Mark Dayton

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I am very proud to rise in support of the amendment of my distinguished colleague, Senator Wellstone. I salute my good friend and colleague who has been in the forefront of these issues on behalf of the men and women of the National Guard not only in Minnesota but across the country, and our military personnel. Senator Wellstone deserves the full credit for his leadership in initiating this important amendment. It grew out of visits and conversations which he and I have had together and which he and I have had separately with the National Guard men and women who are patrolling the major Minnesota airport in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. It is extraordinary to see them hour after hour, early in the day, late at night, standing there protecting all the rest of us, their fellow citizens, and assuring our safety as we fly our Nation's skies. As Senator Wellstone has pointed out, and the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden, this is an unusual circumstance. It occurred because the President, very properly, wanted to respect the doctrine of posse comitatus and, therefore, since the Guard men and women were engaged in a patrolling function at our domestic airports, he asked the Governors to call them out rather than doing so directly himself. As a result, as the Senator from Minnesota has said, they suffer these additional financial perils. These men and women are not just serving our country during these critical months, they are doing so at serious financial consequence to themselves and their families. For most of these National Guard men and women, the salary they receive for their Guard duty is but a fraction of what they are receiving in their civilian employment. Yet this amendment doesn't address that inequity, and they are not asking right now for us to do so. All they are asking, and what this amendment does in a very important way, thanks to the leadership of Senator Wellstone, is give them equality or parity with their associates who are called up under other circumstances. It prevents these additional financial penalties from being imposed upon them and their families during this service and at no additional cost to the American taxpayer. It is for those reasons that, joining with my colleague Senator Wellstone, I can't imagine why anybody would want to oppose this amendment. With that, I thank the others who have made this a bipartisan amendment and yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, on November 21, 2001, the Joint Committee on Printing organized, elected a Chairman, a Vice Chairman, and adopted its rules for the 107th Congress. Members of the Joint Committee on Printing elected Senator Mark Dayton as Chairman and Congressman Robert W. Ney as Vice Chairman. Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Committee rules be printed in the Record.

Mr. DAYTON

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

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong opposition to exploration and drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, region of Alaska. On two occasions, I have visited this remote and rugged wilderness region. In the summer of 1996, my then-16-year-old son Eric and I joined my good friend, Will Steger, an internationally renowned Arctic explorer, and two other men, on a two-week expedition in the Brooks Mountain Range of ANWR. On the evening of June 30, we pitched our tents on the icy tongue of an enormous glacier. The next morning, we awoke to find ourselves in a snowstorm. We trekked through fresh snow above our knees through near- white out conditions to the top of the Continental Divide. Then we slid down the other side, frequently using our backpacks as toboggans and our boot heels as runners. It was an adventure I will always remember. The northern slope of this mountain range initially resembled a lunar landscape. Giant boulders and other, smaller rocks covered the surface, which was otherwise devoid of plants and wildlife. As we continued, however, we reached the beginning of the grassy plains, which are the homes of millions of wildlife. What impressed me most is how vast and untouched the ANWR region is. From the time we were dropped off by one bush pilot until the time we were picked up 2 weeks later by another, we encountered only one other group of human beings. For the rest of our time, our companions were one bear, a few caribou, who had not moved on to the coastal plains, and several quadrillion mosquitoes. This region is totally untouched by human beings and by their industrial and technological intrusions. It is there for anyone and everyone who wish to encounter it on its terms, rather than on their own. My second visit to the ANWR region occurred last March, at the invitation of my distinguished colleague, Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska, who was then the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Senator Jeff Bingaman, then the ranking member and now the chairman of the same committee, and I joined Senator Murkowski, along with Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton; Ms. Mary Matalin, special assistant to the Vice President; and several committee staff. We flew first to Anchorage, where we were greeted by Alaska's Governor, Tony Knowles, a college classmate of mine, and