Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I am more interested in the timing for this evening, on behalf of five Senators.

Mr. CRAIG. If the Senator will yield briefly, I will leave the Senators to debate this. We have the Robb amendment on the floor. Several of us came to debate that, expecting it would be stacked for a vote in the morning. Obviously, you are going to continue this debate into tomorrow. I wonder what your plan is for the evening because it is predicated upon a unanimous consent agreement that we want to craft. If you plan to debate late into the evening, we will not stay.

Mr. CRAIG. No. I just say I think it is a rather baseless debate, with a lot of politics.

Mr. CRAIG. I just have a question on procedure, not on the substance, if the Senator would not mind yielding.

Mr. CRAIG. I will stay out of the substance.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Thursday, September 30, 1999 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirsken Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1457, Forest Resources for the Environment and the Economy Act. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Mark Rey at (202) 224- 6170.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Thursday, September 16, 1999 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the Administration's Northwest Forest Plan. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Mark Rey at (202) 224- 6170. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for yielding. Let me thank him for the tremendous work he has done in the last several months to produce a tax package that is here on the floor. Let me turn to my colleague from Louisiana first. I wish the President would follow that Senator's leadership, for if he had followed his leadership, we would have a Medicare package and be working on it right now. But the President chose to politicize Medicare and to walk away from his Democratic colleagues whom he placed onto the Commission to do the work that they did so well in a bipartisan way. And we are here today without a fix for Medicare because the President did not awaken to the responsibility he had in that regard and the opportunity that the Senator from Louisiana and the Senator from Nebraska had helped create in the Medicare Commission. I wish the President had awakened, but he chose not to. We are here today debating a tax relief bill for the American people, a relief bill that, in my opinion, is responsible, reasonable. In all fairness, given the total picture of our budget and our projected revenues, it is, in fact, modest tax relief. Some would be surprised by that statement on the modest size of this tax relief package if they were to listen to the rhetoric from the other side of the aisle. But that is the truth. It is responsible tax relief, within the responsible budget plan which we passed earlier this year. Under this plan, we use three-fourths of the total budget surplus to pay down the public debt by nearly one-half over 10 years and completely protect the Social Security system. For the first time in the history of our Government, our budget commits us to reserving all of future Social Security surpluses and all future Social Security revenues exclusively for Social Security beneficiaries. That is a first for all of us; it is an important and responsible first. If we continue to hold the line on new spending, that discipline plus some of the leftover surplus funds, also will allow us to accommodate prudent Medicare reforms, meet emergencies, and address additional priorities that we may face, also all within that three-fourths of the surplus that we are setting aside. This tax relief bill draws on the remaining one-fourth of the total surplus. This is hardly not reckless, like some have said. It is responsible, reasonable, and modest to take just one-fourth of the total surplus and return it to the American people. These facts seem to go unrecognized on the other side of the aisle. After we safeguard Social Security, meet the true and real responsibilities of Government, account for Medicare and other priorities, what we do in this bill is say to those whom we have overcharged, those who have overpaid their income taxes, we are going to refund to you a little of your own money. Too many in Government and the press seem to miss this fundamental question: Who earns the money in the first place? Whose money is it? I am always fascinated by the debate on taxes when the other side seems to think that nearly everything the working person owns is the Government's. And if we are providing tax relief, somehow in our generosity, we are turning to them and smiling, and saying: We are going to give you back just a little. Are we, to quote some on the other side, ``spending'' this money on a tax cut? Are we giving it back? No. We are saying it belongs to the worker who earned it, and that he or she should be able to keep a little more of the fruits of his or her own labors. What we are suggesting is that we don't take so much in the first place--that we have enough right now to fund Government in a responsible way, and we ought to recognize that it is the working person out there we are taking it from, and we ought to return the overcharge. This tax relief is phased in, meaning future Congresses will have plenty of time to react if the economic conditions of our country change. That is also part of the argument why this bill is responsible. The bill represents only a 3.5-percent tax cut. That is modest, especially for the most heavily taxed generation in American history. Some of the future tax relief won't even kick in unless the national debt is in fact being