Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today Senator Moseley-Braun and I are introducing the United States $1 Coin Act of 1997. The bill calls for a newly designated, golden-colored $1 coin to replace the Susan B. Anthony. Unless this legislation is approved in the near future, the U.S. Mint will begin the process of minting more of the unpopular Susan B. Anthony coins by 1999. The supply of Anthony coins in government inventories fell by a total of 137 million coins in 1995 and 1996. Only 133 million remain as of September 30, 1997. The inventory has been falling at the rate of about 5 million per month because Anthony dollars are used at hundreds of vending locations, in more than a dozen major transit systems, and by the U.S. Postal Service. Because the U.S. Mint has stated that it needs 30 months to design and fabricate a new $1 coin, the timeframe for a decision by Congress is short. The current design of the SBA $1 coin is flawed because it has the same color and reeded edge as a quarter. This makes it difficult for consumers to tell the difference between an SBA $1 coin and a quarter. The United States $1 Coin Act of 1997 will require the Treasury Department to change the color and edge of the SBA $1 coin so that it is different from the quarter. The act will not terminate the $1 bill. Philip Diehl, Director of the U.S. Mint, stated his support for these reforms in his testimony to the House Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy on October 21, 1997: The U.S. Mint fully supports legislation which would authorize issuance of a new dollar coin with new characteristics at such time as the SBA inventory is exhausted. In addition, immediate passage is critical because the U.S. Mint needs at least 30 months to research and test coin alloys and suitability for use in commerce. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that both a copy of the United States $1 Coin Act of 1997 and a section-by-section summary of its contents to be entered into the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today Senator Moseley-Braun and I are introducing the United States $1 Coin Act of 1997. The bill calls for a newly designated, golden-colored $1 coin to replace the Susan B. Anthony. Unless this legislation is approved in the near future, the U.S. Mint will begin the process of minting more of the unpopular Susan B. Anthony coins by 1999. The supply of Anthony coins in government inventories fell by a total of 137 million coins in 1995 and 1996. Only 133 million remain as of September 30, 1997. The inventory has been falling at the rate of about 5 million per month because Anthony dollars are used at hundreds of vending locations, in more than a dozen major transit systems, and by the U.S. Postal Service. Because the U.S. Mint has stated that it needs 30 months to design and fabricate a new $1 coin, the timeframe for a decision by Congress is short. The current design of the SBA $1 coin is flawed because it has the same color and reeded edge as a quarter. This makes it difficult for consumers to tell the difference between an SBA $1 coin and a quarter. The United States $1 Coin Act of 1997 will require the Treasury Department to change the color and edge of the SBA $1 coin so that it is different from the quarter. The act will not terminate the $1 bill. Philip Diehl, Director of the U.S. Mint, stated his support for these reforms in his testimony to the House Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy on October 21, 1997: The U.S. Mint fully supports legislation which would authorize issuance of a new dollar coin with new characteristics at such time as the SBA inventory is exhausted. In addition, immediate passage is critical because the U.S. Mint needs at least 30 months to research and test coin alloys and suitability for use in commerce. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that both a copy of the United States $1 Coin Act of 1997 and a section-by-section summary of its contents to be entered into the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to make a few remarks about an important issue facing our Nation in the information era--the issue of legal protection of data bases. The U.S. Copyright Office recently released a comprehensive report on the issue of data base protection. I welcome this new information and look forward to both the prompt consideration of the report by Congress and to the introduction of much-needed legislation that will protect the enormous investments of data base producers, to assure scientists, educators, businesses, and other consumers that they will continue to have access to accurate, verifiable information. The Copyright Office report provides the requisite legal and legislative analysis that Congress needs in order to act in an appropriate and timely manner to respond to the legitimate concerns of all parties. It is an important step in the process of addressing recent technological and legal developments that have left valuable American data bases vulnerable to unauthorized copying and dissemination. The report states that it is expected that all member countries of the European Union will implement the European Union's directive on data bases by January 1, 1998--a fact that underscores the international implications of this issue for American data base producers. The directive provides a new form of protection for data bases to supplement copyright law. The directive extends this new protection only to data base producers located in a European Union member state and will not protect data bases originating in the United States until we adopt our own data base protection legislation. Mr. President, the United States, as the world's leading producer and exporter of data bases of all types, needs legal protection abroad far more than any other nation. Unless the United States adopts this protection, the data bases of U.S. companies will be at risk. Smaller U.S. firms without global operations will be the most vulnerable. The worst-case scenario is that this could potentially force U.S. companies to move their operations out of this country and into countries that offer data base protection. Such a move poses a serious threat to U.S. jobs. After studying the report, I believe current U.S. law and precedent are insufficient to adequately protect the enormous investment of money and effort that typically goes into creating data bases, both print and electronic. This is especially true given the declining copyright protection afforded to data bases after the Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Feist, and the inherent vulnerability of data bases to piracy made easy in the new digital environment. America's data base producers employ or represent thousands of editors, researchers, and others who gather, verify, update, format, and distribute the information contained in their data base products. They also invest billions of dollars in hardware and software to manage these large bodies of information. Mr. President, comprehensive data is indispensable to the successful operation of today's American economy, including information about communications, finance, medicine, law, news, travel, defense, and many other topics. As one of America's leading growth industries--one that generates jobs and supports American families--the information services industry creates a wealth of user-friendly, reliable, and up-to-date information critical to the lives of American citizens. Congress must provide the legal protection that ensures the future viability of the information services industry. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

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

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments and discuss some of the points raised by my colleagues today on the subject of campaign finance reform. Proponents of campaign finance reform have expressed concern over the cost of Federal election campaigns. One Senator stated that the cost of campaigns has increased 73 percent over the last 10 to 20 years. However, the cost of most things in life have also increased. For example, the Federal Government has grown so much over the last three or four decades that it spreads out and touches nearly part of our lives. In fact, there was a study which found that the Government involves itself in about 60 percent of everything we do today. The Federal Government's intrusion in the lives of my constituents has led many of them to either become involved in campaigns or travel to Washington to have their voices heard about the role of the Government in their lives. Congress should not suppress the ability of Americans to have their voices heard. If we go back to the level of Government that we had in 1930, we would not see the need for the number of people who have to travel out here day after day, year after year to get their points across, to let the Government know how certain legislation is going to affect them, good or bad. We often hear the phrase, ``The system is broken.'' The average campaign today costs about $4.5 million on average and the cost should be debated. However, the cost of political campaigns is still less, as we heard many times, than we spend every year on advertising for potato chips, yogurt, or toothpaste. So are the campaigns getting out of hand in the amount of money we spend? No. In fact, there are those who argue that we need to have more Americans involved in politics to have their voices heard. That is what makes a great democracy. The more