Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to express my support and appreciation regarding actions taken at United Healthcare that clearly demonstrate to me that proposed congressional action in the area referred to as ``patient's rights'' can be best handled by the marketplace. Yesterday, United Healthcare announced they will be changing the way they manage care in their health plans by giving physicians the final say in determining what course of treatment their patients will receive. In citing the reasons for the change of policy, United noted the savings resulting from their $100 million review process do not justify continuing it. United Healthcare is the second-largest health insurer in the nation and I believe their actions signal an industrywide realization that their review process may be saving them less than they thought. According to United Healthcare, 99 percent of their claims are approved despite an exhaustive review process. While this raises the question of exactly why the federal government needs to disrupt the entire health system by getting involved with one percent of health care claims, it also demonstrates our current private-sector health care providers must respond to consumer concerns or lose their customers to health providers that do. Of course, United Healthcare will still have some review process and require physicians to notify them when a patient needs an expensive procedure or requires hospitalization. This is clear in all of our interests to ensure the appropriate treatments are considered. We should trust our physicians, but with the rapid advancements made in health care every day it is reasonable for us to have a team of experts review all the latest treatments, devices and pharmaceuticals. Clearly, this is an area where health plans are, and should be assisting physicians and ensuring quality health services are offered appropriately in their facilities. By changing their review process, United Healthcare will reduce its medical monitoring staff by 20 percent and re-focus the remaining staff on Care Coordination efforts. This saves money for the plan which in turn saves money for consumers through lower premiums. I believe it is a significant step in the right direction, proving once again, that market forces and demands are productive and responsive. Government solutions usually distort market forces and end up with poorer services at higher costs. I should like to be clear about my support for the Patient's Bill of Rights Plus legislation I cosponsored and voted for--it is still needed because it addresses other important issues. What this change of practice announced by United Health does signal is the potential for us to reach a reasonable conclusion to negotiations underway between the House-passed Patient's Bill of Rights and the Senate-passed Patient's Bill of Rights Plus, particularly on the contentious issue of health plan liability. Mr. President, it is hard to overstate the importance of this announcement from United Healthcare and I felt it was imperative someone in Congress acknowledged private market forces for positive change far outweigh a government imposed remedy.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, we are now in the final stages of completing the FY 2000 Appropriation bills. We will soon end the first session of the 106th Congress. Looking back, I must say, we have had some successes, and I am proud of these achievements. However, the biggest failure, in my judgment, is that we have failed to learn the lessons from our past two years' experience and we have failed to maintain fiscal discipline due to our seriously flawed budget process. That's why I rise today to introduce legislation that would reform the federal budget process, strengthen fiscal discipline, and restore government accountability to ensure that taxpayers are fully represented in Washington. Mr. President, after last year's abuse of the budget/appropriation process, many of us realized that the federal budget process became a reckless game in which the team roster was limited to a handful of Washington politicians and technocrats while the taxpayers were relegated to the sidelines. This not only weakened the nation's fiscal discipline but also undermined the system of checks and balances established by the Constitution. At the beginning of the 106th Congress, I argued repeatedly in this chamber that the key to a successful Congress was to pursue comprehensive budget process reforms. I introduced legislation to achieve these goals. I was pleased that Senate leaders included budget process reform as one of the top five priorities in the 106th Congress. Unfortunately, that commitment has not yet materialized. As a result, this year's appropriation process is almost a play-by- play of 1998. Congress over-used advanced appropriations, and used directed scoring, emergency spending and other budgetary techniques to dodge fiscal discipline and significantly increase government spending. Mr. President, our failure can be traced to our seriously flawed budget process. Twenty-five years ago, Congress tried to change its budget practices and get spending under control by passing the Congressional Budget Act. Yet, over these 25 years, our national debt has grown from $540 billion to $5.7 trillion. Spending is at an all-time high, and so are taxes. The budget process has become so complicated that most lawmakers have a hard time understanding it. Of course, that hasn't stopped the proliferation of budget smoke and mirrors to circumvent the intent of the Congress. The flawed process allows members to vote to control spending in the budget and then turn right around and vote for increased appropriations. The process encourages spending increases rather than spending control. It encourages continued fiscal abuse, waste, and irresponsibility. Clearly, we need to immediately pursue comprehensive reform to ensure the integrity of our budget and appropriations process and avoid repeating the same mistakes we made in the past two years. We must do this early in the year before we begin to face appropriation pressures. This is why I am introducing the Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act. This legislation is the companion bill of HR 853, which was a bipartisan effort led by Congressmen Nussle and Cardin. It has been reported by the House Budget Committee. There are also a number of good budget reform proposals in the Senate I have earlier supported. Reforms introduced by our Budget Committee Chairman Senator Domenici are important and I strongly support his leadership in this area. My legislation is complementary to but broader than Senator Domenici's efforts. Mr. President, let me highlight my legislation. The legislation will force us to pass a legally-binding federal budget, set aside funds each year in the budget for true emergencies; strengthen the enforcement of budgetary controls; enhance accountability for Federal spending; display unfunded liabilities for Federal insurance programs; mitigate the bias toward higher spending, modify Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) procedures to accommodate budget surpluses; and ensure the Social Security surplus will be protected. The core of the legislation will provide for an annual joint budget resolution, rather than a concurrent resolution, thus making it a legally binding budget through a law requiring the President's signature. I believe this is a critical step in reforming the budget process. If Congress and the President agree on a Joint Budget Resolution at the beginning of the process, appropriators in Congress would be legally bound to stay within those spending limits. It forces confrontation at the earliest stages of the budget process, leaving adequate time for legislating detail and minimizing disputes at the end of the process which threaten to shutdown the government. The second component of the bill will redefine emergency spending and create a reserve fund to pay for emergencies. Emergency spending was traditionally used for unanticipated wars and natural disasters that took life and severely damaged property. Because emergency spending today is effectively exempt from congressional spending controls, Congress and the Administration have used this as an opportunity to bust the budget for a lot of spending that isn't emergency related at all. Last year alone, Congress appropriated $35 billion for so-called emergencies. This year again, over $24 billion of emergency spending is appropriated. Since 1991, emergency spending has totaled over $145 billion. Most ``emergencies'' were used to fund regular government programs, not unanticipated events. Emergency spending is sought as a vehicle to add on even more spending priorities. This has gone too far. We need a better way to budget for emergencies. Most of this spending can be planned within our budget limits. Even natural disasters happen regularly--why not budget for them? My legislation will end this abuse of emergency spending. It requires both the President and the Congress to budget up front for emergencies by setting aside dollars in an emergency reserve fund. The reserve fund will contain an amount at least equal to the 5-year historical average of amounts provided for true emergencies. It includes a clear definition of ``emergencies.'' My legislation prohibits release of funds from the reserve pending Budget Committee certification that: (1) A situation has arisen that requires funding for ``the prevention or mitigation of, or response to, loss of life of property, or a threat to national security'', and (2) The situation is ``unanticipated''--with ``unanticipated'' defined as sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and temporary. In the event that Congress and the President fail to agree on annual appropriation measures by October 1, my legislation will allow the budget resolution signed into law earlier in the year to automatically kick in. This will effectively prevent any future government shutdowns due to disagreements on spending priorities between Congress and the Administration. Mr. President, the 1995 federal government shutdown is still fresh in our minds. It was the longest shutdown in history and caused financial damage and inconvenience to millions of Americans when the President refused to support a Balanced Budget Act and tax relief for Americans. The shutdown shook the American people's confidence in their government and in their elected officials. Since 1997, I, along with Senator McCain, have been advocating an automatic continuing resolution, or CR, as we call it, to prevent a government shutdown. I was able to obtain a commitment from the Senate leadership of both parties to pursue this legislation separately in the near future. But no action has followed. If we had an automatic CR, we would not have to go through bitter battles at the end of every fiscal year. The virtue of an automatic CR is that it would allow us to debate issues concerning spending policy and the merits of budget priorities while we continue to keep essential government functions operating. The American taxpayer will no longer be held hostage to a government shutdown. Mr. President, there will always be plenty of uncertainties involved in our budget and appropriations process. The automatic kick-in of the budget resolution in the bill I introduce today will work the same as my automatic CR. Another flaw of the budget process is so-called budget baselines. When a government program is going to increase by 4.5 percent per year, anyone with common sense would think that is a budget increase, not a budget ``cut.'' But under baseline budgeting it could mean ``cut.'' Lee Iaccoca once stated that if business used baseline budgeting the way Congress does, ``they'd throw us in jail.'' This is a typical budget gimmick. Any proposed spending levels below current baselines are perceived as program reductions, allowing some politicians to claim savings while permitting others to claim increases. Baseline budgeting is biased in favor of more spending. It is not honest budgeting but rather very misleading. My legislation would require Congress and the President to use this year's actual spending total as the baseline for the next year's budget. If we decide to spend more than the current year, we are increasing the budget. If we spend less, we are cutting it. Let's call a spade a spade. Mr. President, we have entered an era of budget surplus. It is estimated that in the next ten years, our strong economy will generate an over $1 trillion non-Social Security surplus. If we don't return this surplus to taxpayers in the form of tax relief and debt reduction, the government will spend it all. However, the current budget process limits our ability to provide tax relief for working Americans. The budget law requires that all tax cuts be offset with tax increases or cuts in entitlement programs such as Medicare. Tax cuts may not be paid for by cutting discretionary spending, such as wasteful government programs. This rule, called the PAYGO rule, applies regardless of whether there is a surplus or deficit. The PAYGO rule effectively limits options with respect to reducing taxes because it precludes using spending cuts in discretionary programs to offset tax cuts. Thus there is a built-in bias in favor of higher levels of spending and taxation in the current budget process. My legislation would amend Pay-As-You-Go requirements to permit any portion of the on-budget surplus, excluding Social Security, to be used for tax cuts. Related to the PAYGO rule reform, my legislation also creates a lockbox to lock in every penny that is saved from floor amendments to appropriations bills and use it to reduce federal government spending. Spending levels in the budget resolution and any caps on discretionary spending would be automatically reduced by the amount in the floor amendment. The bill requires committees to submit a plan for reauthorizing all programs within their jurisdictions in 10 years. It also prohibits the Congress from considering a bill that creates a new spending program unless it is sunset within 10 years. My legislation also guarantees Members the right to offer amendments subjecting proposed entitlements to the enhanced oversight of the appropriations process. Under the current budget process, we have over 20 budget functions, and a half dozen different committees with jurisdiction over one budget function. This has complicated the process greatly. To simplify the process, my bill collapses the 20 non-enforceable budget functions currently used into total (aggregate) spending and revenue levels, with separate categories for discretionary and mandatory spending. It is simple, and easy enough for everyone to understand. Mr. President, a number of the Federal insurance programs (excluding Social Security and Medicare) that have a looming impact on the federal budget are not included in our budget process. The liabilities caused by these programs could be enormous. Budgeting for these liabilities will give us better control over long-term programs. My legislation requires the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget to report periodically on long-term budgetary trends, to help make Members aware of the future budgetary implications of spending programs. Finally, Mr. President, it's vitally important that we save the entire Social Security surplus, not for government spending, not for tax relief, but exclusively for Social Security. I believe we need an enforcement mechanism to ensure that Congress and the President do not touch the Social Security surplus. My legislation requires that if any fiscal year's appropriations end up spending the Social Security surplus, a sequestration will be automatically triggered to reduce government spending across the board in the amount of the Social Security surplus that was used. Entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare would not be cut. In addition, the bill reaffirms the protected status of Social Security under the current budgetary law. Mr. President, it is true that our short-term fiscal situation has improved greatly due to the continued growth of our economy. However, our long-term financial imbalance still poses a major threat to the health of our future economic security. Without budget process reform, we will find ourselves again and again making the same mistakes which result in bigger government, more spending and more abuse. We need to spend more time on oversight and reauthorizing expiring programs rather than on endless budget battle at the end of every fiscal year. President Reagan summed up the real problem of our budget process when he pointed out ``this budget process does not serve the best interests of the nation, it does not allow sufficient review of spending priorities, and it undermines the checks and balances established by the Constitution.'' If the Congress adopts the Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act, it will ensure a budget process that serves the best interests of the nation and allow for careful policy and spending deliberation. That's why I am introducing this legislation today. