Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I will yield just for one.

Mr. GRAMS. I think we are overspending by that much, too. I will say this once again, as I mentioned earlier in my statement. We are using a lot of different numbers. We are using a lot of assessments, projections. We are taking a lot of risks in a $1.8 trillion budget. If some of these numbers are wrong, then I think we need to go back and adjust them. The question, I guess, comes down to how do we adjust them. My colleagues on the other side would adjust them by raising taxes so they could keep spending more. What we are advocating is we would adjust our spending habits and spend less across the board. I think we need to do that because taxpayers today are paying taxes at an all-time record high. Forty-two percent, on average, of everything people in my State of Minnesota earn goes to pay taxes. I think that we can't continue to ask them to pay even more because we can't hold down their spending. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back my time.

Mr. GRAMS. I will yield.

Mr. GRAMS. Why would it be 9 percent? Some of the latest numbers I have seen are anywhere from $3.8 to $5.6 billion, and all of the appropriation bills are not yet completed. They have not been submitted or voted on, so we are still estimating. If the Senator is talking about $30 billion or $40 billion, we are not in that range right now. Those accusations have been made, but according to the numbers I have seen, we are not in that range.

Mr. GRAMS. Without agreeing to the Senator's numbers, let me say that if that were the case, wouldn't it show that we are spending more than we should and that that kind of a cut would be something that we should do? If we are going to go back and say to the taxpayer: We can't manage the books and somehow we have spent 9 or 10 percent more in discretionary spending than we have, and the only way we can make it up is to go out and penalize, as my colleagues have said, big tobacco, but also penalize in dozens of other ways with other tax increases--in other words, if we can't do our job responsibly--then we should go to the taxpayer and say, let's just have a little more revenue to make up those differences. I don't think it is going to be in the range of 9 or 10 percent. If that would be true, I think that would be a glaring argument we are overspending by 10 percent in discretionary spending and we should make every effort to trim that spending.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise strongly to support Senator Nickles' pending amendment on the Labor-HHS bill, and I commend his leadership and vitality on this very important issue. This amendment reassures the American people that Congress is not going to spend one penny of Social Security money, and it will put the Senate on record that we will honor that commitment. We hear our colleagues from the other side of the aisle say Republicans are already dipping into Social Security. They want to spend more money. That is not true. What we are trying to do is say we are going to go up to the edge but not go over; that is, not spend one dime of Social Security money. By being able to do that, we don't want to dip into the Social Security trust fund. We think everybody, across the board, on discretionary spending should make sure that doesn't happen. That means we have an across-the-board cut. In other words, reduce all spending, in order to protect Social Security. That, I think, would be a fair and even way to do it. Our colleagues on the other side don't want to cut spending. They are not talking about cutting spending at all in any programs. What they are saying--and the gimmicks they would use or the magic they would put into this budget--is simple tax increases. Let's penalize big tobacco, they say. But they don't tell us there are dozens of other tax increases buried in their proposal that would also affect every other average working American in this country. In other words, to support their higher spending level, they want to go out and attack the taxpayer. ``Let's raise taxes,'' ``close loopholes,'' are some of the words they use. The magic they put in it is tax increases. That means every American out there can face higher Federal taxes in order to support larger spending. We are saying, let's do it the other way around. Let us be fiscally responsible. Let us not ask more of the taxpayer. Let us reduce spending across the board and do it in a very fair and equitable way. I believe this is a crucial step to truly protect the Social Security surplus and save it exclusively for Americans' retirement, not for tax relief, not for government spending. This is a line we absolutely have to draw in the sand. In fact, over the past few days I have been working on legislation which is related to Senator Nickles' amendment. I will introduce the bill today. This legislation will be complimentary to the Nickles amendment. His is a sense-of-the-Senate--my bill would create a mechanism to enforce our commitment. It would prevent anyone, whether it be the Congress or the administration, from raiding the Social Security surplus. This enforcement mechanism is simple and straightforward. Because we won't know whether we are spending the Social Security surplus until we get the CBO revised numbers in January, this bill will trigger an automatic across-the-board cut in discretionary spending to make up any differences if the January reestimate shows we are spending any Social Security surplus. It would work similarly to the sequester of Gramm- Rudman-Hollings, but applies to Social Security surplus spending. Let me address why it is so important to pass both the Nickles sense- of-the-Senate and my legislation. Economic forecasting is more of an art that a science. Many uncertainties, risks, and factors are involved. We have a budget of $1.8 trillion based on a variety of assumptions, estimates, forecasts and projections, with people using both CBO numbers and OMB numbers. It is highly likely that there are errors in this budget. While we should learn from our past mistakes and take a very prudent and conservative approach in our economic outlook and our spending, a $10 billion error in forecasting of $1.8 trillion is not uncommon. However, some of our colleagues are out there accusing us of spending the Social Security surplus. the truth is, we don't want to, but honestly we don't know for certain at this point. Neither does the President nor our Democratic colleagues. That is, whey we need my bill as our insurance that we will live up to our commitment. Some wave the CBO August letter to prove they are right. But Mr. President, as one economist observed, ``If you torture numbers long enough, they will confess to anything.'' This is true with the CBO estimates. As you know, the CBO is a scorekeeping office and it scores based on whatever assumptions Congress requires it to use. We could continue to argue indefinitely over the right assumptions. That does not solve the problem. Since both Congress and President Clinton have agreed that saving Social Security should be our top priority and have committed to not spending the Social Security surplus for government programs, we must find a better way to keep our promise to the American people. Republicans have made a number of attempts to create a lockbox to lock in every penny of the Social Security surplus, not for government spending, not for tax relief, but exclusively for Americans' retirement. Unfortunately, opposition by the Democrats has blocked the establishment of this safe lockbox. In the absence of the Social Security safety lockbox, I hope that all of our colleagues and the President agree with us that we must draw a line in the sand. And live up to our pledge that not a penny of the Social Security surplus will be spent to fund this year's appropriations. Personally, I will vote against any spending bills that our right plans to spend Social Security money. If our spending plans do pass and we would, unintentionally wind up spending Social Security, my bill allows us to keep our commitment to the American people, by scaling back other spending to save Social Security. Again, since we must use economic assumptions, the difficulty we are facing is because the numbers are so close we won't know if this year's appropriations have spent the Social Security surplus--or which specific spending bill or bills have spent the money--until next year when we receive the CBO re-estimate. Therefore we need an effective enforcement mechanism to ensure that Congress and the President do not touch the Social Security money. The best mechanism is that proposed by Senator Nickles' sense-of-the- Senate and my legislation. If this year's appropriations end up spending the Social Security surplus as a result of estimate errors, we will automatically rescind that amount by reducing government spending across-the-board and return it to the Social Security trust fund. This will affect discretionary spending only--not entitlement programs for seniors or the needy. My biggest fear, is that without this mechanism Congress and the President may spend some of the Social Security surplus by using erroneous estimates. We would be forced to legislate after the fact if there is a re-estimate that shows spending of the Social Security surplus. The atmosphere of panic could cloud the type and speed of the remedy. The remedy should be my bill, and it should be passed before we face a problem, so we cannot play the blame game once we have a re- estimate. The President's revised budget plan would have dipped into