Bill Bradley

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Madam President, today Senator Lautenberg and I are offering an amendment to insure the continuation of the tokamak fusion test reactor, or TFTR, at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. Without increasing any account in the bill or cutting any other Department of Energy research program, the amendment insures that the TFTR and its valuable research will proceed for another year. I agree that we need to make significant appropriations cuts, however, we should not forget that some cuts hurt more than others. Shutting down a major research lab like TFTR is doubly damaging. First, we lost the important research it might have provided into cleaner, safer sources of nuclear power. But even worse, we make it that much harder to restart research when times get better financially but scientists have moved on to other, more secure, fields of study. The Princeton lab is the world leader in fusion research and the only tokamak in the world using deuterium-tritium fuel, the most likely fuel for a future commercial fusion reactor. In December 1993, when this fuel was first injected into the machine, the TFTR began setting world fusion power records. Over the next few years, researchers plan to double the production of fusion power at TFTR. And as reported last week in Science magazine, Princeton scientists have made a recent breakthrough in fusion research which has great promise for removing some of the biggest obstacles to power production. TFTR was authorized by Congress in 1976 and began operations in 1982 at a time when fusion machines could produce only a 10th of a watt of fusion power. The device has now produced more than 10 million watts of fusion power--an increase of more than 100 million times. TFTR has achieved or surpassed its initial design objectives and has higher performance standards and capabilities than any other existing device. When power generation options for the next century and beyond are severely limited, we cannot afford to waste precious resources by abandoning important research work like the TFTR. amendment no. 2061 (Purpose: To ensure the completion of the feasibility study of alternatives for meeting the drinking water needs on the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation and surrounding communities) On page 15, line 17, add: ``Provided further, That within available funds, $300,000 is for the completion of the feasibility study of alternatives for meeting the drinking water needs on the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation and surrounding communities.'' amendment no. 2062 (Purpose: To provide that funds shall be made available to the Crow tribe for energy resources programs under title XXVI of the Energy Policy Act of 1992) On page 20, lines 22 and 23, after ``expended'' insert ``Provided further, That within the amount for Indian Energy Resource projects, $2,000,000 may be made available to fund the Crow energy resources programs under title XXVI of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (25 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)''. amendment no. 2063 At the appropriate place in the bill (suggest page 12, after line 16) insert the following: Sec. . The project for flood control for Petersburg, West Virginia, authorized by section 101(a)(26) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-640, 104 Stat. 4611) is modified to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct the project at a total cost not to exceed $26,600,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $19,195,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $7,405,000. amendment no. 2064 (Purpose: To limit funding for the Tennessee Valley Authority Environmental Research Center) On page 38, lines 1 and 2, after ``$110,339,000, to remain available until expended'' and insert ``Of the funds appropriated under this heading, not more than $25,000,000 may be expended for the Tennessee Valley Authority Environmental Research Center in Muscle Shoals, Alabama, in the event that the Center expends less than $25 million, such amount not expended shall be returned to the U.S. Treasury and the Tennessee Valley Authority appropriation reduced accordingly and the Tennessee Valley Authority shall take steps to obtain funding from other sources so as to reduce appropriated funding in the future and, not later than January 1, 1996, submit to Congress a preliminary plan securing funding from other sources.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I understand that the House has included language in its report accompanying the Energy and Water Appropriations bill which would have an impact on the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (CVPIA). I am very concerned that an appropriations bill would be used for this purpose and I urge my colleagues who will be conferees on this bill to reject these attacks on the CVPIA. The House report attempts to delay a study of the San Joaquin river that was established in law through the CVPIA. As the author of that act, I am surprised by the action of the House. The study is specifically ordered in the 1992 Act and, in fact, has a statutory deadline for action by the Secretary. Clearly, this statute is unaffected by any Committee Report language and the law remains binding on the Secretary. The House also includes report language which bears on the repayment for the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program. I understand that there is no Senate report or legislative language concerning repayment responsibilities for the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program and the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program.