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Senator from New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my enthusiastic support for the package of tax proposals introduced by Senator Domenici. I'm enthusiastic, in part, because it contains a provision that is very important to me--above-the-line deductibility of health insurance for individuals. Over 40 million American workers didn't have health insurance in 1997. The number has increased in the last two years to 44 million. This is disturbing, but I believe there is something Congress can do to help without resorting to a national health care system. Mr. President, when employers purchase a health plan for their employees, he or she can fully deduct the costs of providing that insurance, effectively lowering the actual costs of providing coverage. However, when an employee purchases an individual policy on their own, they must do so with after tax-dollars. They don't have the ability or the advantage offered to employers to reduce the actual costs of the policy by deducting premiums from their taxes every year. Therefore, they often wind up without any health coverage at all. Earlier this year, I introduced the Health Care Access Act, which would have ended this discrimination within the Tax Code and make health care available for many more Americans by allowing the full deduction of health insurance for those without access to employer- subsidized health coverage. We have a tax code that discriminates against some, while favoring others. Clearly, this results in fewer people being covered. The amendment before us today takes a slightly different approach, but its goal is the same--to level the tax-playing field. By allowing individuals without access to employer-sponsored health insurance, or those whose employers do not cover more than 50 percent of the cost of coverage, to deduct those costs regardless of whether they itemize or not, we can address a growing segment of our uninsured population by doing this. Under this amendment, from 2002 to 2004, eligible employees can deduct 25 percent of costs, 35 percent in 2005, 65 percent in 2006, and 100 percent after that. If there are no changes in the health care system and no significant downturn of the economy, we can expect the number of uninsured to reach 53 million over the next ten years. This translates into 25 percent of non-elderly Americans without coverage. Forty-three percent of the uninsured are in families with incomes above 200 percent of the federal poverty level. Twenty-eight percent of the uninsured work for small firms and 18 percent of all uninsured are between the ages of 18 and 24. The question that comes to mind is, if we're experiencing record growth in our economy and the unemployment rate is declining, why is the number of uninsured continuing to rise? The answer is costs. In the event a small business can offer a health plan to its employees, many times it is at a higher cost to the employee than it would be if the employee were to have a job at a larger firm. In this instance, employees have to decide if they believe their health status is such that they can go without health insurance, or if they should spend after-tax dollars to pay for a larger portion of their health insurance. Here is where we have the difficulty. Individuals employed by small businesses which can't afford to pay more than 50 percent of the monthly premiums for their employees should be able to have the same tax advantage as the employer in paying for their health insurance. Under our plan today, they will. In fact, because the tax deduction is what we call ``above-the-line,'' meaning if would be available to everyone--even if they don't itemize their taxes--we attack the most significant barrier to health coverage again, which is its costs, and move closer to eliminating all barriers to health coverage. In other words, get more Americans covered by allowing them the deductibility of the costs. I am also pleased that this amendment includes many other important components such as pension reform and small business tax relief. We are talking about tax relief for small businesses, not the wealthiest as you hear from the other side of the aisle, but tax relief pinpointed at the hard-working Americans in this country who are also job providers. Retirement income security is crucial for millions of American workers. This amendment reforms and enhances current pension laws to ensure workers will achieve income security upon retirement. It repeals the unnecessary temporary FUTA surtax, which has become a burden to many small businesses. The amendment allows millions of self-employed Americans to deduct 100 percent of their health insurance costs. This is a critical provision because 61 percent of the uninsured in this country are from a family headed by an entrepreneur or a small business employee.

Mr. GRAMS. I ask for 2 more minutes.

Mr. GRAMS. In wrapping up, the amendment increases small business expensing to $30,000. This change alone means an extra $3,850 in tax savings for each small business in new equipment next year. This amendment also allows small business to increase the meal and entertainment expense tax deduction. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit has helped millions of Americans leave welfare programs and become productive workers in our economy. This amendment makes the WOTC permanent, so small businesses and former welfare recipients will continue to benefit from the Work Opportunity Tax Credit. It seems unfair to me that in a time of prosperity we hear our colleagues on the other side talking about tax increases. Again, in their plan, they would impose new, even higher taxes. They talk about minimum wage; they are taxing and taxing and taxing those people as they enter the job market. What we need is a plan that will reduce taxes, not increase taxes. America's small business is the key to our economic growth and prosperity. The health care, pension reform and tax relief measures included in this amendment will help small business continue to work for America and will allow millions of Americans to realize the American Dream. Again, that is why I rise today to enthusiastically offer my support for the tax package proposed by Senator Domenici. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, we are now in the final stages of completing the FY 2000 Appropriation bills. We will soon end the first session of the 106th Congress. Looking back, I must say, we have had some successes, and I am proud of these achievements. However, the biggest failure, in my judgment, is that we have failed to learn the lessons from our past two years' experience and we have failed to maintain fiscal discipline due to our seriously flawed budget process. That's why I rise today to introduce legislation that would reform the federal budget process, strengthen fiscal discipline, and restore government accountability to ensure that taxpayers are fully represented in Washington. Mr. President, after last year's abuse of the budget/appropriation process, many of us realized that the federal budget process became a reckless game in which the team roster was limited to a handful of Washington politicians and technocrats while the taxpayers were relegated to the sidelines. This not only weakened the nation's fiscal discipline but also undermined the system of checks and balances established by the Constitution. At the beginning of the 106th Congress, I argued repeatedly in this chamber that the key to a successful Congress was to pursue comprehensive budget process reforms. I introduced legislation to achieve these goals. I was pleased that Senate leaders included budget process reform as one of the top five priorities in the 106th Congress. Unfortunately, that commitment has not yet materialized. As a result, this year's appropriation process is almost a play-by- play of 1998. Congress over-used advanced appropriations, and used directed scoring, emergency spending and other budgetary techniques to dodge fiscal discipline and significantly increase government spending. Mr. President, our failure can be traced to our seriously flawed budget process. Twenty-five years ago, Congress tried to change its budget practices and get spending under control by passing the Congressional Budget Act. Yet, over these 25 years, our national debt has grown from $540 billion to $5.7 trillion. Spending is at an all-time high, and so are taxes. The budget process has become so complicated that most lawmakers have a hard time understanding it. Of course, that hasn't stopped the proliferation of budget smoke and mirrors to circumvent the intent of the Congress. The flawed process allows members to vote to control spending in the budget and then turn right around and vote for increased appropriations. The process encourages spending increases rather than spending control. It encourages continued fiscal abuse, waste, and irresponsibility. Clearly, we need to immediately pursue comprehensive reform to ensure the integrity of our budget and appropriations process and avoid repeating the same mistakes we made in the past two years. We must do this early in the year before we begin to face appropriation pressures. This is why I am introducing the Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act. This legislation is the companion bill of HR 853, which was a bipartisan effort led by Congressmen Nussle and Cardin. It has been reported by the House Budget Committee. There are also a number of good budget reform proposals in the Senate I have earlier supported. Reforms introduced by our Budget Committee Chairman Senator Domenici are important and I strongly support his leadership in this area. My legislation is complementary to but broader than Senator Domenici's efforts. Mr. President, let me highlight my legislation. The legislation will force us to pass a legally-binding federal budget, set aside funds each year in the budget for true emergencies; strengthen the enforcement of budgetary controls; enhance accountability for Federal spending; display unfunded liabilities for Federal insurance programs; mitigate the bias toward higher spending, modify Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) procedures to accommodate budget surpluses; and ensure the Social Security surplus will be protected. The core of the legislation will provide for an annual joint budget resolution, rather than a concurrent resolution, thus making it a legally binding budget through a law requiring the President's signature. I believe this is a critical step in reforming the budget process. If Congress and the President agree on a Joint Budget Resolution at the beginning of the process, appropriators in Congress would be legally bound to stay within those spending limits. It forces confrontation at the earliest stages of the budget process, leaving adequate time for legislating detail and minimizing disputes at the end of the process which threaten to shutdown the government. The second component of the bill will redefine emergency spending and create a reserve fund to pay for emergencies. Emergency spending was traditionally used for unanticipated wars and natural disasters that took life and severely damaged property. Because emergency spending today is effectively exempt from congressional spending controls, Congress and the Administration have used this as an opportunity to bust the budget for a lot of spending that isn't emergency related at all. Last year alone, Congress appropriated $35 billion for so-called emergencies. This year again, over $24 billion of emergency spending is appropriated. Since 1991, emergency spending has totaled over $145 billion. Most ``emergencies'' were used to fund regular government programs, not unanticipated events. Emergency spending is sought as a vehicle to add on even more spending priorities. This has gone too far. We need a better way to budget for emergencies. Most of this spending can be planned within our budget limits. Even natural disasters happen regularly--why not budget for them? My legislation will end this abuse of emergency spending. It requires both the President and the Congress to budget up front for emergencies by setting aside dollars in an emergency reserve fund. The reserve fund will contain an amount at least equal to the 5-year historical average of amounts provided for true emergencies. It includes a clear definition of ``emergencies.'' My legislation prohibits release of funds from the reserve pending Budget Committee certification that: (1) A situation has arisen that requires funding for ``the prevention or mitigation of, or response to, loss of life of property, or a threat to national security'', and (2) The situation is ``unanticipated''--with ``unanticipated'' defined as sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and temporary. In the event that Congress and the President fail to agree on annual appropriation measures by October 1, my legislation will allow the budget resolution signed into law earlier in the year to automatically kick in. This will effectively prevent any future government shutdowns due to disagreements on spending priorities between Congress and the Administration. Mr. President, the 1995 federal government shutdown is still fresh in our minds. It was the longest shutdown in history and caused financial damage and inconvenience to millions of Americans when the President refused to support a Balanced Budget Act and tax relief for Americans. The shutdown shook the American people's confidence in their government and in their elected officials. Since 1997, I, along with Senator McCain, have been advocating an automatic continuing resolution, or CR, as we call it, to prevent a government shutdown. I was able to obtain a commitment from the Senate leadership of both parties to pursue this legislation separately in the near future. But no action has followed. If we had an automatic CR, we would not have to go through bitter battles at the end of every fiscal year. The