reduced. I think that is responsible. Yet we hear the mantra again of, pay down the debt, pay down the debt. If you would read the facts of this tax relief bill we have put together, and the budget it implements, we are paying down a very substantial part of the debt--more than one-half of it. In fact, we already have paid down $142 billion in the public debt in the last 2 years. Under our budget, and on top of this tax relief, we will pay down over $200 billion in debt more than the President's budget called for, even though he is one of those out there talking about debt reduction at this moment. Let me make you a deal, Mr. President. You say you are going to veto the tax cut. Well, if you veto the tax cut, why don't you bring to us a lockbox proposal that puts all of the surplus in a lockbox to pay down the debt? A lockbox that makes a binding guarantee that not one cent of the surplus will go to new spending. You are not about to do that, Mr. President. But if you would, I would support you in it because debt reduction is important. It would help the economy of this country. But one has to wonder if the President just flat isn't speaking with all of the truth that he ought to be. Look at his budget this year--tax increases and new spending. In fact, his own budget this year calls for spending the entire non-Social Security surplus, and then raiding the Social Security trust funds for some more new spending. I am sorry, Mr. President. What you say and what you do don't come together--they don't add up. What you say about new spending in your budget doesn't match what you say about debt reduction when you oppose this tax relief. I don't think I would have to eat my hat on that kind of a promise to the President--that I would be willing to support him if he would take all of the surplus and put it in a fund to pay down the debt, because that is just not about to happen. No, the real issue here is not tax relief versus paying down the debt. The real issue is tax relief versus spending. We all know that. We were spending money yesterday. Frankly, I was helping spend some of it. That spending used some of the surplus and is going to relieve the current crisis circumstance in producing agriculture today across this country. I supported that agriculture appropriations bill because our farm families are facing an emergency. But I also know if we leave all the taxpayers' money in Washington, DC, all the surplus, it will get spent, and not just on emergencies. If we send it back to the people who earned it and own it, then it won't get spent by government. At least then, we would have to go back to the people and ask them for the right to spend more, by changing the tax structure to increase future revenues. Who believes if Government takes in $3 trillion in surplus revenue over the next 10 years, that Government won't spend it? We know they will spend it. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation does a little thing called ``Bill Tally.'' They tally up all of the new bills introduced by Members of Congress every year and what those new bills will represent in new and increased government spending. Mr. President, 84 of 100 Senators--that means Democrat and Republican alike--last year introduced new legislation that would lead to an additional $28 billion in spending per year, on average. Not over the next 10 years but in one alone--Democrat and Republican alike. New ideas, new bills, new spending. It is the habit of Government. Of course, we know that. That represents about a $232 increase in spending from every American taxpayer that is already on the wish list of most of the Senate. I hope and believe we can resist the temptation to spend the three- fourths of the surplus we reserve to pay down the debt, save Social Security, and reserve some for other future priorities. That is what we ought to be doing with it. That is what we promised in the Congressional budget we passed earlier this year. Yet, the temptation will be there to spend the remaining one-forth, and part of that three- fourths, as well. The choice is very simple. The debate today is about bigger Government versus bigger household budgets--private citizen household budgets. I hope helping those American household budgets is what this Senate ultimately will support. I hope over the course of August we can convince this President that he really ought to be more on the side of the American taxpayer than on the side of ever-bigger Government. This tax relief bill is fair. Yes, it is fair. I know we have heard the debate about tax cuts only going to the rich. The Senator from Texas did a marvelous job a few moments ago talking about how the folks on the other side of the aisle think it only goes to the rich. I am amazed and, frankly, frustrated that every time we talk tax relief, immediately Democrats run to the microphones and say it is for the rich, the rich are going to get the benefit of a tax relief proposal. That just ``ain't'' so in this bill. The chairman of the Finance Committee in the Senate deserves a lot of credit for focusing this bill right on middle America, right at husbands and wives, working and trying to raise a family out there in the market place, wage-earners who are paying the bulk of these taxes. Every American who pays income taxes will receive some benefit from this bill. The middle class Americans who pay most of the income taxes will get, by far, most of the income tax reduction. That is the way it ought to be. What we are actually doing in this proposal is making the tax code a little more progressive. Middle-income taxpayers will receive proportionately more relief, for the taxes they pay, than