Mark Dayton

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? I have been asked by the people in Minnesota as to our agenda--for example, why we have not taken up agriculture. We have sugar beet farmers in Minnesota who are literally going bankrupt and are waiting for that appropriations bill to see if there is funding included that will rescue their operations from bankruptcy. We have seniors in Minnesota who are asking why we have not taken up prescription drug coverage. Why are we meeting here? As the Senator said, when we have education matters, which the President has said are a priority, when we have an economic stimulus package that the President has asked us to act on, when all these matters are not addressed, as I read the calendar, they could be left undone this year. When I go back to Minnesota and am asked why we have not gotten them any of this broad agenda that affects people not just in Minnesota but all over this country, the answer should be because we sit here week after week not being able to take up legislation that is bipartisan because they are not happy with the pace of judges. It all comes down to that. Is that the Senator's understanding?

Mr. DAYTON. I say to the Senator, ``fast enough'' is a relative term, as I understand it. It is sort of in the eye of the beholder. As I understand it, Senator Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, held a hearing and squeezed it in here, literally and figuratively, last week so we could move judges forward. I know the bench is full in Minnesota. The people's agenda, the whole agenda of the United States of America is on hold because a group says we are not moving judges fast enough. Is there a measure of what is ``fast enough'' in the Senate?

Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DAYTON. I say to the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, who you might say was instrumental in getting this $73 billion into the budget resolution for the sake of the farmers from North Dakota, Minnesota, and elsewhere across the country, I received one of these phone calls asking if we couldn't hold off on the farm bill until next year. It seems not coincidental that this letter follows that conversation by just a day, in fact, in my case. I am wondering if the Senator from North Dakota thinks there is some connection with these organizations, that they have been persuaded somehow to write a letter. As you say, why would they be contrary to the interest of their own member farmers? As part of this desire of some, and I guess the administration, to delay a farm bill until next year, what do you think the consequences of that will be?

Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, the Senator and I share a common border. I know our farmers are in a similar predicament. These dollars are going to be central to the survival of farmers in Minnesota, and I dare say in North Dakota as well. It seems to me that somebody is playing a very dangerous game with literally the lives and the livelihoods of a lot of farmers in my home State of Minnesota, and I expect others as well. It makes me wonder who is looking out for whom here. How could it be there are those who are so active in trying to postpone action on a bill with the result being that farmers are going to receive less money. It will take longer one way or the other. The bottom line, from what I hear from the Senator from North Dakota on the Budget Committee, is that they may be out of money entirely if we don't act this calendar year.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Minnesota Taxpayers Association, for its long and proud history of working to disseminate accurate, nonpartisan fiscal information to the citizens of Minnesota. The Minnesota Taxpayers Association celebrates its 75th anniversary this year, as one of the Nation's most acclaimed taxpayer organizations. Its membership has been comprised of thousands of Minnesota's business leaders, government officials and concerned citizens. Its stellar leadership, on both its Board and its staff, has consistently been populated by Minnesota's most able and intelligent citizens. The Minnesota Taxpayers Association, MTA, was founded in 1926 when America was in the middle of a strong recovery from World War I, and we were on a ``return to normalcy'' path in both foreign relations and domestic policies. The Association started as part of a larger government research movement in the country aimed at bringing more professionalism to government, particularly local government. The first steps toward launching the Minnesota Taxpayers Association were taken at a meeting in Minneapolis on February 25, 1926. It was planned that the Association's core would consist of representatives of 15 local taxpayers groups. The first objective of the new nonpartisan association was to reduce taxes. Three other objectives were to eliminate extravagance, reduce public debt, and stop misuse of public funds. On November 22, 1926, the Association became a permanent organization at a meeting at the Nicollet Hotel in Minneapolis. In short order, representatives of 28 counties formed the South Central, Southeast, and Southwest Taxpayers Associations at meetings in Mankato, Rochester, and Worthington, MN, respectively. They were so successful that by April of 1927 there were 45 county taxpayer groups across the State. By World War II, the MTA had grown to be an association of 81 county taxpayer groups. In August of 1956, the MTA merged with the Minnesota Institute of Governmental Research, MIGR, another nonpartisan government research organization. The institute's research bulletins covered such topics as property tax issues; the merits of a sales taxation, more than 30 years before the State's first sales tax in 1967; and an analysis of the new Social Security Act and its implications for Minnesota. Because government itself did little research in those days, MIGR had a tremendous impact on Minnesota State government. MIGR's work inspired the creation of the 1939 Reorganization Act under Governor Harold Stassen. This act received national attention as it produced major improvements in the administration of State government, saving millions of