources in a perpetual attempt to expand its reach and justify its existence. Today, in fact, 85 percent of DOE's annual budget is spent on activities entirely unrelated to national energy policy. That trend would continue under the President's budget, beginning with the administration's proposal to increase DOE's overhead costs by more than 38 percent next year. At the same time, DOE is boasting of personnel decreases of nearly 20 percent. But if you examine the budget carefully, looking beyond the summary pages delivered to Congress which list nearly 19,000 full-time personnel, the actual decrease is only about 6 percent from this year. Of course, those 19,000 individuals represent just full-time workers. DOE employs another 150,000 contract employees at its labs and cleanup sites across the country. If you are looking for a more in-depth breakdown of Energy Department personnel, you will not find it within the pages of the President's budget. The agency does not even rate an individual listing in the historical tables for the executive branch--instead, it's lumped into the ``other'' category. One can only assume that the White House doesn't want the taxpayers to realize just how large the DOE bureaucracy really is. There are numerous other examples of how this latest budget symbolizes the wasteful spending that has plagued DOE throughout its search to re-invent itself. DOE's research, which includes the development of alternative sources of energy such as solar power, has cost the taxpayers more than $70 billion since the agency's creation in 1977. But during testimony before Congress last year, Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute said: Virtually all economists who have looked at those programs agree that federal energy R&D investments have proven to be a spectacular failure. The taxpayers have financed a great deal of pork with their $70 billion investment, but few meaningful scientific breakthroughs. That reckless spending on renewable energy sources is slated to continue. For example, by DOE's own accounts, the fiscal year 1997 request includes an increase of 157 percent in subsidies to the solar building technology industry. Contrary to what this administration would have us believe, however, the solar industry is already competitive, and as a former solar-home builder myself, I can tell you that such an overwhelming increase in a single year is not necessary. The Department of Energy has proven to be more of a hindrance than a help in making technologies self-sustaining and independent of taxpayer assistance. It is time for the Federal Government to get out of the business of directing market forces in the renewable area. Rather than spending billions of taxpayer dollars to promote particular industries within the private sector, DOE should be funding basic research which actually breaks our growing dependence upon foreign oil. Minnesotans recognize that conservation and renewables alone will not heat a home in the winter--it is time this administration owns up to that fact as well. The President is also requesting $651 million--a 9-percent increase over 1996--to fund DOE's nondefense environmental management programs. It is all part of the agency's environmental and nuclear waste cleanup efforts. Yet the budget increase comes on the heels of a report issued just last month by the National Research Council which criticized DOE's waste disposal program as being too bureaucratic with too many layers. Beyond the bloated bureaucracy and questionable spending, the President's budget plan reflects policies which are inconsistent with current law, pending legislation, or at times, even common sense. For example, the President proposes to delay until 2002 the sale of the Naval Petroleum Reserve oil located at Elk Hills. This is in direct contradiction to legislation enacted last year as part of the President's fiscal year 1996 budget which called for the sale to take place this year. In an effort to continue to milk the NPR for money to pay for additional DOE spending, this administration is rejecting current law, ignoring the fact that there is gross mismanagement at the facility. And what about the back-loaded savings from the sale of the United States Enrichment Corporation? Under the President's budget, a portion of the proceeds were shifted to 2002. Obviously, he was not watching floor consideration of the most recent omnibus spending bill when this body used those same proceeds to pay for the additional education funding President Clinton demanded. Again, they are trying to spend the same dollars once, twice, three, four, five times. Then there are the policies which defy common sense. We have all heard about the environmental hazards resulting from leaking oil at the Weeks Island facility. The Energy Department is currently removing over 70 million barrels from there and transferring them to other strategic petroleum reserve facilities --only to be sold in 2002. But again, a portion of the proceeds from the sale have already been spent, targeted to offset the additional spending requested by the President in the omnibus appropriations bill. Again, trying to spend the same dolalrs more than once, it is smoke and mirrors, trying to balance the budget at the taxpayer's