virtue of an automatic CR is that it would allow us to debate issues concerning spending policy and the merits of budget priorities while we continue to keep essential government functions operating. The American taxpayer will no longer be held hostage to a government shutdown. Mr. President, there will always be plenty of uncertainties involved in our budget and appropriations process. The automatic kick-in of the budget resolution in the bill I introduce today will work the same as my automatic CR. Another flaw of the budget process is so-called budget baselines. When a government program is going to increase by 4.5 percent per year, anyone with common sense would think that is a budget increase, not a budget ``cut.'' But under baseline budgeting it could mean ``cut.'' Lee Iaccoca once stated that if business used baseline budgeting the way Congress does, ``they'd throw us in jail.'' This is a typical budget gimmick. Any proposed spending levels below current baselines are perceived as program reductions, allowing some politicians to claim savings while permitting others to claim increases. Baseline budgeting is biased in favor of more spending. It is not honest budgeting but rather very misleading. My legislation would require Congress and the President to use this year's actual spending total as the baseline for the next year's budget. If we decide to spend more than the current year, we are increasing the budget. If we spend less, we are cutting it. Let's call a spade a spade. Mr. President, we have entered an era of budget surplus. It is estimated that in the next ten years, our strong economy will generate an over $1 trillion non-Social Security surplus. If we don't return this surplus to taxpayers in the form of tax relief and debt reduction, the government will spend it all. However, the current budget process limits our ability to provide tax relief for working Americans. The budget law requires that all tax cuts be offset with tax increases or cuts in entitlement programs such as Medicare. Tax cuts may not be paid for by cutting discretionary spending, such as wasteful government programs. This rule, called the PAYGO rule, applies regardless of whether there is a surplus or deficit. The PAYGO rule effectively limits options with respect to reducing taxes because it precludes using spending cuts in discretionary programs to offset tax cuts. Thus there is a built-in bias in favor of higher levels of spending and taxation in the current budget process. My legislation would amend Pay-As-You-Go requirements to permit any portion of the on-budget surplus, excluding Social Security, to be used for tax cuts. Related to the PAYGO rule reform, my legislation also creates a lockbox to lock in every penny that is saved from floor amendments to appropriations bills and use it to reduce federal government spending. Spending levels in the budget resolution and any caps on discretionary spending would be automatically reduced by the amount in the floor amendment. The bill requires committees to submit a plan for reauthorizing all programs within their jurisdictions in 10 years. It also prohibits the Congress from considering a bill that creates a new spending program unless it is sunset within 10 years. My legislation also guarantees Members the right to offer amendments subjecting proposed entitlements to the enhanced oversight of the appropriations process. Under the current budget process, we have over 20 budget functions, and a half dozen different committees with jurisdiction over one budget function. This has complicated the process greatly. To simplify the process, my bill collapses the 20 non-enforceable budget functions currently used into total (aggregate) spending and revenue levels, with separate categories for discretionary and mandatory spending. It is simple, and easy enough for everyone to understand. Mr. President, a number of the Federal insurance programs (excluding Social Security and Medicare) that have a looming impact on the federal budget are not included in our budget process. The liabilities caused by these programs could be enormous. Budgeting for these liabilities will give us better control over long-term programs. My legislation requires the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget to report periodically on long-term budgetary trends, to help make Members aware of the future budgetary implications of spending programs. Finally, Mr. President, it's vitally important that we save the entire Social Security surplus, not for government spending, not for tax relief, but exclusively for Social Security. I believe we need an enforcement mechanism to ensure that Congress and the President do not touch the Social Security surplus. My legislation requires that if any fiscal year's appropriations end up spending the Social Security surplus, a sequestration will be automatically triggered to reduce government spending across the board in the amount of the Social Security surplus that was used. Entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare would not be cut. In addition, the bill reaffirms the protected status of Social Security under the current budgetary law. Mr. President, it is true that our short-term fiscal situation has improved greatly due to the continued growth of our economy. However, our long-term financial imbalance still poses a major threat to the health of our future economic security. Without budget process reform, we will find ourselves again and again making the same mistakes which result in bigger government, more spending and more abuse. We need to spend more time on oversight and reauthorizing expiring programs rather than on endless budget battle at the end of every fiscal year. President Reagan summed up the real problem of our budget process when he pointed out ``this budget process does not serve the best interests of the nation, it does not allow sufficient review of spending priorities, and it undermines the checks and balances established by the Constitution.'' If the Congress adopts the Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act, it will ensure a budget process that serves the best interests of the nation and allow for careful policy and spending deliberation. That's why I am introducing this legislation today. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to call on Congress and the President to make sure the UN reform package is signed into law before we recess. As Chairman of the International Operations Subcommittee, I have worked hard to help forge a solid bipartisan United Nations reform package. Our message in crafting this legislation is simple and straightforward. The U.S. can help make the United Nations a more effective, more efficient and financially sounder organization, but only if the U.N. and other member states, in return, are willing to finally become accountable to the American taxpayers. The reforms proposed by the United States are critical to ensure the United Nations is effective and relevant. Ambassador Holbrooke has been pushing other member states to accept the reforms in this package in return for the payment of arrears. He has succeeded beyond all reasonable expectations, by gaining our seat back on the budget oversight committee--the ACABQ. But he needs this bill signed into law in order to convince the UN that reform will bring certain rewards. But passing this UN package is not just about a series of reforms for the future. It impacts directly on the ability of the US mission to achieve our goals at the United Nations right now. The US does not owe most of these arrears to the UN. It owes them to our allies, like Britain and France, for reimbursement for peacekeeping expenses. And our arrears are being used as a convenient excuse to dismiss US concerns on matters of policy. Depriving the US government the ability to use these funds as leverage is irresponsible; after all, our diplomats need ``carrots'' as well as reasonable ``sticks'' to achieve our foreign policy goals. Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration and my colleagues in the House of Representatives are jeopardizing the payment of our arrears over a policy that I call ``Mexico City lite.'' While I support the proposal to prohibit US government grant recipients from lobbying foreign governments to change their abortion laws, I do not believe it should be linked to the payment of our UN arrears. If these unrelated issues continue to be tied, then there is a good chance neither proposal will be enacted. I am hopeful that my colleagues in the House and the Administration will see the wisdom of adopting measures that will enhance America's ability to exert leadership in the international arena with the revitalization of the UN. The State Department Authorization bill should be allowed to pass or fail on its own merit--not on the merits of the Mexico City lite policy. This agreement is in America's best interest, and the best interest of the entire international community.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the President. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a multi-faceted package of tax cuts and federal program changes to help our nation's farmers weather this period of low commodity prices. I will first note that this bill is obviously not a cure-all for the farmers' plight, but significant tax reform is an essential component of creating an environment where farmers can thrive. Regulatory reform, crop insurance reform, and improvements in our agriculture trade policies are also critical elements of boosting farm income. The bill I introduce is a collection of tax reform concepts that have been considered individually, but not as a package of comprehensive relief to farmers. Some were in the congressional tax cut package that the President summarily vetoed, denying relief to farmers, middle class workers, and small business owners. All of the provisions of this bill would benefit the farm community, and should not be tossed aside due to partisan posturing as was the case with this past summer's tax relief bill. By offering this multi-part legislation, I hope to provide a vehicle to move comprehensive tax relief for an important sector in the American economy and culture that has not shared in the prosperity of recent years. The first provision in this legislation is the Farm and Ranch Risk Management Accounts, which were also a part of the recent tax cut bill that the President vetoed. This provision would allow producers to put up to 20% of net farm income in a tax deferred account where the funds could be held in reserve for up to five years for financial emergencies. Farmers operate in a volatile market, and they need all the risk management tools we can provide. When farmers earn a profit they usually invest in additional farm assets, and this would give them a tax incentive and opportunity to instead save more income as a buffer during down cycles. The second provision of my tax bill would accelerate the 100% deductibility of health insurance premiums for the self-employed to make them immediately effective, rather than the full phase-in by 2003. I will note again that this was one of the critical provisions in the tax cut bill that was vetoed by the President, and is also included in my health care legislation. Farmers should not receive the same tax considerations on health benefits as everyone else who obtains insurance through their employment, so that they do not have to choose between decent health care and other necessities of life. This provision equalizes the tax treatment for these farmers. The third provision would raise the effective exemption from estate taxes to $5 million and raise the gift tax exemption to $25,000. According to USDA figures, farmers are six times more likely to face inheritance taxes than other Americans. Farmers must farm more and more acres now to just eke out a humble income. Thus, they accumulate large capital investments through the years that provide them a modest living, but when they die their estate is treated as if they were very rich, and many have never even had a new pickup. Many of these families want to leave their property to their children, so that they can continue the heritage of farming the land. However, the estate tax can reach such prohibitive levels that sometimes the property must be sold to satisfy the insatiable tax revenue appetite of the federal government. At the present time, the average age of farmers is 58 years old. We are just a few years from a period of significant transfers of real property from one generation to another. With all the obstacles to success that producers currently face, why is the federal government adding to their burdens by jeopardizing the time honored tradition of passing the family farm down from generation to generation, when it only generates one percent of federal taxes? Taxes should be gathered to pay for the necessities of government, not to transfer wealth from one segment of the population to another. And even if you believe that such wealth transfer is a legitimate function of tax policy, can we at least agree that family farms should be shielded from the takings? The estate tax can be as high as 55%, which is unfair, threatening the continuity of family-owned businesses. The next provision amends the tax code to treat lands which are contiguous to a principal residence and which were farmed for five years before the principal residence as part of such residence, allowing it to be part of the exclusion of gain from the sale of the principal residence. This allows older farmers to sell their property without facing extraordinary capital gains taxes as a consequence. The legislation also acknowledges that farm income can fluctuate significantly from year to year, and that farmers need a break when income goes does significantly after several good years. The bill thus includes a provision to reach back into a previous tax year and pull income from good years into a current down year. Farmers would then be recompensed for tax overpayments from previous years. Current law permits farmers to lower their tax burdens in good years by averaging in income from less profitable past periods, but it does not allow previous good years to be averaged in to current low income levels. This provision would provide this assistance to struggling farmers, again, giving them some tools to work within a very volatile market. The bill also includes a provision to exempt from the alternative minimum tax certain income from unincorporated farms. Thanks to initiatives to provide tax credits to working families, many farm families would be able to reduce their tax burden if they were not bumping up against the alternative minimum tax. This correction is needed because the alternative minimum tax also does not always permit farmers to take advantage of current laws concerning farmer income averaging. My legislation contains a provision to exclude from gross income up to $350,000 of capital gain from the transfer of property in complete or partial satisfaction of qualified farm indebtedness of a taxpayer, subject to means testing. This would exclude capital gains taxes from the forced liquidations of farm property. The bill also ensures that farm landlords are treated the same as small business people and other commercial landlords, and removes the requirement that they pay self-employment tax on cash rent income. This item corrects an IRS technical advice memorandum to ensure that farmers, like other real estate owners, do not have to pay self- employment taxes on income from cash rent. The measure