the Social Security surplus by $24 billion. Counting his $12 billion emergency spending request, the President would spend $36 billion of the Social Security surplus for fiscal year 2000. Compared with his original budget, which would have taken $150 billion from the trust funds, this revised plan is a great improvement. However, the President still wants to spend money he pledged to save. That's not acceptable. We must say no to anyone who wants to spend even a penny of the Social Security surplus because we promised the American people we would save it. There is no excuse in an era of budget surplus to continue raiding the Social Security trust funds. Washington has done enough damage to America's retirement system. In 1998, American workers paid $489 billion into the Social Security system, but most of the money, $382 billion, was immediately paid out to 44 million beneficiaries the same year. That left a $106 billion surplus. The total accumulated surplus in the trust fund is $763 billion. Unfortunately, this surplus exists only on paper. The Government has consumed all the $763 billion for non-Social Security related programs. All it has are the Treasury IOUs. Despite Washington's rhetoric of using every penny of Social Security surplus to save Social Security, last year's omnibus appropriations bill alone spent over $22 billion of the Social Security surplus. Without the enforceable mechanism provided by the Nickles amendment and my legislation, the Social Security surplus is likely to be spent to fund other government programs in fiscal year 2000 and the outyears. Enough is enough. We must stop this outrageous practice. The time is now to show our resolve in protecting every penny of the Social Security surplus to ensure it will be available for Americans' retirement income security. Do not mistakenly think that our colleagues across the aisle have changed their big spending ways by their rhetoric opposing spending the Social Security surplus. Do not believe for a second that they want to maintain fiscal discipline. They still want to spend more by taxing more. Instead of controlling spending, the President and the Democrats have increased government spending and created even more government programs. They believe they know best how to spend taxpayers' money and that they can do more by spending more. This solution to continue to grow funding for government programs at unprecedented high levels is to raise taxes. In the President's budget, he has not just proposed to penalize American tobacco companies, but to raise taxes on also small businesses, homeowners as well as millions of other Americans who are already overtaxed. Again, the President's solution to avoiding spending the Social Security surplus will be to increase taxes. He will penalize American small businesses by changing their tax rules; he penalizes millions of American seniors who rely on life insurance products for their retirement; he penalizes non-profit trade organizations, which serve the disadvantaged in their communities so well, by taking away their tax exempt status; he penalizes other American companies by imposing environmental surtaxes and excise taxes. The President also penalizes millions of American homeowners by increasing their mortgage transaction fees; he penalizes millions of American travelers by raising taxes on their domestic air passenger tickets. Is there anyone left who hasn't been penalized by the President and his colleagues in the Congress? A tax increase is not the solution to this year's serious spending problem. Exercising fiscal discipline is our best solution. Although we don't know if we already have spent the Social Security surplus for fiscal year 2000 due to uncertain and incomplete estimates, we should take a very prudent approach on spending. On principle, we must do everything we can to ensure Washington will not have a chance to touch any Social Security money. I am disappointed that instead of solving the problem, Washington is trying again to hide behind creative financing, forward funding, emergency spending and so-called technical adjustments to give the appearance we are not breaking the spending caps or eating into the Social Security surplus. I am also disappointed that Congress spends every penny of the $14 billion on-budget surplus for increased spending. Remember, this $14 billion is the tax overpayment which we promised to return to working Americans in the form of tax relief. I proposed this in the budget resolution and Congress included this in our budget resolution early this year. I have warned repeatedly that if we don't return tax overcharges to the taxpayers or reduce the debt, Washington will spend it all, leaving nothing for tax relief or the vitally important task of preserving Social Security. This year's appropriations bills have proven my fear to be well founded. The last thing we want to do is to spend these tax overpayments to enlarge the government. Since President Clinton's veto prevents major tax relief this year, we at least should dedicate this on-budget surplus to reduce the national debt. But we are spending every penny of it, in violation of our commitment in the budget resolution. Twenty-five years ago, the Congress passed the Congressional Budget Act, which created an annual budgeting process in the hope of controlling spiraling government spending. Twenty five years later we have made progress but are still unable to tame this beast. Today, spending is at an all-time high, and so are taxes. The government is getting bigger, not smaller. Government spending is growing twice as fast as personal income. Discretionary spending has increased by over 20 percent since 1993. 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 gimmicks to circumvent the intent of the Congress. The flawed budget process allows Members to vote to control spending in the budget and then turn right around and vote for increased appropriations. Spending caps are the best example of the phrase ``fiscal discipline'' means nothing in Washington. Spending caps were supposedly a good tool to control spending--if the President and lawmakers could stick to them. But since the establishment of statutory spending limits, Washington has repeatedly broken them because of a lack of fiscal discipline. In fact, the first budget criteria in the past has been to first break the caps so spending could be accommodated. Washington set new spending caps in 1990 after it failed to meet its deficit reduction targets. In 1993, President Clinton broke the spending caps for his new spending increases and created new caps. But in 1997, the President could not live within his own spending caps, and he broke them again. New spending caps were again re-negotiated and established in BBA. By 1998, one year later Congress and President Clinton could not live within their new limits and proposed over $22 billion of so-called ``emergency spending'' and other unauthorized spending in the omnibus spending legislation to get around the caps. The use of ``emergency'' spending is far too broad, and has become a common budget gimmick. This year Washington may spend $37 billion or more above the spending caps and use more creative bookkeeping to give the impression we are maintaining the caps. It demands more spending to fully fund government programs, but delays payment of the bills until the next fiscal year, placing more and more pressure on future caps and spending commitments. Again and again, Washington lowers the fiscal bar and them jumps over it, or finds ways around it, at the expense of the American taxpayers. This is wrong. If we commit to living within the statutory spending caps, we must stick to them. We must use every tool available to enforce these spending limits. If we were still facing a budget deficit we would not be spending this much money. But because there is a surplus, the feeding frenzy continues. Again, a lack of fiscal discipline. I understand the upward spending pressure the Congress is facing this year and in the outyears. But I believe we should, and can, meet this challenge by prioritizing and streamlining government programs while maintaining fiscal discipline. We can reduce wasteful, unnecessary, duplicate, low-priority government programs to fund the necessary and responsible functions of government. We could if we tried, but it seems it's easier just to throw more money at the budget. Many believe we can help more if we spend more, but the spending comes at the expense of somebody--and that somebody is usually the average, middle-class taxpayer. It's 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. The President said tax relief was irresponsible. Wrong. It's spending appetite that is irresponsible. Breaking the caps through more and more spending will only worsen our short-term fiscal outlook and affect our ability to deal with long-term budget pressures. We can run but we cannot hide from our budget problems. We must make hard choices and be honest about it. While ``advance appropriations,'' ``advance funding'' and ``forward funding'' are not uncommon practices here, it does not mean they are the right thing to do, particularly when these budget techniques are used to dodge much-needed fiscal discipline. In the past 5 years, ``advance appropriations'' have increased dramatically, jumping from $1.9 billion in fiscal year 1996 to $11.6 billion in fiscal year 2000, an increase of $9.7 billlion over 5 years. This year, President Clinton proposed advancing nearly $19 billion into fiscal year 2001. Advance appropriations create even worse problems for us in the outyears. We must end this irresponsible practice. I realize how extremely difficult it is for appropriators to get their job done this year. I appreciate the fact that tremendous efforts are being made to keep our promise not to spend any of Social Security surplus. My point is, in an era of budget surplus, extra prudence and effort is needed to keep ourselves from spending more than we can afford. If we can maintain fiscal discipline, we will be able to honor our commitment to the American people not to take any money from Social Security. Protecting the Social Security surplus from funding government operations is the last defense of fiscal discipline. I cannot emphasize how vitally important this line of defense is for both the Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party. If we lose this defense, our credibility and accountability with the Americn people will be gone. Mr. President, the best protection is the Nickles sense-of-the-Senate amendment coupled with my legislation. If more accurate or actual numbers show Congress and the President have spent the Social Security surplus for fiscal year 2000 and beyond, an effective mechanism will ensure the money is returned. It is plain and simple. I hope my colleagues from both sides will support the Nickles amendment and my legislation.