Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. No, that provision is intended to be descriptive. The Mint is instructed to utilize anticounterfeiting technology.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, on an unrelated matter, I also want to take a moment this afternoon to rise in support of the U.S. district court decision that prohibits the U.S. Department of Agriculture from enforcing class I differentials when it comes to dairy and the Nation's milk marketing order system. The ruling states that the class I price structure provided under USDA's Federal milk marketing order is unlawful. This ruling was made after providing the Department three opportunities to justify this antiquated regulation which has, again, been found to be arbitrary and capricious. I strongly urge the Secretary to forgo any further litigation on this matter. Judge Doty's decision has confirmed what we have known all along, and that is that the current class I price structure is unfair and that it makes no economic sense. The 1996 farm bill requires the Secretary to provide price structure and Federal milk market order reform. This process is currently moving forward, and there should be no legislative maneuvers to restore the rejected state of affairs. I will be guarding against legislative initiatives put forth by regional interests which would attempt to restore the inequities of the former system. USDA and Members of Congress must move forward and cease to be hamstrung by arcane economic models. Traditional economic models are not sufficient in constructing a dairy policy for the next century. The imposition of the 1937 dairy legislation on 1997 dairy economics is ludicrous. Today, we have heard from our colleagues from Vermont that without the current system, the rest of the country would be at the mercy of the Midwest for a fresh supply of milk. We are not asking for a monopoly, only that the heel of Government be removed from our dairy farmer's throats so that they be allowed to compete fairly. There is no room for regional politics in Federal dairy policy. We should not encourage inefficiency. The United States district court has rendered its decision, and now it is in Secretary Glickman's hands to institute long-term and significant dairy reform which will restore equity to U.S. dairy policy. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak for the 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I just had a couple of statements I wanted to put into the Record for today, dealing with the action here on Labor, Health and Human Services, and also on another unrelated item dealing with the dairy decision in Minnesota earlier this week. Later today, as noted, the Senate will complete action on the Labor Health and Human Services appropriations bill which was passed by the House last night. I wanted to express my appreciation to Senator Specter, chairman of the Labor, HHS Appropriations Subcommittee for including a 1-year correction of Minnesota's disproportionate share allotment, otherwise known as DSH. I also want to thank the conferees for accepting this correction as well. Without this correction, Minnesota's hospitals stood to lose millions of dollars in DSH payments, due to an error on the form that the State filed with the Health Care Financing Administration. While that error was corrected when the State filed an amended form with HCFA, the Balanced Budget Act did not allow HCFA to consider amended forms in determining each State's DSH allotment. Again, I would like to express my thanks to our chairman, Mr. Specter, and also Chairman Stevens for their assistance and guidance in finding a temporary fix to this problem. Mr. President, the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill will buy some time for Minnesota hospitals and allow Congress the opportunity to permanently correct this unfortunate error. Although Minnesota hospitals have received a 1-year reprieve, it is important that we permanently correct the DSH allotment error. It is my understanding that Minnesota was not the only State with DSH allotment concerns, and those States will also need a permanent solution. I look forward to next year when these problems might be addressed in the form of a technical corrections measure.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, Minnesota and Michigan are two States that share a common border with Canada, and so I am very proud today to join my colleague, Senator Abraham, chairman of the Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, as a cosponsor of his bill to ensure Canada will receive current treatment once the immigration law is implemented in 1998. There has been a great deal of concern, especially in Minnesota, as well, as to how the immigration law we passed last year will affect the northern U.S. border. Right now the fear is the law is being misinterpreted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Minnesota alone has about 817 miles of shared border with Canada and we share many interests with our northern neighbor--tourism, trade, and family visits among the most prevalent. In the last few years, passage back and forth over the Minnesota/Canadian border has been more open and free flowing, especially since the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect. There were 116 million travelers entering the United States from Canada in 1996 over the land border. As our relationship with Canada is increasingly interwoven, we have sought a less restrictive access to each country. The immigration bill last year was intended to focus on illegal aliens entering this country from Mexico and living in the United States illegally. The new law states that ``every alien'' entering and leaving the United States would have to register at all the borders-- land, sea, and air. The Immigration and Naturalization Service was tasked with the effort to set up automated pilot sites along the border to discover the most effective way to implement this law, which was to become effective on September 30, 1998. The INS was quietly going about establishing a pilot site on the New York State border when the reality sunk in. A flood of calls from constituents came into the offices of all of us serving in Canadian border states. Canadian citizens also registered opposition to this new restriction. It became quite clear that no one had considered how the new law affected Canada. Current law already waives the document requirement for most Canadian nationals, but still requires certain citizens to register at border crossings. That system has worked. There have been very few problems at the northern border with drug trafficking and illegal aliens. In an effort to resolve this situation, I have joined Senators Abraham, D'Amato, Collins, Snowe, Burns, Jeffords, Kennedy, Leahy, Moynihan, and Graham of Florida in a letter asking INS Commissioner Meissner for her interpretation of this law and how she expects to implement it. We have not had a response to date, but the INS' previous reaction to this issue indicates that every alien would include both Canadian nationals and American permanent residents--everyone crossing the border. Therefore, we must make it very clear that Congress did not intend to impose additional documentary requirements on Canadian nationals; Senator Abraham's bill will restore our intent. Our legislation, the Border Improvement and Immigration Act of 1997, will not open the floodgates for illegal aliens to pass through--it will still require those who currently need documentation to continue to produce it and remain registered in a new INS system. This will allow the INS to keep track of that category of non-immigrant entering our country to ensure they leave when their visas expire. Senator Abraham's bill will not unfairly treat our friends on the Canadian side that have been deemed not to need documentation--they will still be able to pass freely back and forth across the border. But our bill will enable us to avoid the huge traffic jams and confusion which would no doubt occur if every alien was to be registered in and out of the United States. Such registration would discourage trade and visits to the United States. It would delay shipments of important industrial equipment, auto parts services and other shared ventures that have long thrived along the northern border. It will discourage the economic revival that northern Minnesotans are experiencing, helped by Canadian shoppers and tourists. Mr. President, I do not believe Congress intended to create this new mandate. We sought to keep illegal aliens and illegal drugs out, not our trading partners and visiting consumers. Through the Abraham bill, we will still do that while keeping the door open to our neighbors from the north. The bill is good foreign policy, good public policy and good economic policy. We all will benefit while retaining our ability to keep track of nonimmigrants who enter our borders. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to thank Senator Abraham for his leadership on this very important matter. I am aware that Senator Abraham had a successful hearing on this issue recently in Michigan. Many Minnesotans, through letters, calls and personal appeals, have also showed their opposition to a potential crisis. I look forward to testifying before the Immigration Subcommittee hearing tomorrow and assisting my colleague from Michigan in his efforts to pass this bill before the 1998 implementation date. Again, this is an unacceptable burden on our Canadian neighbors and those who depend upon their free access that effects the economics of all border states.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, late last month in downtown Washington, the International Republican Institute honored Ronald Reagan as the recipient of their 1997 Freedom Award. Seldom, if ever, has a Washington dinner been held to honor an American when the honor was more richly deserved or more sincerely conferred. There was a deep and abiding outpouring of respect, admiration and affection for our Nation's 40th President. Even a touch of nostalgia was present as guests and speakers recalled when our Nation was led by a President guided by a clear vision and deeply-held convictions. The formal program included remarks by James Billington, the Librarian of Congress, and our colleague, the chairman of I.R.I., Senator McCain of Arizona. Mrs. Reagan was there to represent her husband and she made a brief statement in his behalf when the award was presented. These statements focused on Ronald Reagan's indispensable leadership that led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and to freedom for hundreds of millions throughout the globe. Mr. President, the statements of these distinguished Americans deserve the attention of the Senate and the American people. Moreover, they should be part of the public record so that future generations will have convenient access to them as they examine the life and influence of this great American whose vision and leadership changed the world. Accordingly, Mr. President, I ask that the statements by Senator McCain and Dr. Billington, as well as the brief remarks by Mrs. Reagan, be printed in the Record. The statements follow: The Foreign Policy of President Ronald Reagan (by James H. Billington, Librarian of Congress, September 25, 1997) The Cold War was the central conflict of the second half of the 20th century, the longest and most unconventional war of the entire modern era and an altogether unprecedented experience for Americans. We never directly fought our principal antagonist, the Soviet Union, but we were faced for the first time in our history--and over a long period--with an opponent who was both ideologically committed to overthrow our system and materially equipped to destroy us physically. President Ronald Reagan was the single most important political figure in ending the Cold War without either making concessions or incurring major loss of life on either side. It was an astonishing accomplishment. Not surprising, those who never thought such an outcome was possible in the first place have been slow to recognize that the unraveling of the Soviet Empire began, and became irreversible, on his watch-- and in no small part as a result of his special qualities of leadership. In his monumental study of the rise and fall of civilizations, written just as the Cold War was beginning, Arnold Tonybee suggested that empires begin their inevitable decline when they meet a challenge to which they are systematically unable to respond. The hierarchical control system of the Soviet Empire met such a challenge with the Solidarity Movement in Poland. As a bottom-up mass movement rooted in religion within the largest Soviet satellite, Solidarity was not the kind of movement which Soviet imperial managers could domesticate either by decapitating or co- opting the leaders or by offering carrots and sticks to its members. John Paul II, the first Slavic Pope, spiritually inspired it, and President Reagan's political support helped it survive martial law to become the decisive catalyst in the eventual chain reaction of Communist collapse at the end of the 1980's. What were the key elements of Ronald Reagan's role in all of this? First of all, he was guided by a simple vision that ordinary people everywhere could understand--rather than by some complex strategic doctrine intelligible only to foreign policy wonks. In 1981 at Notre Dame, he spoke not of winning the cold war but of the bright prospects ``for the cause of freedom and the spread of civilization,'' indicating that ``the West will not contain Communism; it will transcend Communism.'' He made it clear at the beginning of the administration that tokenism in arms control and photo-op summit solutions to serious problems would no longer be accepted. In effect, he told the world he would not go on playing the old favorite Russian game of chess, the aim of which always seemed to be to play for a draw. Here, at last, was a good old-fashioned American poker player who knew he had the stronger hand, was willing to raise the ante to a level that the strained Soviet system could not meet, and had the imagination to throw in the wild card of a strategic defensive initiative. He proved that an American President could be reelected without having had a summit meeting of any kind--let alone the kind which legitimized Soviet leaders and placed the spotlight on weapons: the one area where the Soviet Union did, in some respects, enjoy parity with America. Reagan's strategic defense initiative addressed a need which is arguably still important today with the possibility of rogue states acquiring deadly delivery capabilities. But, at that time, it represented as well a second key challenge to which the Soviet system was systematically unable to respond--neither materially, because of their backwardness in computers and high technology, nor politically, because ordinary people (as distinct from policy wonks) could not believe that a defensive system that we were willing to share with others really threatened anybody. If the first element of the Reagan leadership, then, was vision backed by strength in his first term, the second ingredient was his ability to be an altogether gracious winner in his second term. By establishing a genuinely warm and basically non-adversarial relationship with Gorbachev, cemented by a rapid-fire set of summits in his second term, President Reagan defied the general assumption of the foreign policy establishment that summits had to be basically choreographed by experts and incremental in accomplishment. He began at Geneva by going one-on-one with Gorbachev. He reacted to the accelerating crisis of communism in a way that did not humiliate but, in fact, honored an opponent who was moving things in the right direction. It is easy to forget now just how ritualized the Soviet- American conflict had become by the end of the 1970's--and how fatalistic the Western establishment had become in accepting a more-or-less indefinite coexistence with a Soviet Empire then at the height of its expansiveness. What helped change all that was the third element in President Reagan's formula: the disarmingly simple way he redefined the conflict itself as being not fundamentally between systems, alliances, or even nations but between good and evil. His famous ``evil empire speech,'' which met with almost universal condemnation in the Western media and academia, may well have played an important role in unclogging the logjam in the Soviet system and ending the menace of accidental or mutual destruction that always hovered over the Cold War. Two different Soviet reformist politicians told me amidst the alcoholic bonhomie of the state dinner at the Reagan- Gorbachev Moscow summit in June 1988 that they used the unprecedently undiplomatic nature of that talk to convince other Soviet leaders that they should try to accommodate and not continue to confront the West. It seems of course, paradoxical to suggest that a belligerent speech could pave the way to peaceful change. But what