involved you can get in what the Government does, the more that Government is going to respond to your needs and the needs of the country. Mr. President, the system is broken. It is a club for millionaires or could become a club for millionaires. If we continue to impose new restrictions, that is exactly what would happen. It would only be millionaires who would be able to run for office. So, in other words, we would cut off the average American's chance of ever running or holding any public office, to come and bring concerns to the floor of the U.S. Senate, the House of Representatives, or even in the State houses. I have also heard people say that ``Fundraisers used to be held around Senate schedules. Now it's just the opposite, that the Senate schedules are held around fundraisers.'' That isn't true in my office. We try to spend the vast majority of our time doing the work that we were sent here to do. Yes, we are going to face a campaign; yes, we are going to have to raise money, but we are sure not going to make the work that we were elected to do a lesser priority. I do not believe most of our colleagues have done that. But that is one of the charges issued today. If we increase the limits on the ability to raise X amount of dollars or we are required to accept smaller contributions, we will discourage many individuals who would like to campaign and serve in Congress. These individuals will have to spend more time trying to raise money than doing the job that they were elected to do. It gets to be a money chase, as we have heard here many times today. Each election, however, is like a basic ad campaign. Every candidate needs to communicate a message. Every candidate needs to be able to go out and talk to the voters to tell them what he supports, what his agenda will be, how he is going to vote on the important issues. If he does not have a chance or the opportunity to communicate his view to the voters, how are they going to know what this candidate represents? How are they going to know what to expect from him, and how are they going to make a decision between candidate A and candidate B? When you look at costs--I believe it was said earlier, too, today it is about $1.2 million to buy a 30-second ad during the Super Bowl. Now, we are not going to advertise during the Super Bowl. But if you go into an average television market across the country, an average spot for 30 seconds today is going to cost you over $3,000. Now, again, that is a lot of money, but you are going to have to run a decent campaign again to deliver your message. We need to inform our voters. If we cannot, as candidates cannot tell our voters how we are going to vote, what our values are, what we are going to stand up for, how we are going to vote on special issues, you can bet somebody is going to tell them that. But they are not going to tell it probably the way you would like. In other words, we are going to have opponents out there. You are going to have special interest groups, independent expenditures, or, more terrifying, you are going to leave it up to the media, you are going to allow the media to frame this debate. I do not want a newspaper or TV station, liberal or conservative, to be out there telling the voters what they think my position is or to frame my campaign in their words. As we know, I have views about how a lot of these stories and editorials are written. So if we leave it up to the editorial pages of our newspapers, or television reports and other stories, I do not think they are going to get the accurate picture of the campaigns or the candidates involved. A truly informed electrorate will result from preserving the free speech of people to become involved in these campaigns and the right of candidates to communicate their agenda. What we are hearing today in the Senate is to put on more limits. ``The system is broken.'' We hear that again. ``The public is cynical.'' I do not think they are cynical about honest campaigns. But they are from the headlines of those who have broken campaign laws. That is what you should be cynical about. We heard Senator Kerry here just a few minutes ago talking about his last campaign, spending in the neighborhood of about $12 million. That was a tough race. That is a lot of money. But have we heard any charges of illegalities involved in the race? No. So did the amount of money corrupt the race? Evidently not. So it isn't the money. But it is real chutzpah--if you know what the term is; that is really ``in your face''--when we have those who are out there calling the loudest for campaign finance reform saying that it could even involve a special session of Congress. I would call that ``a good defense being a good offense.'' In other words, let us deflect the real problem of the issue today, and that is over the problems of past campaigns, those who have broken the laws but yet are calling for new laws to be implemented. In other words, the chutzpah is similar to a saying in this morning's paper, ``It's like the person who killed his parents and then argued for mercy from the courts because he was an orphan.'' ``Stop me from killing again. Do not allow me to go out and break these laws again. Let's have new laws on the books,'' just like somehow new laws are going to prevent the intent of breaking them. There has been discussion about independent expenditures and establishing new limits. But, again, we cannot muzzle everybody. We are going to allow the unions to continue spending and collecting millions of dollars. No attempts really to rein in that abuse. So in other words, when it comes to reforms, it is OK to reform only if it limits my opponents more than it would limit me. Now, that would be good reform, but, again, in whose eyes? If we cannot do across-the-board reform, then no reform is good reform. A good defense is a good offense, again, to divert attention from the problems at hand. A lot of people are looking at hearings going on in Congress this year, and you hear the rhetoric or the spin that this is all about campaign finance reform. This is about those who broke existing laws, who abused the laws in the last campaign. That is what these hearings are supposed to flush out and look at, not by putting new limits on what we can say, who can say it, when we can say it. Who is going to determine that? Who is going to become a new censor? What that would do is take away more of your rights as individuals to participate in any campaign, whether Democrat, Republican, independent, whatever it might be. New limits would only mean average Americans would have new constraints placed on how they could become involved in the political process. In this instance, groups, individuals and candidates would be muzzled in a free country. Again, who would be out there talking? Again, ``The system is broken.'' Their answer, ``Put more controls on free speech.'' But in order to do that, it means bigger Government. ``More Government is the answer. If we can only put a few more controls, put a few more limits, spend a few more dollars somewhere else, somehow that is going to fix the system.'' The system may need some reforms. It may need some tinkering. It may need some changes. But I think overall our system is not broken. Have laws been broken? Has the system been abused? Yes, it has. That is exactly what the Thompson hearings have been trying to find out. But they have been blunted by those who have been accused and, yes, even charged with breaking those very laws. They say, ``Well, if we did, we're sorry, but we need to push for new laws. We need new changes.'' If there are those in Congress or any place else who would sell their integrity for a $2,000 contribution rather than representing the millions of people back home--by the way, an individual contribution is somewhere around the neighborhood of $25 per contribution--if there are individuals who would do that, they would be easily found out. If they are going to vote that way or betray the trust back home, they are going to be found out. If they are found out, they should be thrown out. But I believe nearly all, if not all, Members in this body are very honorable men and women who work very hard to try to serve their constituents back home, Republicans and Democrats, having the best interests of their constituents back home at heart. They try do that with a lot of honesty. But what are Americans to think if they hear day after day that campaigns, that Congress, is corrupt, that it is for sale to the highest bidder? Again, if there are such individuals, they will be found out and they will be thrown out. But I believe the public concern of campaigns in a large part is not because of the system itself but because of those who have abused the system, those who have broken the laws, and they remain unpunished. New laws, I do not believe, will cure the intent of those who want to break them. So I say, let us open the system, let us have full disclosure--Who contributed to the campaigns? How much did they contribute? --so that the public can judge who is supported by whom, which groups are involved, what are the issues at stake. Let us not put the Federal Government in control. Isn't public involvement better than having censorship by the Federal Government? You know, most people have a real concern today about big Government. A lot of people say they do not think a bloated bureaucracy can provide the best service today. They have sent many of us here to Washington with the charge of streamlining and downsizing the Federal Government that they believe is out of hand, unwieldy, spending too much money. Is the way to fix the campaign finance system by putting more control of the system into the hands of the Federal Government, to give them more control, more power, and, yes, even censorship on what you can say, when you can say it? Is it negative? Is it positive? Who is going to decide all of that? I believe Americans as a whole want the ability to participate and to participate in the elections as they choose. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today, I rise in support of S. 462, the Public Housing Reform and Responsibility Act. This bill is compassionate legislation that provides much-needed regulatory relief and commonsense reform for public housing in America. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of S. 462. It makes permanent the reform measures that have been added onto recent appropriations bills. It provides much needed additional regulatory relief and paperwork reduction to well- managed public housing agencies. It imposes tougher penalties on troubled housing authorities. And finally, it strengthens the ability of authorities to improve the safety of their tenants by enhancing their powers of screening and eviction. S. 462 makes permanent various reform measures that have been approved in appropriations bills during the last 3 years. It permanently repeals Federal preferences that have had the unintended consequence of concentrating the poorest of the poor in public housing developments and allows housing authorities to operate according to locally established preferences consistent with local housing needs. The bill still maintains the requirement that most housing assistance be targeted to very low-income households. S. 462 also repeals the one- for-one replacement requirement and streamlines the demolition and disposition process to permit housing authorities to demolish or sell vacant or obsolete public housing. S. 462 also provides much needed additional regulatory relief and paperwork reduction to public housing agencies. The bill significantly reduces the complexity that public housing authorities have in receiving funding. S. 462 consolidates a multitude of programs into two flexible block grants to expand the eligible uses of funds and allow a public housing agency to more efficiently and creatively use its available resources. The bill also repeals the highly burdensome requirements of the Family Self Sufficiency Program, which was passed in 1990 as part of the National Affordable Housing Act. Congress now recognizes that, while well-intentioned, FSS was an unfunded mandate that placed enormous administrative burden on public housing agencies. I believe that public housing agencies should be permitted to direct all of their energies to provide safe and affordable housing to low-income families, senior citizens, and the disabled. Public housing agencies should not have to drain their scarce resources to do the work better suited to county social service agencies. More importantly, however, the FSS mandate has been made unnecessary by the enactment last year of the landmark welfare reform bill. Because there will be 50 locally determined welfare reform laws, these laws are the more appropriate vehicle for moving public housing families from welfare to work. While providing much needed regulatory relief to well-managed public housing agencies. S. 462 also imposes tough, new penalties for troubled authorities. I am very supportive of swift and strong action to correct the management deficiencies of troubled housing authorities. While less than 5 percent of the 3,400 housing authorities in this country are troubled, their poor condition and lack of safety tend to dominate the news. I believe that, working together, we must act decisively to improve their condition. S. 462 also contains three provisions that I personally authored. The first provision relates to the Congregate Housing Services Program, which was authorized by the Housing and Community Development Amendments Act of 1978 to provide 3- to 5-year contracts to fund services for eligible residents of public housing authorities. CHSP provides for ailing seniors, who normally would be institutionalized in nursing homes to remain housed in less expensive elderly-only projects that provide them with at least one hot meal a day, a social worker to monitor their health and medication, and housekeeping services. CHSP is good program because it provides ailing low-income seniors with the dignity of having their own apartment at a cost that has been estimated to be 66 percent lower than the costs of institutionalizing them in nursing homes. As I strongly support CHSP, I have had language added into S. 462 to guarantee the continuation of funding for this important program. I have included two other provisions into S. 462 that are designed to enhance tenant safety. My first provision strengthens the eviction powers of public housing authorities by permitting them to quickly terminate the leases of tenants that are found by a legal police search to have illegal drugs in their possession. My second tenant safety provision--now commonly known as the Grams Amendment--has been the subject of high amount of controversy. As you know, current law permits public housing authorities to reject applicants who have a record of violent criminal activity, who are abusing illegal drugs, or who are abusing alcohol in a way that could adversely affect the safety and peaceful enjoyment of other tenants. Public housing authorities have responded to this legislation by checking on their applicants' criminal records, prior tenancy records and--in a few cases--information from the records of drug abuse treatment facilities. Public housing authorities that have instituted this screening have reported back to me that they have been able to significantly reduce illegal drug use and crime in their projects. Several months ago, several of Minnesota's public housing authorities requested that I get an amendment into the public housing reform bill that would clarify their right to get information about illegal drug use from the records of drug abuse treatment facilities. Their request was prompted by a lawsuit being filed against the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority by people that are opposed to their screening for illegal drugs. I agreed to do the amendment, because I have previously toured public housing projects throughout Minnesota and have had touching conversations with Minnesotans who were fearful about the affects of illegal drugs on their own safety and the future of their children. I am also concerned that the money that public housing authorities have been spending to defend themselves against frivolous lawsuits regarding their screening programs could be better spent on providing housing to America's most needy families. After I added in safeguards to protect applicants' privacy and confidentiality rights, my amendment was unanimously accepted by the Democrats and the Republicans on the Senate Banking committee, and it was part of the public housing reform bill that the Committee unanimously voted to report out on May 8. At the time, no one on the committee considered my amendment to be controversial. After we completed committee action on the bill, I heard from quite a few organizations that were concerned that the language of the legislation preempted the medical record confidentiality protections of the Public Health Service Act. Furthermore, there was concern that the type of information that the amendment would permit a public housing authority to review would conflict with the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. I took these concerns very seriously because I am a strong supporter of laws that protect medical confidentiality and protect people with disabilities from discrimination. Over August recess, my staff had meetings with HUD, the DOJ, HHS, and Housing Subcommittee staff to address the concerns regarding the amendment. On September 11, I submitted to the committee a scaled-down version of the Amendment that does not preempt the Public Health Service Act and does not conflict with ADA, Fair Housing, or the Rehab Act. I am happy that this version of my amendment has been retained in the bill. In conclusion, I am very pleased that the Senate will be reporting out this long overdue piece of legislation today. I commend Senator Mack for sponsoring this moderate and balanced piece of legislation and for carefully shepherding it through the Senate.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I would have to defer to the author of the bill and to the Senator from Massachusetts. I am not aware of the details of that. I would have to look that up to understand it fully.