other Alaskan government and business leaders who outlined to us the enormous economic importance of oil production to Alaska. We then flew to Valdez, the southern end of the trans-Alaskan oil pipeline, where I gazed in awe at magnificent snow-covered mountains, which arose from sea level to encircle us, and viewed enormous oil tankers being carefully escorted into and out of their ports. From there, we flew up to the Prudhoe Bay region on Alaska's northern coast, where about one and one-half million barrels of oil a day flow into the trans-Alaskan pipeline. After viewing some of the first drilling sites, we traveled to the nearby Alpine field, which is the newest and most technologically advanced of the Alaskan drilling operations. The Alpine field, which was only discovered in 1996, is located to the west of Prudhoe Bay, right on the coast of the Beaufort Sea. At 365 million barrels of recoverable reserves, it is one of the largest discoveries in the United States in recent years. We toured this very modern and technologically advanced facility, and I could not help but be impressed by the extensive efforts made to assure its safety of operation and its ecological compatibility. It was obviously built to be much more compact than the earlier operations, so as to leave a smaller ``footprint'' on the terrain. In fact, one of the Alaskan government officials, knowing that I come from Minnesota, had thoughtfully taken the time to investigate and discovered that the size of the Alpine complex was almost exactly the same as our famous shopping mall, the Mall of America. Alpine encompassed 97 acres, 1 acre smaller than Minnesota's mega-mall. Our trip concluded with our final night in Barrow, AK, which is the northernmost town in our United States of America. We awoke Sunday morning, April 1, to an outdoor temperature of -35 degrees, which dropped to a -65 degrees, with the wind chill. I felt like an April Fool, as I walked the outdoor airport tarmac to our plane for our return flight. This trip gave me an invaluable opportunity to see firsthand the region about which there has been so much debate in this Senate in recent months. I thank Senator Murkowski for inviting me, while knowing that I was an announced opponent of oil exploration and drilling in ANWR. Yet he and our other Alaskan hosts were most respectful, as well as most persuasive, as they presented their case. The debate over whether to open ANWR to oil and gas exploration and drilling pits two enormously important national interests against each other. One is our need to find and develop domestic energy resources. Much more is unknown than is known about the full extent of ANWR's oil reserves. The U.S. Geological Survey has produced a range of estimates of the amount of oil which is technically recoverable. Their mean estimate is 7.7 billion barrels. As we were informed on our trip last March, the oil industry's proposal to drill for and extract these reserves involves the construction of up to 20 drilling complexes, each one approximately the size of Alpine, along the coastal plain of ANWR. Thus, the legislation which passed the House last summer permits 2,000 acres of ANWR's coastal plain to be open for oil drilling. However, as I understand the House version, these 2,000 acres are not limited to one area. Rather, the legislation permits what the oil industry described to us last March: a chain of up to 20 Alpine complexes connected by oil pipelines extending along the coastal plain for as far as discovered and recoverable oil reserves are found. In my visualization, this enormous and vast industrial project would resemble 20 Mall of America-sized structures being built at various junctures along the coastline of this wilderness area. That, remember, is the size of one of these drilling facilities. Now, for those who have not yet visited our Mall of America--and I certainly encourage you to do so--it is the largest shopping mall in North America and, perhaps, the world. Tourists fly into Minnesota from all over our country and from cities throughout the world to shop there. Each of its four quadrangular concourses extends for slightly more than a mile, and its four shopping levels rise to the height of a typical seven-to-eight-story building. Like Alpine, it is a relatively compact structure; however, it is by no means a small ``footprint'' on the landscape. So, I ask myself, how would the construction of up to 20 of these Mall of America-sized drilling complexes, each one encompassing almost 100 acres, connected to one another by a large oil pipeline, which also must be built and maintained along this corridor--how would this affect a wildlife refuge, with its hundreds of thousands of migrating caribou, and all the other wildlife that has existed here in ecological balance for thousands of years without the intrusion and interference of all the rest of us? I must conclude that, however well-designed and constructed, however carefully and safely operated, and however environmentally well- intended, this project could be, it will have an enormous and irrevocable impact upon the essential purpose for which ANWR was designated and for which it must be protected: as a National Wildlife Refuge. In fact, by its very definition, a national wildlife refuge area is antithetical to the 20 large and interconnected industrial complexes, which this oil drilling would