Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. And reduce our budget obligations for that fiscal year.

Mr. GRAMS. That is hopefully what this will do. It is the first step in trying to change the budget process.

Mr. GRAMS. That is correct.

Mr. GRAMS. That is right.

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair. I will not take a lot of time. I know everybody is in a hurry to wrap this up for tonight. I think this is a very important amendment that I offered last night. It has a growing number of cosponsors as well. It is called the taxpayer protection lockbox amendment. I think it is very important because I think we have been talking about trying to get a budget together, spending authority for this Government over the next couple weeks, for a couple of months in order to avoid a shutdown. I think it was a glaring example this last week, when we are talking about a lockbox, we are talking about trying to save the taxpayers some money, when the President asked for over $8 billion in new spending and he wants this Congress to come up with that much money. There have been many amendments that have been offered that have cut spending trying to save the taxpayers some dollars. Those dollars have always gone for a savings and a cut, but it has never been a cut. It has never reduced the amount of spending for that year. Those dollars that are saved are always just shuffled off into another pot and somehow get spent before the end of the year. The request that has been made by the President is supposed to come from new spending. In other words, there is even some estimated savings, savings that we are going to have if we pass a balanced budget. Since those dollars are out there floating, everybody is trying to get their hands on those projected savings dollars. In fact, we have a number of amendments pending on the floor that are asking for those same dollars to be spent over and over and over again. So my objection is that this should not be a shell game for the taxpayers. We should not be using smoke and mirrors when it comes to the budget. If we are going to reduce appropriations or spending levels, they actually should be reduced. The taxpayers should see that benefit in a smaller budget. Instead, all we do is move those dollars from one hand and we put them into another hand, and at the end of the day they are spent and the taxpayer is handed a larger bill.

Mr. GRAMS. That is correct.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, on behalf of my colleagues, Senator McCain, Senator Faircloth, Senator Coats, Senator Helms, and Senator Inhofe, I rise to offer the taxpayer protection lockbox amendment. Today, as Congress fights to bring down the deficit and set the Nation on the track toward fiscal sanity, President Clinton is continuing his demand for an additional $8 billion in taxpayer money this year to finance even bigger Government. He says he is offsetting the increased spending, but most of his so-called savings are no more than budget gimmicks--increased taxes, fees, and one-time asset sales financed directly by the taxpayers. Congress wants to eliminate the deficit but President Clinton wants to spend almost 50 cents of every dollar that working Americans have sacrificed toward a balanced budget this year. The President said in January that ``the era of big government is over,'' but if he has his way big government will only continue to grow, at the expense of taxpayers today and our children tomorrow. If we do not take immediate action to stop this pattern of abuse, we are risking leaving behind a legacy of debts that our kids will be forced to inherit. While we still have the opportunity, we must do everything possible to change the rules of the tax-and-spending game and do what is best for taxpayers, for our children and for the Nation as a whole. And for that reason we are offering the Taxpayer Protection Lockbox Act as an amendment to the continuing resolution. Our amendment would make two important changes to the budget and appropriations process, a process which has served only to encourage abuse of spending and fiscal irresponsibility. First, this amendment would return honesty to the budget process by ensuring that a cut in spending is truly a cut. Contrary to popular opinion, under current law, dollars cut from appropriations bills are not returned to the Treasury for deficit reduction purposes as they ought to be. Instead, they are quietly stashed away in a slush fund to be spent later on other programs. Our amendment would put an end to this practice by locking any appropriations savings into a deficit reduction lockbox and dedicating those dollars to deficit reduction. In other words, if Congress cuts $10 million in an appropriations bill, the taxpayers will save $10 million. It does not get spent somewhere else. Second, our amendment would create a revenue lockbox which would be used to direct any future revenues that exceed current economic projections toward deficit reduction and/or tax relief. It would create a fast-track process for Congress and the President to use these funds for tax relief with the remainder going for deficit reduction. At the same time, our amendment would prohibit the Government from simply using those dollars for additional spending. This is only fair, because, after all, these additional funds would become available only because of the hard work and productivity of the American people. So it makes sense then to return those dollars to the taxpayers to encourage even greater productivity on their part rather than allowing Congress to waste money that is not even theirs to begin with. All in all, our amendment is a simple proposal to restore honesty and common sense to the budget process, allow taxpayers to keep more of what they earn and also place further restrictions on abusive Government spending. Given the most recent demand on tax dollars from the White House, it certainly cannot have come at a better time. Mr. President, our legislation has been endorsed by a number of citizens and taxpayer groups including the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens for a Sound Economy, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses. With their support and the support of our colleagues, I am confident that we can win a big victory for the American taxpayer by passing the taxpayer protection lockbox amendment this week. Mr. President, that is the conclusion of my statement, and I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside.