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 830, the Food and Drug Administration Modernization and Accountability Act. While this legislation covers many areas under the FDA's jurisdiction, as chairman of the Medical Device Caucus, I want to focus primarily on the provisions relating to the regulation of medical devices. The medical device industry is an important asset to Minnesotans. I am proud to say that many of the world's leading and most innovative medical device companies call Minnesota home. In fact, there are over 500 medical device manufacturers in Minnesota. In my State, the medical device industry has created more than 16,000 manufacturing jobs. Minnesota ranks fifth nationally in total employment for medical devices--and since 1988, the number of medical device manufacturing jobs has grown faster in Minnesota than in the rest of the Nation. In 1994 alone, 53 new medical device companies were created in Minnesota. Yet, despite all the successes, there are significant hurdles the industry must clear in order to succeed in the increasingly competitive global marketplace. Medical device manufacturers face incredible barriers that too often prevent them from marketing new products, creating jobs, researching and developing the latest technologies, and most tragically, from providing U.S. patients the best medical technology in the world. Mr. President, it is easy for debates on reforming or modernizing the FDA to develop into an FDA bashing session which does nothing to persuade or accentuate the positive results of suggested changes made in the FDA reform measure, S. 830. I want to be very clear: The individuals charged with ensuring the safety of medical devices, drugs, biologics, food, and cosmetics are good people, trying their best to do a difficult job. The pace at which new technologies are introduced in the medical community is staggering--and at best, difficult to keep up with. This legislation will give the FDA the tools they need to keep pace with technology and ensure the safety and effectiveness of drugs, medical devices, food, and cosmetics well into the 21st century. I would like to thank the Labor and Health and Human Services Committee for drafting what is a well-balanced and meaningful FDA modernization package in addition to reauthorizing the Prescription Drug User Fee Act. The User Fee Act has proven itself as an example of how an agency and an industry can work together to bring highly regulated products to the market more quickly and more efficiently--without sacrificing safety. However, the regulatory burdens imposed on the medical device industry have had a chilling effect on the industry and its customers-- the patients. As a result of regulatory delays, device manufacturers are falling behind their foreign competitors or moving their production and development overseas. While approval of devices in Europe takes only 6 to 8 months, the same device can be caught up in the regulatory process for years here in the United States. What this means is that Europeans have access to the most up-to-date technologies while patients in the United States are forced to wait. If this continues, we will not be able to claim that the United States has the world's best health care for very much longer. Many will say we need a strong FDA. I agree. I would argue, however, that far too many Americans have become victims of the Government's bureaucracy because they were denied access to devices which have been available and safely used in Europe for years. We can no longer allow ourselves to perpetuate out-of-date rules and regulations which ultimately harm the patient, nor can we allow those same rules and regulations to force American jobs, technologies, and health care overseas. The FDA Modernization and Accountability Act is a solid piece of legislation which will ensure American patients' access to the most advanced medical devices as well as create jobs and strengthen the economy. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I understand that there are no other speakers on our side of the aisle wishing to come to the floor and talk about the subject today. So, on behalf of the manager of the bill, the Senator from Vermont, and the majority, I yield my time and the remainder of the majority's time. Thank you.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation to require the Social Security Administration to provide key information to the American people for retirement planning. In that regard, I plan to send my bill to the desk in just a moment. But to explain that, every working American has a significant part of each paycheck designated to the Social Security Program, but few know how much they've contributed over their lifetime, the real value of their Social Security investment, or how much they'll need for a secure retirement. As average life-expectancy increases and the oldest baby boomers approach retirement, the answers to those three questions become critically important, for there's growing concern over the future of Social Security and how individuals should prepare themselves for retirement. Over the next 33 years, the number of retirees and their dependents who are eligible for Social Security benefits will increase by more than 100 percent; from 30 million in 1997 to more than 60 million in 2030, while the number of workers 20 to 64 years old will increase by only 20 percent. By 2030, the ratio of workers per retiree will be the smallest ever, straining the entire Social Security system to the breaking point. Most of these older Americans will rely on Social Security benefits as their major source of retirement income. For many families, Social Security is the largest and most important financial investment they'll make, consuming up to one-eighth of their total lifetime income. Yet, the Federal Government remains unaccountable for the dollars working Americans have invested in the program. Current laws do not require the Social Security Administration, [SSA], the agency managing the Social Security trust funds, to send clear and complete account statements to individual taxpayers. Therefore, Americans don't receive adequate information about the retirement benefits they can expect to receive, the rate of return from their Social Security investment, or the future financial status of the Social Security trust funds--information, by the way, private investment agencies are required to provide to their investors. As a result, the vast majority of today's baby boomers won't be financially secure at retirement. My legislation would help to correct this problem and bring Social Security closer to meeting the disclosure requirements expected of private investment firms. This legislation will help ensure that working Americans receive the information they need to plan for a secure retirement. In 1989, Congress passed the personal earnings and benefits estimate statements, it is commonly known as PEBES. That legislation requires the SSA to send to eligible individuals statements on their yearly earnings and estimated benefits. A recent study by the General Accounting Office, the accounting arm of Congress, suggests that while the PEBES is useful, it is extremely difficult for average Americans to understand and, in fact, could be misleading. Therefore it isn't as effective as it could be or should be. Moreover, the current PEBES statement does not include the information an individual needs to most effectively plan for retirement. My proposal would require Washington to provide key information on the real value, or the yield, of a worker's investment in the Social Security Program by counting employers' contributions as workers' earnings to calculate the rate of return. Washington currently excludes this type of contribution from a worker's earnings statement. The employer's share of Social Security is a labor cost that's ultimately borne by the employee; it is only fair that it be counted as a worker's contribution. To ensure that the information is easy to understand, my legislation would also direct the SSA to provide benefit estimates in real rather than current dollars. To show the impact of inflation on Social Security benefits, consider the case of a typical individual retiring in 2043. That American is 25 years old today, retiring in the year 2043. The current benefit estimate found in PEBES will tell this worker that he or she can expect to receive $98,989--nearly $100,000 annually in Social Security benefits. That sounds pretty good, doesn't it? But most workers will never consider the effects of inflation on this number. They'd never guess that an income of $98,989 in 2043 will actually be the equivalent of only $14,180 today because of inflation. If the PEBES includes such misleading information, it is likely that more working Americans will misunderstand and, therefore, overestimate the value of the benefits they will receive from Social Security. Only after it is too late will they find themselves financially unprepared for retirement. Not only would my legislation direct the SSA to include all of the most important information found in PEBES on a single, easy-to-read form, but the SSA would also be required to provide the current and projected balance in the Social Security trust funds, and let individuals decide on their future by providing them honest information today. With this information, Americans will be able to quickly and easily determine what the PEBES report is about and find the information essential to successful retirement planning. Working American need to know up front what they can and cannot expect out of the Social Security system compared against what they are paying into it. Giving individuals an honest accounting of that information serves the fundamental objectives of the Social Security Program by enabling workers to judge to what degree they should supplement their contributions with other forms of retirement savings such as pension plans and personal savings and investments. While much more needs to be accomplished to preserve and strengthen the Social Security safety net for today and tomorrow, the approach I've outlined would be an important first step in that attempt.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, I ask what is the current business before the Senate?