upper-income taxpayers. But everyone who pays income taxes gets income tax relief. This bill is fair because it shows compassion for the most heavily taxed generation in American history. Several of my colleagues have come to the floor to talk about that tax burden. But I am amazed my Democrat friends and colleagues don't seem to recognize it. Surely they do. In fact, somehow, they actually are allowing their President to propose more taxes, which he did in his budget proposal this year. That heavy tax burden has hurt people. It has robbed a whole generation of the opportunity to plan their retirement. It has forced families into adding a second and third income, rather than spending time taking care of children or elderly parents. It has robbed Americans of a major part of their freedom. Today's baby boomer family is paying, on average, 50 percent more in taxes at all levels, as a portion of income, then their parents did when they were raising their families. Only one year in history, 1944, at the height of the largest war in the history of the world, requiring incredible financial sacrifice, saw the federal government take in taxes a larger share of the national income than we are now paying. This tax relief bill will help real people with real needs. There are two ways we can help people: We can create bigger government, with more bureaucrats, with more programs and red tape, regulating more behavior, and hope we produce some more government checks for some beneficiaries. Or we can let Americans keep a little more of their own money and meet their needs without Uncle Sam as the middle man. We can provide broad- based tax relief. We can provide targeted tax relief and incentives for folks to use for specific, beneficial purposes. If we really care about people, we care about helping them in the most direct, most effective way possible. Here's some of how we do that in this tax relief bill: Marriage penalty relief: It just isn't fair to force two individuals to pay hundreds of dollars more in taxes simply because they get married. Death tax relief: It just isn't fair that working families sometimes have to sell part or all of the family farm or the family business just to pay taxes. I've seen family farms carved up because of the death tax. The other side would have us believe that this is a debate about the so-called ``estates'' of rich people. It's not. Help for families with children: It would allow more parents to afford child care, both because it increases and expands the child care tax credit. It allows more modest- and middle-income families to make full use of the child tax credit we enacted in the 1997 Tax Relief Act. It expands the tax exclusion for foster care payments. Help for individuals and families with education: It would make education more affordable and available to individuals and families. It includes tax-free, qualified tuition plans; extends the employer- provided tuition assistance; makes our 1997 education tax credits more fully available to modest- and middle-income families, by taking it out of the Alternative Minimum Tax calculations; and includes the Coverdell-Torricelli education savings account. Help with health care, long-term care, and eldercare: It increases the affordability of prescription drug insurance; health insurance for those who aren't covered by a corporate plan; long-term insurance, both for those who must pay for their own and those with cafeteria plans. Farmers, small businesses, and workers will benefit from making the self-paid health insurance deduction 100 percent deductible. Help for farm families: America's farm families are in a period of economic crisis today. It provides for increased expensing, to $30,000; create FARRM Accounts--Farm and Ranch Risk Management Accounts; and protect income averaging from the Alternative Minimum Tax. Help for folks who need retirement security: It includes expanded IRAs, 401(k) plans, and other provisions too numerous to mention, that especially will benefit folks over age 50. Help for disadvantaged individuals seeking work: The Work Opportunity tax credit is reinstated. Help for charities and charitable giving: 70 percent of taxpayers receive no recognition of charitable giving--because they don't itemize their deductions. This bill would reward and encourage those middle- class taxpayers who benefit their community, help the less fortunate, and promote the social good, with an above-the-line deduction for charitable donations. This bill is needed by the American people. When the facts are known, I am confident they will send one message back to Washington, DC: Please Mr. President, sign this bill into law. Let us keep one-fourth of the surplus for our families, our communities and our future financial security, instead of confiscating it for more big government. I conclude by saying this is a fair tax proposal. In all fairness, compared with the total size of the Federal budget and the Federal government tax burden, it is modest. I close by once again recognizing the chairman of the Finance Committee for the tremendous work he has done to build that balance and fairness into this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Hope Anderson. Hope is a constituent of mine and recently graduated as the valedictorian at Lake City High School in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. Her valedictory address touched many of those who heard it, so I would like to take a minute of the Senate's time to enter the text of her speech into the Record. A pair of laughing teenage boys gunned down fourteen students and one teacher in Littleton, Colorado a few weeks ago. Many of you asked yourselves the