seems unlikely in theory may well be true in real life. Real life is told in stories. No one was a greater storyteller in real life than Ronald Reagan; and he had a good basic story to tell. In my view, the end of the Cold War represented essentially the victory of a story over a theory. The United States of America is the result not of any theory but of a story--made up over the years out of hundreds of individual human stories. The Soviet Union was the product of a theory suddenly superimposed by politicized intellectuals through a coup in the midst of the inhuman chaos of World War I. Because Communism as a theory was, in some ways, inherently appealing, Americans were often reluctant to believe that the Soviet system was evil rather than just a temporary victim of Stalin's paranoia or perhaps of defective genes traceable back to Ivan the Terrible or Genghis Khan. It had been easy for intellectuals to believe that Nazi totalitarianism represented a threat because of its exclusivist, racist underpinnings, but it seemed hard to believe that anything could be fundamentally wrong with the inclusive ideal of an egalitarian society or with fellow intellectuals like Marx and Lenin, who spent so much time in the British Museum even if they never worked in factories. The capacity to provide gratuitous excuses for Soviet behavior had reached a grotesque climax in the immediate aftermath of the Afghan invasion. For the first couple of days, the only explanation the Soviet regime could offer was that they were intervening at the invitation of the leader whom they had then proceeded to shoot. They were soon rescued from this embarrassment by the gratuitous rationalizations and explanations for their behavior provided by the Western media. Reagan, the storyteller, instinctively realized that America was a story, not a theory; that stories tend to unify people; and that the best stories are based on relatively universal archetypes that deal with good and evil. Theories rarly bring peace, since they inspire divisions based on right and wrong and invite argument that leads to conflict. Stories are shared; theories are debated. Anyone who came within the President's orbit was immediately attracted by his stories. They invariably drew the diverse people at his table together and were essentially inclusive. Theories, on the other hand, tend to exclude those who do not believe in them--and to induce arrogance in those who do. The American academic experts whom President Reagan periodically gathered around a lunch table in the White House were often perplexed by his tendency to relate tales of his own negotiations with labor leaders in Hollywood. Yet, as I listened to these stories, I saw that he was both securing a measure of buy-in from the often skeptical intellectual community and, at the same time, pre-testing his future tactics by probing for the reaction of theorists to the practicalities of his negotiating techniques. President Reagan could negotiate from strength because he had reassured us that our own story was a positive one, and that the sun was rising and not setting on America. I do not know exactly what the substance was of the President's early conversations with Gorbachev, but they seemed to involve more the telling of stories than the debating of theories. Debates like wars have a winner and loser, but a story can celebrate the common victory of a higher good. President Reagan never claimed victory in the cold War. Rather, he seemed to be welcoming Russia into the near-universal story of movement toward freedom and openness. President Reagan also had respect for the Russians' own story. In his important addresses of June 1988 at Moscow State University, he repeatedly used Russian examples to illustrate the universal principles of freedom and moral responsibility. During the same Moscow summit, he invited for lunch a full range of dissident Russian voices, each of whom had a story to tell; and at the State dinner at Spaso House, he invited many of these same figures and mixed them up at tables with political leaders. Each dinner table brought the best storytellers of the emerging reforms face-to-face for the first time in one room with the powerful perpetuators of outmoded theories. I was able to observe first-hand, in the course of preparations for and the execution of President Reagan's Moscow summit in June 1988, how he supported the forces of change at the level of both vision and tactics. The President had asked me, as perhaps he had asked others on the eve of the summit, a simple but centrally important question. How was it possible, he asked, for people to survive with sanity in such a cruel and repressive system? I did not have time to think much about the question and responded instinctively, largely on the basis of my own family's experience of living there, ``Because of the women, Mr. President.'' It was the babushkas who held the family together, staying at home while both parents worked, creating a nest of warmth and honesty that compensated for the falsehoods and absurdities of the system and the coldness of both the climate and the bureaucracy. At a dramatic moment at the Moscow summit of 1988, President Reagan was asked by a Russian reporter on live television if he had any messages to leave behind to the Russian people. He replied that he wanted to send this heartfelt greetings to the women of Russia for their role in holding families together and transmitting the traditions and values of the Russian people from one generation to another. This spontaneous response was mentioned by almost all Russians with whom I talked in the additional week I stayed on after the summit to inventory popular reactions. And I thought of this remark again when I was in Moscow three years later as the entire system imploded during 48 dramatic hours in August 1991. Crucial in the resistance against the coup attempt of the dying Communist system were the old women who castigated the young boys in the tanks and, in effect, became an alternate chain of command, demanding that they obey their mothers rather than their officers. President Reagan's Moscow summit in 1988 coincided with the Russian celebration of the Millennium of Christianity, and the President had planned to visit the newly restored Danilov Monastery and to identify himself with the old Biblical story that Russians were then recovering. Many Americans, however, were urging him to cancel this visit because of the role that the Russian Orthodox Church hierarchy had played in suppressing the rights of Uniate Catholics in the Ukraine. The President resolved this dilemma not by retreating from the visit but by using it energetically to endorse the rights of the Catholic minority in the very sanctuary of Russian Orthodoxy. He seems instinctively to have understood that even imperfect sources of the good should be supported if the mission is to expel the real evil that had so long been camouflaged under the mask of utopian perfection. Of course, Ronald Reagan was not the only, and at times not the main, hero of the story of the Cold War's ending. The peoples of Eastern Europe and leaders like Gorbachev basically affected the changes; and, on the American side, it was a cumulative and essentially bi-partisan accomplishment. But President Reagan, in playing out the all-important end game of the Cold War, had a rare gift for making the American people comfortable with the main lines of his foreign policy even when they were uncomfortable with details. At the end of an ideal story, good not only triumphs over evil, but those who had been in darkness find the light and every one lives happily ever after. We all know that even this happy story did not quite work out this way. Many are still in darkness in the East; there were and are some shadows in our light; and it was not the end of history. But the long-lingering cloud of potential total war was evaporated along with the empire that might have activated it. And our children and our children's children will always owe a lot to a man who had a good story to tell, and like most great storytellers, was at heart a romantic. In most morality tales that have human appeal, there is a strong woman who helps the forces of good overcome those of evil and redeem the follies of man. Ronald Reagan had--and still has--such a woman at his side. At the Moscow summit of 1988, the President was sustained and supported at every turn by a wife who did not simply do traditional, ritual things, but read richly into Russian history and subjected herself to a