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation extending the term of the CCC marketing assistance loans made to producers by Farm Service Agencies from nine months to thirty- six months. Moreover, my bill grants the Secretary of Agriculture discretion to extend the term of a marketing assistance loan for an additional nine month period if the Secretary determines the extension beyond the thirty-six months would be beneficial to producers. This nonrecourse marketing assistance loan program gives farmers more bargaining power in the market because they are not forced to sell their crops immediately after the harvest. Without the loan program, buyers' knowledge that farmers have their backs against the wall needing money to repay their bills can force down prices. Prices at harvest also tend to be lower due to the ample volume of grains. These nonrecourse loans permit a farmer to store the grain for a period of time, allowing him the opportunity to sell his crop later when the market price might be higher than the harvest price. The problem with the current system is that buyers know when the nine month loans are coming due, which adversely impacts the marketing position of producers. Buyers know that the financial pressure on producers is building and they will be forced to take a lower price. Extending the term of the loans from nine to thirty six months will give the farmers better marketing power because it introduces more uncertainty and therefore options to farmers on when the grain will be sold. I should note that I do not expect farmers to exhaust the full thirty-six months to market their grain, or that the Secretary would routinely extend that term to 45 months, due to the decline in grain quality that would consequently occur. However, I wanted to ensure that farmers possess as much flexibility as possible in deciding when to market their product. Again, with this bill, I hope to provide farmers with another marketing tool to help them get the best price possible on the market. Our farm families are hurting, and we must help. In addition to introducing this bill, I want to again call upon Agriculture Appropriations conferees to complete their work without adding new issues. Relief to farmers must be passed as soon as possible. Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee to pass my bill in the near future.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation extending the term of the CCC marketing assistance loans made to producers by Farm Service Agencies from nine months to thirty- six months. Moreover, my bill grants the Secretary of Agriculture discretion to extend the term of a marketing assistance loan for an additional nine month period if the Secretary determines the extension beyond the thirty-six months would be beneficial to producers. This nonrecourse marketing assistance loan program gives farmers more bargaining power in the market because they are not forced to sell their crops immediately after the harvest. Without the loan program, buyers' knowledge that farmers have their backs against the wall needing money to repay their bills can force down prices. Prices at harvest also tend to be lower due to the ample volume of grains. These nonrecourse loans permit a farmer to store the grain for a period of time, allowing him the opportunity to sell his crop later when the market price might be higher than the harvest price. The problem with the current system is that buyers know when the nine month loans are coming due, which adversely impacts the marketing position of producers. Buyers know that the financial pressure on producers is building and they will be forced to take a lower price. Extending the term of the loans from nine to thirty six months will give the farmers better marketing power because it introduces more uncertainty and therefore options to farmers on when the grain will be sold. I should note that I do not expect farmers to exhaust the full thirty-six months to market their grain, or that the Secretary would routinely extend that term to 45 months, due to the decline in grain quality that would consequently occur. However, I wanted to ensure that farmers possess as much flexibility as possible in deciding when to market their product. Again, with this bill, I hope to provide farmers with another marketing tool to help them get the best price possible on the market. Our farm families are hurting, and we must help. In addition to introducing this bill, I want to again call upon Agriculture Appropriations conferees to complete their work without adding new issues. Relief to farmers must be passed as soon as possible. Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee to pass my bill in the near future.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I wanted to ask a quick question if I could. What we are asking for doesn't cost money. This is not a request to give farmers in Minnesota or Wisconsin more money but to allow them the ability to compete on a level playing field. That is all we are asking for, as far as this dairy policy goes. As you mentioned, and very well have laid out the problem, this is a program set up in 1930, completely outdated. If we were going to begin a new milk marketing program today, it would not look like anything debated in the committees at all. This is an unfair system, outdated. It has no rhyme or reason to markets or regions or producers or our dairy farmers. So we have a system now, and all we are asking for is legislation or a program that would allow our farmers to compete. We are willing to compete with anybody in any part of the country and let the chips fall where they may. At the same time, this program will cost consumers additional money, whether it is low-income, whether it is school lunch programs, or whatever it is. So this program has a lot of negatives to it, and all we are asking for is a level playing field and competition. Is that what the Senator says?

Mr. GRAMS. I would like to follow up my question. I know Senator Wellstone would like to be part of this debate and ask a question as well. But I know we have some differences on the Freedom to Farm, but one thing Freedom to Farm did not do is pit one region of farmers against another, whether it was dealing with corn or soybeans or any of the other commodities. But somehow when it comes to dairy, an antiquated system, as you mentioned, needs to be changed. We are looking at something that basically says we are going to have some winners in this country--when it comes to dairy--but we are going to have some losers. In other words, the dairy farmers in Wisconsin and Minnesota have the Government with an antiquated dairy program standing on their necks and saying: You are not going to be able to succeed because we are going to put limits on you. Yet we are going to give tremendous advantages to others. All we are asking for is fairness, a level playing field. We are not asking for farmers in the Northeast or the Southwest to be disadvantaged. But we sure cannot support a program that says: You are going to have some farmers who are winners and some who are losers. So how do we work this into a new dairy bill coming out of this session that is going to give our farmers just an opportunity to compete, which is all they ask for?

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

Mr. GRAMS. I heard the Senator earlier talking about what is going on in the conference committee now, dealing with agricultural appropriations. The Senator talked about the Northeast Dairy Compact. As mentioned, we had a full and open debate, had a floor vote, and were able to defeat the compact--as we did 2 years ago, by the way. Also, we talked about farmers across the country, dairy farmers, recently voting for a compromise on milk marketing orders, the new orders that were put out by the USDA. It was not everything everybody wanted, but it was a compromise between the 1-B and the 1-A. But now we find out again, as happened in 1997, people are working actively inside the conference to try to insert language to basically overturn those issues that have had widespread solid support, both among the dairy farmers across the country and also Members on the floor of the Senate. I was wondering why is this going on in the conference, in the Senator's opinion?