question, ``How could such an atrocity occur?'' Now I want you to ponder the question, ``How could this NOT happen?'' Our nation was founded upon moral principles, but its moral fabric is being ripped apart. Our deviation from basic ethical principles has corroded our very foundations as a country. I believe it is a time to change: when our children are not safe in school; when our society deems it more important to be politically correct than morally correct; when we don't give the needy a hand up and instead force our government to give them a hand out; when the marriage vows ``I do'' mean ``I might''; when the most dangerous place for a baby is in its mother's womb; when political elections are often a choice between the lesser of two evils; when there is no such thing as absolute truth; and when In God We Trust is engraved upon our currency but not on the hearts of the people, that is when America needs to change. That time is now. I believe that our nation is not in a hopeless downward spiral. If we, as the class of 1999, take a stand and be leaders, replacing the wrong with what is right, we can help to turn the tide in our nation. We must have a vision to know what we desire for our nation, courage to put it into action, and discernment to make the decisions necessary. I have a vision for America: where a person is judged by his character and not the color of his skin; where our politicians are honest and honorable; where our political system encourages hard work; where our people are informed by a media that tells both sides of the story; and where the sanctity of human life is respected as the most fundamental moral value. As graduates, we are nearing a point in our lives where the decision we make will determine the outcome of our lives. As a nation, we are also nearing such a pivotal crossroads. We can transform our society into what it can be, what it should be, and what it will be if we take a stand as leaders to return to our moral heritage and in the words of Winston Churchill, ``Never give up, never give up, never give up.''

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. It is my understanding the APHIS is moving in this direction already. APHIS recently requested that the National Plant Board review its Plant Protection and Quarantine program to make recommendations for changes and improvements in the framework for regulations. This review, which included representatives of universities and industry as well as the state regulators, resulted in recommendations that will soon be presented in a report called ``Safeguarding American Plant Resources: A Review of APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine's Pest Safeguarding System.'' This report will also recommend risk-based management of plant permits, including development of mechanisms to exempt from permitting or expedite permitting in certain low-risk cases. Thank you for your continued interest in this matter.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Louisiana 5 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, did we agree to an hour equally divided?

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in the course of the last 2 days, we have attempted to understand and define the situation in agriculture. The chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee yesterday did an excellent job of crafting a package that goes to the heart of the problem. Yesterday, I had hoped we could include crop insurance in it so we could keep that management tool alive, shaping it so that it becomes more usable to farmers, so that we are not here again after a disaster occurs trying to define that disaster. As we have heard in conversation this morning, it is nearly impossible to define at this time. This particular amendment offers $400 million to maintain the 1999 level for crop insurance premium write-downs. It also deals with speciality crops in a way that I think is very important in understanding farming diversity. At the same time, it still strikes that balance in working to limit well beyond what those on the other side had offered, and I support it.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr President, I rise today to make a few remarks concerning dairy compacts. When most people think of dairy states they think of Wisconsin, Vermont, or Minnesota--not California, Texas, or Idaho. However, Idaho is now sixth in total milk production, just ahead of Texas. Dairy cow numbers in Idaho are projected to grow from 292,000 in 1988 to 398,000 in 2008. While potatoes are still ranked first as the top agriculture commodity in Idaho, dairy products are a close second. I tell you this so you know that dairy policy is important to me and my state. Although I am speaking, in part, on behalf of the interests of Idaho dairy farmers, let me assure you that the national debate about dairy compacts is far more than just an old fashioned regional squabble between Northeast and Southern dairy interests, on the one hand, and the interests of the rest of the country's dairy farmers, on the other. This debate is all about whether the Senate will say ``enough is enough'' and put an end to an incredibly bad policy proposal. In my 19 years in Congress I cannot remember any major farm legislation that has been as overwhelmingly contrary to the interests of farmers, consumers, public health, the U.S. economy, and our Constitution as the amendment to extend and expand interstate dairy compacts. This is a lose, lose, lose situation if there ever was one. It's bad for the country and it's bad for the Senate, which it is needlessly dividing along regional lines. An expanded Northeast Compact and a new Southern