also amends current law to emphasis certain beneficial farm program goals. They include a requirement that USDA, when approving applications for loans and grants under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, places a high priority on projects that encourage the creation of farmer-owner facilities that process value- added agricultural products; an amendment to the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act to give USDA discretion to use funds for rural development technical assistance; an amendment to the Rural Development Act to emphasize market development education and technical assistance for operators of small- and medium-sized farms, in addition to production assistance. The amendment also requires USDA to explore new marketing avenues such as direct farm to consumer markets, local value-added processing, and farmer-owned cooperatives. We need a renaissance of new thinking and new marketing opportunities for our farmers. I want to ensure that existing programs are focused on helping farmers receive a larger share of the value of their products. As I have said before, I've always been struck by how we have a Department of Housing and Urban Development and a Department of Agriculture, but no real government emphasis on rural development. I hope that these provisions can help rebuild our rural economies. The next two components of the bill restore a tax-exemption for value-added farmer-owned cooperatives that was taken away by a recent IRS ruling, and extends declaratory judgment relief for the cooperatives affected by this ruling. Finally, the bill also includes a provision that increases the threshold amount that triggers when a farmer and employed farm worker would have to pay payroll taxes. The current threshold is $150, and this bill would raise it to $3,000. Farmers need the flexibility to be able to hire part-time workers, such as other nearby farmers or teenagers during the summer. We should free them from the burden and paperwork of having to pay payroll taxes on a minimal amount of expenditures on employees. This $150 figure in current law obviously does not reflect current realities on the farm, and Congress should make this much needed adjustment in the threshold figure. Again, I believe that it is important to emphasize that major tax relief for farmers is a critical component of making Freedom to Farm work, and that's why I'm introducing this bill. I hope that hearings will be held next year on Freedom to Farm, and some adjustments my need to be made to current law. In fact, I have my own bill pending that would extend the term for producers' marketing loans from nine months up to thirty-six months, to give farmers more flexibility, and thus more market power, in determining when to put their grain on the market. No one on this side of the aisle argues that Freedom to Farm is perfect, but there are fundamental concepts in the bill that farmers requested and I believe still want, such as the freedom to make their own decisions on what and how much to plant. I believe farmers want to plant for the market, not the government. This bill reflects my commitment to try to deliver on the promises to farmers that were made when Freedom to Farm was passed, such as trade expansion, fast track authority, regulatory reform, and crop insurance reform. Of course, if the administration was truly attempting to be accommodating the needs of the farm community, there would be less need for the regulatory reform bills currently pending. I know American farmers can complete worldwide, but we cannot drag our feet on creating a climate in which they can succeed. I believe this farmer tax relief bill is a critical piece of the puzzle. Mr. President, the second tax relief measure I am introducing today would expand income averaging to small agriculture-related businesses. Before 1986, American farmers, agricultural-related businesses and others could apply income averaging for tax purposes. But the Tax Reform Act of 1986 entirely eliminated income averaging. Congress acted primarily on the assumption that tax reduction would substantially reduce the number of taxpayers whose fluctuating incomes could subject them to higher progressive rates and there was no need for income average. While it was understandable that Congress took such action at that time, I believe it was clearly a mistake because Congress completely ignored the nature of agriculture and our rural communities. Today, low commodity prices have made the income of American farmers and agriculture-related businesses fluctuate more wildly than that of any other group of taxpayers. In my own state of Minnesota, income in farm communities had decreased dramatically in recent years. In response to this critical situation, Congress reinstated income averaging for individual farmers temporarily in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, and last year Congress made it permanent for farmers. This was good change and I was pleased to join Senator Burns and others in passing this important legislation. In my package of tax relief for farmers just discussed, I have added new flexibility for farmers to use income averaging to their benefit. Unfortunately, Congress unintentionally left one important group out of last year's relief legislation. American small agriculture-related businesses, those who work hard to provide seeds, fertilizer, farming equipment and other farm products for farmers, whose income depends on farmers' income, are not included in current law providing income averaging. As a result, these small businesses are facing hardship and need this relief as well. Expanding income averaging to small agriculture-related businesses would provide modest, but much needed, assistance to these businesses and allow them to continue serving farmers and rural communities. It also is consistent with the approach Congress took in the past regarding income averaging. Unlike the permanent income averaging for farmers, my legislation would sunset income averaging for agriculture- related businesses in three years. In addition, it only covers small businesses, not big corporations. Mr. President, the third tax bill I will introduce today is the Rural Revitalization Tax Credit (RRTC) Act. This bill fits into my overall goal of making rural America a better place to live. The objective is to attract business investment to rural areas to provide jobs for those who value life in the small towns of rural America. These jobs can also be invaluable for farm families suffering hard times through low commodity prices, crop diseases or weather disasters. Full or part time jobs can often help farmers help their family farms in down cycles. This legislation is designed to encourage business investment in high poverty rural communities. It would create rural revitalization tax credits which include a development credit that is provided to any company locating in high poverty rural communities. A company would receive a 6 percent tax credit annually of the amount of the investment, which amounts to about 25 percent of the value of the original investment over 7 years. It also creates a wage tax credit which allows employers in high poverty rural communities to receive up to $3,000 per employee hired in that community. In addition, qualified businesses are allowed to write off up to $37,500 as an expense the cost of depreciable, tangible personal property. This proposal is similar to urban empowerment zone proposals introduced in the Congress. We want to apply it to rural America as well. Mr. President, this measure will not solve all the problems that farmers and people in rural areas are facing, but I believe it is one way to create more economic opportunities in our rural communities to preserve and improve the excellent quality of life in these areas. I send the three bills to the desk and ask that they be assigned to the appropriate committees.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I yield.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon in strong support of this very important legislation that balances the interests of individual consumers with the needs of America's financial services industries. I know names have been mentioned and accolades have gone out, and very well-deserved, to those who need to be thanked for their hard work. I start the list with Senator Phil Gramm who worked very hard over this last year. By the way, it was a year ago today following the elections that we began consideration of getting this bill back on the floor again. Also, of course, I thank the ranking member, Senator Sarbanes, who worked very hard as well over these years, and especially over the last 12 months, in crafting this bill and making sure of its success. I also thank former Treasury Secretary Rubin and the latter contributions by Treasury Secretary Larry Summers. Chairman Greenspan of the Federal Reserve and SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, of course, were very instrumental in this. I thank our colleagues on the House side, Chairman Leach and Congressman Bliley, for their work and efforts. I could go on. When one does this, they always run the risk of not mentioning somebody. There were so many hands in this. Alan Brubaker appears on the list to be commended. Alan is on my staff, and I have to compliment him as well on all the hours he has put in on this bill, working very hard staff to staff. Alan has done a tremendous job, and I compliment him on his efforts. In testimony before the House Banking Committee, then-Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin, testified that the administration estimated enactment of financial modernization legislation will result in annual savings of $15 billion. The important part of this is those savings will end up in the pockets of consumers because in a competitive world, people are going to find the cheapest way in an expanded array of financial services. The consumers, under this bill, are going to be the biggest benefactors--$15 billion in annual savings in financial modernization. This package of reforms has been under consideration, as we heard, in one form or another for over two decades. I am proud to be a member of the committee and the Senate that has taken the handoff from those who came before us and carried the ball across the goal line. As Senator Dodd mentioned, former Senator Alfonse D'Amato should also be recognized for the contributions he made over the years. This has been a top priority for myself. I served on the Banking Committee in the House for the one term I was there, and the No. 1 priority when I reached the Senate was to be on the Banking Committee. I was never a banker, but I have sat across the table from many bankers. I thought it was very important to add the voice of a small businessman and an individual in banking legislation. This legislation provides the appropriate regulatory framework for an event already occurring throughout the regulatory fiat, and that is the affiliation between commercial banks, securities firms, and insurance companies. We protect consumers by establishing a system of functional regulation whereby institutions will be overseen by experts in their areas. In other words, the securities operations will continue to be supervised by security experts, banks by banking experts and, of course, insurance by State insurance commissioners. In addition to ensuring a level playing field for business through consistent regulation, again, consumers also benefit because the institutions with which they are dealing will be regulated by the experts in those products. Thus, by authorizing properly regulated affiliations between financial companies, we ensure that our financial services companies will be able to compete worldwide and with appropriate regulation at home, they will not be forced to move offshore to remain competitive. Although the estimated $15 billion in cost savings will certainly benefit our consumers, the provision which most immediately impacts the consumer, of course, is the establishment of a national floor of privacy protections. A lot of people do not realize that without this bill, we would go back to almost zero, except for the fair credit reporting bills. This brings a tremendous number of new protections in privacy to our consumers. It is a major step forward in that area. The consensus contained in this bill will now provide consumers with major areas of protection beyond current law. Specifically, the conference agreement, one, ensures consumers will have greater clarity of their financial institution's privacy policies by requiring the institution to disclose those policies on information sharing--to the affiliates and third parties of both current and former customers--at the time the institution establishes a relationship with that customer, as well as reviewing those regulations or those policies each and every year. The consumer will have major privacy protections. Two, it provides consumers with the ability to take their names off the list, in other words, to opt out if they do not want their personal information shared with a nonaffiliated third party. Three, it criminalizes the actions of bad actors who use false pretense or, in other words, lie to obtain a consumer's personal financial information. Four, it preserves all existing and all future State privacy protections above and beyond the national floor established in this bill. It allows the States to set their levels as well. Five, it authorizes a study to review whether further privacy measures are needed. That is very important because as we complete this bill--nobody has ever written a perfect bill, I do not think, out of Washington, and it is very important to review what we have done and look at what else needs to be done. But this review is going to be very important as well in the area of privacy. Although the central purpose of the bill is to remove decades-old barriers to the integration of the financial services industry, by recognizing that privacy is both a very important issue to the consumer and a responsibility of the financial institution, the bill puts in place the framework to ensure the consumer is protected and allows the financial industry to expand services and products. I recognize the debate over privacy has not been concluded with these changes. The enthusiasm these provisions have garnered, as well as the expressions of support Congress has received for recent actions to prevent implementation of the FDIC's ``Know Your Customer'' rule and to restrict the ability of States to sell driver's license information, demonstrates the public's concern over these privacy issues. I look forward to further debate on these issues following the comprehensive hearings Chairman Gramm has pledged to hold after we have received the findings of the report called for in this bill. After further study, we will all be better equipped to consider the issue of privacy. In the meantime, I firmly believe we have provided stronger protections for the consumer. Mr. President, I thank all my colleagues for all their hard work. I strongly urge them to support this conference report. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask Senator Gramm, in his capacity as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and one of the chief authors of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that is before us today, to clarify a point about section 731 of the act. Is it correct that section 731 is not intended to affect banks whose home office and authorized branch offices are not located in the State described?