entail. As such, a vote to permit oil drilling in ANWR is a vote for the destruction of ANWR. I returned from my trip last March wondering if there was any way to reconcile these two choices: To develop domestic oil reserves and to protect this valuable national preserve. Upon reviewing the maps provided on our trip, I was surprised to notice for the first time a large region located to the west of Prudhoe Bay and Alpine, called the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. This area was scarcely mentioned during our visit to ANWR, and we visited none of it. Upon further research, however, I discovered that this National Petroleum Reserve, encompassing 23 million acres, was established by Congress for oil and gas development. Why, I wondered, given all the controversy over oil drilling in ANWR, haven't the oil reserves in the National Petroleum Reserve been first explored and extracted? Wouldn't it be a far better energy policy to first extract the oil from a 23-million-acre area which has been established for that purpose? Furthermore, oil production from the National Petroleum Reserve could begin several years before anything from ANWR. Under President Clinton's direction, in 1997, the Bureau of Land Management within the Department of the Interior conducted a study of a 4.6-million-acre section in the northeast portion of the National Petroleum Reserve, which is the area immediately to the west of Alpine and Prudhoe Bay. The Bureau prepared an environmental impact statement leading up to lease sales in May 1999, which drew 174 bids from six different companies on 3.9 million acres. More than 130 bids were accepted, at a total revenue to the Government of $104.6 million. This spring, Phillips Alaska, Inc., and Anadarko Petroleum Corporation reported discoveries of oil or gas, and Phillips indicated that these discoveries might be commercial. By early October of this year, Anadarko was in the process of securing permits to drill two additional prospect sites. The Interior and Related Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002 provides $2 million in funding for planning and preparation of another EIS, in anticipation of holding a lease sale in 2004 for tracts in the northwestern area of the National Petroleum Reserve. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that the National Petroleum Reserve could hold technically recoverable resources of 820 million to 5.4 billion barrels of oil. However, these are only rough estimates. While these estimates are not as large as the current estimates of ANWR's potential, they are the equivalent of between 2 and 12 of the Alpine field. Thus, the choice which some would force upon us, whether to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or to continue the act of exploration for and development of our Nation's oil reserve is a false one. We can do both. We can, and we should, continue the environmental assessments and appropriate leasing of those sections of the 23-million-acre National Petroleum Reserve until those discovered and recoverable oil supplies have been mostly extracted. Then, and only then, would we possibly have either the need or the possible justification to turn our attention to possible sites in ANWR. However, it will take many years, probably a couple of decades, before we have completed the oil production out of the National Petroleum Reserve. Until then, we have no reason to permit oil drilling in ANWR.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, during the last few weeks we have all heard about and discussed many ideas and proposals for inclusion in the economic stimulus legislation. In fact, one of our difficulties is we have so many meritorious proposals that we could not possibly fit them all in, even if we could all agree on them. One proposal of which I have heard recently, and one I believe may have merit, deals with tax provisions which apply to many families and small businesses throughout the country. Many were taxed for years under subchapter C of the Internal Revenue Code. In recent years, with the liberalization of the rules under subchapter S of the code, many of these businesses have elected a sub S status, which means, in general, all corporate income is taxed at the shareholder level, not to the corporation as a separate legal entity. One exception to this rule applies to built-in gains which are taxed at the corporate level in full and at the shareholder level in full for 10 years after a C corporation converts to an S corporation. The original and primary purpose of this tax on built-in gains was to prevent C corporation shareholders from converting to subcorporation status and thereafter immediately being able to liquidate or mix corporate distributions with only the single level of taxation applicable to an S corporation as opposed to the double layer taxation applicable to a C corporation. Unfortunately, however, this proper purpose also prevents the shareholders of an S corporation from selling corporate assets without incurring a double tax even if the proceeds are not distributed to shareholders but instead are reinvested in the business to help create new jobs and stimulate the U.S. economy. This tax burden makes it difficult, if not impossible, for many families and small businesses that have elected S status to access the capital of the business to help stimulate our economy. This