Compact will combine to impose an enormous milk tax on consumers in compact states. If compact commissions raise prices to the limit allowed by the proposed amendment, the costs to Eastern, Mid-Atlantic and Southern consumers would be enormous. Based on USDA data and USDA's estimates of milk prices for the rest of this year and for next year, the costs could soar to as high as $2.6 billion a year. It only gets worse. Higher milk prices there will reduce milk consumption and increase milk production. Consumers will lose in two ways; they will have to pay more and they will drink less of a calcium- rich product. That's not very good public policy at a time when the National Academy of Sciences is urging Americans to take steps to eliminate their dangerous calcium intake deficit. The scope of the consumption decline is suggested by a January 1999 study of the economic impacts of an expanded Northeast Dairy Compact and a new Southern Dairy Compact conducted by the University of Missouri's Commercial Agriculture Program. The study was endorsed by the federally funded Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, otherwise known as FAPRI. Findings of that study suggest that milk consumption could drop by more than 200 million gallons a year if compacts expand into the Mid-Atlantic and Southern states. The damage doesn't stop there. It reaches into every corner of the nation. Because dairy farmers in compact states will get paid more, they will produce much more milk. If you doubt that, just look back to what happened when Congress pushed milk prices to unprecedented levels in the 1980's. Increased production and lower consumption will mean that the nation, which already had record milk production last year, will be awash in milk. That impact is even worse for dairy farmers in states like Idaho, which are not covered by dairy compacts. First of all, their incomes will be drastically reduced because dairy compacts ultimately drive everyone else's milk prices down. As milk production increases and consumption drops in dairy compact states, the nation's milk surplus will grow and milk prices will fall. The University of Missouri study showed that dairy farms in states outside of dairy compact regions would lose $310 million in the first year alone. And that study was based on an unrealistically-low, minimum, dairy compact price hike. It also did not include all of the states covered by today's amendment. If all states are included and compact commissions boost prices as high as the proposed legislation would allow, the loss of income will be roughly four times as large as estimated by the Missouri study. In addition, the overproduction in dairy compact states will flood the market in compact states with dairy products made from surplus milk produced in compact states. That means sharply less market access for low-cost, efficient dairy farms in the Upper Midwest, Plains, and Mountain regions. Just like all protectionist schemes, dairy compacts penalize efficiency and reward inefficiency. If this seems hard to believe as we head into the 21st century, just remember this: by definition, dairy compacts prevent cheaper milk, produced by more-efficient farmers in noncompact states, from entering into compact states at less than the compact price. Dairy compact proponents argue that dairy compacts do not impose interstate trade barriers because they allow other states to sell milk into compact regions at the compact price. Technically that's true. In practice, it's completely misleading. The problem with the argument is that the increased production caused by higher prices in compact states will virtually eliminate the local demand for milk from efficient producers outside of compact states. While the market remains open in theory, compact states will be saying to Idaho and other noncompact farmers, ``sorry, but we don't need your milk anymore.'' Let's face it, dairy compacts are nothing more than a mean spirited attack on other states, skillfully disguised as a cure for small dairy farmers. If the regional inequities and schisms created by interstate dairy compacts are not reason enough for my fellow senators to reject this amendment, then I hope you will vote against it simply because it violates the basic premises of our Constitution. The establishment of regional trade barriers through interstate dairy compacts would undermine the interstate competition that fostered the birth of the nation and that has been so critical for the sanctity of our Constitution. No amount of repeating the unsupportable claim that interstate dairy compacts are a manifestation of states' rights will make it so. The Founding Fathers would surely cringe if they were subjected to that argument in defense of dairy compacts. They knew that the nation would not last if they permitted some regions to be walled off at the expense of others. That's why they rejected an Articles of Confederation and chose a Constitution anchored by the Interstate Commerce Clause. That's also why three Constitutional scholars who appeared at a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing last week testified against interstate dairy compacts. If dairy compacts pit region against region in the Senate, damage dairy farmers in noncompact states, cause great harm to consumers, and undermine the Constitution, then why are we even having this debate? It should be an open and shut case. Perhaps it has to with the desire of some of my colleagues to do something for the small family dairy farmers in their states. That may be an important objective. However, make no mistake about it. Dairy compacts are a terribly inefficient and ineffective way of achieving