Mr. BRADLEY. I also understand that the taxpayers have spent tens of millions of dollars for the cleanup of the Kesterson Reservoir which was built to collect the drainage water from farms in the Bureau of Reclamations' San Louis Unit within the Central Valley project. The Kesterson facility is so contaminated with selenium and other chemicals that it was closed on March of 1985 by the Department of Interior. Many migratory birds using Kesterson Ponds were killed in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty and Congress has appropriated tens of millions of dollars to clean up Kesterson.

Mr. BRADLEY. It is my further understanding that absent legislative language, the repayment for Kesterson cleanup is reimbursable and the Secretary of Interior is obligated by law to collect reimbursable costs.

Mr. BRADLEY. Now is not the time to be spending additional taxpayer funds on cleanup which should be paid by water contractors whose drainage caused such problems at Kesterson. With regard to the San Joaquin River comprehensive plan, I understand that the House committee report recommends that $1 million be moved out of the San Joaquin River Basin initiative and into the Shasta temperature control device. This would have a devastating effect on the San Joaquin River comprehensive plan, a study required under the 1992 statute which is due for completion next year. Is there language on these funds in the Senate bill or report?

Mr. BRADLEY. I thank the Senator for these clarifications. Nothing in the CVPIA required Friant water users to give up any water. The San Joaquin comprehensive plan is only a study. Amendments No. 2059 through 2065

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. The bill before us, S. 641, contains a new formula for distributing title I and title II funds. As a result of this formula change, New Jersey's title I cities will receive over $50,000 less next year than they would have under the original formula. In the year 2000, New Jersey's title I cities will receive almost half a million dollars less than they would have under the original formula. At the same time, the revised formula results in several other States receiving significant increases in the total amount of Ryan White funding they receive. For example, Minnesota will more than double its title I and title II funding under the revised formula, Nevada's funding will increase by 116 percent, and Vermont's will increase by 141 percent.

Mr. BRADLEY. Therefore, Senator Lautenberg and I would like to ask our two colleagues if they would work hard in conference to obtain a formula which would decrease the reductions in funding to New Jersey.