dollars in the first 10 years after enactment. It was through the Reorganization Act and the work of MIGR that the Departments of Taxation and Administration were created and the spoils system was replaced with civil service. As a follow-up to the Reorganization Act, MIGR staff was loaned to the ``Little Hoover'' Commission of the early 1950s to study areas for further reform in State government. Within two years of the merger, in August of 1958, MTA became incorporated. At that time, it moved away from being an umbrella organization for county-level taxpayer groups to being an organization with its own board of directors and a statewide membership of individuals and companies. Its focus also changed to monitoring State fiscal matters and advocating for sound fiscal policy. In 1957, MTA started publishing ``Fiscal Facts for Minnesotans,'' a popular handbook of State and local fiscal data that continues to be published today. A widely read and discussed publication series was begun in 1969 with the first release of ``How Does Minnesota Compare?'' a State-by-State comparison of key tax and spending aggregates. The Minnesota Taxpayers Association has steadfastly stressed the importance of good information and citizen involvement in government. As evidence of its commitment to these goals, the Association continues to focus on research publications aimed at educating the public, publications like its award-winning ``Understanding Your Property Taxes'' and its ``Guide to State Government Spending,'' as well as on countless public presentations and frequent legislative consultations. As State and local governments take on more responsibility for designing, funding, and delivering public services, and as taxpayers look for greater value for their tax dollars, the need for organizations like the Minnesota Taxpayers Association increases. The Association's work over the past 75 years has been a great asset to the people of Minnesota, and its reputation for excellence and integrity assures a prominent and vital role for this outstanding organization in the improvement of Minnesota State and local government in the years ahead.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to support the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from Missouri, Senator Carnahan. I have been listening to some of the discussion this morning. Frankly, I believe there is much value on both points of view to commend. I think we err if we consider some of these proposals to be either/or propositions. This last Monday, the senior Senator from Minnesota, Paul Wellstone, arranged a hearing in Minnesota on the effects of the September 11 disasters on people of our State. It was an excellent hearing. It lasted for about 3 hours. We had representatives from the business community testify about their needs, including the head of the Carlson corporation, one of the largest travel firms in America, headquartered in Minnesota. Marilyn Carlson Nelson spoke very eloquently about the need for the kind of assistance that my good friend and colleague, Senator Kyl from Arizona, just described. We also heard from a number of the workers who were affected in Minnesota by the events and the aftermath of the events of September 11. As you may know, in my home State of Minnesota, Northwest Airlines is one of the largest employers within the State. It employs over 21,000 Minnesotans. It has operations worldwide. It has an enormous impact on our State's economy. In the immediate aftermath of the September 11 bombings, they announced the layoff of over 4,500 Minnesotans. These are men and women from all backgrounds and walks of life--corporate executives to mechanics, to airline attendants, to stewardesses. It also affected people in the ancillary businesses that relate to the airline industry: Carpet cleaners, food processors, delivery men and women, The hearing underscored the urgency and the precariousness of many of these people's situations. People want to be working; there is no question about that. They don't want to be out of a job. They don't want to be drawing unemployment benefits or receiving other kinds of assistance. But the hard reality is they are out of work today. Their prospects of being called back to work tomorrow are somewhere in between slim and none. I agree with the Senator from Arizona that the object here is to get these people back into their previous employment. I think we have taken some important steps in that direction. We provided emergency aid to the airline industry in the form of immediate cash assistance and in the form of loan guarantees which the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from South Carolina and other colleagues have been marshaling through this body. But that is not going to get these people back to work tomorrow. It is not going to meet their need for emergency assistance until they do. We heard from, particularly women, including one I remember distinctly. I remember on Monday, an Ethiopian woman--the mother of eight children--who works, along with her husband. She works in the sector providing food services to airplanes. She lost her job. Because she worked there an insufficient length of time, she is not eligible to receive unemployment benefits from the State of Minnesota. She lost her health coverage for herself and her family of eight children when she was laid off of work. She is not receiving any unemployment assistance today. She receives no health care assistance for herself and her family. So my question to those who oppose this amendment is, what happens to them? What happens to people who at this point are not even receiving any unemployment assistance or any health care assistance? It is bad enough that we are going to deprive those who do qualify today for an abbreviated period of 26 weeks, at which point they are going to lose a continuation of their unemployment benefits, of their health care coverage, but what about the people--and I was amazed at this hearing last Monday to realize that there are a great number of people in Minnesota, and I assume then across the country, since we are one of the best States in the Nation of covering people and making people eligible for these