proposal would provide for the elimination of the built-in gain tax where the entire proceeds of the sale are reinvested in the business. In other words, it would permit the business owners to do what we should want any good business to do as much and as often as possible: expand the business and create new jobs. That should be the foundation of our economic stimulus legislation. It will also be the foundation of our national economic recovery. All of us know that small businesses provide most of the jobs in America. Their abilities to do so have been longstanding concerns of Republican and Democratic Members of this Senate body for many years. When I worked as a legislative assistant in 1975 and 1976 for one of Minnesota's greatest Senators, Walter Mondale, one of my areas of responsibility was to staff him on the Senate Small Business Committee. The committee operated then, as I understand it does now, largely in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation to help encourage and assist in the creation and growth of as many American businesses as possible. This proposal presents us with an important opportunity to take another step in that direction. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. DAYTON. No. I am not asking to extend the time. Maybe the Chair could clarify exactly what we are in.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of Senator Carnahan's remarks I be granted 10 minutes in morning business, and following the conclusion of my remarks Senator Reed be granted 10 minutes, and that the time be charged against postcloture.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask the Chair, are we under an earlier agreement for a time limit?

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I also wish to express my strongest possible support of the Railroad Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act of 2001. I would like to thank Senator Baucus and Senator Hatch for offering this important legislation. My office has received hundreds of calls and letters from current and retired railroad employees. From St. Paul to St. Cloud, from Brainerd to Duluth--from everywhere in Minnesota--railroad retirees and current railroad employees understand the critical need to pass this legislation now. My very good friend Tom Dwyer, originally from Hibbing, MN, has been working on railroad retirement issues since 1973. He also was a clerk for different railroad companies for 35 years until he retired in 1997. Tom is now the legislative director for the National Association of Retired and Veteran Railway Employees. Advocating for retired railroad workers, widows, and widowers is Tom's life work. He reminds me that this debate is not over Government money. This bill is about the pensions that workers have paid into this fund. It is their money. Throughout our country, there are 673,000 railroad retirees and families and about 245,000 active rail workers. Minnesota's Eighth Congressional District, up in the northeastern part of our State, ranks 10th in the Nation in the number of retired and active railroad employees. Throughout our State there are over 18,000 retirees and their families depending on railroad retirement benefits. In addition, over 5,500 Minnesotans are presently working for the railroads. They will eventually need pensions for their retirement. All of these fine men and women have worked hard, and they all deserve the best possible retirement program. They know better than we what kind of retirement program is best for them. They paid in the money, out of their paychecks, for all their working years, and all they are asking us to do now, by passing this legislation, is to return to them their money in a way that is best for them. What could be controversial about that? Which one of us, if we were in their shoes, would not want the same and think we deserve it. They are right. And they do deserve it. This bipartisan legislation presents a historic opportunity for our Nation's railroad retirement system. Senator Baucus and Senator Hatch deserve tremendous credit, and they have my gratitude, for bringing together railroad companies, labor organizations, and retirees to work together to modernize this system. The result of all that hard work is this legislation, which provides better and more secure benefits, and which does so at a lower cost. What could be better than that? I say, let's vote on this bill today and pass it. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that order be modified: That at the conclusion of Senator Carnahan's remarks, I be granted 10 minutes to speak as in morning business, after which Senator Reed be granted 10 minutes to speak in morning business, the time be charged against postcloture, and the time for the recess be extended until the completion of Senator Reed's remarks.