expense. Furthermore, why does DOE not prioritize the Weeks Island reserve for immediate sale, rather than moving it to another facility, storing it, and then selling it? If the Secretary of Energy believes we will not need this oil in 2002, I am certain we don't need it now. Mr. President, under this budget, the potential for even further abuses would continue, because it does nothing to rein in DOE's ever-present search for something to do, someplace to spend the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. There would be nothing to stop the extravagant, taxpayer- funded foreign excursions, or the use of tax dollars to investigate reporters and their stories, or the other wasteful spending that has become all too common at the Energy Department. The Department would be left to operate mostly as it has in the past--free to pursue its own supposed manifest destiny through expansion, reinvention, and constantly redefining its missions. That kind of freedom has allowed DOE's budget to grow 235 percent since 1977, even in the absence of another energy crisis like the one that led to its creation. At a time when the people are demanding a balanced budget and justification for every dollar spent by the Federal Government, can any of us in good conscience claim that business as usual at the Department of Energy is how the taxpayers ought to be served? Mr. President, in presenting its budget to Congress, DOE's chief financial officer testified last week that the document demonstrates a new commitment to streamlining its operations. ``More than ever,'' he said, ``American citizens are holding us accountable for superior results with increasingly limited resources. The Department of Energy is meeting these expectations. We are improving our process efficiency and effectiveness.'' Mr. President, whether or not DOE is meeting these expectations is a question clearly open to debate. I believe they are falling short, way short. And I am afraid that improving process efficiency and effectiveness will not ensure accountability or solve the fundamental problems that rack the Department of Energy. President Clinton's budget feeds DOE's problems through more spending. But when will the big spenders here realize that the time- honored Washington tradition of throwing money at a problem does not make the problem go away--that it only perpetuates the status quo and aggravates the damage? Mr. President, I believe the solution lies in less spending and ultimately, elimination of the Department of Energy. Without a specific and defined mission to guide it, the agency will remain a taxpayers boondoggle for years to come, a burden the taxpayers are no longer willing to bear. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today is a day of victory and celebration for America's manufacturers, consumers, and taxpayers. Congress has finally succeeded in taking the first important step in overhauling our Nation's badly broken product liability system. Mr. President, I would like to commend my colleagues, Senators Gorton and Rockefeller for their endless hours of hard work and commitment to enacting long-needed product liability reforms. This truly is a significant accomplishment. Unfortunately, the President has already issued his press release stating that he will stop this important bill--dead in its tracks--with his veto pen. Despite bipartisan support, he claims this bill fails to ``fairly balance the interests of consumers with those of manufacturers and sellers.'' Mr. President, I disagree. This bill is a good compromise; it's fair; and it does protect sellers, manufacturers and most importantly, consumers. Mr. President, too many people today are filing lawsuits in the hopes that they will hit the jackpot even if there is little merit to their case. The lawyers get wealthy, but under our current system, that wealth comes at the expense of America's consumers. Our society has become so accustomed to suing that a recent study showed that 90 percent of all U.S. companies can expect to be named in a product liability lawsuit. Furthermore, 89 percent of Americans believe that ``too many lawsuits are being filed in America today.'' Mr. President, the price tag of lawsuits is astronomical. In fact, some experts have estimated that the total cost of all lawsuits filed in America exceeds $300 billion each year. And according to the Product Liability Coordinating Committee, the cost of product liability lawsuits, alone, ranges anywhere from $80 to $120 billion annually. American consumers ultimately pay the price of frivolous lawsuits which are paralyzing our country's economic growth and ability to create new jobs. Instead, prices increase and jobs are eliminated when businesses close, downsize or decline new product introduction for fear of a frivolous lawsuit. As a former small businessman, I understand how devastating the threat of a potential lawsuit can be on any company. Our laws have created a hostile business climate that has compromised the competitive position of many companies, forcing them to reduce salaries or lay off employees to avoid going out of business. Companies who are sued have two choices: endure a lengthy and costly trial in the hopes of proving their innocence or settle out of court to save trial costs. Small