cram course that continued right up to the moment Air Force One touched down in Moscow. She then plunged into an overdrive schedule of visiting and empathizing with almost all the positive elements in Russia that were then pressing for change. As she debarked from the plane, she was whisked by Raisa Gorbachev into the Cathedral of the Assumption in the Kremlin, where she politely asked why it was no longer the center of worship that it had been and would once again soon become. She got up early the next morning and asked to see Russia's greatest icons which had been removed from public view by the regime, ostensibly for restoration but probably also to avoid excessive veneration during Russia's Millennium year of Christianity. By prying these holy pictures out of the reserve collection of the Tretyakov Gallery, she enabled Russians to see them since there had to be television coverage of her visit. She visited schools, writers, and Pastenak's grave, and-- all on one hectic day--the greatest single mind and the two best cultural centers in St. Petersburg before returning by plane to host the state dinner at which she inter-seated the Soviet political establishment with its own cultural and political opposition. This whirlwind of activity exhausted her traveling companions, like the wife of the Russian President, Mrs. Gromyko, who observed on the plane going back to Moscow that she had solemnly concluded that some kind of Supreme Being might actually exist. Gorbachev met for the very first time at Nancy Reagan's dinner Tengiz Abuladze, whose great film ``Repentance'' was probably the most important, single cultural document in pushing for the repudiation rather than just the modification of the Soviet system. Thanks, largely to Nancy, the Reagan story is not over just because the sound track is now silent. The one key illustration for this story is that of a man and woman, hand- in-hand, who made their sunset years those of America's sunrise.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, Minnesota and Michigan are two States that share a common border with Canada, and so I am very proud today to join my colleague, Senator Abraham, chairman of the Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, as a cosponsor of his bill to ensure Canada will receive current treatment once the immigration law is implemented in 1998. There has been a great deal of concern, especially in Minnesota, as well, as to how the immigration law we passed last year will affect the northern U.S. border. Right now the fear is the law is being misinterpreted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Minnesota alone has about 817 miles of shared border with Canada and we share many interests with our northern neighbor--tourism, trade, and family visits among the most prevalent. In the last few years, passage back and forth over the Minnesota/Canadian border has been more open and free flowing, especially since the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect. There were 116 million travelers entering the United States from Canada in 1996 over the land border. As our relationship with Canada is increasingly interwoven, we have sought a less restrictive access to each country. The immigration bill last year was intended to focus on illegal aliens entering this country from Mexico and living in the United States illegally. The new law states that ``every alien'' entering and leaving the United States would have to register at all the borders-- land, sea, and air. The Immigration and Naturalization Service was tasked with the effort to set up automated pilot sites along the border to discover the most effective way to implement this law, which was to become effective on September 30, 1998. The INS was quietly going about establishing a pilot site on the New York State border when the reality sunk in. A flood of calls from constituents came into the offices of all of us serving in Canadian border states. Canadian citizens also registered opposition to this new restriction. It became quite clear that no one had considered how the new law affected Canada. Current law already waives the document requirement for most Canadian nationals, but still requires certain citizens to register at border crossings. That system has worked. There have been very few problems at the northern border with drug trafficking and illegal aliens. In an effort to resolve this situation, I have joined Senators Abraham, D'Amato, Collins, Snowe, Burns, Jeffords, Kennedy, Leahy, Moynihan, and Graham of Florida in a letter asking INS Commissioner Meissner for her interpretation of this law and how she expects to implement it. We have not had a response to date, but the INS' previous reaction to this issue indicates that every alien would include both Canadian nationals and American permanent residents--everyone crossing the border. Therefore, we must make it very clear that Congress did not intend to impose additional documentary requirements on Canadian nationals; Senator Abraham's bill will restore our intent. Our legislation, the Border Improvement and Immigration Act of 1997, will not open the floodgates for illegal aliens to pass through--it will still require those who currently need documentation to continue to produce it and remain registered in a new INS system. This will allow the INS to keep track of that category of non-immigrant entering our country to ensure they leave when their visas expire. Senator Abraham's bill will not unfairly treat our friends on the Canadian side that have been deemed not to need documentation--they will still be able to pass freely back and forth across the border. But our bill will enable us to avoid the huge traffic jams and confusion which would no doubt occur if every alien was to be registered in and out of the United States. Such registration would discourage trade and visits to the United States. It would delay shipments of important industrial equipment, auto parts services and other shared ventures that have long thrived along the northern border. It will discourage the economic revival that northern Minnesotans are experiencing, helped by Canadian shoppers and tourists. Mr. President, I do not believe Congress intended to create this new mandate. We sought to keep illegal aliens and illegal drugs out, not our trading partners and visiting consumers. Through the Abraham bill, we will still do that while keeping the door open to our neighbors from the north. The bill is good foreign policy, good public policy and good economic policy. We all will benefit while retaining our ability to keep track of nonimmigrants who enter our borders. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to thank Senator Abraham for his leadership on this very important matter. I am aware that Senator Abraham had a successful hearing on this issue recently in Michigan. Many Minnesotans, through letters, calls and personal appeals, have also showed their opposition to a potential crisis. I look forward to testifying before the Immigration Subcommittee hearing tomorrow and assisting my colleague from Michigan in his efforts to pass this bill before the 1998 implementation date. Again, this is an unacceptable burden on our Canadian neighbors and those who depend upon their free access that effects the economics of all border states.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, to outline today's activities, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 2:45 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. At 2:45, the Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Charles Rossotti to be Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. Under a previous order, there will be 3 hours of debate on that nomination, with a vote occurring at the expiration of that time. Therefore, Members can anticipate the first rollcall vote at approximately 5:45 p.m. The Senate may also consider and complete action on any or all of the following items: D.C. appropriations bill, FDA reform conference report, the intelligence authorization conference report, and any additional legislative or executive items that can be cleared for action. Therefore, there may be additional votes following the 5:45 p.m. vote. As a reminder to all Members, on Friday, cloture was filed on both H.R. 2646, the A-plus education savings account bill, and the motion to proceed to S. 1269, the fast-track legislation. Those cloture votes will occur on Tuesday morning at a time to be announced later today. Therefore, all first-degree amendments to H.R. 2646 must be filed by 1 p.m. today. Needless to say, all Senators should expect rollcall votes during every day of the session this week as we attempt to complete action on the very important issues before the Senate. Mr. President, I see no other Senators on the floor, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