Mr. BRADLEY. I appreciate my colleagues' assurances. Even with these assurances, I still expect that this bill will hurt the State of New Jersey. However, I recognize that at some point compromises must be made or else the future of the entire Ryan White Program may be at risk. Therefore, having received these assurances, I plan to support this bill.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation aimed at restoring some level of financial equity in the marketplace for clean automotive fuels. My bill will phase out certain targeted tax subsidies given to an industry that has too long received unique and favorable treatment under the Tax Code: The domestic ethanol industry. In this effort, I am very pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Nickles as an original cosponsor of this legislation. The Clean Fuels Equity Act will phase out the ethanol tax subsidy for ethanol produced from feedstocks that already receive other subsidies through the Department of Agriculture's price and income support programs. The phaseout would occur over 3 years to allow the existing industry an orderly transition to a less-sheltered marketplace. My legislation would continue to allow the tax credits for special energy crops, waste products, and other biomass that do not benefit from the USDA price supports. These energy crops hold some promise of environmental and energy benefits. Furthermore, they still represent a technically immature industry, for which additional Federal support might be justified. As most people know, the bulk of the ethanol produced in the United States is derived from corn, and processed and sold in the Midwest; 20 years ago, there was no fuel ethanol industry. But, born from the crisis concerns of the late 1970's, this business grew from nothing, built by an array of special and substantial tax privileges. However, unlike many of the questionable policies developed during that period of energy crisis--from the Synfuels Corp. to the Fuel Use Act and plans for gas rationing--the ethanol subsidies continue to survive. When the credits were initiated over 15 years ago, they were intended to jumpstart an industry that would not otherwise exist. This policy has obviously succeeded. The ethanol industry is no longer a small, fledgling industry. It now produces in excess of a billion gallons of ethanol per year and consumes roughly one-half billion bushels of corn yearly. It is an industry that now benefits from special tax credits and exemptions worth roughly $700 million per year--a number that is growing. These tax subsidies are in addition to the millions of dollars in benefits the industry receives each year from the USDA price support programs. In light of recent ethanol industry efforts to obtain regulatory expansions of their subsidies, it seems the ethanol industry's attitude can be characterized by the phrase ``never enough.'' Why worry what it costs to produce a product when you get a targeted tax credit, soon to be worth nearly $1 billion per year? Why worry about competition when you receive millions more through price supports? The cost to taxpayers and the cost to consumers are real. These subsidies take money out of Americans' pockets. In the face of billions of dollars in cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and education programs for children, I question a continued, substantial tax break to a single, well-established industry. By handing out subsidies to ethanol, the Government is passing along a bill worth hundreds of millions of dollars to taxpayers and consumers. Ethanol competes in the marketplace with other chemicals that have no special tax break. These alternatives must compete based on price and performance. This legislation is not intended to be punitive to ethanol. Rather, it is an attempt to allow the markets a better chance to work for the benefit of all consumers, taxpayers, and the environment. Furthermore, it is acknowledgment that you cannot have it both ways. If ethanol already benefits from price supports, there is no need for a tax credit to keep an industry afloat. It is that simple. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation carefully. Last year the Joint Tax Committee estimated that this bill would raise almost $3 billion over a 5-year period; since then, the cost of subsidizing the ethanol industry has only gone up. In these times when we are struggling to reduce the deficit as well as the tax burden on the American middle class it makes sense to reduce unneeded subsidies whenever possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material be printed in the Record. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I would like to clarify one important question regarding additional legislative language in this bill governing the Community Schools Program passed last year in the crime bill. I appreciate the assistance of the chairman in ensuring that $10 million of the $26.5 million originally appropriated will remain available to assist communities that have designed programs to use school buildings for constructive activities for young people to keep them safe and out of trouble during the afternoons, evenings and weekends. Additional language was added to the House limiting the use of funds somewhat further than in the authorizing legislation. After this rescission becomes law, funds may be used only for entrepreneurship, academic, or tutorial programs, or for workforce preparation. Although this is a slightly narrower definition than in the original authorization, it follows closely my original intent in developing the program, which was not to encourage purely recreational activities. The Department of Health and Human Services has done a wonderful job of getting this program underway. Despite a tight deadline, more than 700 applications were received by the May 5 deadline. Almost all of these applications feature the components that are identified as permissible under the modified requirements in this legislation. However, some of the best applications put these activities in a broader context, including activities such as mentoring and conflict resolution, in keeping with the purpose of crime prevention. Other applications focus on academic and tutorial activities, but address topics outside the underlying school curriculum, which is in keeping with the intent of the legislation, since we did not want to duplicate or subsidize existing school activities. All of these applications were prepared and the initial evaluation conducted under the original, slightly less restrictive, authorizing language. I would be greatly concerned if HHS were required to start from scratch, reopening the application and evaluation process, in order to meet the most restrictive interpretation of these new constraints. Therefore, I would like to ask whether it is the chairman's understanding that, under this new language, more comprehensive programs that center around the activities described, but set those activities in the context of a broader program of mentoring or related methods, would be permissible?

Mr. BRADLEY. I thank the Senator. I believe this will provide needed clarity to the Department and to the 700 community applicants. This said, however, I would reiterate the intent of this restrictive language: in making these grants, the Department of Health and Human Services should not fund programs that are primarily recreational in nature, or whose primary feature is not academic, tutorial, or directed at developing the potential of young people as workers or entrepreneurs.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, it is with regret that I must cast my vote against the fiscal year 1996 military construction appropriation bill. We simply cannot justify the level of spending contained in this legislation. This bill funds many worthy projects. For example, I strongly support efforts to improve the quality of life for our service men and women. I support the infrastructure construction that is absolutely necessary to keep our military in fighting shape. I have long supported the military value of McGuire AFB in my own State of New Jersey. Indeed, I worked hard and successfully to keep McGuire open and performing its vital military missions. I will support the spending that McGuire needs to prosper. But all of these worthy projects are embedded in a bill larded with pork. It is $461 million higher than the President's budget request, and over $2.4 billion above last year's funding total. It contains hundreds of millions of dollars in unauthorized spending. At a time of budget stringency, when we are asking all Americans to make sacrifices, I simply cannot support a 28-percent increase in spending for military construction. Amendment No. 1835