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

Mr. GRAMS. That will be fine.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, yesterday a mock hearing for the press was hosted by Congressmen Schumer and Gejdenson, along with Prof. Ronald Cotteril, director of the Food Marketing Policy Institute at the University of Connecticut. The topic was price collusion in the cereal market, a charge which has not been proved over the past 20 years. After review of all of the evidence which refutes the collusion theory, I find it difficult to understand why the three continue this curious drama. I would like to present to my colleagues some history on this issue, which began with the dismissal of an antitrust complaint by the Federal Trade Commission after 10 years of tedious and costly examination of the industry by the FTC. Last year Federal Judge Kimba Wood, former nominee for Attorney General during the Clinton administration, rejected an antitrust suit brought by the State of New York to prevent the Post Co. from buying Nabisco Shredded Wheat. Judge Wood indicated at the time that the cereal industry was ``highly competitive.'' She indicated that there was no collusion, and no one company was able to control prices in any market segment. She characterized the testimony of the State's star witness, Professor Cotteril, one of the hosts of today's mock hearing, as ``unreliable,'' ``flawed,'' and ``erroneous.'' Last year Congressman Schumer and Gejdenson asked the Justice Department to initiate a criminal investigation into cereal prices. Justice declined the case, based on Judge Wood's decision. Judge Wood has also noted in her decision that cereal prices rose only 6.6 percent between 1989 and 1993, while food prices rose 12.8 percent and the cost-of-living index rose 16.5 percent. Widespread use of coupons lowers the average retail price by 30 percent. Further, Judge Wood found that industry concentration declined about 27 percent between 1970 and 1994 and that store brand cereals' market share rose to 9 percent in 1993 from 4.8 percent in 1988. This trend is expected to double in the next 3 to 4 years, surpassing the market share of three of the five manufacturers. Judge Wood also noted little brand loyalty among consumers. She also indicated that retailers may have had more to do with increasing prices. In 1994, one producer reduced its prices 40 percent, yet less than two-thirds of this price cut was passed on to consumers. Anyone who has been in a grocery store recently knows that the range of options and prices is nearly overwhelming. Imports are adding new competition. Cereal manufacturers not only compete head on but also with other breakfast alternatives, which are also proliferating significantly. The business climate is hardly ripe for price collusion. It is hard to understand why a trend toward more competition and price increases well under cost of living increases would encourage the two Congressmen and Professor Cotteril to continue these efforts. Professor Cotteril's Food Marketing Policy Institute has received earmarked funds from the Congress for quite a few years. If this is an example of its priorities, I believe the Congress should reconsider funding this institute. I look forward to this debate as we pursue the fiscal 1997 appropriations.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I wanted to say how disappointed I am that the Senate failed in a vote a few minutes ago to end the filibuster of our resolution to continue the Whitewater hearings. The question before the Senate today should have been whether or not we would authorize additional funding for the continued investigation into Whitewater. Unfortunately, the current filibuster that is underway prevents us from even considering this question or voting on either the resolution or the Democratic alternative. I recognize that some of our colleagues who have not closely followed the course of this investigation could reasonably believe that enough time and money has been spent on the matter, and under ordinary circumstances, they might be right. Should we not have the opportunity to openly and honestly debate--and vote--on this issue? We may have disagreements over the need to continue the Whitewater investigations, but shouldn't those disagreements be argued and resolved in the light of full public scrutiny? I believe they should. Unfortunately, that is not the situation we face today. But that should not come as any surprise; after all this filibuster simply follows the course of action directed by the White House. Whatever its motivation, the White House has refused to fully cooperate with this investigation. For months, they have delayed the production of documents, presented witnesses who exhibit suspiciously selective memories, and raised dubious questions of privilege in order to withhold potentially damaging evidence. All for the purposes of downplaying the significance of Whitewater and running out the clock on this investigation. Let us review the facts. Nine people have been convicted for crimes relating to Whitewater, and seven more--including Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker and the Clintons' business partners, Jim and Susan McDougal whose trial has begun in Little Rock--are currently under indictment. The President and the First Lady have both been compelled to testify separately before grand juries on the subject of Whitewater. Yet, the White House still refuses to make full, prompt disclosures in response to our requests. And in those refusals rest the real Whitewater scandal. Just as important as the actual and alleged crimes committed in