that goal. If you want to help small dairy farms, this is the worst way to do it. The chart on my right (left) makes this abundantly clear. Here are 14 of the 28 states that the proposed amendment would allow to join the Northeast and Southern Dairy Compacts. The chart shows that small farms--those with less than 50 cows--on average, would receive only between $1,100 to $5,200 a year from dairy compacts. This is hardly surprising since each farmer receives the same price increase for every gallon of milk they produce. Thus, the large farms receive huge subsidies, while the small farms receive only a drop in the bucket. The bottom line is that a few thousand dollars in extra income is not sufficient to ensure long-term economic viability for these small farms. The Commissioner of Agriculture in Massachusetts, who is a member of the Northeast Dairy Compact Commission, seems to agree. Last October, he put before the Commission a formal proposal that would have redistributed the Compact's revenues away from big farms and to the small farms. The proposal, which was essentially dead on arrival, has never been adopted. Why? Because dairy compacts have nothing to do with saving small family farms. For the sake of argument, however, let's assume that the primary goal of dairy compacts is to increase the incomes of small family farms. That would make sense since the Census of Agriculture reveals that in New England, Mid-Atlantic states, and the South, 76%, 86% and 88% of the farms that have left the dairy business since 1982 have had less than 50 cows. Clearly, small dairy farmers are the most vulnerable ones. Let's also assume, for the sake of argument, as compact proponents insist, that dairy compacts keep small farms in business. Then we can answer the question: is this a good use of the public's money. If we look at the table to my right (left), we can see how amazingly inefficient dairy compacts are at transferring money to small dairy farms. The relevant question here is: how much do dairy compacts cost consumers for each small dairy farmers saved? The answers provided in the table are alarming. For the 14 New England, Mid-Atlantic and Southern states it takes anywhere between $90,000 and $632,000 a year in higher milk prices to provide a single small dairy farmer with a meager subsidy of only $1,000 and $5,200. At the extreme, for every one dollar of subsidy the compact gives to a single small dairy farmer, it costs the public roughly $632 in higher milk prices! $632 dollars spent to achieve a one dollar impact! That is truly a public policy embarrassment! Is this really how the Senate wants to force the public to spend their money? I certainly hope not! Dairy compacts give new meaning to the expressions ``bureaucratic ineptness'' and ``government inefficiency''. Remember the legendary stories about the Pentagon spending thousands of dollars for a toilet seat? When you take the time to look at the evidence, it becomes clear that dairy compacts make those expenditures look efficient by comparison. This is surely not the legacy that any members of this body will want to carry with them through their careers. In closing, this is no way to legislate dairy policy. We need to work on a national policy that is fair to all farmers and that makes us more competitive on the world market. Dairy compacts are anti-consumer, regionally divisive, anti-farmer, contrary to the heart of the Constitution, ineffective and hopelessly inefficient. I urge Senators to vote no on the Jeffords amendment. Mr. President, again, when we think of dairy, oftentimes we think of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Vermont. Let me tell you when we think that way, we are not thinking total because California, Texas, and Idaho are some of the leading dairy producers in the Nation. My State is sixth in the Nation right now and growing very rapidly into fifth place, and within a few years it could even be fourth place. What is being proposed today is not good for our Nation's dairy industry. It is regionalism at its worst. It is establishing economic barriers that don't allow the reasonable flow of commerce, and while it is early on argued as good for producers, let me suggest that in the end when you create these barriers it is wrong and bad for producers. When we struggle to create agriculture policy in this country, we struggle to create uniformity. In the dairy industry, uniformity is critically important for the growth and the overall strength of that industry, both for the producers and for the consumers. I hope we will oppose the cloture motion. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print a chart on the effects of the compact on small dairy farms.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Hawaii 30 seconds.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I inquire the amount of time remaining.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield the Senator from Louisiana 2 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana for her very important and direct statements about this issue. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me yield to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Breaux, for his closing comments. Before doing so, let me say both the cane interests that he represents and the beet interests that I represent have worked together over the years to build a program that many have outlined today. It works well in the market. The Senator from Wyoming has played an important role in helping define that program. Let me yield to the Senator from Louisiana for his closing comments.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Florida 1 minute.