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, every year at this time it seems we are here on the Senate floor debating another attack on the Forest Service's Timber Management Program. Every year those who wish to eliminate logging in our national forests come up with another angle which they claim helps protect the environment by eliminating ``wasteful'' spending on logging practices. Every year people throughout northern Minnesota and forested regions across the country see their jobs and their livelihoods threatened in the name of preservation or conservation. And every year, those of us who represent the good people of the timber and paper industry in our states have to fight, scratch, and claw our way to a narrow victory that saves those jobs and those families from economic ruin. I come from a state in which the forest and paper industry is vital to our economy. The reduction in the timber program on national forests has had a dramatic impact over the past ten years on the number of jobs and the economic vitality of northern Minnesota. According to Minnesota Forest Industries (MFI), jobs provided by the timber program in Minnesota dropped from over 1,900 in 1987 to less than 1,100 last year, and they continue to decline. The reduction in timber harvests on federal lands has had an equally dramatic effect on unrealized economic impacts. MFI estimates that unrealized economic benefits include over $10 million from timber sales, $25 million in federal taxes, $2.5 million in payments to states, and $116 million in community economic impact in Minnesota alone. It is important to point out that the timber program in national forests has a very positive impact on the amount of federal money that goes to rural counties and schools. Nationally, the program contributes $225 million to counties and schools each year through receipts from timber sales in national forests. In Minnesota, the timber program provided roughly $1.7 million to counties and schools in 1998 alone. If the timber program would have met its allowable sale quantity in 1998, that number would have risen to nearly $2.5 million. I am fascinated by the claims of some of my colleagues that the timber program is a subsidy to wealthy timber and paper companies and the claims that the timber program loses money because we are giving timber away to these companies. If you truly believe that, I challenge you to visit northern Minnesota and speak with the families who have lost their mills and the loggers who have lost their jobs. Talk to the counties and the private landowners who cannot access to their own property because the Forest Service doesn't have enough money to do the environmental reviews. Or talk directly to the Forest Service personnel and let them tell you how lengthy and costly environmental reviews and the overwhelming number of court challenges to those reviews is making the timber program so costly. Then go speak with state or county land managers and ask them why their timber programs are so successful. Ask them why their lands are so much more healthy than the federal lands and why they're able to make money with their timber programs. In Minnesota, St. Louis County only has to spend 26 cents in order to generate one dollar of revenue in their timber program and the State of Minnesota spends 75 cents to generate one dollar of revenue. The Superior National Forest, on the other hand, spends one dollar and three cents to get the same result. I cannot see how my colleagues can stand here on the Senate floor and tell me that the forest and paper industry in our country, and its employees, are the bad guys. The forest and paper industry in America employs over 1.5 million people and ranks among the top ten manufacturing employers in 46 states. These are good, traditional jobs that help a family make a living, allow children to pursue higher education, help keep rural families in rural areas, and provide a legitimate tax base from which rural counties can fund basic services. These are jobs that we in Congress should be working diligently not only to protect, but to grow. Unfortunately, many Members of Congress who advocate these ideas have never taken the time to understand the positive economic and environmental benefits of science-based timber harvests. They have never sat down with a county commissioner who does not know where he is going to get the money for some of the most basic services the county provides to its citizens. They have never considered that for every 1 million board feet in timber harvest reductions in Minnesota, 10 people lose their jobs and over $570,000 in economic activity is lost. And they have never taken the time to go into a healthy forest where prudent logging practices have been essential to ensuring the vitality and diversity of species. If Members of this body want to make the timber program profitable across the country, then we should have an honest debate about what works and does not work in the program. We should discuss frankly the ridiculous number of hoops public land managers have to jump through in order to process a timber sale. I think we need to discuss the fact that under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act the federal government must provide access across federal lands for state, county, and private landowners to access their land. Yet in Minnesota, those landowners either have to wait a number of years or pay for the environmental reviews themselves because the Forest Service claims it does not have enough money. We should also discuss openly the dramatic impact court challenges are having on the ability of the Forest Service to do its job and to carry out the timber program in a cost-effective manner. On top of that, it's clear that under this administration the Forest Service does not want a timber program that shows a profit and they have done an effective job of using the powers of the executive branch to vilify both the timber program and the men and women of my state who rely upon that program in order to meet their most basic needs. Virtually everyone in this body, including this Senator, is committed to the protection of our environment and to the conservation of our wildlife species and wildlife habitat. I believe we can expand upon our commitment to wildlife and provide additional resources for habitat protection. But I do not believe we must do so on the backs of timber and paper workers throughout the nation. I am willing to work with anybody in this chamber towards those conservation efforts, but let's not do it by pitting timber and paper workers against conservationists. We cannot simply stand here and claim that the Bryan amendment is an easy way to throw some money towards the preservation of public land. Rather, this amendment is going to take jobs from my constituents and hurt the economy of the northern part of my state. The Bryan amendment is just one more step down the road toward eliminating logging on federal land. This amendment is going to reduce the ability of a number of rural counties in my state to make ends meet and to provide necessary services to residents. Those are just a few of the realities of the Bryan amendment and just a few of the reasons why I cannot and will not support its passage.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation I've drafted to provide a prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries. While I firmly believe we must deal directly with the structural problems facing the Medicare program, I also understand the very real need to provide prescription drug coverage now. Mr. President, Americans might be surprised to learn there are estimates that about half the people who have ever--ever--reached age 65 are alive today. It's a revealing statistic--one we should be proud of because America has had much to do with the success in lengthening the life expectancy of nearly everyone in the world. Whether it's through government-funded research at the National Institutes of Health or private research funded through foundations, it has all contributed to this success. In 1900, the average American could expect to see their 47th birthday. Today, Americans can expect to celebrate 29 more birthdays-- living to the age of 76. Clearly, this increased life expectancy can be attributed to many things, but the advances made in pharmaceuticals is, perhaps, the most significant contributor. When the Medicare program was being discussed by Congress in the 1960s, no one could foresee the enormous change our health care system would experience over the course of thirty years. Of course, we couldn't have expected them to know how different things would be today. In the 1960s, health care was predominately hospital or clinic oriented and as a result, Medicare focused on hospital stays. Indeed, even months before the final Medicare package was passed there was debate over whether physician visits should be included in the program. Now, we find ourselves with a program going broke, but in need of reform--a program largely successful for the past 30 years, but woefully inadequate in meeting the needs of today's seniors. Mr. President, one of the first witnesses before the Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, Robert Reischauer, described Medicare's problems as the four ``i's:'' insolvency, inadequacy, inefficiency and inequity. I couldn't agree more. As I alluded to earlier, perhaps the best example of the inadequacy of the current Medicare program is the lack of a prescription drug benefit. While I continue to believe the best way for us to include a prescription drug benefit in Medicare is through overall reform, I also believe it is important for us