businesses don't have the time or resources to spend countless days in a courtroom when they are struggling to make payroll and meet customer needs. Everyone agrees that an injured person should have a day in court, and this legislation will not prevent legal recourse for justifiable claims. However, it will put an end to the fishing expeditions that trial attorneys use to extract huge, unwarranted settlements from businesses fearful of protracted litigation costs. Businesses, taxpayers, and consumers can no longer bear this burden, making passage of this legislation critical. Americans understand that our current system is a litigation lottery which increases the costs consumers pay when they purchase a product. It even forces companies to lay-off employees. Far too often, the cost of meeting these outrageous judgments eats up resources that could have gone toward new jobs and better salaries. The President and the trial lawyers are kidding themselves if they believe these costs are not passed on to you and me as consumers. Appropriately, this is called the tort tax. Mr. President, most of my colleagues know that I am a strong opponent of tax increases of any kind. I believe the Product Liability Conference Report will lessen the tort tax on America's consumers. This legislation addresses many of the problems in our current system. It limits manufacturer liability when a product is misused or altered by the user; it caps punitive damages to twice the compensatory damages or $250,000, whichever is greater; it allows judges the flexibility to impose higher damages in extreme cases; and, it eliminates joint and several liability for certain damages, such as pain and suffering, so defendants pay only for the damages they cause-- not those caused by others. In addition to the overall benefits consumers will enjoy after enactment of this bill, Minnesota will see an additional benefit. The reality is our current system is stifling technological innovation, in particular, the production of medical devices. Mr. President, Minnesota is a world leader in the development of lifesaving medical technology and this industry is a vital part of Minnesota's growing economy. In 1994, there were 568 registered medical device establishments in Minnesota. Furthermore, Minnesota ranks 2nd in the Nation with over 16,000 people employed in medical device manufacturing. More than 11 million Americans rely on implanted medical technologies to sustain or enhance the quality of their lives. Many of these products are manufactured in my State including artificial joints, cardiac defibrillators, drug infusion pumps and heart valves. Unfortunately, many suppliers of the raw materials used to make medical devices are restricting the use of their products in medical implants for fear of exposing themselves to costly product liability litigation. Suppliers of raw materials play no role in the design or manufacture of the medical device and courts have consistently found them free from liability. Unfortunately, the costs of the lawsuit ``discovery'' process are surpassing the profits raw material suppliers will receive from selling their products to device manufacturers. If biomaterials suppliers refuse to sell their raw materials to America's medical device companies, device manufacturers are forced to either substitute another material, which many times is impossible, or discontinue production of a device which is fulfilling a vital need for patients. A recent example was highlighted in the Wall Street Journal by a mother whose daughter suffers from hydrocephalus, or water on the brain. The only medical therapy that treats this is a surgically implanted device, called a shunt, made of silicone. Fifty-thousand Americans depend on shunts to keep them alive, but because of recent lawsuits, companies who supply silicone for the production of devices like shunts are no longer willing to sell the raw materials. This situation is devastating to patients who desperately need these lifesaving devices. Essentially, this legislation's Biomaterials Access Assurance provision would allow suppliers of the raw materials or biomaterials used to make medical devices, to obtain dismissal, without extensive discovery or other legal costs, in certain tort suits in which plaintiffs allege harm from a finished medical device. This provision would allow raw materials suppliers to be dismissed from lawsuits if the generic raw material used in the medical device met contract specifications, and if the biomaterials supplier cannot be classified as either a manufacturer or seller of the medical device. Most importantly, this provision would not affect the ability of plaintiffs to sue manufacturers or sellers of medical devices. As the chairman of the Senate's Medical Technology Caucus, I would like to thank the Senator from Connecticut for all his hard work to ensure that the Product Liability bill recognizes the urgency of providing much-needed relief to suppliers of bio-materials who have no direct role in the raw material's ultimate use as a ``biomaterial'' in a medical device. Mr. President, I would like to note that even President Clinton recognizes this provision as ``a laudable attempt to ensure that suppliers of biomaterials will provide sufficient quantities