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. In summary, this legislation, which was developed in close consultation with the National Farmers Union and the Minnesota Farmers Union, really bears the imprint of the farmers in Minnesota, with whom I have consulted over the last several months--really over the last 20 years. It accomplishes what farmer after farmer in Minnesota has told me that he or she is searching for, and that is a farm program that encourages market prices to levels where farmers can make a profit in the marketplace. I come from a business family, and I know you don't stay in business if you cannot earn a profit for what you produce and sell. Unfortunately, the ability and the opportunity to earn a profit is what has been taken away from farmers in Minnesota and across this country. I am humbled by the fact that for 60 years Members of this body, from both sides of the aisle, have endeavored to create a Federal agricultural policy that would best serve the interests of Minnesota and other American farmers. Sometimes they have succeeded in doing so; sometimes their efforts have fallen short. I do not know if this legislation provides the right answer for all the farmers across this country, but I do know it is a step in a better direction from what we have today. It is a step toward higher prices in the marketplace; it is a step toward lower taxpayer subsidies; it is a step toward putting agriculture in this country back on its own economic feet so it is not dependent on Government programs and not dependent on every decision we make in Washington to dictate what the next course of action will be. I look forward to working with colleagues on this legislation.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Farm Income Recovery Act. Its objective is to produce better prices and higher profits through the marketplace. It thus addresses the principal failures of the current farm law, the so-called Freedom to Farm bill which was passed by the Congress in 1996. Freedom to Farm has, unfortunately, contributed to disastrously low market prices for agricultural commodities. Congress has thus been forced to appropriate disastrously high taxpayer subsidies in order to save American farmers from bankruptcy. Mr. President, Freedom to Farm was conceived with a laudable goal--to get the Federal Government out of agriculture. Farmers were free to plant whatever crops they chose, and commodities supports were then to be phased out during the life of the legislation. Unfortunately, U.S. domestic farm prices collapsed in the aftermath of Freedom to Farm. In October 1996, just before the Freedom to Farm legislation began, the price of a bushel of soybeans in Minnesota, my home State, was $6.84. In October of 2001, just last month, the price of that same bushel of soybeans was $4.05. In October of 1996, a bushel of corn brought Minnesota farmers $2.68. In October of 2001, it was only $1.60. The price of a bushel of wheat fell during those same 5 years from $4.27 to $3. In order to prop up farm income, Federal payments have soared during these 5 years. Last year, total Federal payments for all of agriculture totaled nearly $30 billion--by far, a record high--which almost equaled total net farm income. In other words, without Federal subsidies, there would be no net profit in American agriculture. Clearly, we must find another strategy, and that is the enormous task confronting the Senate Agriculture Committee, on which I am proud to serve. Our distinguished chairman, Senator Harkin, and the previous chairman, now our ranking member, Senator Lugar, have held many worthwhile hearings throughout this year. Just about every farm organization has testified. My colleague from Minnesota, Senator Paul Wellstone, also a member of the Agriculture Committee, and I have held field hearings throughout Minnesota. Additionally, both of us have held many meetings with groups of farmers, producers, and processors throughout our State. The product of all of the hearings, meetings, and discussions with Minnesota farmers is, for me, this Farm Income Recovery Act. As I said before, its objective is to help produce higher prices in the U.S. domestic commodity markets so that farmers can earn real profits, thus reducing or eliminating the need for Government subsidies. That is the best way to reduce the costs of farm programs--to reduce the need for them. And until we restore market prices to profitable levels, our choice will continue to be between either more subsidies or more bankruptcies. My Farm Income Recovery Act has four major components. The first is higher loan rates: $3.88 for wheat, $2.40 for corn, $5.36 for a bushel of soybeans, $2.40 for sorghum, $2.40 for barley, $60.65 a hundredweight for cotton, and $8.61 a hundredweight for rice. Secondly, it targets these higher loan rates, limiting them to certain amounts of production. It does not prevent farmers from producing more and more, but it says that we are going to limit these nonrecourse market loans to certain levels of production, which are set forth in the legislation. If a farmer wants to get bigger, wants to produce more and more of these commodities, he or she is certainly entitled to do so, but then they are on their own. The amount of production above these levels is subject to recourse loans, which have to be repaid with interest to the Federal Government. This means if the producers who want to get larger and larger decide to do so, they are not then going to be dependent upon the taxpayers of America; they are going to be standing on their own. Third, it establishes commodity reserves in order to help control the supply and, thus, help farmers decide at what prices they want to sell their commodities. It re-establishes a farmer-owned reserve program, which was one of the best features of previous farm legislation and which was one of the unfortunate casualties of the 1996 farm bill. It establishes a