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I also inquire whether it is also Chairman Gramm's understanding that, notwithstanding section 731, national banks with interstate offices are in all events authorized under section 85 of the National Bank Act, as confirmed by the United States Supreme Court case, Marquette National Bank v. First of Omaha Service Corp., 439 U.S. 299 (1978), to export the interest rates of the State where their home office is located?

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, as Chairman of the International Operations Subcommittee, which has United Nations oversight responsibilities, and having been appointed by the President to serve two terms as a congressional delegate to the United Nations, I have focused significant attention on the United Nations. On the anniversary of the founding of the United Nations, I think it is appropriate to take time for us all to reflect on that important institution. Fifty-four years ago this week, the members of the United Nations' founding delegation met in San Francisco for the signing ceremony that created the United Nations. There was great anticipation and a collective enthusiasm for this new, global institution. Delegates spoke of hope, of expectation, of the promise of peace. President Truman echoed the thoughts of those founding members when he told the delegates they had, ``created a great instrument for peace and security and human progress in the world.'' Fifty-four years later, however, the United Nations is struggling to meet its potential. In Congress, the need for the United Nations to reform itself often overshadows the activities United Nations does well. As we saw in the Persian Gulf war, the United Nations can play a useful role in building coalitions to address matters of international security. Moreover, the United Nations has the ability to effectively conduct traditional peacekeeping operations, such as those in Cyprus and the Sinai Peninsula, where hostilities have ceased and all parties agree to the U.N. peacekeeping role. In the areas of humanitarian relief, child survival, and refugee assistance, much of the work of UNICEF and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees deserves praise. And many of the U.N. agencies that focus on technical cooperation play a crucial role in establishing and coordinating international standards for governments and businesses, including the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Telecommunications Union, the Universal Postal Union, and the World Intellectual Property Organization. However, the ability of the United Nations to live up to the goals stated at its founding has been stymied by its massive, uncoordinated growth. Fortunately, a consensus appears to be building that the United Nations needs to reform in order to be a viable institution. As Secretary- General Annan noted, ``a reformed United Nations will be a more relevant United Nations in the eyes of the world.'' To this end, the United States must help shape the United Nations to be an organization that the United States needs as much as the United Nations needs the United States. In an effort to push the United Nations toward reform, the Senate has passed a comprehensive package that links the payment of arrears to the achievement of reform benchmarks. These are achievable, common-sense reforms. We are calling for a code of conduct with an anti-nepotism provision; a mechanism to sunset outdated and unnecessary programs; and transparency in the budget process. We do not need to micro-manage the United Nations, but we need to make sure a proper structure is in place for the United Nations to be able to manage itself. We must pay our arrears to the United Nations. In doing so, however, we should put the arrears in perspective. Throughout the history of the United Nations, the United States has always been its most generous donor. The United States contributes around $2 billion to U.N. organizations and activities every year. This is three times more generous than any other permanent member of the Security Council. I do not believe success in any of the areas where the United Nations excels would be possible without a high level of U.S. support. The U.S. mission will have a difficult job implementing reforms when a massive U.N. bureaucracy and numerous member states have a vested interest in resisting reform and maintaining the status quo. And I recognize the U.S. mission's job is more difficult without the arrears package signed into law. But Ambassador Holbrooke has shown that it can be done. He has already won a seat for an American on the budget committee of the United Nations and is making progress in getting our assessment rates reduced. As I renew my commitment to champion the arrears package in the Congress, I want to underscore that the reforms proposed by the United States are critical to ensure the United Nations is effective and relevant. Any reforms that improve the effectiveness of the United Nations must be viewed in this light. We must reform the United Nations now and the United States has the responsibility to play a major role. If we do nothing, and the United Nations collapses under its own weight, then we will have only ourselves to blame.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in mourning the untimely death of our friend, John Chafee. Today, we celebrate the enthusiastic spirit he brought with him each day to the Senate, and the generous public spirit exemplified by his work. With John's passing, the State of Rhode Island has lost a leader, the Senate has lost a statesman, and the Chafee family has lost a loving, dedicated husband, father, and grandfather. As the Senate family, the prayers of John's colleagues and our staffs are with Ginny and her entire family. Many of my colleagues have recited the accomplishments of John Chafee. They bear repeating, however. Before his achievements as a legislator, John was a leader in the Marines. He served in the original invasion at Guadalcanal, and when he was recalled to active duty in 1951, he commanded a rifle company in Korea. John then turned his service to the State of Rhode Island, first as a member of its House of Representatives, where he eventually attained the rank of Minority Leader. In 1962, John ran for Governor and won-- though it was a very close race. He increased that margin of victory significantly in the following two elections, in 1964 and 1966, when he was reelected with the largest margin in the State's history. Following his governorship, John Chafee went on to serve as Secretary of the Navy for three and a half years. Beginning in 1976, John began his long career in the U.S. Senate. As the only Republican elected from Rhode Island in the past 68 years, John vigorously pursued the interests of his constituents, including environmental issues, health care concerns, and efforts to reduce the Federal budget deficit. Through his position on the Senate Finance Committee, and mine on the Foreign Relations Committee, we worked closely together on a number of fronts to support free trade and oppose unilateral sanctions. I recall at one point we were two of five Senators who opposed a resolution we both thought was harmful to our relationships with another country. John Chafee's contributions to this Senate, however, go much deeper than just those outlined within the pages of his impressive biography. I remember when I moved from the House to the Senate, and those early, confusing days working out of the cramped Dirksen basement. John Chafee was moving his office at the same time, and he invited me up to look his over. He made this new Senator feel welcome in a place where bonds between the ``old-timers'' are strong and newcomers can sometimes feel intimidated. Ultimately, I didn't take John Chafee's office, but I gladly accepted his friendship. When I last spoke to John, during a short conversation in this Chamber late last week, he talked about his son, Lincoln, and the possibility that son would replace father in the Senate. I think he took great pride in the thought of his family carrying on his tradition of public service. I was moved by the words of John Chafee's staff in a statement they collectively issued on Monday. It said, in part: ``His sense of public spirit was infectious, and we have all learned a great deal from him. But more important than any lesson in civics is the example he set for all of us about how to conduct our lives: listen to both sides; do what's right; always look for the good in people; and, even if you don't prevail, be of good cheer.'' Mr. President, John was a tireless advocate for his constituents, a man who sought agreement in the often-acrimonious atmosphere of Washington, a man who brought meaning to the idea of giving one's word and standing by one's principles. And he was consistently of good cheer. I was proud to serve with him, and proud to consider him a friend.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, first, I want to associate my remarks to the Senator's comments dealing with the 10th anniversary of the disappearance of Jacob Wetterling. Our support continues to go out to the family and also, as Senator Wellstone mentioned, to the Jacob Wetterling Foundation. Patty and Jerry Wetterling have worked tirelessly to aiding in the search for missing children. As the Senator said, Jacob's Hope is all of our hope. Again, I commend the Wetterlings for their efforts. Also, our sympathy and support continues to go out to the family in the disappearance of Jacob Wetterling 10 years ago.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the trade package before us today which would expand trade opportunities with sub-Saharan Africa, offer enhanced tariff treatment to Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) nations, extend the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program for 5 years and extend the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. The CBI language will expand benefits to CBI nations, yet continue to protect import-sensitive industries in the United States. It will for the first time link benefits to improvements in areas such as intellectual property rights, investment, market access, government procurement and other issues which will not only help CBI nations develop but create an improved market for U.S. companies in the future. U.S. exports have tripled to the region since the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act was passed in 1984. They have soared the first 6 months of this year, and this legislation will further that progress. The CBI benefits will serve as the next step in helping this region become part of the Free Trade Area of the Americas. The Generalized System of Preferences program aiding the least developed countries expired in July of this year. Most of us have many small importers in our States who have depended on this lower tariff treatment to compete with larger retailers. I know there are many in Minnesota who are now paying enormous tariffs--at the risk of staying in business--and need the program extended for 5 years. Extending the program year by year, often retroactively, and usually with no certainty is no way to treat these small businesses or these countries. The GSP program has been improved over the years, and graduations of countries and products have ensured it helps only those who need assistance will get the help. The African Growth and Opportunity Act is the most controversial, but crucial, part of this package. I have continually supported this effort and am disappointed it has taken so long to consider the measure on the floor. What really is very modest assistance to one of the poorest regions of the world, sub-Saharan Africa, has been battered from all sides--and it is the needy people of those countries who will suffer the most if we do not pass this legislation. Much of the opposition is from the textile and apparel industry, and I am sensitive to the concern that has come from textile companies in my own State of Minnesota. I believe the Senate bill has addressed this industry's concerns in a very responsible manner. The bill requires the use of U.S. textiles and includes tough transshipment language--far tougher than that of current law. The Customs Service has reassured us that Africa is not a transshipment problem. Africa supplies 1 percent of our textile imports and has little ability to flood our market with additional imports. I believe most new apparel investments in Africa will just replace many in Asia rather than expanding overall textile/ apparel imports. Some in the Congress believe this legislation should focus more on debt relief. However, we are involved in multilateral efforts to provide this relief and have made commitments unilaterally as well. I support these separate efforts. This is not the vehicle to expand our debt relief efforts. The focus of this legislation is to foster economic growth through incentives, to create a high-level dialogue between U.S. and African leaders on economic issues, to start the process toward a U.S.-sub-Saharan free trade area--to help Africa develop and prosper through improved business relationships with our companies. We want these relationships to help Africa grow, to expand job opportunities, to become more market oriented as they reform economically and to become less dependent on foreign aid from other nations. Some will say this bill is not worthy of support because it does not provide enough benefit for the United States. Fortunately we don't always pass legislation solely on what it can do for us immediately. We need to look ahead, which we don't do enough of here, but this legislation is a good example of how we should act. The more than 700 million people of sub-Saharan Africa represent an enormous market of the future for us. Right now my State of Minnesota is the 15th largest exporter to the region. We must continue to improve our export opportunities, but we can't do that if we don't allow sub-Saharan Africa the ability to export to us. If we are not there now helping them help themselves, developing the relationships needed to build friendship and trust, sub-Saharan Africans will not want to buy our products in the future. And we know how many other countries are there to step in if we are not there. Again, we can't expect to develop an export market there if we are not with them during the hard times when sub-Saharan Africans need us to give them a small edge to compete for exports into the United States. If Africa can't become strong and prosperous, it will not be able to buy our products in the future. A strong and secure Africa will not only benefit trade, but will help us achieve our goals in areas such as drug trafficking, terrorism, human rights, and many others. I also want to mention a statement I just read whereby AIDS activists oppose this legislation because they believe sub-Saharan African countries will spend more on business investment than on social services spending such as health care. I strongly disagree with this thinking. The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act will help countries grow and prosper. It will enable these governments, and their people to spend more on their health care needs, including the need to fight the devastation of AIDS. Mr. President, this bill is a good one. It complements what we are doing in so many other ways to help sub-Saharan Africa. The entire package is one we should enthusiastically support. I urge my colleagues to vote for this trade package without damaging amendments. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I offer my support today of S. 1692, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1999, introduced by my colleague, Senator Santorum. Congress has twice passed legislation outlawing partial-birth abortion, only to have it vetoed by the President for fallacious reasons. It is time that we close this shameful chapter in our nation's history during which we have permitted the destruction of fully-formed, viable human beings in a most gruesome and shockingly cold-hearted manner. If there is a meaningful distinction between this abortion procedure and infanticide, it escapes me. I know that there is a certain numbing fatigue that sets in when we are forced to once again review the details of the partial-birth abortion procedure. But we must not let our aversion to the particulars of the procedure cause us to turn away from addressing the cruel injustice of it. I commend Senator Santorum for his persistence in pursuing this legislation. Congress must keep the pressure on President Clinton to stop opposing the bill and sign it into law. It is time for President Clinton to abandon the false claim that somehow this bill would jeopardize the health of a mother unless a so- called health exception permitting the procedure is not added to the bill. President Clinton knows that the term ``health'' in the context of abortion has become so broadly defined by the Supreme Court that it would strip this bill of any force, and would render the entire bill meaningless. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has denounced this false argument, asserting that ``partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both.'' The American Medical Association has also expressed support for the partial-birth abortion ban, noting that the Santorum bill ``would allow a legitimate exception where the life of the mother was endangered, thereby preserving the physician's judgment to take any medically necessary steps to save the life of the mother.'' The bottom line is, the alternative bill that has been offered by the minority leaders in the past, and which we will likely see again, extends no real protection at all to unborn children. Again, the so- called health exception it adopts essentially renders the bill meaningless, and offers opponents to the Santorum bill only a cosmetic, public relations cover to veil their commitment that abortion should be free of any reasonable restrictions. To allow this partial-birth procedure to continue to be performed across our land cheapens the value of life at all stages, for the unborn, the physically handicapped, and the feeble elderly. Our government must affirm life and not let our civil society decay into a mentality that only the strong and self-sufficient should survive and the weak can be considered expendable. President Clinton once said that he wanted abortion to be ``safe, legal, and rare.'' He has worked very hard to keep it ``legal,'' in the sense of being completely free of any restrictions. It is now time for Congress and the President to make the partial-birth method of abortion truly rare by passing and signing S. 1692.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concerns about the proposed McCain-Feingold bill. I have always maintained several guiding principles when considering proposals to change the way our campaigns are financed, the most important of which is the first amendment right of Americans to participate in the political process. I have heard from many constituents who agree that Congress should focus its attention on preserving the first amendment, which has been the basis for active citizen participation in our political process. Recently, a constituent from Woodbury, Minnesota, wrote, ``The First Amendment to the Constitution must not be legislated into obscurity. Money is only one of the many voices people use to express their views. You must not remove the voice of the people in an attempt to remove avarice and greed from the political process.'' By guaranteeing to citizens the right to speak freely and openly, the first amendment ensures, among other things, average Americans can participate in our political process through publicly disclosed contributions to the campaigns of their choice. The first amendment also allows Americans to freely draft letters to the editor, join political parties, and participate in rallies and get-out-the-vote drives. I am proud of Minnesota's long history of active citizen participation in many of these activities during each election year. Mr. President, before this debate concludes, the Senate will have considered many broad, sweeping proposals to amend the McCain-Feingold bill in an attempt to impose new restrictions upon our fundamental rights. However, rather than pass new campaign finance laws, we should encourage and protect citizen involvement in our political process through greater enforcement of our existing election laws, fair and frequent disclosure of candidate campaign contributions, and a long- overdue increase in Federal contribution limits. I remain concerned about any proposal that infringes upon the fundamental right of citizens, candidates, groups, and political parties to have their voices heard in the democratic process. In my view, efforts to pass burdensome and restrictive campaign finance proposals overlook the fundamental reason why the American people have begun to lose faith in their government. The public's mistrust of their elected officials has not grown from a lack of laws, but from the activities of those who break our existing laws. Minnesotans have contacted me to express their outrage over blatant violations of our existing Federal election laws, and more specifically, illegal and improper campaign activity that occurred during the 1996 elections. During the course of this debate, we should not forget that election laws enacted 25 years ago to curb corruption in the political process have been circumvented and repeatedly violated. This was made very clear to the American people throughout the extensive hearings conducted by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee during the last Congress, despite the fact that more than 45 witnesses either fled the country or refused to cooperate with the committee investigation. Importantly, the investigation conducted by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee has contributed to the investigative and prosecutorial efforts of the Justice Department's Campaign Task Force. Above all else, the findings issued by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee have proven that the current law works if we simply enforce the laws on the books. For these reasons, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the amendment offered by Senators Thompson and Lieberman that would improve the enforcement of our existing election laws. Among its provisions, this proposal would authorize federal prosecutions of federal election laws if the offender commits the existing offense ``knowingly and willingly'' and the offense involved more than $25,000. As my colleagues know, current law only allows violations of election laws to be prosecuted as misdemeanors. Mr. President, the Thompson-Lieberman amendment also extends the statute of limitations for criminal violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act from 3 years to 5 years--consistent with the statute of limitations for most other federal crimes. It would direct the United States Sentencing Commission to promulgate a sentencing guideline specifically directed at campaign finance violations and consider issuing longer sentences for those whose convictions involve foreign money or large illegal contributions. Most importantly, this amendment would make it clear that all foreign money is illegal by prohibiting soft money donations to candidates or political parties by foreign nationals. I know that all Americans were outraged by the improper role of foreign money contributions during the 1996 presidential campaign. I commend Senators Thompson and Lieberman for this meaningful proposal to improve our current enforcement structure and ensure that violations of federal election laws do not occur during the 2000 campaign. In addition to more timely enforcement of our existing election laws, I believe reasonable disclosure requirements provide the electorate with more information, deter corruption or the appearance of corruption through increased exposure of contributions, and help to determine violations of election laws. However, we should ensure that disclosure requirements do not infringe upon the individual rights and privacy of donors or discourage citizen involvement in the democratic process. In fact, it was a former Minnesotan, Chief Justice Warren Burger, who emphasized the need for carefully drafted disclosure provisions as part of his opinion in the case of Buckley versus Valeo. In Buckley, Chief Justice Burger wrote, Disclosure is, in principle, the salutary and constitutional remedy for most of the ills Congress was seeking to alleviate. * * * Disclosure is, however, subject to First Amendment limitations which are to be defined by looking at the various public interests. No legislative public interest has been shown in forcing the disclosure of modest contributions that are the prime support of new, unpopular, or unfashionable political causes. Mr. President, I commend Senators McCain and Feingold for their decision to modify their proposal and reduce the level by which this legislation would infringe upon the first amendment rights of Americans. Unfortunately, the revised McCain-Feingold bill continues to place new restrictions upon national political parties through a proposed ban on party soft money. I do not believe that any limit or ban on party soft money would survive strict scrutiny by the Supreme Court. We should not pursue a suspect expansion of government control of national parties, but rather recognize that political parties enjoy the same rights as individuals to participate in the democratic process. This is a view consistent with the Supreme Court decision in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee versus FEC, in which the Court found that Congress may not limit independent expenditures by political parties. In striking down limits on the ability of political party independent expenditures, the Supreme Court wisely questioned any attempt to demonstrate a compelling reason for government regulation upon the ability of political parties to support state and local party participation in the political process when it declared: ``We also recognize that FECA permits unregulated `soft money' contributions to a party for certain activities, such as electing candidates for state office * * * or for voter registration and `get out the vote' drives. * * * But the opportunity for corruption posed by these greater opportunities for contributions, is, at best, attenuated.'' Mr. President, I believe we should strengthen, rather than diminish, the role of political parties. In my view, some of my colleagues favor a ban on party soft money because parties promote ``issue advocacy'' communications. These advocates fail to recognize that a political party's ability to engage in these communications is fully protected by the first amendment. In debating the merits of a proposed ban on party soft money, we should heed the Supreme Court's wisdom in Buckley when it held that communications which do not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate using such words as ``vote for'' or ``defeat'' cannot be regulated. Mr. President, I firmly believe there would be less reliance upon party soft money if Congress would increase the current contribution limits and encourage individuals and donors to become involved in entities that are already subject to regulations and disclosure, such as political action committees and national parties. In many ways, the prevalence of soft money in recent campaigns is a consequence of contribution limits established in 1974 and upheld in Buckley. I am very encouraged that the Supreme Court for the first time since 1976 recently heard arguments regarding the constitutionality of contribution limits. I believe both contributions and expenditures are entitled to protection as core political speech and have concerns with the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley, which upheld limits on contributions while striking down limits on expenditures. In my view, to leave these limits in place without any adjustment would be unfair and continue to threaten the individual rights of donors and individuals. As Chief Justice Burger wrote in Buckley, ``Contributions and expenditures are the same side of the First Amendment coin.'' Mr. President, I am committed to protecting the rights of all Americans to participate in the political process. However, we should not use violations of existing law to restrict political speech and participation in the political process. Those who choose to offer their ideas and talents in a manner that will help to strengthen our nation for future generations must not be discouraged from doing so.