Mr. GRAMS. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be set aside and I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Grams pertaining to the introduction of S. 1145 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation to require the Social Security Administration to provide key information to the American people for retirement planning. In that regard, I plan to send my bill to the desk in just a moment. But to explain that, every working American has a significant part of each paycheck designated to the Social Security Program, but few know how much they've contributed over their lifetime, the real value of their Social Security investment, or how much they'll need for a secure retirement. As average life-expectancy increases and the oldest baby boomers approach retirement, the answers to those three questions become critically important, for there's growing concern over the future of Social Security and how individuals should prepare themselves for retirement. Over the next 33 years, the number of retirees and their dependents who are eligible for Social Security benefits will increase by more than 100 percent; from 30 million in 1997 to more than 60 million in 2030, while the number of workers 20 to 64 years old will increase by only 20 percent. By 2030, the ratio of workers per retiree will be the smallest ever, straining the entire Social Security system to the breaking point. Most of these older Americans will rely on Social Security benefits as their major source of retirement income. For many families, Social Security is the largest and most important financial investment they'll make, consuming up to one-eighth of their total lifetime income. Yet, the Federal Government remains unaccountable for the dollars working Americans have invested in the program. Current laws do not require the Social Security Administration, [SSA], the agency managing the Social Security trust funds, to send clear and complete account statements to individual taxpayers. Therefore, Americans don't receive adequate information about the retirement benefits they can expect to receive, the rate of return from their Social Security investment, or the future financial status of the Social Security trust funds--information, by the way, private investment agencies are required to provide to their investors. As a result, the vast majority of today's baby boomers won't be financially secure at retirement. My legislation would help to correct this problem and bring Social Security closer to meeting the disclosure requirements expected of private investment firms. This legislation will help ensure that working Americans receive the information they need to plan for a secure retirement. In 1989, Congress passed the personal earnings and benefits estimate statements, it is commonly known as PEBES. That legislation requires the SSA to send to eligible individuals statements on their yearly earnings and estimated benefits. A recent study by the General Accounting Office, the accounting arm of Congress, suggests that while the PEBES is useful, it is extremely difficult for average Americans to understand and, in fact, could be misleading. Therefore it isn't as effective as it could be or should be. Moreover, the current PEBES statement does not include the information an individual needs to most effectively plan for retirement. My proposal would require Washington to provide key information on the real value, or the yield, of a worker's investment in the Social Security Program by counting employers' contributions as workers' earnings to calculate the rate of return. Washington currently excludes this type of contribution from a worker's earnings statement. The employer's share of Social Security is a labor cost that's ultimately borne by the employee; it is only fair that it be counted as a worker's contribution. To ensure that the information is easy to understand, my legislation would also direct the SSA to provide benefit estimates in real rather than current dollars. To show the impact of inflation on Social Security benefits, consider the case of a typical individual retiring in 2043. That American is 25 years old today, retiring in the year 2043. The current benefit estimate found in PEBES will tell this worker that he or she can expect to receive $98,989--nearly $100,000 annually in Social Security benefits. That sounds pretty good, doesn't it? But most workers will never consider the effects of inflation on this number. They'd never guess that an income of $98,989 in 2043 will actually be the equivalent of only $14,180 today because of inflation. If the PEBES includes such misleading information, it is likely that more working Americans will misunderstand and, therefore, overestimate the value of the benefits they will receive from Social Security. Only after it is too late will they find themselves financially unprepared for retirement. Not only would my legislation direct the SSA to include all of the most important information found in PEBES on a single, easy-to-read form, but the SSA would also be required to provide the current and projected balance in the Social Security trust funds, and let individuals decide on their future by providing them honest information today. With this information, Americans will be able to quickly and easily determine what the PEBES report is about and find the information essential to successful retirement planning. Working American need to know up front what they can and cannot expect out of the Social Security system compared against what they are paying into it. Giving individuals an honest accounting of that information serves the fundamental objectives of the Social Security Program by enabling workers to judge to what degree they should supplement their contributions with other forms of retirement savings such as pension plans and personal savings and investments. While much more needs to be accomplished to preserve and strengthen the Social Security safety net for today and tomorrow, the approach I've outlined would be an important first step in that attempt.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much. I want to thank my colleague from Texas for yielding. Mr. President, I came to the floor yesterday to discuss in detail my strong support for the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. I do not intend to repeat the arguments I made then, but I do have just a couple of other points I think need to be made. When my good friends, Senator Hutchinson of Arkansas and Senator Dan Coats of Indiana, and I first proposed the $500-per-child tax credit back in 1993, we were not doing it to grab headlines and it was not a piece of cheap political theater. We pursued the $500-per-child tax credit because we believed that working families are horribly overtaxed. And how did we know that? Because the American people told us so. Americans are by nature a very giving and generous people. For a long time, they did not complain--at least too loudly--that their tax burden seemed to be rising every year even though they were not seeing any improvements in Government services. If anything, their tax dollars seemed to be buying less and less. But when taxes reached the point where working Americans were spending more of their hard-earned money feeding the Government than they were spending to feed, clothe, and shelter their families, well then, the taxpayers started feeling as though their generosity was being taken advantage of. They began demanding that the Government stop spending their dollars so recklessly. They began asking for tax relief, so they could start meeting the needs of their own families, instead of feeding Washington's mixed-up priorities. So what do working families want from their Government? Well, let me first tell you what they do not want. America's working families do not want handouts. They do not want more government agencies or programs. They do not want their tax dollars feeding bigger Government. They do not want the Government to intrude unjustly into their daily lives. They just want to go to work to make a good living, have a decent place to call home, and to have the opportunity to provide for their children. And they want to keep a little bit more of their own money at the end of the day. That is what this package of tax relief will deliver. For my home State of Minnesota, the $500-per-child tax credit at the heart of our legislation adds up to at least $300 million that will stay in the hands of families every year. More than 700,000 middle-class children will benefit. That is what families have told me they want, and that is what we are on the verge of delivering. It should not be an occasion to celebrate when politicians actually keep their promises. That is how the process ought to work. But we all know that Washington has gotten pretty good at making promises, but too often fails miserably when it comes time to keep some of those promises. But, today, Congress is delivering on what I consider to be an irrevocable promise we made to the taxpayers 2\1/2\ years ago. Send us to Washington, we said, and we will cut your taxes. That is not a political slogan--that was a promise. Now, let us not kid ourselves--our package of tax relief is not going to make anybody rich. As tax cuts go, it is pretty paltry. The net tax relief amounts to less than 1 percent of all the tax revenue collected by the Federal Government over the next 5 years. It begins to roll back the President's 1993 tax increase, but we would have to pass a bill three times bigger than the one before us today to wipe out the 1993 increase completely. It is an important start, however, in moving the Government in a new direction. Relying on a radical philosophy of faster, better, cheaper, NASA