humanitarian food reserve fund through the Federal Government, through which the Federal Government can hold food commodities in reserve for the kinds of humanitarian efforts we see underway today in Afghanistan. It sets up a renewable energy reserve--which ties in nicely with another important feature of the farm bill which Senator Harkin has championed over the years and in our discussions of the last few months, alternative and renewable fuels in our country--to really boost the Federal incentives and support for ethanol, soy diesel, another promising biofuel which I have introduced other legislation to promote. As we encourage the use of these alternative and renewable fuels in our country, we are going to need to hold food commodities in reserve so we can assure consumers that there are going to be sufficient resources. We may reach the day in this country where we have such demand for ethanol and for soy diesel, that we need to go into this Government-held energy reserve in order to generate the additional supplies necessary to meet that demand. Not only would that be good for our oil independence, it would be a great contribution to a cleaner environment. It would boost domestic prices for corn, soybeans, and for other commodities that can be used for either ethanol or soy diesel production in ways that would, again, stimulate our domestic markets and reduce the need for taxpayer subsidies. Finally, the Farm Income Recovery Act establishes a voluntary program that, in periods of increased supply, will allow the Secretary of Agriculture to raise these loan rates for farmers who voluntarily set aside a certain percentage of their acreage for conservation; thus, in combination with our existing conservation programs, it will encourage better conservation practices by farmers, again, through positive marketplace incentives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of my legislation, as well as the actual legislation, be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. In summary, this legislation, which was developed in close consultation with the National Farmers Union and the Minnesota Farmers Union, really bears the imprint of the farmers in Minnesota, with whom I have consulted over the last several months--really over the last 20 years. It accomplishes what farmer after farmer in Minnesota has told me that he or she is searching for, and that is a farm program that encourages market prices to levels where farmers can make a profit in the marketplace. I come from a business family, and I know you don't stay in business if you cannot earn a profit for what you produce and sell. Unfortunately, the ability and the opportunity to earn a profit is what has been taken away from farmers in Minnesota and across this country. I am humbled by the fact that for 60 years Members of this body, from both sides of the aisle, have endeavored to create a Federal agricultural policy that would best serve the interests of Minnesota and other American farmers. Sometimes they have succeeded in doing so; sometimes their efforts have fallen short. I do not know if this legislation provides the right answer for all the farmers across this country, but I do know it is a step in a better direction from what we have today. It is a step toward higher prices in the marketplace; it is a step toward lower taxpayer subsidies; it is a step toward putting agriculture in this country back on its own economic feet so it is not dependent on Government programs and not dependent on every decision we make in Washington to dictate what the next course of action will be. I look forward to working with colleagues on this legislation.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Farm Income Recovery Act. Its objective is to produce better prices and higher profits through the marketplace. It thus addresses the principal failures of the current farm law, the so-called Freedom to Farm bill which was passed by the Congress in 1996. Freedom to Farm has, unfortunately, contributed to disastrously low market prices for agricultural commodities. Congress has thus been forced to appropriate disastrously high taxpayer subsidies in order to save American farmers from bankruptcy. Mr. President, Freedom to Farm was conceived with a laudable goal--to get the Federal Government out of agriculture. Farmers were free to plant whatever crops they chose, and commodities supports were then to be phased out during the life of the legislation. Unfortunately, U.S. domestic farm prices collapsed in the aftermath of Freedom to Farm. In October 1996, just before the Freedom to Farm legislation began, the price of a bushel of soybeans in Minnesota, my home State, was $6.84. In October of 2001, just last month, the price of that same bushel of soybeans was $4.05. In October of 1996, a bushel of corn brought Minnesota farmers $2.68. In October of 2001, it was only $1.60. The price of a bushel of wheat fell during those same 5 years from $4.27 to $3. In order to prop up farm income, Federal payments have soared during these 5 years. Last year, total Federal payments for all of agriculture totaled nearly $30 billion--by far, a record high--which almost equaled total net farm income. In other words, without Federal subsidies, there would be no net profit in American agriculture. Clearly, we must find another strategy, and that is the enormous task confronting