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. I rise to express serious reservations about S. 343, the regulatory reform bill. After listening to over a week's debate, I remain doubtful that a vote in favor of S. 343 would serve the best interests of the American people. While I support carefully crafted regulatory reform efforts like the Glenn-Chafee substitute, S. 343 does not meet my standards nor the standards of the people of New Jersey. I doubt whether my constituents want new red tape requirements which would delay long-awaited regulations for food safety, drinking water quality, worker protections and pollution control. Even with the changes adopted during the last week, S. 343 is still a prescription for delay, duplication, and judicial gridlock. S. 343 is not true reform. It is full of exemptions and special interest provisions unrelated to the basic bill or which give assistance to particular industries. Its provisions will swamp agencies with requirements for hundreds of new, costly, and time-consuming analyses and it will undermine needed health, safety and environmental regulations already on the books. S. 343 is filled with new opportunities for endless rounds of judicial review. Yesterday, our colleague Senator John Kerry stated that the bill still contained 88 new places for court intervention in the regulatory process, despite the efforts of many Senators to improve this aspect of S. 343. S. 343 could result in the sunset of many regulations if agencies failed to review them accordingly to required time schedules. Even worse, the schedules themselves might be manipulated by special interests who could overload agency review agendas and tie them up until regulations expired. Finally, S. 343 still includes language which favors the least cost and not the most cost-effective regulations--an affront to common sense which could result in missed opportunities for sensible regulatory revisions. Mr. President, this country needs regulatory reform. Regulated businesses and individuals deserve the most flexible, cost-effective regulations agencies can craft while still providing the protections Congress has provided and all of us need. But it is also time for us to admit the real cause of many regulatory complaints--overly prescriptive and sloppily drafted legislation. While this bill needs further work, I hope we can resume negotiations and produce a regulatory reform bill we all can support. Amendment No. 1487