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

Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for about 5 minutes and that the time be deducted from the time of the majority leader.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, before we vote on IRS Commissioner nominee Charles O. Rossotti, I'd like to take this opportunity to make a few remarks about the direction IRS reform should take. But first let me commend Mr. Rossotti for his courage to take on this job. I believe with his expertise and experience in private business management, Mr. Rossotti is qualified to head the agency, and I am confident that he will help improve IRS services and management. Madam President, the American people have every right to be outraged by the disturbing details that emerged during 3 days of Senate hearings into the tax collection practices of the IRS. Testimony from taxpayers and current and former IRS officials provided chilling accounts of mistreatment, abuse of power, and the merciless trampling of citizens' rights. What's even more shocking is that these improper and illegal practices within the IRS aren't random occurrences--they happen regularly. For decades, IRS agents have routinely snooped through the supposedly confidential tax files of thousands and thousands of Americans. That could include me, or you. IRS agents are evaluated and promoted based on their total tax collections, a practice outlawed a decade ago. IRS managers often cover up abusive behavior by collection agents. In stark contrast to our legal system, all alleged tax debtors are assumed guilty and treated as criminals. The distressing tales told by the Senate witnesses were hardly isolated incidents; hundreds of working, law-abiding Minnesotans have contacted my office with similar grievances. Though the individual details of their stories vary, the message is the same: the IRS devastated their lives. Many lost their homes, cars, businesses, and professional licenses--not to mention their reputation and self-respect. Congress established the IRS with good intentions but the agency has evolved into what Nobel laureate Dr. Milton Friedman labels ``a self- generating monstrosity over which the people have little control.'' As a result, our tax system has become extremely complicated, difficult even for IRS experts to understand, and our tax burden has become so heavy and so unfair that it's unbearable for many working Americans. The tax system under which the IRS operates today has become a redistributor of private incomes, a mechanism to enforce social re- engineering, and a launch pad for class-warfare. It is anti-family. It destroys economic opportunity, hinders our job creation, impedes productivity and retards competitiveness. It has deepened the despair and disaffection among the poor and disadvantaged. It encourages abuse, waste, and corruption. Congress deserves much--if not most--of the blame for the abuses of our current tax system because it is Congress that writes the Tax Code in the first place. There are now nearly 10,000 pages of Tax Code, 20 volumes of tax regulations, and thousands and thousands of pages of instructions. Besides making the tax system so complicated, Congress has seriously neglected its oversight responsibilities over the IRS. In fact, the Senate hearings were the first formal oversight of the agency ever conducted by Congress. That in itself is very shocking. Congress for decades has been passing new tax laws and regulations without looking back to see how the system has been affected, or if it's working, or if it's unfair. It's more obvious than ever that the present tax system will fail to lead us into the next century without fundamental reforms. But can Washington fix the IRS problems it created? Yes--if Washington can muster the political will to do it. The first thing Congress must do is take its oversight responsibility of the agency more seriously. Let's end the secretive ways of the IRS and open the process to the sunlight. Let's put the IRS under strict scrutiny, periodically reviewing its operations, exposing abuses, and ending illegal practices. I welcome the fact that President Clinton changed his mind and presented a plan aimed at improving taxpayer-assistance services at the IRS, including a board with private citizens to oversee the agency. Although this is a positive step, the proposed changes are mostly cosmetic and will do nothing to address the deep-rooted deficiencies within the IRS. Very simply, the heart of the problem with the IRS is the tax policy on which all IRS decisions are based. To end the abuse once and for all, Congress must pass new legislation to reform our tax system and replace the ever-more-complicated Tax Code with one that's simpler, fairer, and more friendly to taxpayers. The American people deserve a fair Tax Code that promotes harmony between people and doesn't separate us into classes, a code that encourages work and savings; a code that rewards families and success rather than penalizes them; a code that stimulates real economic growth and produces more jobs and, yes, higher tax revenues; a code that allows taxpayers to keep more of their own money. Congress must explore every available solution in our quest to re- create our tax system and achieve these objectives. Passing the House IRS bill may sound tempting, as it does make some needed changes, but I agree with Senator Roth that we need to do the job right the first time around, not accept minor changes that may prevent or delay efforts to reform our overall tax system. Madam President, the leadoff witness at the Senate IRS hearings summed up the debate with a message Congress cannot ignore: ``If the public ever knew the number of abuses covered up by the IRS, there could be a tax revolt.'' The public is beginning to understand the depth of the IRS problems. Tinkering with the IRS won't work and the time for real tax reforms is now. Thank you very much. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference report to the DOD authorization bill. One of the issues which held up the resolution of the conference was the high performance computer issue. This matter certainly was not resolved to my satisfaction, and I understand that this is one of three issues that may cause the veto of this legislation. On July 10 the Grams-Boxer amendment passed in the Senate by a vote of 72-27. It created a GAO study on the national security concerns related to computer sales between 2,000-7,000 MTOPS to tier 3 countries. Those countries include China, Russia, and Israel. The amendment was a second degree amendment to an amendment which sought to license exports of these mid-level computers, after they had been decontrolled 2 years ago. Rather than creating an unwise barrier to US-made exports, 72 of my colleagues believed we needed more study of this issue before passing this new regulation on the Senate floor circumventing the usual committee debate and consideration. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Finance, of the Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over export control matters, I strongly opposed this attempt to circumvent the normal committee process. Chairman D'Amato joined me in vigorously opposing the underlying amendment, paving the way for a strong Senate vote on the issue. After the vote, Chairman D'Amato and the Subcommittee Ranking Member Carol Moseley-Braun joined me in sending a letter to the Conferees requesting we be consulted prior to any attempts to modify the Senate provision in conference. I regret that at no time in the months-long process did any consultation occur, even though the issue was clearly one of Banking Committee jurisdiction. I was informed by the conferees that they had accommodated my request for a GAO study. What I determined from other sources was that language accompanying my study essentially accomplished the same thing as the underlying amendment my second-degree amendment defeated. And I was supposed to be satisfied because my study remained in the bill. I applaud my colleagues who worked hard in the conference committee to complete the report. There were many difficult issues effectively handled. In total, the bill is a good one. However, because this bill may be vetoed, I would like to make a strong case for further resolution of this issue once it is returned to conference. My specific concerns with the provisions of the conference report are the following: First, rather than a mandate to obtain export licenses for computers between 2,000 and 7,000 MTOPS to tier 3 countries, the conference report would require a 10 day notice to Commerce of a proposed sale. If no government entity opposes, the shipment can be made. This not only creates a bureaucratic nightmare taking scarce resources away from review of truly sensitive export license applications, but the reality would be that there would be an objection to each one of them--if for no other reason that the Government needs more time to look at them. So the 10-day notice requirement essentially implements the intent of the original amendment the Senate defeated. This is not acceptable. The reason we decontrolled in the first place, requiring licenses between 2,000 and 7,000 MTOPS only to questionable end users in tier 3 countries, was to free up needed resources to analyze exports of higher performance computers, including those computers between 20,000 and well over 1 million MTOPS--which are the real supercomputers. Opponents of my amendment insisted on defining computers between 2,000 and 7,000 MTOPS as being supercomputers, but supercomputer technology has long ago passed this level of computers. They are now the kind of computer systems we have in our offices. They are not supercomputers used to design nuclear weapons. There is a 180-day layover for future decontrol of computer level changes and a 120-day layover for any changes in which countries remain on the tier 3 list. I believe the President should have flexibility to continue to exercise current authority to make these changes. These layovers will give opponents plenty of time to prevent these changes-- and will ensure that no changes will be made in the future even though rapid technology advancements challenge us to maintain a system for decontrols in the future. Mr. President, there is also a requirement for end-user verification that could be unenforceable and also create a strain on limited resources. This language should be worked out with the Administration. Certainly post shipment checks should not be required over 2,000 MTOPS regardless of whether decontrol is made in the future. Even by next year that level of computer will be found in the local computer store, so it is unlikely that all of these verifications could be made. Also, there should be some discretion regarding whether verification in every case is even necessary if the exporter maintains service on the computer. Mr. President, I am just as concerned about selling sensitive high- technology equipment to military end users, but I don't think this is the right way to stop the few diversions that brought about the original amendment. There is adequate enforcement authority now to address diversions. Those that have occurred are being addressed. Mr. President, my floor amendment also asks Commerce to work more closely with companies to identify questionable end users than they are doing now. The GAO study will help us study national security interests involving sales of computers at this mid-level. There simply is no need for the provisions added in conference that will compromise our efforts to remain competitive with other nations which do not have these type of requirements. Anyone who will tell you that an export license takes only a short time is wrong. It takes months. And sales have been lost because of our lengthy, burdensome licensing process. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this conference report. I also ask unanimous consent that a copy of my statement at the time my second-degree amendment was offered be printed in the Record. That statement relates all of my reasons for opposing the underlying amendment reimposing export licenses of these midlevel computers.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the vote scheduled for 10:30 a.m. today be postponed until 12 noon.

Mr. GRAMS

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

Mr. GRAMS

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

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a period for morning business now commence until 12 noon and that the previous order with respect to S. 1292 then follow the vote.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume legislative session.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the fiscal year 1998 Agriculture appropriations conference agreement that was passed last night. There is much to be proud of in the conference agreement and I feel it is another step forward in implementing the 1996 farm bill. I am particularly pleased with the inclusion of the Grams-Feingold amendment directing the Office of Management and Budget to conduct a study of the economic impacts of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. I will not reiterate my long-standing opposition to implementation of the compact or the history surrounding its inclusion in the 1996 farm bill. But along with my colleagues in the House and Senate who have an interest in equitable and lasting dairy reform, I remain committed to bringing fairness to Minnesota's dairy farmers. There has been some disagreement as to what should be included in such a study. I know the senior Senator from Vermont has addressed us on more than one occasion in defense of the compact. More recently he outlined his concerns regarding what he felt should be included in the OMB study. However, I must stress that these are the remarks of one Senator and should not be misconstrued by OMB or anyone else as the official position of the U.S. Senate. The conference agreement clearly calls for a comprehensive economic evaluation of the direct and indirect effects of the compact. I welcome the results of a study I expect to be free of outside influences. I am confident this compact will be exposed as a misguided, ill-fated attempt at market manipulation. Mr. President, the OMB study in this conference agreement will help us assess the compact's effects on the poor, needy senior citizens and children, as well as the Nation's dairy producers. It is to be completed by December 31, 1997, and I will closely observe its progress in order to ensure that the study is conducted in a fair and equitable manner and is not manipulated by outside interests. I expect the administration to allow an independent study that is not influenced by any USDA or White House political agenda. Another provision I am pleased was included will prohibit Agriculture Market Transition Act [AMTA] payments to a producer who plants wild rice on contract acreage, unless the payment is reduced proportionally. As it currently stands, producers of other commodities who choose to plant wild rice on land designated for other crops can receive both their AMTA payment and the proceeds for sale of their wild rice. This has placed wild rice farmers at a disadvantage. It violates the intent of the law and it also results in unfair competition. I am pleased the House and Senate conferees agreed with my amendment and chose to include it in this agreement. The provision clarifies congressional intent and restores fairness to our farm payment system. I also want to make special note of the research funding contained in this bill for fusarium head blight, commonly known as scab, and vomitoxin. During a recent trip through Minnesota's Red River Valley, wheat and barley producers stressed time and time again the economic impact these diseases have had on their crops. Minnesota is again experiencing an epidemic of scab which marks the fifth straight year the disease has been seen to some degree in the Northern Plains. When added to contributions producers and the State of Minnesota have made to scab and vomitoxin research, I believe that the provisions contained in the research titles of this agreement are an appropriate approach to the Federal commitment regarding long-term basic research. Mr. President, as I have stated many times both here and in Minnesota, we must give our farmers the tools to manage their business and not hamstring their creativity and productivity from Washington. Although there is much work to be done regarding dairy and regulatory reform and risk-management, this conference agreement is a step in the right direction. I look forward to its immediate passage. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in expressing my support for Senator Kyl's Medicare Beneficiary Freedom to Contract Act, of which I am a cosponsor. As I explained on the floor in a statement last Monday, the thought that we have to debate in the U.S. Senate whether or not we are going to allow seniors the very basic right to use their money as they see fit is really just testimony to how far this administration is willing to go in trying to impose its will and its vision of socialized medicine on the American people. Socialized medicine, what Americans rejected in 1993, the administration is trying to, in incremental steps, reimpose on the American public. Over the past few weeks I have received many letters, many phone calls and e-mails on this very subject. I would like to share one of these letters with my colleagues today. This comment came from a constituent of mine in Saint Paul, MN. The constituent wrote: By what right do you arrogate to yourself the right to determine the length of my life? Medicare could easily fall short of the necessary medical steps to preserve health and life. Remember, this will apply to you, too. My fellow Minnesotan could not be more correct in the assessment of this provision which was tucked into the Balanced Budget act. It was tucked in there in the dark of the night, without debate and with little regard for the consequences and with the demand by the administration that it be included no matter what. It is unconscionable that the United States, the world's model of freedom and liberty, has now decided that senior citizens are somehow second-class citizens, that they are incapable of making their own choices when it comes to health care. Opponents of the Freedom to Contract Act claim that this bill now will make it easier for doctors to force seniors to give up their Medicare rights and be charged ``the sky's the limit.'' They say that without this protection, seniors will be overpaying for their medical care. I give our Nation's physicians and our Nation's seniors a lot more credit than that. This bill does absolutely nothing to force seniors to opt out of the Medicare Program, nor does it implicitly encourage them to do so. It simply will give our seniors an additional choice in how they receive their health care services--an additional choice on how they receive their services. In fact, I believe increasing choices for seniors in the Medicare Program was probably one of the best things that came out of this year's Balanced Budget Act. The Medicare Beneficiary Freedom to Contract Act is just a logical extension of the Medicare Plus Choice Program that was created in the Balanced Budget Act. I urge my colleagues to set aside the demagoguery and restore the rights of our senior citizens. They deserve our respect and they deserve the right to make their own choices. If we don't act on this bill before this session of this Congress ends, it will go into effect and then it will be very hard to restore this right to our seniors. So I am asking my colleagues, urging them, to join with us to make sure that we preserve the rights of our senior citizens to have an additional choice in how they decide on their health care. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the attention of the Senate the dedication and hard work of many individuals in my home State of Minnesota. During this past years CRP signup, at least 275 employees from Minnesota's 91 Soil and Water Conservation Districts donated over 6,000 hours assisting U.S. Department of Agriculture employees, ensuring the signups success. Without their efforts, there is little doubt the work would not have been done on time and in such an efficient manner. Their work, along with the work of USDA employees, should not go unnoticed. Mr. President, the Conservation Reserve Program is a vital program for the people of my State. It provides incalcuable benefits to farmers, sportsmen, conservationists, the wildlife, and, therefore, all American citizens. I have been, and will continue to be, a vocal supporter of a strong and balanced Conservation Reserve Program. It is simply good for Minnesota and good for our Nation. In closing, Mr. President, with the combined efforts of Congress, the USDA, farmers and people like those at Minnesota's Soil and Water Conservation Districts, we can ensure the continued success and viability of the Conservation Reserve Program well into the 21st Century.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent I be able to speak as in morning business.

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

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I am here this morning on the floor to talk about the very important ISTEA legislation that is being held up in the Senate here for many, many different reasons. But the introduction of the Senate's Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997 represents the results of intense negotiations between Chairman Chafee, Senator Warner, and Senator Baucus, each of whom have represented three different legislative approaches to the reauthorization of ISTEA. I thank each of these Senators for the work they have done to bring this bill to the floor because the citizens of my home State of Minnesota strongly support a 6-year reauthorization bill, funded at the highest levels. This should be one of our top priorities before we adjourn this session. Unfortunately, however, this very important piece of legislation is being held up by other Senators seeking to impose a political agenda on a very vital transportation spending issue. Again, it is being held up by Senators who want to impose a political agenda on vital transportation spending. Their effort to halt this crucial transportation spending bill are far more egregious than other attempts in the past to influence legislation by holding it hostage. It is inconceivable to me that we would not consider this bill on its own merits. The question of why not is being asked by every State concerned about the availability of transportation funds for continuing projects. It is ironic that Senators claiming to support labor issues would now thumb their noses at the same hard-working Americans who feed and clothe their families through the salaries they earn working on transportation projects, not to mention how important those projects are for improved safety and for meeting our growing transportation needs. ISTEA must be considered before we adjourn for the year. There has been a real effort to reach a compromise that achieves balance among the 50 States. This balance is required to address unique transportation needs in the different regions of our country: The congestion needs of the growing South, the aging infrastructure needs of the Northeast, as well as the national transportation needs of the rural West and the Midwest. Almost every State shares in the growth in dollars contained in the bill compared with the funding levels that they received under ISTEA back in 1991. I was proud to join Senator Warner as a cosponsor of STEP 21 earlier this year, as Minnesota was a member of the STEP 21 coalition, and I am pleased that much of the bill has been incorporated now into this piece of legislation. Mr. President, this bill attempts to preserve the principles of ISTEA that have proven to be successful. We need to ensure that our transportation growth contributes to the preservation of our environment. We need to continue to build upon the shared decisionmaking among the Federal, State, and local governments in the transportation planning process. We also need a transportation bill that is based on a formula that is fair. This bill will either succeed on the doctrine of fairness or it will fall victim to politics as it has in the past. I am pleased the ISTEA reauthorization attempts to ensure a fair allocation of funds. The new formula was determined with objective factors, such as the number of miles of the National Highway System and each State's contributions to the highway trust fund. Under this legislation, every State will receive a minimum return of 90 percent of their contributions to the highway trust fund. That is a very different guarantee from the so-called 90-percent minimum allocation in ISTEA. This is a real guarantee. Finally, we must have a transportation bill that makes an improvement in streamlining as well as flexibility. This bill streamlines ISTEA's five major programs down into three, and they are the National Highway System, the Surface Transportation Program, and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program. The Federal focus on our most