of their products'' to medical device manufacturers. The bill before us today is the first step in the right direction, but certainly not the last. While we have made great progress toward reforming our current system, I believe we should do more. We need to extend protections to America's consumers in civil liability cases which have devastated local girl scout troops, neighborhood little leagues and community recreational organizations. Furthermore, Congress should pass medical malpractice reforms to ensure that the doctor-patient relationship is protected from lawyers. Doctors complain that many times they are forced to order unnecessary tests just to protect themselves against frivolous lawsuits. This practice called ``defensive medicine'' costs our country over $15 billion each year. Mr. President, the Senate should adopt this first step and continue moving forward to reform our overall liability system. Failing to enact this legislation will result in even higher costs to customers, fewer products developed and fewer jobs as companies downsize to adjust to increasingly high legal costs. I urge my colleagues to recognize the positive impact this legislation will have on countless businesses across our country. Ultimately, it will benefit the employees whose jobs will be secured as a result of enactment of this long overdue legislation, while at the same time, we continue to protect consumers seeking judgements against companies who have manufactured faulty products.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support for the Senate amendment to H. Con. Res. 148, a resolution which expresses strong House opposition to the Chinese military exercises in the Taiwan Strait. The Senate amendment contains the language of S. Con. Res. 43, which I have cosponsored. The Senate amendment, drafted by the chairman of the East Asia and Pacific Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Thomas, and cosponsored by Senators Dole, Helms, Murkowski, myself and others, is similar to the House resolution yet sends an equally strong message to China that the United States views the missile tests as a threat to Taiwan, contrary to the spirit of the Taiwan Relations Act as well as the three United States-China Joint Communiques. Mr. President, we are all painfully aware of the sensitivity portrayed by China to any effort by Taiwan to cultivate relationships with other nations. These actions have been wrongfully perceived to be efforts to pursue independence. The Taiwanese Government denies the allegations. I am disappointed that China has gone to this extreme to counter what it believes is a growing interest in independence among the Taiwanese people. Even though the Democratic Progressive Party, which supports independence, has picked up a few seats in the Taiwan Parliament, it appears to be far from a threat in the presidential election of March 23. The major party, the National Party, has supported future unification. While the administration has recently sent elements of the United States 7th Fleet to provide support for Taiwan, these Chinese exercises have been conducted for over 8 months. There has been a very weak response by the administration until this time. I feel compelled to ask the question of why these exercises occurred in the first place. Why have we let our relationship with China deteriorate to the point where military exercises that threaten Taiwan, where sales of nuclear materials continue, and where many other disputes and differences have worsened with China. It should be an important United States foreign policy objective to set our relationship with China back on track. The administration must place this as a very high priority before the situation worsens. Constant, high-level communication with Chinese leaders may have enabled us to avoid these harmful disputes. We must work toward ensuring that, after the March 23 election, both China and Taiwan begin a high-level dialog to decrease tensions and to resolve the issue of the future of Taiwan. This must be done in a peaceful manner, consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act and the Three Communiques. The harm done by the military exercises will not make this an easy task. I urge support for the Senate amendment to the House resolution.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 19, 1996, to hold hearings on the Asset Forfeiture Program--A Case Study of the Bicycle Club Casino.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 19, 1996, at 9 a.m. in SH-216 to hold an open hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 19, 1996, at 10 a.m. in SD-226 to hold a hearing on ``Reauthorization of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act.''

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet during the Tuesday, March 19, 1996, session of the Senate for the purpose of conducting a hearing on oversight of the Federal Communications Commission.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding rule XXII, that following the two cloture votes on Wednesday, the Senate proceed to S. 1459, the grazing fees bill.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I send to the desk modifications for pages 1, 4, and 5 of the managers' amendment to H.R. 3019 and ask it be adopted.