launched the Pathfinder probe and successfully--and dramatically-- opened a new era of exploration on Mars. The return on that investment has gone far beyond anything that can be totaled up on a balance sheet. I would like to see the same philosophy of faster, better, cheaper applied to the rest of Washington as well, for a payback I believe can be equally as impressive. A faster government has fewer layers of bureaucracy, so that it can more quickly meet the needs of the people. A better government is responsive to its citizens and responsible to its taxpayers. A cheaper government needs fewer dollars to carry out its work, opening the door to future tax cuts that leave even more money in the hands of the taxpayers. Faster, better, cheaper is an idea that worked on Mars. It is an idea that ought to work just as well here on Earth. To paraphrase a favorite quote of mine, Mr. President, politics are temporary--but the American family is permanent. Enactment of the $500- per-child tax credit is a great victory for families, one I believe will help bring them together, and hopefully keep them together. I am proud that I can go back home this weekend and tell the working families of my State--who for years have watched their taxes rise and their take-home pay shrink--that Washington finally got the message. We are at last going to cut their taxes, not because it is the politically easy thing to do, but because it is the right thing to do. Again, I want to thank and commend the majority leader and my colleagues, the chairmen of the Finance and Budget committees, for having the determination to bring the Taxpayer Relief Act to the floor. This is a great day in the history of the Senate, and it is also a day that I am proud to be a part of. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to give my congratulations to the chairman of the Budget Committee and all the others who have worked so hard over the last couple of weeks to work out an especially very important tax package, which I believe is going to be a step in the right direction of relieving some of the tax burden placed on American families over the last several years. So with that, Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the tax relief package that will be coming before the Senate tomorrow. I want to take this opportunity, again, to commend and thank the majority leader, Chairman Domenici, Chairman Roth, and the negotiators for the administration for all of their efforts to bring us to this historic point here today. Mr. President, when my good friend Tim Hutchinson and I went to the floor as freshmen members of the House in June 1993 to introduce a budget plan we called Putting Jobs and the American Family First, I could never have guessed the long road we would have to travel to reach the point we find ourselves at today--on the verge of enacting the $500 per-child tax credit that served as the centerpiece of our 1993 legislation. Our proposal did not have a lot of support in Washington in 1993, and family tax relief did not even make the radar screen of most lawmakers. But that was not important, because we had support where it mattered the most: with the American taxpayers. In the years since, I have watched the enthusiasm for the $500 per-child tax credit continue to grow until it could no longer be ignored here in Washington. After being embraced by the President and congressional leaders in both parties, 1997 is the year in which the $500 per-child tax credit will finally become law. I have been pleased with many of the changes we been able to bring about in our Government during my service in Congress--but the vote we'll take tomorrow on our tax relief plan charts an important new course. This week, we fulfill what I consider to be a fundamental promise we made 2\1/2\ years ago to the American taxpayers: that Washington would finally listen to the people and let them keep a little bit more of their own money at the end of the day. This legislation is a victory--not for the Senate, or the House, or the President, but for the working families of America. Those are the men and women who go to work every day--and sometimes to a second job at night--in the summer when the heat is horrific and the winter when the car will not start and the snow is piled up to their knees. They put in their 8 hours and often stay for another 3 or 4 for the overtime if they are struggling to save for a new furnace or the kids need braces. They do not ask for much--just to be treated fairly. These are the folks who look at their checkbooks each week and wonder ``Where did it all go?''--the same folks who stare at their tax returns each April and ask ``How come the government takes so much?'' Thanks to the $500 per-child tax credit, the Government will be taking a little less on tax day. Mr. President, I am pleased with the improved $500 per-child tax credit provision contained in the fiscal year 1998 reconciliation conference agreement. It is a needed improvement over the Senate-passed version, which I voted against in June. At that time, I opposed the Senate tax bill because of the way it restricted the use of the $500 per-child tax credit, and in the process, diluted its value. The Senate plan offered a $250 tax credit in 1997 for children under the age of 13, which increased to $500 per- child in 1999. For children age 13 to 16, the tax credit was available only if parents dedicated it toward their children's education. While I fully support the idea of putting away those tax credit dollars for college, I do not believe the Government should mandate exactly how the taxpayers should spend their own money. That is not the place of Congress and the President. When I cast my vote against the Senate's tax cut bill in June, it was to send a signal to budget negotiators that we must craft a $500 per- child tax credit that does more for working families. With the recent improvements made by the House and the Senate, it is clear Washington finally got the message--as a result, more families will keep more of their hard-earned tax dollars. The $500 per-child tax credit remains the centerpiece of the our tax relief plan. Under the agreement, working families will be provided a $400 per-child credit in 1998, which increases to $500 per-child in 1999 for dependent children below age 17. The credit is phased out for families earning more than $110,000 per year. The result is that the families of 43 million children nationwide will receive more than $70 billion in tax credits over the next 5 years. It is the Nation's middle-income families who will benefit most once this provision is enacted. In my State of Minnesota, nearly 700,000 children from middle-class families will be the primary beneficiaries. Those families will see over $300 million in tax relief. That is $300 million that will not go to Washington to fund the priorities of the Federal Government. Instead, families can use that money to fund their own priorities, whether that is groceries, medical expenses, insurance, or education. An additional 170,000 Minnesota children will receive the tax credit under this expanded version than would have under President Clinton's plan. Another notable improvement is that the agreement broadens the child tax credit to low-income families. When Senators Hutchinson, Coats, and I introduced our most recent version of the child tax relief legislation earlier this year, we urged Congress to provide immediate tax relief to families effective in 1997, provide it to as many families with children under age 18 as it possibly can, regardless of their income, and make it available against all taxes paid by workers, including payroll taxes. I am pleased the agreement adopted our proposal and offset this tax relief by tightening the earned income tax credit. For a typical family of four, the $500 per-child tax credit means $1,000 in tax relief, which would pay 1 month's mortgage and grocery bills, or 11 months' worth of electric bills, or nearly 20 months' worth of clothing for the children. More significantly, the $500 per-child tax credit will reverse a 16- year tide of rising Federal taxes to finally reduce a family's total Federal income tax burden. This is the first tax cut in 16 years, but, in the meantime, there have been 10 tax increases in that 16 years. This begins to reverse the tide. For a family of four earning $30,000 per year, $1,000 in tax relief would cut their income tax burden by 51 percent. Meanwhile, a family of four earning $40,000 would see their tax burden cut by 30 percent, a family earning $75,000 would see their tax burden reduced by 12 percent, and a family earning $100,000 per year would receive a tax cut of 7.4 percent. This tax relief will restore some fairness for the taxpayers of my State. Over the past several decades, the Federal tax load on Minnesota residents has grown larger and larger while their share of Federal spending has gotten smaller and smaller. Minnesotans last year paid an average of $5,563 per person in taxes to the Federal Government, $203 more than the national average. But Minnesota received back only 78 cents in Federal spending for every $1 its taxpayers sent to Washington, among the lowest return of any State. This regional disparity is an additional financial burden to Minnesota residents. Mr. President, I also applaud the inclusion in the agreement of important pro-economic-growth and pro-prosperity tax provisions such as capital gains relief and estate tax reduction. Although these tax cuts are rather small and hardly keep pace with inflation, it is nonetheless a move in the right direction. These tax cuts will spur job creation and economic growth. In doing so, they will reduce the cost of capital, increase worker productivity, and