assistances--what is going to happen to this woman with eight children, and to others like her--thousands of others across this country--who are not even today receiving any unemployment benefits, who today do not have any health care coverage? What is going to happen to them if we do not take this action today? I must say, I am also, frankly--``disappointed'' would be a mild word--I am really shocked that this body is suddenly so stingy when it comes to providing the help and assistance that real people, working people, people who are among the hardest working strivers in our society--suddenly when it is their turn to receive some necessary help, the cupboard is bare or the budget does not provide for assistance, or we just do not have enough money to provide help for them. Two weeks go, my colleagues and I in the Senate joined--I believe it was almost unanimous--together to provide help to bail out the airline industry. Prior to that vote, we were told there was not enough time to come to an agreement on the Carnahan amendment to add assistance for the workers to the assistance we were providing to the corporations who run these airlines. As I said, I am very sympathetic to their plight because Northwest Airlines is one of the largest and most important employers in the State of Minnesota. But it was my understanding --and in hindsight, I guess I was maybe mistaken to have relied upon the assurances that were given to us prior to that vote--I relied on those assurances that there would be a subsequent package that would have bipartisan support sufficient to pass it that would be in support of the Carnahan amendment. On that basis, I, and most of the Senate, if not all of the Senate, voted in favor of that legislation. And I am glad I did. But now, frankly, I am shocked to find out that agreement does not suffice, and that even after we have taken this Carnahan amendment--and I commend the distinguished Senator from Missouri for her hard work on this, along with others, and for the dialogue that they have had across the aisle--but the fact is, this has gone from over a $3 billion price tag--I think close to $5 billion initially; after costed out, to $3 billion--and now I am told it is $1.9 billion. We continue to pare it back. Yet we, possibly, do not have sufficient support today to adopt it. That means I go back to that Ethiopian mother of eight children and say: Sorry, you just have to make it somehow without any benefits. You have to make it somehow without any health coverage for your family. We don't have enough money to do that, but we have enough money to provide loan guarantees and financial assistance to the corporations. We also, according to what I am reading today, have the debate upcoming on economic stimulus. We are going to have an administration proposal supported by many of the very people who oppose this assistance for workers. According to the Washington Post today, that is going to cost revenue between $90 billion and $120 billion in the year 2002. This includes a provision allowing business to write off 30 percent of the value of their new assets. It would reduce revenue by $48 billion in this year. They want to speed up the phasing in of the tax reductions, passed last spring, for the very wealthiest people in this society, bring those rates down, accelerate the elimination of the estate tax, as though encouraging people to--what?--die sooner, and that is going to stimulate our Nation's economy? We hear, on the one hand, we have all this extra money available for these kinds of very questionable tax breaks that are certainly going to benefit the wealthy. They are going to benefit already profitable corporations, who are maybe going through a difficult period of time but, frankly, are still going to do just fine; but there isn't enough money here to provide for that mother back in Minnesota with eight children because it is not that we do not have the money, but that we do not have the heart to do it. So again, I say to Senator Carnahan, congratulations on a job very well done. I hope the amendment will receive the kind of consideration from our colleagues today that enables it to be adopted because I, frankly, think if we do not do so, if we do not even follow suit with what the President, to his credit, is supporting, that we are going to go back to a very serious divide in this body and in this country between those who somehow qualify for these additional considerations at this point in time and the real people, people who are really down and out, through no choice or fault of their own. Are we going to say, sorry, we are not going to help you, not because we do not have the money to do so but because we do not have the will to do so? I think that would be cruel and unusual punishment for them. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, today, I would like to take the opportunity to pay special tribute to an exceptional person, Sister Margaret Smith of Park Rapids, Minnesota. With great pride, Minnesotans have named Sister Margaret Minnesota's Outstanding Older Worker for this year. This is an honor richly deserved, for Sister Margaret has spent 55 of her 80 years serving in a variety of capacities at the St. Joseph's Area Health Services, in Park Rapids. The award for Minnesota's Outstanding Older Walker is conferred by Green Thumb, Inc., the Minnesota Department of Economic Security, and the Minnesota Department of Labor. Sister Margaret is virtually an institution, a pillar at St. Joseph's where she has touched the lives of thousands of people. With her humor, warmth, feeling for people, and dedication, she has been a support not only for appreciative patients and their families, but also for her coworkers at St. Joseph's. Indeed, one of the affectionate nicknames conferred on her by the medical staff is ``The Presence.'' This is a fitting title, indeed: She was among the seven Sisters of Saint Joseph who arrived in Park Rapids in 1946 to establish a hospital, is always where she is needed, and has never missed a single day of work. Moreover, Sister Margaret is nothing if not versatile. Having become a certified radiology technician in 1945, she has worked in almost every department of the