important network of roads, the National Highway System, which includes our interstate system, is maintained. The streamlining and the flexibility provided by the ISTEA reauthorization will give Minnesota the ability to make its own transportation decisions, and that is a great step forward. Other States also would have the same freedom. This bill attempts to get a reasonable rate of return for Minnesota. In this bill, my State will receive 1.50 percent of Federal apportionment dollars, which represents an increase from the 1.43 percent of actual dollars under the 1991 ISTEA. The bill would also increase my State's share by over $82 million per average year above the 1991 authorization level. I am also pleased to be a cosponsor of the Byrd-Gramm amendment which allows the Federal gas tax of 4.3 cents now dedicated to the highway trust fund to actually be spent on highways. This will provide Minnesota the necessary additional revenue that is so critical to meeting our infrastructure needs. Mr. President, the political games must end. The reauthorization of ISTEA has expired. We need to go forward and we need to approve a new highway reauthorization bill. It has been proven again and again that transportation spending is one of the most important, it is one of the most cost-effective investments in our Nation's future. For every $1 billion spent on transportation, we create 60,000 jobs, jobs that are now at risk again while some Senators attempt to hold this legislation prisoner in exchange for the advancement of their particular political agendas. I ask my colleagues this morning to help liberate this political hostage to allow the ISTEA legislation to proceed. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I wanted to be here today just to make some brief comments in support of the Medicare Freedom To Contract Act, S. 1194. During my first term in the 103d Congress, I witnessed President Clinton attempt a Federal takeover of fully one-seventh of our Nation's economy through a nationalized health care system. I was opposed to it then and I remain adamantly opposed to it today. Over the past 2 years we have seen a step-by-step encroachment by the Federal Government into the health care system. Despite overwhelming public opposition to his attempt to take over the health care system, President Clinton still seems to be intent on imposing his vision of socialized medicine on the American people. In fact, on September 15 of this year, the President admitted that he has not abandoned his goal of forcing a nationalized health care system. He stated, ``Now what I tried to do before won't work. Maybe we can do it in another way. That's what we've tried to do, a step at a time, until we finish this.'' I am sorry to say that the Republican-led Congress has been a great service to the President by incrementally adopting and implementing more and more of his 1994 health care scheme. While I supported the heralded Kassebaum-Kennedy Health Insurance Reform Act, which did accomplish some needed reforms, I have concerns about how this law has since been implemented. In addition to its original mandate, we have a host of so-called ``body part'' protections and coverage mandates which will create a precedent for total Federal control over health insurance packages and thereby ultimately a Federal health system. I have always believed that the American people should have the fundamental right to choose where, when and how they receive their health care services. If individuals choose to enroll in health maintenance organizations, let them. If they want to join a preferred provider organization, let them. If they would like to opt out of health insurance altogether or to pay for the services as they are received, then let them. Clearly, I am not in a position to determine what their needs are or what plan would best suit their family and their budget, nor is any bureaucrat in Washington able to determine the coverage best suited for each individual in the United States. Now, that brings us to the recently enacted Children's Health Initiative. I opposed the Balanced Budget Act in large part because of this grossly overfunded, new Federal entitlement. Again, another ``step at a time'' that the President says we need to take until we have a total Government-run health care system. Let me be very clear. I am very fully in support of ensuring access to health insurance for children. However, I have never believed that this was a Federal issue. As a Minnesotan, I witnessed the creation of a State program in 1992 which has provided access to health insurance to thousands of children in my State of Minnesota. It is called MinnesotaCare. Now, this State program gives access to State subsidized private health insurance to families up to 285 percent of the Federal poverty level. The Federal Children's Health Initiative provided no consideration to the States which have made a commitment to providing access to health insurance to children or their families. In effect, the Federal Government has now spent $24 billion on a program which clearly will not work in every State. In fact, it will penalize States like mine which have already made significant progress in covering children, and this illustrates my point very well. Washington cannot make the health care insurance decisions for everyone. One of the most important corrections needed in the Balanced Budget Act is the Medicare Freedom to Contract Act. This was introduced by Senator Kyl which I have cosponsored. This act tries to correct what is probably the most egregious example of what President Clinton's vision of Federal Government as provider and protector has in store for us. While the Balanced Budget Act included a provision which allows a Medicare beneficiary to contract for health care services privately with a physician, it effectively prohibits this from happening by forcing that physician to opt out of treating any other Medicare patients for 2 years. What the President has done is to blackmail doctors and to deny senior citizens the basic right of spending their money as they see fit. Even in the United Kingdom, which has had socialized national health service since 1948, it allows its citizens to pay for services outside the national system. Clearly, Americans can do better than that and at least Americans deserve the same option. This is unfair to seniors. It is unfair to physicians. And it must be corrected quickly. Opponents of the Medicare Freedom to Contract Act claim that it will force seniors to pay 100 percent of a physician's charge for their services, and it would mean an immediate and dramatic increase in out- of-pocket costs for physician services. This is simply untrue. No Medicare beneficiary is required, nor implicitly encouraged, to contract privately with a physician. This act merely makes it possible for seniors to do so if they choose to do so. But the opponents are ready to come to the floor to filibuster any opportunity to discuss this issue or to get a vote on it. And President Clinton has also threatened to veto the bill should it pass. Now, he put the provision in the BBA in the middle of the night without debate, another step again toward the President's desire for a nationally run health care program. And he says he will veto any efforts to stop it. Is this what Americans want? The American people strongly rejected it in 1994, and they don't want it now. Mr. President, I find it completely amazing that there are individuals who believe it is wrong to allow seniors more options and more choices in how they receive their health care services. Indeed, as the Balanced Budget Act aimed to provide more choices to seniors through the Medicare Plus Choice Program, the Medicare Freedom to Contract Act is the logical extension of the Medicare Plus Choice Program. It creates yet another option for our seniors. In fact, a case can be made that if seniors contract privately with their physician for services and do not bill Medicare, it will save money. It will extend the life of the Medicare Program beyond the 10 years the Balanced Budget Act supposedly will do. Finally, Mr. President, we have many lessons to learn about the effects of health care mandates. However, denying seniors the option of using their own money to pay for their own health care is a lesson in Government that's gone mad, and that is a lesson we have all learned too well already. I urge my colleagues to support this needed correction. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, are we in morning business?