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Well, I think he wanted to engage me in a colloquy for a question, the answer to which is yes.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I would like to share with the Senate the story of a young woman named Katie O'Connell. She was 2 years old and she died from eating hamburger at a fast food restaurant. Unknown to anyone, her meal was contaminated with E. coli, the deadly pathogen that really is the subject of this amendment. Sadly, the meat that Katie ate had been declared safe by inspectors from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Katie died from a disease that should have been detected through our Federal meat inspection system. Katie is no longer alive because that system failed her and her family and has failed thousands of others across this country. Diseases caused by foodborne illnesses often strike those who are most vulnerable in our society, our children. Last summer health officials in my home State of New Jersey, where Katie lived, found another outbreak of the disease that killed Katie just a short time before. One family, the McCormicks in Newton, NJ, had two of their children, ages 2 and 3, hospitalized. Their lives were endangered because they, too, ate meat that was declared safe by Federal inspectors at the Department of Agriculture. These cases are far from isolated, unfortunately. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that there are over 9,000 people who die and another 6.5 million people who get sick every year from foodborne illnesses. The USDA regulations proposed last February as an effort to meet this crisis would require daily testing for salmonella at meat and poultry processing plants across America. Additionally, each of the Nation's 6,000 slaughterhouses and processing plants would have to develop operating plans designed to minimize possible sources of contamination; in other words, to design systems to avoid contamination in advance instead of fighting it after it breaks out. Mr. President, I think this proposal offered by the Department of Agriculture represents a significant improvement over the current system, which has remained in place remarkably unchanged for over 90 years, since reforms were put in place in the wake of, as the Senator from Vermont says, Upton Sinclair's great book, ``The Jungle.'' Ironically, a cost-benefit analysis was done of these proposed rules. And what did the cost-benefit analysis show? Well, the costs would be $250 million per year, lowering to $200 million after the first 3 years. And the benefits from these regulations would be at least $1 billion per year. In other words, almost a 5-to-1 ratio in terms of benefit over cost. That does not even really count the other fact here, Mr. President, that the Department of Agriculture used a relatively low number of $1 million, for the value of each human life. Contrast these cost with the savings to consumers of $1 to $3.7 billion per year attributable to lost wages and medical costs for sickness caused by foodborne disease that would be paid out without this rule. Mr. President, what would be the cost to consumers if every penny of this system's cost were passed along? If every penny of the cost of these proposed regulations were passed along to consumers, the cost would be two-tenths of 1 cent per pound. That is right, two-tenths of 1 cent per pound. So a consumer would have to buy 5 pounds of hamburger before incurring any cost at all. Surely, the typical American family would be more than willing to pay this modest price to make sure that when they buy meat or go down to the fast food franchise and buy a cheeseburger for their child, that it will be safe meat. Mr. President, I know some of my colleagues will say, ``Why eliminate these regulations? Why exempt these regulations from the coverage of this regulatory reform bill?'' Why single out this particular issue? Well, I think there is an answer to that. It is pretty simple. I do not want any more children to die. According to the USDA, the summer months are the prime time for foodborne diseases. In fact, last month alone, there were at least four more disease outbreaks. How many more will have to die before we take action, before we allow the regulations that have been proposed to go into effect and to assure families across this country that their children are not going to eat contaminated meat at a fast food franchise? Mr. President, the National Academy of Sciences recommended that the USDA use this new kind of system that was proposed last February. They recommended it first 10 years ago. Yet, these proposed regulations have been the subject of countless hearings, roundtable meetings with industry and consumers, and on and on. At one point, the industry even claimed that the E. coli organism was not technically an adulterant under the food safety law, clearly an attempt to deny the agency the ability to regulate E. coli. Mr. President, do we really need to waste years, lives and money redoing all the old analyses and creating new ones in an effort to stall or even defeat these regulations? Senator Dole's amendment that he offered yesterday modified the bill slightly regarding the effects of S. 343 on E. coli regulations. Senator Johnston's second-degree amendment to the Daschle amendment would modify it further, but unfortunately not enough to ensure that the regulations would not be caught up in a revolving door of petitions and sunset provisions which could plunge the regulations into a swamp of uncertainty and litigation. The resulting delay would cause even more cases of sickness and death, and the delay is unnecessary. I am very concerned that these regulations are already a target of Members in the other body who would try to delay them further through appropriations riders and other techniques. Instead of delay, I urge my colleagues to stop interfering with these regulations. They are exactly the kinds of regulations that we claim to want. We have them. They are here. They are cost-effective. They deal with a serious problem, and they have been subjected to close scrutiny by a wide variety of interests. So, Mr. President, I urge that we reject the amendment by the Senator from Louisiana and adopt the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from South Dakota and take a giant step toward protecting our families from outbreaks of E. coli on our next visit to a fast food franchise to buy a cheeseburger for our son or daughter. I yield the floor. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRADLEY. I would like to respond briefly, if I could. I think the Senator makes a number of very good points. There is no question that many of the illnesses with regard to meat come about because the meat is not cooked properly, not cooked well done. Many of us like our meat raw, red. If you do, you increase your chances of E. coli pathogens.

Mr. BRADLEY. My point is that, after Katie died, I remember giving all kinds of speeches, urging that people insist that all hamburgers be well done, be cooked fully, urging owners of fast food franchises to take that as a responsibility. Some responded, some did not. So let me agree with the Senator on that point. As to the real reason that has prevented the new regulations from going into effect over many years, well if it was the union, in that case I am against the union. I don't know the reason. I am for the consumer. Let us get the thing done.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, who has the floor?

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I will not be long, but I would like to continue what I was saying before in response to the statements made by the distinguished Senator from Idaho. I am all for cooking the meat. Let us cook the meat. But before the meat is cooked, 1 out of 25 hamburgers has E. coli bacteria in it. That is not produced by the person who is preparing it. That exists because it has not been caught earlier; 1 out of 25. So if the distinguished Senator is so concerned about the health of our children--and I believe he is, and I believe the industry is, if for no other reason than self- interest--then we need a new system of inspection, a system that will increase our chances of detecting E. coli before it reaches the unsuccessful preparation process. So all the Daschle amendment says is, exempt E. coli from the potential of further delays, further petitions, further litigation, and a much longer time before it will ever be in place to capture and prevent the E. coli from being passed on to consumers.