the Senate Agriculture Committee, on which I am proud to serve. Our distinguished chairman, Senator Harkin, and the previous chairman, now our ranking member, Senator Lugar, have held many worthwhile hearings throughout this year. Just about every farm organization has testified. My colleague from Minnesota, Senator Paul Wellstone, also a member of the Agriculture Committee, and I have held field hearings throughout Minnesota. Additionally, both of us have held many meetings with groups of farmers, producers, and processors throughout our State. The product of all of the hearings, meetings, and discussions with Minnesota farmers is, for me, this Farm Income Recovery Act. As I said before, its objective is to help produce higher prices in the U.S. domestic commodity markets so that farmers can earn real profits, thus reducing or eliminating the need for Government subsidies. That is the best way to reduce the costs of farm programs--to reduce the need for them. And until we restore market prices to profitable levels, our choice will continue to be between either more subsidies or more bankruptcies. My Farm Income Recovery Act has four major components. The first is higher loan rates: $3.88 for wheat, $2.40 for corn, $5.36 for a bushel of soybeans, $2.40 for sorghum, $2.40 for barley, $60.65 a hundredweight for cotton, and $8.61 a hundredweight for rice. Secondly, it targets these higher loan rates, limiting them to certain amounts of production. It does not prevent farmers from producing more and more, but it says that we are going to limit these nonrecourse market loans to certain levels of production, which are set forth in the legislation. If a farmer wants to get bigger, wants to produce more and more of these commodities, he or she is certainly entitled to do so, but then they are on their own. The amount of production above these levels is subject to recourse loans, which have to be repaid with interest to the Federal Government. This means if the producers who want to get larger and larger decide to do so, they are not then going to be dependent upon the taxpayers of America; they are going to be standing on their own. Third, it establishes commodity reserves in order to help control the supply and, thus, help farmers decide at what prices they want to sell their commodities. It re-establishes a farmer-owned reserve program, which was one of the best features of previous farm legislation and which was one of the unfortunate casualties of the 1996 farm bill. It establishes a humanitarian food reserve fund through the Federal Government, through which the Federal Government can hold food commodities in reserve for the kinds of humanitarian efforts we see underway today in Afghanistan. It sets up a renewable energy reserve--which ties in nicely with another important feature of the farm bill which Senator Harkin has championed over the years and in our discussions of the last few months, alternative and renewable fuels in our country--to really boost the Federal incentives and support for ethanol, soy diesel, another promising biofuel which I have introduced other legislation to promote. As we encourage the use of these alternative and renewable fuels in our country, we are going to need to hold food commodities in reserve so we can assure consumers that there are going to be sufficient resources. We may reach the day in this country where we have such demand for ethanol and for soy diesel, that we need to go into this Government-held energy reserve in order to generate the additional supplies necessary to meet that demand. Not only would that be good for our oil independence, it would be a great contribution to a cleaner environment. It would boost domestic prices for corn, soybeans, and for other commodities that can be used for either ethanol or soy diesel production in ways that would, again, stimulate our domestic markets and reduce the need for taxpayer subsidies. Finally, the Farm Income Recovery Act establishes a voluntary program that, in periods of increased supply, will allow the Secretary of Agriculture to raise these loan rates for farmers who voluntarily set aside a certain percentage of their acreage for conservation; thus, in combination with our existing conservation programs, it will encourage better conservation practices by farmers, again, through positive marketplace incentives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of my legislation, as well as the actual legislation, be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. DAYTON

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

Mr. DAYTON

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

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