to explore different ways we can meet the challenge of adding the benefit without undermining the entire program. In putting together my plan for providing a prescription benefit, I tried to keep in mind the root of our dilemma. Many make the mistake of thinking access to needed pharmaceuticals is the problem. It's not-- affording the increasing number and cost of prescriptions is the real problem facing seniors today. Mr. President, my plan, the ``MEDS Act of 1999,'' would work like this: Single seniors with incomes of $927 per month or less, will be eligible to receive their prescription drugs with a 25 percent co- payment and no deductible. Married seniors with incomes of $1,244 per month or less will be eligible for the same co-payment of 25 percent with no deductible. The income figures are the equivalent of 135 percent of the federal poverty level. Seniors above the income limits will be protected through a monthly deductible of $150. For amounts over those deductibles, Medicare will pay 75 percent of the prescription cost. Mr. President, rather than using a yearly deductible, which, in the first months, forces many seniors to use more of their monthly income on prescription drugs than they can often afford, my plan uses a monthly deductible allowing seniors to budget their drug costs every month. In addition, it ensures that if a senior, such a your parent or grandparent, is seriously ill in one month, Medicare will cover 75 percent of their drug costs with no caps on the benefit. Meaning, they get the help they need when they need it. While I understand there will be concerns about how we determine when a beneficiary has reached their $150 deductible, particularly on a monthly basis, I contend that we have the knowledge and technology necessary to structure the program nearly any way we wish--we simply have to use it. Mr. President, America's seniors understand that if their drug costs are $50 a month, it doesn't make sense for them to buy a drug insurance policy for $100 a month. In this case, prescription drug coverage is not the issue. The issue is, can the senior trying to get by an $600 a month afford the $50 or $75 a month to pay for their medications? And, in the event of a major illness, can a senior bear the entire cost of treatment during that particular month? My plan would make sure that person gets relief when the costs become too much to handle. It is truly a safety net for seniors and especially for those who would not otherwise be able to reap the benefits of modern medicine. I believe this is a responsible, credible plan for America's seniors. I hope it will serve as a starting point for an honest, rational and responsible discussion about who needs help and how much. While I applaud the President for putting forward a plan, I believe it falls short in one important way--it doesn't help those who need it most. President Clinton's plan requires all seniors to pay $288 in monthly premiums and a co-payment of 50 percent up to $2,000. Under the President's plan, the most benefit any senior could get is $712 and, by capping the benefit at $2,000, it abandons seniors when they need help most. The debate over prescription drug coverage and overall Medicare reform may be political for some, but I know seniors in Minnesota who have difficulty paying for their prescriptions don't think much of political games played by politicians in Washington. They won't care who takes credit for this or that. They just want to know they won't go broke or hungry to pay for the medicines they need to stay alive. The plan I introduce today, the Medicare Ensuring Prescription Drugs for Seniors (MEDS) Act, will help ensure that they won't.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation I've drafted to provide a prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries. While I firmly believe we must deal directly with the structural problems facing the Medicare program, I also understand the very real need to provide prescription drug coverage now. Mr. President, Americans might be surprised to learn there are estimates that about half the people who have ever--ever--reached age 65 are alive today. It's a revealing statistic--one we should be proud of because America has had much to do with the success in lengthening the life expectancy of nearly everyone in the world. Whether it's through government-funded research at the National Institutes of Health or private research funded through foundations, it has all contributed to this success. In 1900, the average American could expect to see their 47th birthday. Today, Americans can expect to celebrate 29 more birthdays-- living to the age of 76. Clearly, this increased life expectancy can be attributed to many things, but the advances made in pharmaceuticals is, perhaps, the most significant contributor. When the Medicare program was being discussed by Congress in the 1960s, no one could foresee the enormous change our health care system would experience over the course of thirty years. Of course, we couldn't have expected them to know how different things would be today. In the 1960s, health care was predominately hospital or clinic oriented and as a result, Medicare focused on hospital stays. Indeed, even months before the final Medicare package was passed there was debate over whether physician visits should be included in the program. Now, we find ourselves with a program going broke, but in need of reform--a program largely successful for the past 30 years, but woefully inadequate in meeting the needs of today's seniors. Mr. President, one of the first witnesses before the Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, Robert Reischauer, described Medicare's problems as the four ``i's:'' insolvency, inadequacy, inefficiency and inequity. I couldn't agree more. As I alluded to earlier, perhaps the best example of the inadequacy of the current Medicare program is the lack of a prescription drug benefit. While I continue to believe the best way for us to include a prescription drug benefit in Medicare is through overall reform, I also believe it is important for us to explore different ways we can meet the challenge of adding the benefit without undermining the entire program. In putting together my plan for providing a prescription benefit, I tried to keep in mind the root of our dilemma. Many make the mistake of thinking access to needed pharmaceuticals is the problem. It's not-- affording the increasing number and cost of prescriptions is the real problem facing seniors today. Mr. President, my plan, the ``MEDS Act of 1999,'' would work like this: Single seniors with incomes of $927 per month or less, will be eligible to receive their prescription drugs with a 25 percent co- payment and no deductible. Married seniors with incomes of $1,244 per month or less will be eligible for the same co-payment of 25 percent with no deductible. The income figures are the equivalent of 135 percent of the federal poverty level. Seniors above the income limits will be protected through a monthly deductible of $150. For amounts over those deductibles, Medicare will pay 75 percent of the prescription cost. Mr. President, rather than using a yearly deductible, which, in the first months, forces many seniors to use more of their monthly income on prescription drugs than they can often afford, my plan uses a monthly deductible allowing seniors to budget their drug costs every month. In addition, it ensures that if a senior, such a your parent or grandparent, is seriously ill in one month, Medicare will cover 75 percent of their drug costs with no caps on the benefit. Meaning, they get the help they need when they need it. While I understand there will be concerns about how we determine when a beneficiary has reached their $150 deductible, particularly on a monthly basis, I contend that we have the knowledge and technology necessary to structure the program nearly any way we wish--we simply have to use it. Mr. President, America's seniors understand that if their drug costs are $50 a month, it doesn't make sense for them to buy a drug insurance policy for $100 a month. In this case, prescription drug coverage is not the issue. The issue is, can the senior trying to get by an $600 a month afford the $50 or $75 a month to pay for their medications? And, in the event of a major illness, can a senior bear the entire cost of treatment during that particular month? My plan would make sure that person gets relief when the costs become too much to handle. It is truly a safety net for seniors and especially for those who would not otherwise be able to reap the benefits of modern medicine. I believe this is a responsible, credible plan for America's seniors. I hope it will serve as a starting point for an honest, rational and responsible discussion about who needs help and how much. While I applaud the President for putting forward a plan, I believe it falls short in one important way--it doesn't help those who need it most. President Clinton's plan requires all seniors to pay $288 in monthly premiums and a co-payment of 50 percent up to $2,000. Under the President's plan, the most benefit any senior could get is $712 and, by capping the benefit at $2,000, it abandons seniors when they need help most. The debate over prescription drug coverage and overall Medicare reform may be political for some, but I know seniors in Minnesota who have difficulty paying for their prescriptions don't think much of political games played by politicians in Washington. They won't care who takes credit for this or that. They just want to know they won't go broke or hungry to pay for the medicines they need to stay alive. The plan I introduce today, the Medicare Ensuring Prescription Drugs for Seniors (MEDS) Act, will help ensure that they won't.