Mr. BRADLEY. No, I will not yield. And so all the Daschle amendment says is exempt E. coli regulations from this bill. If the distinguished Senator does not want E. coli to be in the meat of children in this country, in 1 in 25 hamburgers before preparation, then he should exempt it. Now, I believe that he does not, and I know that he has worked faithfully and diligently with the Department of Agriculture in an attempt to get an agreement among all parties. He is, in a very real sense, somebody who likes to build consensus. And I believe that what we have in the new amendments, as he said, is a much better job--a much better job--than current law. The Senator would admit that. Is the regulation regime projected to be perfect? No. Is it much better than the current situation? Yes. All we are saying is, allow it to be put in place and do not make the very, very best the enemy of the very, very good, with the hope that at some distant moment, we will have the perfect set of regulations. Or 15 years from now, when we get to that point, there will have been 9,000 more people every year dying and more kids like Katie O'Connell dying. Put it in place now, and revisit it later. That is what the Daschle amendment says by exempting E. coli from this regulatory reform bill.

Mr. BRADLEY. I yield the floor. Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I would like to make sure that the record is absolutely clear in this debate. I heard my distinguished colleague from Louisiana take umbrage at my [[Page S 9770]] characterization of his amendment. I would like the Record to state that, yes, indeed, he allows the E. coli regulation to be placed into effect. He exempts any regulation promulgated before April 1, and the Record should show that; that it is the other amendment, the underlying amendment, that has the biggest problem. I think the distinguished Senator from Louisiana offers an amendment that is a vast improvement over the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Kansas--a vast improvement. I salute him for offering this amendment and moving the Senate forward. However, unfortunately, it is not enough. It is not as much as I think we need. It allows endless petitions. It allows sunsets to be placed on the regulation. I believe we should simply exempt E. coli and let the Department of Agriculture do what they are going to do, without any kind of back-door or unforeseen event, and strengthen this regulation, to protect the food and meat for people in this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, today, Senator Brown and I are introducing legislation to end the Federal peanut program, a system of production quotas, price support loans and import restrictions which benefit a privileged few at great cost to American taxpayers and consumers. You do not have to be a peanut farmer to take advantage of the peanut program. In fact, you do not have to be farmer at all. You just have to be lucky enough to inherit--or rich enough to buy--a quota. Quota holders live all over the United States and in foreign countries as far away as Hong Kong and Great Britain. The Federal peanut program has been in place since the 1930's. It places strict quotas on peanut production, which drive up the cost to consumers by as much as $500 million a year, according to the American Peanut Product Manufacturers. Farmers who wish to grow peanuts for human consumption in the United States must own or lease a quota. And while quotas are assigned to particular farms, they can be rented or sold to someone else within the same county. [[Page S 9810]] The GAO reports that 68 percent of all quota owners merely rent out their quotas to others. Even worse, fewer than 22 percent of all quota holders control 80 percent of the total U.S. peanut quota. This program does nothing to help American farmers. It simply lines the pockets of what amounts to a Park Avenue peanut cartel. Additionally, the Government provides Federal price support loans of $678 per ton for peanuts grown within the quota limits, despite the fact that the world price for peanuts is only $350 per ton. If a farmer cannot sell his crop, he can forfeit it to the Government in return for the Federal price support. These price supports will cost American taxpayers $119 million in 1995. This program turns market capitalism on its head. It forces consumers to pay twice as much for peanuts than they otherwise would pay. Ironically, high peanut prices are shrinking the market for peanut products. At this rate, we're going to make peanut butter and jelly a delicacy. For the dynasty of peanut quota holders, this program is the greatest thing since sliced bread. But for everyone else, it is a shell game you cannot win. The peanut program does not need overhauling, it needs to end now.

Mr. BRADLEY

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