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, one of the groups consistently left out of most current economic stimulus proposals are America's senior citizens. Prescription drug prices continue to escalate, putting enormous financial strains on seniors in Minnesota and throughout the Nation. That is why I am introducing today The Rx Relief for Seniors Act. It would give America's hard-pressed senior citizens a one-time, refundable tax credit of up to $500 per individual and up to $1,000 per married couple, to offset their payments for prescription drugs during the year 2001. Millions of senior citizens in my home state of Minnesota and throughout this country have had their limited personal incomes ravaged by the rising costs of prescription medicines. These escalating prices force the elderly to reduce their expenditures for other essential needs such as food, clothing, and utilities. They also prevent seniors from spending money on additional discretionary items such as recreation, travel, and other needed goods and services. The assurance of this $500 refundable tax credit, either as a credit on Federal taxes due next April 15, or as a cash refund from the Internal Revenue Service shortly thereafter, would permit budget- conscious senior citizens to increase immediately their purchases of additional consumer goods and services. Seniors, especially the majority who live on limited and fixed incomes, would be among the people most likely to spend quickly any new tax relief and thus help stimulate the economy. For this reason, the bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to notify all Medicare beneficiaries that they are eligible for this refundable tax credit for their 2001 prescription drug purchases. Since my election to the Senate a year ago, I have been urging my colleagues to adopt some form of prescription drug coverage for America's senior citizens. Regrettably, such permanent, comprehensive coverage has been once again delayed by differences over the design of such a program. Yet, for millions of elderly citizens, the financial strains caused by escalating drug costs are urgent and acute. The Rx Relief for Seniors Act would provide them with a one-time dose of immediate relief. Hopefully, it would also provide a transition to permanent, comprehensive prescription drug coverage legislation next year.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise to engage my neighbor and colleague from Wisconsin, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies, and join my colleague, the senior Senator from Minnesota, in a colloquy on an issue that is vitally important to sugar beet growers in our state. Last fall, five hundred fifty producers in the Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative of Renville, Minnesota, (SMBSC) experienced a freeze of sugar beets. Over the next three months, it became increasingly evident that a large share of the beets would have to be discarded. The result is a catastrophic loss of revenue that has forced these farmers into near bankruptcy. Tragically, the private insurers of those losses have refused to cover them, and the USDA has refused to provide sufficient funds for relief. We are desperately trying to remedy these two travesties to forestall the cooperative's complete collapse. Now we are appealing to you and your colleagues on the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee as our last possible remedy. We ask that you give these farmers your favorable consideration as you negotiate this bill in conference.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I know the time under the previous order is about to expire. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for sounding this alarm. I was not aware of this situation. I thank the Senator for making it very clear to the Members of the Senate and to farmers throughout this country what is at stake. My hope is that our colleagues will join with us in insisting that we have a farm bill passed so we don't leave our farmers back home seriously in the lurch.

Mr. DAYTON. If I understand the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee correctly, in this body, the Senate, we have to pass a farm bill this year. Then do we also have to have it conferenced and sent to the President in this calendar year as well, in order to protect these funds?

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I was going to ask how many of these instances have occurred. The U.S. attorney from Minnesota, a Republican friend of mine, high school classmate who was appointed, Senator Leahy went to finish the paperwork himself to get him expedited through the process. I wonder how many of these have occurred.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Senator from Nevada. Our friends are talking about the consequences for this particular piece of legislation. I guess I see other consequences as well. I would like to ask the assistant majority leader and the distinguished Senator from Illinois a question. We have been through this process before. The clock is ticking. As the Senator from Nevada said earlier, there are only 3 weeks until Thanksgiving, and I assume we want to go home for Thanksgiving. Then there are a few more weeks until Christmas and New Year's. I assume people want to go. I look at the agenda in terms of the prescription drug coverage for senior citizens, which is something about which I have been concerned and I know the seniors in Minnesota are desperately concerned. I want to ask the Senators who have been here longer than I: When we go home for the holidays or adjourn for the year, and we are out of time to deal with some of these other important issues as well, should I tell the senior citizens from Minnesota that the reason we couldn't get prescription drug coverage is that we were sitting here week after week getting delayed on these votes and not even getting to the bills, so we did not have time to go on to anything else? It looks as if that is another one of the consequences of what is going on. Is that the case?