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I have had a chance to discuss the role of the U.S. at the United Nations with the nominee on a number of occasions and I am confident that the President has nominated the right man for the job. Mr. Holbrooke has a reputation for being a tough negotiator and a practiced arm-twister and those are exactly the attributes we need in our next Ambassador to the United Nations. It's not going to be easy to get the UN to implement the Helms-Biden package even though there is widespread agreement on the need for reform. I believe Ambassador Holbrooke has the skills necessary to leverage our position as the most powerful nation in the world--and as the largest contributor to the UN--to ensure greater transparency and accountability in that organization. That is why I have enthusiastically backed the nomination of Mr. Holbrooke and look forward to working with him in the future.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, in a few hours we are going to cast a very important vote to return tax overpayments to working Americans. The passage of the conference report of the Taxpayer Reform Act will signal a clear victory for all Americans. I commend the Senate Republican leadership and especially Chairman Roth for their strong commitment to major tax relief in this Congress. We promised to return to American families the non-Social Security tax overcharges they paid to the Government, and today we are going to fulfill that solemn promise. We can now proudly declare that: promises made are promises kept. The proposed tax relief significantly reduces taxes for millions of American families and individuals and immediately eases working Americans' tax burden and allows them to keep a little more of their own money, again, for their own family's priorities. The American people have every reason to celebrate this victory because they are the winners in this debate on tax cuts. This tax relief is a victory for all Americans, particularly the middle-class, who will receive a $800 billion tax refund over the next 10 years. It is a victory for millions of Minnesotans because each family in my state of Minnesota is expected to receive $8,000 in tax relief over 10 years. It is a victory for the 22 million American couples who will no longer be penalized by the marriage penalty tax, because we completely eliminate this unfair tax. It is a victory for millions of farmers and small business owners because this tax relief enables them to pass their hard-earned legacies to their children without being subject to the cruel death tax. It is a victory for millions of self-employed and uninsured because health care is made more affordable to them with full tax benefits. It is a victory for millions of baby-boomers because the pension reform allows them to set aside more money for their retirement. It is a victory for millions of entrepreneurs and investors because the capital gains tax is reduced to stimulate the economy. It is also a victory for millions of parents, students, teachers, and workers because higher and better education will be available and affordable with a variety of tax benefits included in this package. By any standard, the working men and women of this country are the winners, not Washington. Moreover, in my judgment, this tax relief plan is a highly sensible, responsible and prudent one. It reflects American values and is based on sound tax and fiscal policy. It comes at the right time for working Americans. We must recall that Americans have long been overtaxed, and millions of middle-class families cannot even make ends meet due to the growing tax burden. They are desperately in need of the largest tax relief possible. The budget surplus comes directly from income tax increases. These overpaid taxes are taken from American workers and they have every right to get it all back. This tax relief takes only a small portion of the total budget surplus. In fact, only 23 cents of every dollar of the budget surplus goes for tax relief. After providing this 23 cent tax relief, we have reserved enough budget surplus to protect Social Security and to reform Medicare, including prescription drug coverage for needy seniors. We further reduce the national debt and reserve funding for essential federal programs. Contrary to Mr. Clinton's rhetoric that tax relief will cause recession, cutting taxes will keep our economy strong, will create jobs, increase savings and productivity, forestall a recession and produce more tax revenues. Somehow, he believes that if Americans spend the money, it is bad, but if it is left here for Washington to spend, it is good. History has proved again and again that tax cuts work. It will prove this tax relief is a sound one as well. I am also pleased that this tax relief does not come at the expense of seniors. We have locked in every penny of the $1.9 trillion Social Security surplus over the next 10 years, not for government programs, not for tax cuts, but exclusively to protect all Americans' retirement. We have been working hard to reform Medicare to ensure it will be there for seniors. Prescription drug coverage for the needy will be part of our commitment to seniors to protect their Medicare benefits. Had the White House and Democrats cooperated with us, we could have fixed Medicare by now. The President discounted his own commission on Medicare reform. In any event, we will continue our effort to preserve Medicare as Chairman Roth reveals his Medicare bill in the near future. We have reduced the national debt and will continue to dramatically reduce it. Debt held by the public will decrease to $0.9 trillion by 2009. The interest payment to service the debt will drop from $229 billion in 1999 to $71 billion in 2009. We will eliminate the entire debt held by the public by 2012. As I indicated before, we have not ignored spending needs to focus on tax cuts as has been charged. We not only have funded all the functions of the government, but also significantly increased funding for our budget priorities, such as defense, education, Medicare, agriculture and others. In fact, we set aside over $505 billion in non-Social Security surplus to meet these needs. This proves we can provide $792 billion in tax relief while not ignoring other important priorities. This major tax relief does not come at the expense of seniors, farmers, women, children or any other deserving group. On the contrary, it benefits all Americans and keeps our economy strong. And most importantly, this tax relief will give every working American more freedom to decide what's best for themselves and their families. Mr. President, let me conclude my remarks by citing President Reagan who once said: ``Every major tax cut in this century has strengthened the economy, generated renewed productivity, and ended up yielding new revenues for the government by creating new investment, new jobs and more commerce among our people.'' President Reagan was right. This tax relief will do the same. Now, Mr. President, we have done our job, and it is up to President Clinton to decide if he wants to give back the tax overpayments to American families or spend them to expand the government. In Buffalo, NY, earlier this year, the President said: If we give the money back to the American people, what if they don't spend it right? In other words, the President looked down his nose at working Americans and said they are too dumb to spend their money right. They are smart enough to earn it, not smart enough to spend it. I hope the President will trust the American people and make the right decision.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today the Senate passed the Cochran amendment to the agriculture appropriations bill that provides emergency relief to the nation's rural communities. I voted for the Cochran plan and the assistance it will bring to suffering Minnesota farm families. Earlier in the discussion of agriculture relief, I participated in efforts to find a compromise that could provide more relief than the Cochran proposal. Specifically, I believe Minnesota farmers would have been better served by the Grassley-Conrad amendment, which failed by a close margin. The Grassley-Conrad package provided some additional elements, such as flood and crop loss payments, as well as increased aid for dairy producers. It was an $8.8 billion proposal that would have been particularly beneficial to our state's farmers. The Cochran bill preserves the use of increased Agricultural Market Transition Act (AMTA) payments for income assistance to farmers, which is good for Minnesota producers. The Daschle-Harkin alternative package, while providing a higher amount of relief, tied income assistance to production levels. I am concerned that their proposal would have shortchanged some farmers, like wheat farmers in Northwestern Minnesota, who were unable to plant a crop this year due to severe weather. In one Northwestern county, only 10 percent of the normal acreage was planted. The Cochran proposal also provides needed relief to oilseed, livestock, dairy, and sugar producers. It also reduces the cost of crop insurance and increases the LDP payment limit to $150,000. And it exempts food and medicine sales from unilateral sanctions which will help Minnesota farmers sell to Cuba and other countries. I am also pleased that the Senate resisted the attempt to extend the life of the Northeast Compact and prevent enactment of the federal milk marketing order reforms during consideration of the emergency farm relief package. Considering the hardships that the rural areas are suffering, now is certainly not the time to be taking up controversial proposals which discriminate against Midwest dairy farmers. Dairy farmers in the Midwest are struggling to make a decent living for their families, and they should not have to shoulder the additional burden of dairy policies that prevent them from receiving a fair price. I urge the conferees on the agriculture appropriations bill to likewise reject extension of the dairy compacts, and restore market fairness for America's dairy producers. There is a great deal of apprehension in the rural community over the future of farming, and I am certainly glad that we passed essential relief for farmers now, instead of waiting until after the August recess. I remain committed to Freedom to Farm and the opportunity that it promises. However, Freedom to Farm can only help our farmers if the political courage can be mustered to enact reforms in the areas of taxation, sanctions and regulations, and if we can continue to expand our markets. In the short-term the nation's farmers need assistance to tide them over in these difficult times, and I'm pleased that the Senate took the necessary steps to get aid to them quickly.