hospital, including the lab and surgery; was once St. Joseph's administrator; and now sits on the Board of Directors. Although she no longer performs procedures, she keeps the radiology department running smoothly by scheduling patients' appointments; maintaining statistics, information, and activities in superb order; working with physicians to arrange radiology procedures; and supervising the department's peer review. In the hospital at large, she keeps her finger well placed on the pulse of the organization by overseeing quality control. Moreover, Sister Margaret is the hospital historian and photo archivist. At St. Joseph's, Sister Margaret is called ``the rock, the foundation.'' So loved is she for her steadfastness, lightheartedness, and solid values, that patients of 20 years ago return and ask to see her. At its genesis, the success of St. Joseph's and its founders might not have been predicated. Rather, some in the community opposed a Catholic hospital. Today, sister Margaret says she believes her presence as a Sister of St. Joseph has made a difference. Caring for patients, she believes is sacred. Her philosophy has been to care for the whole person, spiritfully as well as physically. Sister Margaret was to have visited Washington, D.C., during the week of September 11, in order to attend the National Prime Time Awards Program. Although our Nation's crisis made it impossible for this trip to take place, I would like to add my voice to those who have honored Sister Margaret's constancy of heart and spirit in ministering to so many patients for more than 50 years.

Mr. DAYTON

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

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to our pages, who serve us day after day with extraordinary dedication--as do all of our staff--but especially for their exemplary performance last week. They continued their service on the Senate floor in the midst of crisis that had even adults in some alarm. Not only did they return to their work after the horrific events of last Tuesday, September 11, but also again last Thursday. As you recall, Madam President, that evening the Senate Chamber had to be evacuated because of a bomb threat. One of our distinguished Senators said it was the first time the Senate floor had been cleared in his 25 years of service. A security guard told me it was the first time in the 33 years of his service that the Senate Chamber had been cleared. Yet that very night our pages were back working as scheduled to conclude the Senate's business, and they returned again last Friday. Today, they are once again assembled, and are working hard on our behalf. For people of any age to respond with this kind of courage and dedication in this situation is exemplary. For these young men and women--teenagers who are high school students--to have shown this kind of courage is just extraordinary. I ask unanimous consent that their names be printed in the Record. I wish to pay tribute on behalf of all the Senate to them for their dedication and their courage. They are truly outstanding young Americans.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, today, I join with my Senate colleagues in united support for this joint resolution. I share their horror and outrage at the terrible atrocities committed yesterday against our country and our citizens. Those criminal acts will not be forgotten, and they will be avenged, at the right time, against their evil perpetrators. One hundred years ago, at our Minnesota State Fair, Theodore Roosevelt spoke his famous words: ``Speak softly, and carry a big stick.'' Today is a day to speak softly and briefly. Words can barely describe our reactions, our revulsion, and our resolve. Let there be no doubt: our Nation will recover from these despicable acts. We will learn the painful lessons necessary to strengthen our domestic and foreign intelligence capabilities, our air traffic emergency system, and our guarantee to our citizens of their safety wherever they live, travel and work. We will support our President and his associates as they identify those responsible for these vicious assaults and retaliate against them. We will move forward and we will move ahead. No one anywhere should doubt our national strength and resolve; our private and public actions in the days and months ahead will prove it.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Medicare Access to Ambulance Service Act of 2001. Reliable ambulance service is often a matter of life and death. This bill is designed to head off growing problems that are putting ambulance providers in Minnesota and across the country in financial jeopardy and affecting their ability to deliver emergency services to patients. The Medicare Access to Ambulance Service Act of 2001 will help ambulance providers whose service quality is threatened by inadequate Medicare payments and the inappropriate payment denials by Medicare claims processors. The continuing difficulties jeopardize the quality of care, and ultimately may increase the time it takes to respond to emergencies. Recently my staff in Minnesota met with ambulance providers and Medicare beneficiaries in Hibbing, Duluth, Moorhead, St. Cloud, Bemidji, Marshall, and Harmony, Minnesota to listen to their concerns over Medicare ambulance service. In every part of the State the stories were the same. The biggest concern was Medicare's denial of ambulance claims. Medicare has denied claims for such medical emergencies as cardiac arrest, heart attack, and stroke. One elderly woman from Duluth, Minnesota was so upset with the Medicare process and the year it took to get her claim paid, that when she needed an ambulance again she called a taxi. This is unacceptable. To make matters worse, when Congress enacted the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 it required that ambulance payments be moved to a fee schedule on a cost-neutral basis. Moving to a fee-schedule makes sense, but not on a cost-neutral basis for a system that is already underfunded. The proposed fee-schedule is especially unfair to rural areas and will mean the end of small ambulance providers in Minnesota and throughout the country. My bill includes four