provide higher salaries for the American people. However, I believe Congress could have done much more in the way of tax relief for working Americans if Washington would just spend less and allow working families to keep more of their hard-earned money. I personally would prefer a full and immediate $500 per-child tax credit for all families with children under 18 without any restrictions, zero capital gains tax, elimination of the death tax, and ending double taxation. But those battles will have to wait for another day. My greatest disappointment with the tax deal is that it contains no real tax reform. Instead of simplifying the Tax Code, this tax bill increases its complexity. Tax policy is still used as a tool for the redistribution of private incomes and for social engineering. Nothing is done to end the IRS as we know it. Unfortunately, these defects greatly diminish the positive impacts of the tax bill. I pledge to continue to work with my colleagues on real tax reform in the future. Although the tax relief in the improved bill is still tiny when compared against both the total tax burden of the American taxpayers and total Government spending, it is the first time in 16 years that the Government has acknowledged that working families are being heavily overtaxed. That is reason enough to celebrate. Mr. President, ever since the people of Minnesota sent me to represent them in Congress--first in the House and now in the Senate-- Americans have been writing me to share their dreams for themselves and for their nation. Their letters fill dozens of files in my office. Some of the most passionate stories have come from families--working families who heard that I had proposed a $500 per child tax credit and wanted to tell me what a difference such a seemingly simple piece of legislation would make in their lives. I would like to share just a few of their letters. A family in Illinois wrote: We are a one-paycheck family struggling to keep our heads above water . . . It is encouraging to know there are members of the government who understand our struggle and are working on our behalf. ``Thank you for your efforts in trying to help families receive a tax credit of $500 per child,'' wrote another family, this one from Texas. ``As parents of three children, we truly appreciate your endeavors in a time when other politicians are trying to get more and more of our hard-earned money.'' From Michigan came this letter: There are not very many people in Washington who remember the pro-family community--and even fewer in Washington who will support the family. And a family in my own State of Minnesota sent me this heartfelt letter: As the mother of seven children with one income, I am especially interested in the $500 per child tax credit. We refuse to accept aid from federal or state programs that we qualify for. We believe this country was built with hard work and sacrifice, not sympathy and handouts. We also believe that we can spend this money more effectively than the government, which has only succeeded in creating a permanent dependent welfare class with our money over the last 40 years. Let us get back to basics. Let us get back to basics. I think ``getting back to basics'' is what this debate is all about, Mr. President. The American family has always been our Nation's most basic level of government. The power begins with the family and it ought to remain with the family at the end of the day. By enacting the $500 per child tax credit into law, Congress and the President will at last send a message to real Americans--the folks outside the confines of this Capitol--that we understand what it means to be a working family in the 1990's, that we know government demands too much while delivering too little, and that we can put aside the politics that too often divide us and do what is right by the American taxpayers. Mr. President, the $500 per child tax credit is not going to make anybody rich, but we cannot measure its value in just dollars and cents. After 16 years without a drop of tax relief, we are finally going to let the taxpayers keep a little bit more of their own money at the end of the day. From the vantage point of this Senator, that is a priceless investment in the American family. Again, after 4 years of hard work to bring about at least this portion of the tax bill, which has been called ``the crown jewel,'' we are going to finally succeed in giving the American family some hard- earned tax relief. Thank you, very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to commend the members of the Subcommittee on VA/HUD Appropriations for their work to provide adequate benefits to veterans. In a letter to the Chairman, I urged the subcommittee to support a level of spending that adequately funded veterans' benefits in rightful recognition of their efforts to defend our country in war. I am pleased to learn that the VA will get a full appropriation which shows a total budget increase of $222.6 million above last year and $92.9 million above the President's request. I also applaud their foresight in voting $68 million additional funding over the President's request for the medical care account. The high priority which the subcommittee placed on this area reflects the heightened concern the country feels for providing appropriate health care to those who have served us so well. The mandatory spending has also been increased by $1.26 billion over last year for pensions and compensation. Mr. President, I am pleased that the subcommittee has included a provision which will allow the VA to retain third-party collections, which I have long supported, in addition to the regular appropriation. This additional estimated $604 million will be retained by the VA medical centers giving the care. This will provide much needed additional revenue which should allow the centers to treat more veterans. It will also provide an incentive to improve health care for more veterans at each of the 171 facilities throughout the country. The committee report supports the restructuring efforts of the Veterans Health Administration; I will be interested to see the results of this effort over the next 5 years as this, too, will improve health care for our veterans. I also share the subcommittee's concerns that the VA has yet to develop a nationwide plan for community-based outpatient clinics to ensure equitable access to medical care nationwide. We will be seeing great changes at the VA in the next few years that will make it a more streamlined and improved provider of services to veterans. Again, I thank my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their efforts to help America's veterans.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I understand that the amendment has been accepted.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, my understanding is that the amendment has been accepted and no recall vote is needed.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, tonight I am pleased that an amendment by Senator Feingold and I, which we intended to offer, has now been accepted in modified form. Because this issue is so important to my State, I wanted to take some time to briefly review why I offered the amendment and why this amendment is requiring a study of the Northeast Dairy Compact. My amendment is straightforward and is noncontroversial. It simply requires the Secretary of Agriculture to study and report the economic impacts of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. The focus of this amendment is to examine the impact of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact on food nutrition programs and on the entire Nation's dairy industry. This amendment will help protect senior citizens, children, and the most needy among us. This amendment helps all who rely on food stamps, the School Lunch Program, the Summer Food Service Program, the Child and Adult Care Food Program, the Special Milk Program, the School Breakfast Program, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, as well as dairy producers in 44 States. Joining me in offering this amendment are Senators Feingold, Thomas, Kohl, Levin, Wellstone, DeWine, and Craig. As many of my colleagues may know, on July 1, 1997, the Compact became effective in a six-State region in New England giving producers there an arbitrary, fixed price for their milk--nearly $17 per hundredweight. Unfortunately, few of us know exactly what this will mean for consumers in that region, particularly the poor; for the cost of delivering food nutrition assistance by Federal, State, and local governments; and for dairy producers in 44 other States, including my producers in Minnesota, who receive far, far less for their milk than their New England counterparts. We are not sure of the Compact's impact, in large part, because there has been so little light shed on it. It became law attached in a conference committee. The Compact has always seemed to travel under a cloud with no justification for its existence. For example, in the 103d Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a business meeting to consider the Compact--without the benefit of a single hearing--and reported the Compact to the floor. The Senate never considered it. A House Judiciary subcommittee held one hearing on the proposal, but eventually sent it to full Committee without recommendation because the vote was evenly divided for and against the Compact. The bill died in Committee. In fact, at the House hearing, the administration's testimony was ``we believe this is a matter that warrants further review and consideration''. Hardly a ringing endorsement. In the 104th Congress, the Compact was the subject of not a single hearing in either the Judiciary Committee or the Agriculture