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I will talk a little bit about the numbers the Senator from Vermont was using. He said that somehow right now Minnesota and Wisconsin dairy farmers are making more money than the other farmers around the country. That is simply not true. By $2, $3, $4 per hundredweight, the rest of the country is getting more money today than what Minnesota and Wisconsin dairy farmers are allowed to receive for their milk. And that is why I say under this old, arcane program, if we were going to go start a new dairy program today, it would never look anything like this. But when they say we are getting more money, that is not true. They are way up in prices, $17, $18, $19 a hundredweight for milk, and we are at $10, $11, $12, $13. If ours comes up 20 cents a hundredweight under this arrangement and theirs stays about the same, we are not even close to them yet. So this is a very small move in the right direction for reforms. But it by no means is putting Minnesota or Wisconsin ahead of anybody in the country. I still think it is unfair for all the other States under this old program to stand and discriminate against dairy farmers in Minnesota and Wisconsin. We want fairness in this program--nothing more, nothing less.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the cloture motion on the motion to recommit the appropriations bill to committee with instructions to include the Jeffords/Leahy amendment. First, I would like to express my displeasure with this attempt to dodge the clear purpose of Rule 16. I am at a loss to understand how we can reinstate Rule 16 one week then turn around and justify offering what is an extremely controversial policy change that is clearly non-germane on a major appropriations bill. Drafted to circumvent Rule 16 restrictions, Mr. Jeffords' proposed changes to the farm bill almost guarantee litigation and confusion in the milk marketing system due to the uncertainty over its effect. It is a controversial, non-germane issue that does not belong on an appropriations bill as a floor amendment. It is important that I remind some of my colleagues that this amendment does not extend authorization of the compact to your states. Also, this August 2nd letter from Charles Rawls, General Counsel for USDA, states that funds have already been spent to implement the milk marketing order reform and the reform could still operate without oversight from USDA. The order reform is administered by producer assessments so no other federal funds are required to implement it. Thus, though the Jeffords Amendment intends to maintain the status quo in milk marketing orders by not funding implementation, counsel for USDA states that the specific implementation date requirement contained in Public Law 105-277 remains unaltered. Any uncertainty in the effect of this amendment is between whether the reform can be implemented without USDA oversight or whether we will have no dairy marketing orders at all. Reinstating the current system similar to 1A is simply not an option here. Mr. President, as the letter from Mr. Rawls shows, it's not clear this amendment would save the Northeast Compact, and it certainly does not solve any problems for the other states seeking to form compacts. Not only does the amendment fail to extend compacts to other areas of the country outside the Northeast, it also does not implement Option 1- A. Despite the fact that I do not believe Mr. Jeffords' amendment accomplishes its intended goal I also urge you to vote against cloture on the simple grounds of rejecting the concept of providing a benefit to producers in one area of the country which gives them a competitive advantage over dairy farmers in other regions of the United States. Dairy farmers are suffering all over the country. Why support this compact legislation that helps mainly one area of the country at the expense of others? Why support an effort that would send the signal that we can consider endless controversial non-germane issues on appropriations bills in the future? Why risk passage of needed relief to America's farmers? Besides addressing the narrow issue of the pending amendment, I would like to remind you why compacts that penalize consumers, particularly low-income consumers, milk processors, and regional dairy producers are so dangerous, and urge my colleagues to reject this blatantly unfair barrier that penalizes some of the best and most efficient dairy farmers in America. First, I would like to explain what dairy compacts are. The Northeast Dairy Compact raises the price of Class I fluid milk above the prevailing federal milk marketing order price within the participating states, and, I might add, above what the market would pay. Milk processors have to pay the higher price for the raw milk they process, and this higher price is passed along to the consumer at the grocery store. With higher prices, consumption goes down, and children are the biggest losers. I don't argue against a fair price--or honest price for any dairy farmer in Minnesota or Vermont, but I cannot support price fixing that distorts the free market. The Northeast Compact was authorized in 1996 during consideration of the larger Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act. This controversial issue was inserted in the conference committee, avoiding a separate vote, after the measure had been overwhelmingly defeated on the floor. While most of the FAIR Act was designed to help farmers compete in world markets and reduce government involvement in agriculture, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact established a regional price-fixing cartel within our very own country that promotes higher production which depresses prices outside the compact. The Northeast Dairy Compact has harmed dairy farmers in Minnesota, and this kind of unfair subsidy should be terminated. When this issue came to the fore, compacts were roundly condemned in the major newspapers of the compact region. The New York Times, Boston Herald, the Connecticut Post, and the Hartford Courant all weighed in against the cartel, in addition to national publications such as USA Today and the Washington Post. Again, compacts were hardly consensus legislation to begin with. The House refused to put the provision in its broader farm bill. And I must reiterate, the Senate voted on the floor to strip the Compact language from its bill. Despite these defeats, the compact provision was slipped into the bill in conference and signed by the President. The compact legislation could not withstand the scrutiny of a fair debate on the floor, and had to be muscled in at the last minute in conference. Knowing that this scheme was a bad idea from the start, Congress limited the life of the compact. That's why proponents will seek an extension by amendment today. Retail prices of milk jumped immediately after the higher Compact price was implemented. As predicted, the milk produced in New England increased by four times the national rate of increase in a six-month period following compact implementation. The surplus milk was converted into milk powder, leading to a 60% increase in milk powder production. Soon after implementation, the Northeast Compact had to begin reimbursing school food service programs for the increases in cost caused by the milk price hikes; an admission that prices have gone up and consumers are being affected. However, low-income families that need milk in their diet are not being reimbursed by the Compact for their increased costs. Milk is a food staple, and are we going to vote today to extend this milk tax that hits low-income citizens hardest who spend a high percentage of their income on food? What's next, a special tax on bread, eggs, ground beef, or potatoes? Consider the low-income families with small children and the elderly on fixed incomes in your state and ask if this is the population you want bearing the brunt of this regressive milk tax. I cannot stress to my colleagues enough that you simply cannot contain the market distortions and economic hardship that these compact schemes cause. Proponents present an idyllic picture of the compacts as only a few cents hike in the price of milk to preserve the small, rural dairy farmer. This is simply not true. Dairy compacts are an economic zero-sum game in which there are many losers--most importantly the consumer (especially the low-income consumer) and dairy farmers in non- compact regions. The real winners in this zero-sum game are large dairy producers 