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, October 17, 1999 is ``National Sunday School Teacher Appreciation Day'' and I want to take this opportunity to honor the 15 million American men and women who serve as Sunday school teachers. They are surely one of our nation's most valuable resources. Since 1993, ``National Sunday School Teacher Appreciation Day'' has helped foster an increased awareness of the vital role Sunday school plays in the life of the local church and community. By marking this day, churches have an opportunity to nominate the cream of the crop of their Sunday school teachers for national recognition. An integral part of this campaign is the search for the ``Henrietta Mears Sunday School Teacher of the Year.'' This award was established in honor of Dr. Henrietta Mears, a famous Christian educator who influenced the lives of such Christian leaders as Dr. Billy Graham, and many more. Through their work, Sunday school teachers offer a wealth of information and guidance to America's youth. In the wake of incidents at Columbine High School and, more recently, at the Wedgewood Baptist Church in Texas, the importance of these volunteers, who help shepherd their communities through difficult times, only increases in value. Through community-based programs--and especially those deeply rooted in faith, such as Sunday School--our nation and my state of Minnesota can help bring out the best in our children as they go through the ever-more challenging task of growing up in our society. Sunday school teachers have had an enormous influence on countless Minnesotans, including myself. I personally recall my Sunday school teachers as men and women of great character who I respected and admired, and who helped shape my moral fiber. As I look back on my own experience, and those of my friends and relatives, it is with considerable appreciation I make this statement today. The service given by the men and women who every week give up their Sunday mornings to help educate and mold our children is certainly service given from the heart. In conclusion, Mr. President, I personally thank all Sunday school teachers in my state of Minnesota and across the country for the tremendous work they do for not only our youth, but for all families and our society as a whole.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I will talk a few minutes this morning in support of the Ashcroft amendment to the Agriculture appropriations bill dealing with sanctions. I know this Agriculture appropriations bill covers many areas, including dairy, as we just heard our colleague from Rhode Island discuss. I have a different view, of course, on the dairy situation. I hope to have more on that in another statement that will also be entered into the Record in regard to the Agriculture appropriations bill. I was disappointed the conferees decided to drop the Ashcroft Food and Medicine for the World amendment added by 70 Senators to the Senate Ag appropriations bill. I am a cosponsor of the bill to be introduced by Senator Ashcroft and the cosponsors of his amendment. While I would prefer this bill addressed all unilateral sanctions, not just food and medicine, I strongly support the bill as a good start to reforming our sanctions policy. As a cosponsor of the Lugar Sanctions Reform Act, I believe it is long overdue that the administration and the Congress think before we sanction. it makes no sense to punish the people of a country with which we have a dispute. Denying food and medicine does nothing to penalize the leaders of any country. Government leaders can always obtain adequate food and medicine, but people suffer under these sanctions, whether they are multilateral or unilateral. Those two areas should never be a part of any sanction. At the same time our farmers suffer from the lingering effects of the Asian financial crisis as well as those in other areas of the world, we either have, or are debating, sanctions that further restrict markets for our farmers and medical supply companies. Since most of our sanctions are unilateral, it makes no sense to deny our farmers and workers important markets when those sales are made by our allies. I need not remind any of you that we are still experiencing the aftermath of the Soviet grain embargo of the early 1980's when the United States earned a reputation as an unreliable supplier. Another example of how we have harmed our farmers is the Cuban embargo. I have for several years supported Senator Dodd's Cuba food and medicine bill, similar to this proposal. For 40 years this policy was aimed at removing Fidel Castro--yet he is still there. This is a huge market for midwestern farmers, yet it is shut off to us for no good reason. Because Cuba has fiscal problems, many of its people are experiencing hardship. Those who have relationships with Cuban- Americans receive financial support, but those who don't have relatives here need access to scarce food and medical supplies. Higher shipping costs from other import sources has restricted the volume of food that can be imported. Yet here we are 90 miles away. We could help these people, but we cannot. It is time to develop more contact with the Cuban people and time to help those who do not have relatives in the United States. This bill does not aid the government, as United States guarantees can only be provided through NGOs and the private sector. Currently, donations are permitted, as well as sales of medicine, but they are very bureaucratically difficult to obtain, and they don't help everyone. Our farmers are in a good position to help and they should be allowed to do so. I applaud Senators Ashcroft and Hagel and many others for there work to ensure farmers and medical companies will not be held hostage to those who believe sanctions can make a difference. Any administration would have to get Congressional approval for any food and medicine sanction. This is our best opportunity to help farmers and to show the world we are reliable suppliers. I urge the support of my colleagues for this long overdue legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to first commend my colleagues for their overwhelming cloture vote last night that permits the Senate to move closer to passing this very important Agriculture appropriations conference report. I especially commend my colleagues for stopping an intended filibuster that was designed to apply pressure to extend the life of the Northeast Dairy Compact. I look forward to the day when we can talk about the Northeast Dairy Compact in the past tense with its detrimental effects on Midwest dairy farmers; that time will be ended. After hearing all the rhetoric about how compacts are necessary to save small family dairy farms, I think it is very important to highlight some information my office recently received. According to the USDA, NASS data regarding 1998 dairy herd size averages, Vermont dairy farm herd sizes averaged 85 head and New York farms averaged 81 head. In the Midwest, Minnesota dairy farms averaged 57 head and Wisconsin farms averaged 59 head. Again, Vermont dairy farms averaged in size almost 50 percent larger than Minnesota dairy farms. So much for the idea that the Northeast is competing against corporate farms in the Upper Midwest. I cannot stress this point enough: The Northeast Dairy Compact is heavily subsidizing large-scale dairy operations while those small farmers in the region do not receive enough to seriously impact their bottom line. We have always known that compacts are bad for consumers, especially low-income consumers. But now we have additional data from the USDA showing they help large-scale dairy farming operations rather than helping what we hear a lot about, the small farm proponents they claim to help. Dairy compacts are an economic zero sum game in which there are many losers--most importantly, again, the consumer, and especially low- income consumers. Dairy farmers in the noncompact regions become losers. We hear the rhetoric that somehow the compact is only there for the Northeast and it doesn't have any effect on any other dairy farms across the country. That is completely false. It does have dramatic effects and impacts upon prices of farmers in other areas, especially in the Upper Midwest. The real winners in this zero sum game, again, are the large dairy producers located in the Northeast that receive literally tens of thousands of dollars in subsidies for their already profitable businesses, not the small dairy farmer who supporters say were the focus of this idea to begin with. The average 6-month subsidy for large Northeast dairy farms is projected to be $78,400--$78,400 in 6 months. Dairy farmers in Minnesota would relish that kind of an income if it were spread across the whole year. But Minnesota farmers wisely have rejected this effort that distorts the system and harms their fellow farmers in other States. Compact supporters have chosen a strategy of pitting one region of the country against another, offering the cartel-like protection of a compact to other States to prod them into joining the economic warfare. They say: In order to strengthen our position, let's encourage others to set up compacts, let's try to expand these ``cartels,'' and then we can encourage more votes--and then, again, pitting one region of the country against another, encouraging economic warfare. Then they can carve up the market, they can receive fixed prices for the milk they produce, and they claim this policy does not discriminate against other regions of the country. Higher prices promote higher production. It doesn't take a scientist to figure this out. That is, production is expanded beyond the compact region's fluid needs, the excess production then goes into nonfluid dairy products or nondrinkable milk products, and this depresses the nonfluid prices nationwide. The overproduction in the Northeast generated by the compact --the cartel, the fixed prices, encouraging overproduction--then is spilt over into other regions of the country, which then depresses those prices. When they say it has no effect on other dairy farms around the country, that is completely false. It does. Where does the excess milk go? Again, the prices encourage overproduction, the overproduction then is spread out across the country, and that depresses the prices for dairy farmers in the Upper Midwest. It is very disappointing to me that colleagues would describe themselves as free marketers, who understand the basic principles of economics would sign on to this protectionist economic power grab. For farmers who raise corn, soybeans, wheat, potatoes, and other commodities, it seems we are willing in this Congress to try to work for their best interests. There is no difference if you raise corn in Iowa or Illinois or Minnesota or Pennsylvania; the markets treat that corn the same. It is on a competitive basis. The farmers compete on their productivity. But when it comes to milk, it is completely different. If you are in one part of the country, you get more money for your milk than in other parts. Now in the Northeast we want to set up a cartel that has price fixing, that encourages overproduction, which then spills over to the rest of the country. Why do we support one part of a national agricultural policy but then distort another part of that policy, and that is dealing with dairy? Why should dairy farmers be treated differently than any other farmer? Why should we take dairy markets from one region of the country and give them to another region of the country? That is exactly, again, what the cartel does. Because the milk produced in the Northeast that is not consumed in fluid form is spilled over into the Midwest as powdered milk, cheese, and butter. So they are now competing for those markets and we are then giving them those markets, or at least a share of them. Should large producers in the Northeast be able to thrive at the expense of small farm families in the Midwest? Our farm families in the Midwest are among the most productive in the country. Yet their fate now depends not on their competitiveness, not on their ability to produce in a competitive manner but on the raw deal presented to them by subsidized dairy farmers in the Northeast. I am always frustrated by the claim from our pro-compact spokespersons, and repeated again in a recent Christian Science Monitor article, that compacts are necessary to guarantee customers and consumers ``an ample supply of fresh, locally produced milk.'' I am satisfied this rhetoric is designed to scare consumers into believing if they do not support these compacts they will then go to the grocery store and encounter empty milk cases because they cannot get ``fresh, locally produced milk.'' The well-known truth is, with the modernization of refrigeration and transportation, we could basically eliminate the entire milk marketing orders in this country. That is why they were established to begin with, because there was not the refrigeration, there was not the transportation to ensure an adequate supply of milk in other parts of the country. So it has distorted the entire dairy process. But now, with new types of refrigeration and transportation, milk can be shipped all over the country and can go to any consumer from anywhere, fresh, just as, say, oranges from Florida, lettuce from California, red meat from down in Texas. But our country's dairy supply is more than adequate to produce fluid milk; that is, the class I milk, as they call it. That milk can be supplied to any part of the continental United States. There is no shortage of fluid milk production in America. It should be built on a competitive basis, not protectionist, not a compact region, not guaranteeing some farmers protection at the expense of other farmers. The country produces three times as much milk as it consumes as a beverage. ``The milk may not be locally produced,'' is what you have heard--some of the jargon now, ``fresh, locally produced''--but it will be fresh. To tell consumers they will not get fresh, locally-produced milk, again, is an intentional deception designed to lead people into thinking if there are no compacts, the grocers' milk supply will dry up or deliveries might be sporadic or frequently interrupted, which is simply not true. The perception that somehow Midwest milk is not as good as anything produced locally is also an affront to the hard- working dairy farmers in my State. A compact spokesman in the Christian