components to address these problems. First, the bill requires that the Medicare fee schedule be based on the national average cost of providing the service. Second, the bill requires the General Accounting Office to determine a reasonable definition for how to identify rural ambulance providers and higher payments for rural ambulance services. Third, the bill includes a ``prudent layperson'' standard for the payment of emergency ambulance claims. Simply stated, this provision means that if a reasonable person believed an emergency medical problem existed when the ambulance was requested then Medicare would pay the claim. Minnesota already leads the nation with this successfully implemented standard for all other patients, with the exception of those covered by Medicare. And finally, the bill requires Medicare to adopt a ``condition coding'' to be used by the ambulance provider. Medicare beneficiaries deserve more from the health insurance system than additional anxiety in an emergency situation for a system into which they have paid. When people in Minnesota and across the country have an emergency requiring an ambulance, they want to know that they will quickly and reliably get the care they need. However, current Medicare policies and procedures are putting quality ambulance service at risk and are forcing many ambulance providers to struggle to stay in business, especially in rural communities. My legislation addresses problems that threaten quality ambulance service for patients in Minnesota and across the country.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Medicare Access to Ambulance Service Act of 2001. Reliable ambulance service is often a matter of life and death. This bill is designed to head off growing problems that are putting ambulance providers in Minnesota and across the country in financial jeopardy and affecting their ability to deliver emergency services to patients. The Medicare Access to Ambulance Service Act of 2001 will help ambulance providers whose service quality is threatened by inadequate Medicare payments and the inappropriate payment denials by Medicare claims processors. The continuing difficulties jeopardize the quality of care, and ultimately may increase the time it takes to respond to emergencies. Recently my staff in Minnesota met with ambulance providers and Medicare beneficiaries in Hibbing, Duluth, Moorhead, St. Cloud, Bemidji, Marshall, and Harmony, Minnesota to listen to their concerns over Medicare ambulance service. In every part of the State the stories were the same. The biggest concern was Medicare's denial of ambulance claims. Medicare has denied claims for such medical emergencies as cardiac arrest, heart attack, and stroke. One elderly woman from Duluth, Minnesota was so upset with the Medicare process and the year it took to get her claim paid, that when she needed an ambulance again she called a taxi. This is unacceptable. To make matters worse, when Congress enacted the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 it required that ambulance payments be moved to a fee schedule on a cost-neutral basis. Moving to a fee-schedule makes sense, but not on a cost-neutral basis for a system that is already underfunded. The proposed fee-schedule is especially unfair to rural areas and will mean the end of small ambulance providers in Minnesota and throughout the country. My bill includes four components to address these problems. First, the bill requires that the Medicare fee schedule be based on the national average cost of providing the service. Second, the bill requires the General Accounting Office to determine a reasonable definition for how to identify rural ambulance providers and higher payments for rural ambulance services. Third, the bill includes a ``prudent layperson'' standard for the payment of emergency ambulance claims. Simply stated, this provision means that if a reasonable person believed an emergency medical problem existed when the ambulance was requested then Medicare would pay the claim. Minnesota already leads the nation with this successfully implemented standard for all other patients, with the exception of those covered by Medicare. And finally, the bill requires Medicare to adopt a ``condition coding'' to be used by the ambulance provider. Medicare beneficiaries deserve more from the health insurance system than additional anxiety in an emergency situation for a system into which they have paid. When people in Minnesota and across the country have an emergency requiring an ambulance, they want to know that they will quickly and reliably get the care they need. However, current Medicare policies and procedures are putting quality ambulance service at risk and are forcing many ambulance providers to struggle to stay in business, especially in rural communities. My legislation addresses problems that threaten quality ambulance service for patients in Minnesota and across the country.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I rise in sorrow this morning to pay tribute to a highly respected Minnesotan, Mr. Korey Stringer, an all- pro offensive tackle for the Minnesota Vikings who died early this morning. Mr. Stringer collapsed yesterday afternoon after the Vikings practice. He died early this morning due to complications from heat stroke. Korey Stringer joined the Vikings as a first-round draft pick out of Ohio State University. He has been our starting right tackle ever since. Last year, he was named for the first time to the all-pro team. Korey was more than an all-pro football player; he was an all-pro human being. He made Minnesota his year-round home, and he was one of the Vikings' most active community members. He established his ``Korey's crew'' community service program at several local schools and libraries. He served as an outstanding leader, mentor, and role model for many Minnesota youngsters and adults. Minnesota has lost one of our best citizens at the tragically early age of 27. Our hearts and our deepest sympathies go out to his wife Kelcie, his 3-year old son Kodie, and the rest of his family. Korey, we will miss you. Rest in peace.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, how much time do I have allotted?