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 said was the focus of this idea. The average six month subsidy for large Northeast dairy farms is projected to be $78,400. Dairy farmers in Minnesota would relish that income over the whole year, but Minnesota farmers wisely reject this effort to distort the system and harm their fellow farmers in other states. It also is erroneous to characterize this issue as small family farms in one region falling victim to large, corporate-style farming conglomerates in another. There are no, if you will, ``Wal-Marts'' of dairy farming in Minnesota. In our state, we have families that farm as a way of life, know that they must stay efficient to remain competitive, and want desperately to compete on a level playing field. Minnesota has thousands of family farms--passed from generation to generation --that are struggling to stay afloat in a rigged market that unfairly favors producers in a different part of the country. And many have failed. Compacts are not a policy that saves family farms. As Wayne Bok, President of the Minnesota-based co-op Associated Milk Producers has put it, consider what would happen if the Northern states decided they wanted to produce oranges, and formed a compact to do so. Oranges sold in the North would receive a higher price than oranges sold in other regions. As a result, production of oranges would increase in the North. Prices in the South would drop until production decreased to compensate for the increase in Northern production. Moreover, Northern farmers would begin to convert from, say, corn and dairy farming, to the now more profitable farming of oranges. Would this be good for the country's most efficient orange growers in Florida and California? Absolutely not. Would this be good for consumers? Absolutely not. This outrageous scenario demonstrates the ridiculousness of current dairy policy. Let each farm region of the country do what it does best and don't erect artificial barriers that keep the products of the most efficient producers out of the hands of the consumers. In 1996 Congress and the President committed to a new farm policy, moving our country away from artificial price and supply controls, and freeing farmers to compete on the world market. American farmers are the most skilled and efficient in the world, and they deserve the opportunity to compete and expand their markets. At the same time that we are calling upon our global trading partners to bring down their trade barriers for the benefit of both consumers and producers, we attempt to continue or construct new barriers between regions in our own country that discourage the free flow of commerce and create significant market distortions and price increases. Its hypocritical for us to demand free trade at a global level but enact trade barriers within our own country. I urge my colleagues today to commit to fairness in dairy policy. Please be fair to consumers and dairy producers--vote against this or any other compact amendment. I must also address the other intended effect of the dairy amendment, the proposal to zero out funding for implementation of the final rule presumably to maintain the status quo in federal milk marketing orders and to extend the Northeast Dairy Compact. I believe that Mr. Jeffords' amendment fails to accomplish this intent. The current milk marketing system requires processors to pay higher minimum prices for fluid milk the further the region is located from Eau Claire, Wisconsin. To reform this antiquated, Depression-era method for supplying milk to consumers, which basically picks winners and losers in the dairy industry, Congress, through the 1996 FAIR Act, required USDA to significantly reduce the number of milk marketing orders (regions) in the country and transition to a more market- oriented system of milk distribution. After many months of study and having received comments from hundreds of market participants, USDA proposed Options 1-A and 1-B. The Option 1-A proposal made minimal changes to the old marketing order pricing system, while Option 1-B contained some basic free market reforms and modernizations of the system. The Midwest did not like what we saw in 1B, actually, and like the compromise even less, but it was a small step in the right direction. The compromise came after the USDA received testimony concerning the two alternatives, and its final rule again takes steps toward simplifying and modernizing the milk marketing order system. The new compromise orders will be effective October 1, 1999. I hoped for a proposal closer to 1-B, but accepted the need for compromise and have supported it. Option 1-A is basically no reform, and would ignore the direction of Congress in the FAIR Act. It would increase prices for consumers by $74 million per year, affecting most the low-income consumer that spends a high percentage of their wages on food. Option 1-A also keeps in place a regionally discriminatory milk pricing system that benefits producers in some parts of the country at the expense of dairy farmers in other regions, much like compacts. Again, it's a government program that picks winners and losers, not allowing the market to set the prices. It is opposed by free market taxpayer advocacy groups, consumer groups, regional producer groups, and processor groups, and it does nothing to protect the nation's supply of fresh fluid milk; our nation produces an abundance of milk that is sufficient to supply consumers' needs. Secretary Glickman, writing about the final rule, said that: USDA's own analysis shows that nationally, dairy farmers will realize virtually the same cash receipts under the new, fairer plan as they do now, and when aggregated, the all-milk price will remain essentially unchanged from that under the existing program, which virtually all sides agree sorely needs changing[.] Moreover, Chairman Lugar said that the final compromise rule ``is a good first step toward a policy that places the nation's dairy industry in a position to better meet the challenges of the global markets of the new century[.]'' Again, the final rule is a compromise, not the best for either 1A or 1B advocates but a middle ground. We should not rush to reverse a process that took months to complete in order to keep the status quo. What we have here is a double whammy. Compacts are bad enough, but retaining the failed dairy policies of the past is just incomprehensible. Finally, what we need to ask ourselves even more is why are we considering these controversial issues on this appropriations bill. The Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over compacts and Agriculture over milk marketing orders. Please respect these committees' opposition to these amendments which circumvent their jurisdiction, respect the reimplementation of Rule 16, and vote against this attempt to legislate through the appropriations process. And most of all, reject an amendment that doesn't even accomplish its intended purpose.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise in strong support for the Ashcroft food and medicine sanctions reform amendment. While I would prefer this amendment addressed all unilateral sanctions, not just food and medicine, I support the amendment 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. And denys that food and medical supplies to some of the worlds most needy. Since most of our sanctions are unilateral, it makes no sense to deny our farmers and workers important markets when those sales are being 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 late 1970'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. 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. 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 need access to scarce food and medical supplies. This bill does not aid the government, as U.S. guarantees can only be provided through NGO's and the private sector not armies, not to terrorists. 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 Aschroft and Hagel for their 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 provide much-needed food supplies to the overage people in these countries, and to show the world we are reliable suppliers. I urge the support of my colleagues for this long overdue amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 29, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2:15 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 710, a bill to authorize a feasibility study on the preservation of certain Civil War battlefields along the Vicksburg Campaign Trail; S. 905, a bill to establish the Lackawana Valley American Heritage Area; S. 1093, a bill to establish the Galisteo Basin Archeological Protection Sites and to provide for the protection of archeological sites in the Galisteo Basin of New Mexico, and for other purposes; S. 1117, a bill to establish the Corinth Unit of the Shiloh National Military Park, in the vicinity of the city of Corinth, Mississippi, and in the State of Tennessee, and for other purposes; S. 1234, a bill to expand the boundaries of Gettysburg National Military Park to include the Wills House, and for other purposes; and S. 1349, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct special resource studies to determine the national significance of specific sites as well as the suitability and feasibility of their inclusion as units of the National Park System.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 29, 1999. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss the markup of the original bill regarding the Livestock Mandatory Report Act of 1999.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, July 29, 1999, at 9:30 a.m., on Magnuson Act reauthorization.