Science Monitor article also claims that locally produced milk will be cheaper to deliver than the milk bought and brought in from outside the area. Not if you live in a compact region, it will not be cheaper. Compacts are designed to protect inefficient producers in one region against the more efficient producers in another--specifically, the efficient farmers in the Upper Midwest. When people argue that when dairy products are no longer produced within a region prices to consumers go up within the area, do not believe it. If that were true, why would they need compacts at all? If milk produced locally would be cheaper, why do they need a compact at all? The reason they need it is to drive up their prices. Dairy compacts create a minimum price for milk, and they are designed to keep cheaper milk out of the region, not in the region. Again, we don't do this with any other farm product. We do not set a floor or a minimum price for corn from one region to another. We don't pit the Northeast against the Midwest against the Southeast against the South; we do not do that. But in dairy we do. Dairy compacts create a minimum price for milk, and they are designed to keep cheaper milk out of a region, not into the region. So, again, why do they need compacts at all if their arguments are true? Upper Midwest producers can sell class I fluid milk in New England for less than the $16.94 per hundredweight floor price of the compact. But the floor price in New England effectively keeps the cheaper milk out of the market. Indeed, after the Northeast Compact was enacted in 1997, the price of milk rose--this is the price of milk in New England--from $2.54 all the way up to a high of $3.21 a gallon. Milk prices there initially jumped about 20 cents a gallon. In fact, there were some grocers who put up signs along the dairy case that said: Don't blame me for the higher prices in milk. Blame the compact. That was because consumers were complaining about the jump in the price of milk in the New England area. So it does drive up the price. They always quote a study that was done. They said the first 6 months the compact went into effect, it had basically no effect. I would like them to take the last 6 months because the compact had not even geared up in those first 6 months, so it had very little chance to distort the market. But now, take a poll, now take a survey, do the report now, and I will bet the 6 months in the last 6 months would be much different than what they are quoting today. I believe compacts are clearly bad for America. I urge my colleagues to reject their extension and insist they not, again, be slipped into another appropriations bill in the dead of night. To wrap up about the dairy bill--I also wanted to talk about the Agriculture appropriations conference we are considering. I am pleased again it contains the $8.7 billion in emergency appropriations. I urge the USDA to work to get the assistance to our Nation's farmers without delay. I am also encouraged by conference report language urging the President to be more aggressive in strengthening trade negotiating authority to help American farmers and also in expressing Congress' goals for the upcoming negotiations. The conference report is not perfect but it will give our farmers the help to make it through another year. But it will be imperative that Congress continues to address reforms in our trade sanctions, EPA regulations, crop insurance, and also in the Tax Code for farmers to have an environment in which they can truly thrive. I am also glad conferees added additional assistance to farmers who suffered through these natural disasters. I urge the USDA, when it is distributing the aid, to remember farmers in the northwestern part of my State of Minnesota have been prevented from planting due to flooding. In fact, some farmers in the northwestern part of Minnesota have not had crops now for 7 years because of varying disasters: Flood, drought, disease, et cetera. In northwestern Minnesota this year, crop agents and FSA crop acreage reports show that 70 to 75 percent of the entire area's tillable acres were prevented from being planted in 1999. Only 10 percent of the normal intended acreage of annual crops will be harvested this year at all. Rainfall amounted to over 200 percent of normal in the critical planting months of April, May, and June. I know there have been many farmers across the Nation affected by drought this year, just the opposite of the problems we have had. But I do expect USDA to provide sufficient and equitable relief to farmers in northwestern Minnesota who have been shortchanged in the past by some of these relief bills. I now hope Congress will turn to enacting long- term solutions that will make such emergency packages as this one unnecessary. Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues to fulfill our responsibilities to the American farmer. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, the Senate's responsibility for advice and consent on treaties places a grave responsibility on the institution and its members. There is a very high bar that treaties have to meet, a two-thirds vote in the Senate. That is for good reason. Our nation takes our treaty obligations seriously, and the Senate is the final check on flawed or premature commitments. While I support the goal of controlling nuclear proliferation, it is becoming clear the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) is not in the best interests of this nation. After a meeting with the President, personal discussions with some of our nation's top diplomats, including former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and participation in hearings held by the Foreign Relations Committee, I harbor reservations about this treaty in its current form and question if it would truly be in the nation's best strategic interest as we move into the 21st Century. Specifically, the treaty fails to address the key questions of verifiability and reliability: can the results that treaty supporters hope to achieve be verified, and can the treaty ensure the continued reliability of our nation's stockpile? Since I have been in the Senate, I have voted for three arms control treaties. However, in my judgment, this zero-yield test ban is not in our best interest. We would not be able to verify compliance with the Treaty or ensure the safety and reliability of our nuclear arsenal. Six former Defense Secretaries, two former CIA Directors from the Clinton Administration, and two former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including Minnesota's General Vessey, have concluded that ratification of the CTBT would be incompatible with our nation's security interests. The original official negotiating position of the Clinton Administration was to have a treaty with a finite duration of 10 years that permitted low-yield nuclear tests and would have forced countries such as Russia and China into a more reliable verification monitoring regime. If the Administration had negotiated a treaty along those lines, I think it would have had a workable result with a good chance of being ratified. Instead, the Administration agreed to a treaty of unlimited duration and a zero-yield ban that prohibits all nuclear tests; a treaty which is clearly unverifiable and a clear departure from the positions of all previous Administrations, both Democratic and Republican. For instance, President Eisenhower insisted that low-yield nuclear tests be permitted. President Kennedy ended a three-year moratorium on nuclear tests, saying the U.S. would ``never again'' make that kind of error. President Carter opposed a zero-yield test ban while in office because it would undermine the U.S. nuclear deterrent. No other Administration has ever supported a zero-yield ban which prohibits all nuclear tests. Ronald Reagan's words, ``Trust but verify,'' remain a guiding principle. But a zero-yield ban is not verifiable. While the exact thresholds are classified, it is commonly understood that the United States cannot detect nuclear explosions below a few kilotons of yield. We know that countries can take advantage of existing geologic formations, such as salt domes, to decouple their nuclear tests and render them undetectable. Also, advances in commercial mining capability have enabled countries to muffle their nuclear tests, allowing them to conduct militarily significant nuclear explosions with little chance of being detected. Should technical means of verification fail, the onsite inspection regime is extremely weak. If we suspect a country has cheated, thirty out of fifty-one nations on the Executive Council have to agree to an inspection. It will be extremely difficult to reach this mark given that the Council established under the treaty has quotas from regional groups and the U.S. and other nuclear powers are not guaranteed seats. If an inspection is approved, the suspected state can deny access to particular inspectors and can declare a 50-square kilometer area off limits. These are exactly the type of conditions we rejected in the case of UNSCOM in Iraq. As to the question of reliability, we all recognize that our nuclear deterrent is effective only if other nations have confidence that our nuclear stockpile will perform as expected. A loss of confidence would not only embolden our adversaries, it would cause our allies to question the usefulness of the U.S. nuclear guarantee. We could end up with more nuclear powers rather than fewer. There is a very real threat the credibility of our nuclear deterrent will erode if nuclear testing is prohibited. Historically, the U.S. often has been surprised by how systems which performed well in non- nuclear simulations of nuclear effects failed to function properly in an actual nuclear environment. Indeed, it was only following nuclear tests that certain vulnerability to nuclear effects was discovered in all U.S. strategic nuclear systems except the Minuteman II. The Stockpile Stewardship Program is advertised as an effective alternative to nuclear testing. I hope it will enable us to avoid testing in the near future. However, many of the critical tools for the Stockpile Stewardship Program have not been developed. For example, the high-powered laser system which supposedly will have the capacity to test the reliability and safety of our nuclear stockpile was scheduled to come on line in 2003, but has now been pushed back two years later. We should make sure that alternatives to nuclear testing are fully capable before we commit to abandoning testing. There also are very real safety concerns which we must address when dealing with aging materials and components of weapons that can degrade in unpredictable ways. Right now, only one of the nine types of weapons in our nuclear stockpile have all available safety features in place, because adding them would have required nuclear testing. It doesn't make sense to effectively freeze our stockpile before all of our weapons are made as safe as possible. We must make sure that the members of our armed forces who handle these weapons are not placed in jeopardy, and the communities which are close to nuclear weapons sites are not endangered. Furthermore, this treaty would not ensure U.S. nuclear superiority. As John Deutch, Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft stated in a recent op-ed, ``no serious person should believe that rogue nations such as Iran or Iraq will give up their efforts to acquire nuclear weapons if only the United States ratifies the CTBT.'' There is already a nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Any threshold state that is ready to test has already broken the norms associated with that treaty. There is no reason to believe that the CTBT regime, which has no real enforcement mechanism, will succeed where the NPT has failed. Nations that are habitual violators of arms control treaties will escape detection, building new weapons to capitalize upon the U.S. deficiencies and vulnerabilities created by the CTBT. While I support continuing the current moratorium on nuclear testing, it seems premature for the United States to consider ratifying the CTBT. I can envision a time, however, when ratification of a much better negotiated treaty could benefit our nation--but not until we have developed better techniques for verification and enforcement, and the advanced scientific equipment we need for the stockpile stewardship program.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution which would designate the week of February 14-20 as ``National Biotechnology Week.'' I'm submitting this resolution because I believe it is important for our nation to recognize the role biotechnology has played in enhancing, saving and extending our lives. Indeed, biotechnology has extended the average American's life by nearly 25 years. Mr. President, the 20th century has shown the most significant advancements in all fields of biotechnology and there is reason to believe it will continue to deliver great hope and promise well into the 21st century. This industry is one of our fastest growing and will add thousands of new job opportunities to our economy. Just as the weeks of January and February, 2000 represent the start of a countdown to a new millennium beginning in 2001, they also represent the countdown to breakthroughs we all once thought were impossible. Already, advances made in agricultural biotechnology have given us increased crop yields and promises of new uses for our agricultural commodities as well as the higher quality, more nutritious products to improve the competitiveness of our farmers. Great strides have been made through the use of biotechnology and health care and hold the keys to successfully treating or curing diseases such as cancer, diabetes and countless other conditions. Biotechnology has assisted us in improving water quality, conserving precious topsoil and reducing the need for pesticides which helps us improve our environment for future generations. Mr. President, these are just a few examples of the impact biotechnology has had on our lives. I believe Americans should understand the importance of biotechnology in our way of life. With the passage of the resolution I introduce today, we provide a forum for many events in February to salute and promote this industry of the future. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing this important industry.