Committee of the Senate. Nor was it the topic of a single hearing in counterpart Committees in the House. Despite this, the Compact wound up in the Senate's version of the farm bill. In response, a majority of this body voted to strip it out. The House never included the Compact in its version of the farm bill. Yet, somehow the Compact found its way back into the farm bill during conference, and survived buried in a conference report most of us supported overall. Subsequent to the authority for the Compact becoming law, the Secretary of Agriculture decided to go ahead with implementation of the Compact despite the fact that the President's own Council of Economic Advisors recommended against it. As a matter of fact, it was reported that the former head of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, Mr. Joseph Stiglitz, lashed out at the * * * Compact, noting it was a cost to U.S. consumers and lowered real benefits paid out via food stamps by 10 percent. I wish I could share with my colleagues the Council of Economic Advisor's actual recommendation against the Compact. Unfortunately, however, when I wrote to the current Chairman of the Council, Ms. Janet Yellen, for that information, my request was denied. I also took the time to show up at an Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee hearing to submit the request to Secretary Glickman who was testifying at the time. A month or two later, I received from the Secretary yet another denial of my request for this information. Adding insult to injury, when the Compact was being challenged in court, it seemed for a while that the Department of Agriculture was going to have a tough time just beating back that challenge even though the Federal court hearing the case was applying the lowest possible threshold--the rationale basis test--in scrutinizing the Compact. As my colleagues are aware, the rationable basis test applied by courts only requires that there be just a little bit of logic in a government action--it just has to make some kind of sense. Yet, on the Secretary's first attempt to explain the Compact, the judge in a frustrated tone, stated that the Secretary of Agriculture's concerns--about the Compact--expressed in four paragraphs, overshadow the four reasons, expressed in two sentences, that the Secretary gave-- in favor of the Compact. In short, the Secretary could not even supply a meager rational reason for the Compact's existence. Shortly after that pronouncement from the court, the Secretary of Agriculture asked Judge Friedman for a second shot at rationalizing the Compact. However, the amended brief supporting the Compact did not address the economic impacts of the Compact or even the Secretary's own concerns. But, since the court only required some kind of reasoning--any kind of reasoning--the Compact survived in court. Mr. President, it is plain to see from all this that the cloud covering the Compact has still not lifted. The Compact and its exact economic effects are very uncertain, at best, and this should rightly concern Members from the Compact region as well as those of us in the other 44 States. In his August 9, 1996, statement, Secretary Glickman himself stated: I am concerned about the potential effects of the Compact in several respects and intend, therefore, to monitor closely its implementation. Secretary Glickman also continued: I expect that the Compact Commission will implement the Compact in a way that does not burden other regions of the country, consistent with the provisions of the FAIR Act and the Compact. I will monitor whether the Compact has any adverse effects on the income of dairy producers outside the Compact region. Further, the Secretary announced, and again I quote: Perhaps most significantly, I am deeply concerned about and will closely monitor the effect of the Compact on consumers, especially low-income families, within the Compact region. I expect that the Commission will pay close attention to monitor the effects of its decisions on consumers before and after it takes any action. He went on to say, and again I am quoting: I also expect the commission and the Compact States to provide assistance to offset any increased burden on low- income families in the Compact region. I am also concerned about the effect of the Compact on the Department of Agriculture's nutrition programs, and I expect the commission to exercise its authority to reimburse participants in a special supplemental nutrition program for WIC and to fulfill its obligation to reimburse the CCC, as provided in the Compact and in the FAIR Act. Mr. President, despite the concerns expressed by the Secretary of Agriculture regarding the compact, we still have no way of knowing whether the compact is in fact having an adverse effect on consumers, especially the poor, and, if it is, to what extent. We have no way of knowing whether the compact is increasing the cost of food nutrition programs, adversely affecting taxpayers who foot the bill. We also have no way of knowing whether the compact has an adverse effect on the dairy producers of 44 other States in this country or whether the CCC will pick up bigger tabs because of the compact. The only information we have today are newspaper articles from the compact region reporting that retail milk prices have climbed 20 to 26 cents per gallon since the compact was implemented, and retailers and consumer groups are blaming the compact. We are also hearing word that milk production in the compact region is on the rise in response to the fixed prices New England dairy producers are receiving. I am told that one large processor in the compact region is not accepting any additional milk at one of its plants and is instead shipping five to seven loads a day of excess milk to the Midwest where it is sold for around $7 to $8 per hundredweight for processing. If these reports are correct, New England lawmakers should be extremely concerned about their consumers, especially the poorest among them. My colleagues from the other 44 States, especially those States that produce dry powdered milk or cheese, should be equally concerned about producers in their home States having to compete with $7 and $8 milk coming out of New England. But the fact is none of us know for sure what is happening out there due to the compact because the cloud lingers, and, therefore, all I am asking from my colleagues is a little bit of sunshine. It seems to me that last Congress we bought this rig sight unseen without even so much as kicking the tires. Under those circumstances, I don't think it is unreasonable to now ask that we take a look under the hood. If the folks who sold us the compact are right, then there is nothing to hide. At this juncture, I believe that a study of the compact is not only appropriate but it is very necessary. Mr. President, in the August 9, 1996, statement of Secretary Glickman, which I mentioned earlier, the Secretary also stated: I also encourage Congress to exercise its oversight function and to monitor the implementation of the compact. Mr. President, I think the Secretary has offered us some very sound advice. This is the best way to provide that necessary oversight. If the compact is compromising our efforts to help the disadvantaged, the senior citizens and children through nutrition programs or disadvantaging dairy producers in 44 States, I want to be one of the first to learn that information and then to do something about it. So, Mr. President, I understand again that this amendment I offer with Senator Feingold is accepted, and I thank all of those who have helped us work on this and support it. Also, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I add Senator Abraham to the list of cosponsors of this amendment as well.

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair. I thank you for the time and I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS. This technical amendment, which I offer with Senator Wellstone, simply provides that if a producer decides to grow wild rice on acres on which he receives Agricultural Market Transition Act [AMTA] payments, that producer's AMTA payment will be reduced on those acres. This amendment ensures that wild rice producers, who do not receive any kind of program payment, do not have to compete against producers who unfairly grow wild rice plus collect farm payments on the same acreage. In short, it ensures fairness by prohibiting double dipping and keeps producers on an equal playing field. USDA once believed that the substance of this amendment could be accomplished through regulation but later indicated that legislation is necessary. This same amendment was approved during consideration of last year's Agriculture appropriations on a voice vote but was removed during conference with other provisions for reasons unrelated to the substance of the amendment. I understand the amendment I offer has been approved by the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senators Lugar and Harkin. I want to thank each of them for their assistance in this regard. I also understand that this amendment has been accepted by the chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, Senators Cochran and Bumpers. Accordingly, I would ask the chairman to accept this amendment I offer today with Senator Wellstone. amendment no. 975 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of appropriated funds to inspect or certify agricultural products unless the Secretary of Agriculture inspects and certifies agricultural processing equipment, and imposes a fee for the inspection and certification, in a manner that is similar to the inspection and certification of agricultural products) On page 66, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President.