Mr. DAYTON. Right.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I object. I will agree if I and Senator Kohl can have 5 minutes by unanimous consent.

Mr. DAYTON. I object.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin for his leadership on behalf of the dairy producers of his State and my own State on this matter. I thank also the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin, and the ranking member, Senator Lugar, who have collaborated on this legislation with some disagreements. What has been important in this undertaking is a recognition that timeliness of this legislation to benefit all the farmers of America in some form or another is very critical. It is unfortunate, in my view, that this matter has been offered at this time. I say that with all due respect to my distinguished colleagues who have sponsored and who have cosponsored this amendment. It is terrible economic policy; it is terrible agricultural policy; and it is terrible national policy. The Northeast Dairy Compact as it exists today confers a substantial status on six States. It is a cartel. It is legalized price fixing, and it is economic discrimination against States such as Minnesota and our dairy producers. Now, according to this amendment which has been withdrawn but which may be brought forward again or inserted into the conference committee deliberations, in order to protect their own special deal, they propose to make a series of Faustian pacts with other States. We learn today that under this proposed legislation, the Southeastern States of our country would get their special deal; the Pacific Northwest States would get their special deal; and other States in the country would get their special deal. I guess the theory is if you make enough deals, maybe it will add up to 51 votes on the Senate floor. It is a siren song, the false awareness of brief economic advantage at other people's expense. It is a beggar-thy-neighbor approach to economic and farm policy, and it will be the death knell, if successful, of a national farm policy. It will be the death knell to a national unified dairy program, which is what should be the focus of the new farm bill. Instead, it will result, as my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin and my distinguished friend from Minnesota have said already, in the balkanization of the United States dairy industry, pitting one region of the country against another, with everybody conniving and conspiring to undercut everyone else, the direct opposite of what we need in order to have a sensible national agricultural policy, which is what the chairman and the members of the Agriculture Committee are trying to put into place. We have had hearings for the last several weeks on the supplemental Agriculture bill, and this subject has never been brought forward. We have had hearings even on the new farm bill, which we will be taking up in the fall. There are differences of opinion from one group to another. There are different economic interests at stake. But not a single other commodity group has proposed a program which benefits the producers of one region of the country at the expense of others. Now there is one exception where the dairy producers of one region are trying to bring in others on their side who see a market in balance between supply and demand that is temporarily to their benefit, saying we want our own cartel. Our producers are included; their producers are excluded. The proponents say--I have heard it on the Senate floor--we have a right to this. We are not asking for anything. We have a right to this kind of economic policy. I could not disagree more. The proponents are asking for the right to violate the U.S. Constitution. They are asking for the right to violate the basic principles, both economic and social, of one nation comprised of 50 States, not one State comprised of 50 countries, not one State balkanized into eight separate economic regions, each one looking out only for itself. The economic problems afflicting American dairy producers are very real. The problems afflicting Vermont dairy producers, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania farmers are very real. The economic problems afflicting Minnesota dairy producers are very real, as they are in our neighboring State of Wisconsin. To the States which have supported this amendment, and others who think they might benefit temporarily from these arrangements, let's work together on behalf of all of our dairy producers over the next few months. Let's work together on behalf of the entire U.S. dairy industry over the next few months and incorporate this national interest, a common national interest into the new farm bill. That is the direction I believe we should take with this proposal. I yield to my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. DAYTON

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