Arkansas during the 1980's is the potentially criminal coverup going on in the White House today. Our chief frustration centers around the stark difference between the claims the First Family makes in front of the cameras and the actions taken by the White House behind closed doors. The President and the First Lady have repeatedly pledged full cooperation with this investigation, but as a Washington Post editorial puts it, ``they have a weird way of showing'' that cooperation. It has been clear from day one that a concerted and coordinated effort has been made on the part of the White House, associates of the President, and Clinton appointees to thwart the work of the special committee. You can think of Whitewater as a jigsaw puzzle with a timeclock--a puzzle that did not come in a box or with a picture to work from. You begin assembling the scattered pieces, but when you think you are done, something does not seem quite right. Maybe it is the holes at the edges of the puzzle or the extra pieces you are holding that don't seem to fit anywhere. With time ticking away, you look around to see if anything is missing, when you find them in someone else's hands. And as all the pieces begin to fit together, you still have no idea what you'll end up with, but you realize that the puzzle is bigger than you had ever imagined. It sounds incredible but look at the obstacles we have had to face. Withheld records. Last summer, the committee requested the phone records of Margaret Williams and Susan Thomases for the time period immediately following the death of Vince Foster. By December, we had received them, but only after making four separate requests and issuing a subpoena. The records detail a phone tree between Williams, Thomases, and the First Lady on the night of Foster's death, leading to the removal of documents from Foster's office. But it took months to get them. Last minute surprises. On November 3, Deputy White House Counsel Bruce Lindsey was deposed by the special committee. Not until the eve of his deposition did Lindsey supply the committee with Whitewater documents, and then, 12 days later, discovered another 80 pages of information. with this new information, the special committee decided to depose Mr. Lindsey again, when, surprise, he once again provided additional documents on the eve of a deposition. And just a few weeks ago, when we least expected it, boom--more documents from Bruce Lindsey. Missing and redacted notes. On February 7 of this year, the White House released a redacted version of notes taken by then-White House Communications Director Mark Gearan from Whitewater response team meetings led in 1994 by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes. But only on the day of Gearans' deposition was the unredacted version released--3 days before Gearan was scheduled to testify. When questioned, Gearan gave little explanation for why these, shall we say, colorful notes were not turned over in response to a committee subpoena for Whitewhater documents issued over 3 months ago. Overlooked documents. Upon receiving confirmation from the Gearan notes about Ickes' role in Whitewater, the committee requested any additional notes that might have been taken by Ickes. Sure enough, less than 48 hours before Ickes was scheduled to testify, over 100 pages of notes and documents appeared on our doorstep, accompanied by the dubious explanation that the documents were mistakenly overlooked. To top if off, how can one forget the long delayed discovery of Mrs. Clinton's billing records in the White House book room. Coincidences? Hardley. The White House knows exactly what it is doing, Make no mistake about it. Publicly, they claim to be the most forthcoming administration in history. And they point to the tens of thousands of pages of documents they have turned over as evidence. Only after you leaf through the piles, and see first hand the fragments, the redactions, and the irrelevant information the White House has provided do the pieces of the puzzle begin to fit together in the image of a stone wall. I've often compared it to looking for a needle in a haystack--the trouble is, when we ask for the needle, the White House gives us the haystack. And now, they want to say ``Times up. We win.'' Mr. President, when we started this investigation, our purpose was to examine the reasons for the taxpayer-financed $60 million failure of one Arkansas savings and loan. But what we have uncovered, in Washington and in Arkansas, is enough to make any ethical person cringe--and still, many questions remain. It is these findings and unresolved questions which lead me to wonder why our Democratic colleagues have chosen to filibuster this investigation, rather than let us gather the facts and complete our job. There has already been a great deal of speculation in the public's eye over issues related to Whitewater and the death of Vince Foster. We cannot afford to leave these questions--or to give the American people reason to doubt the integrity of our efforts. Mr. President, we have a choice. We can either continue our investigation and get to the bottom of this whole affair or we can give up. We can begin dismantling the White House's stone wall piece by piece or we can throw our hands up in the air and allow the Senate to become just another part of a potential Whitewater coverup. Mr. President, we cannot allow that to happen. We have a responsibility to uncover the truth to every taxpayer whose hard-earned dollars bailed out Madison Guaranty, to every citizen who questions the honesty and integrity of their Government, to every American who believes in the saying, long forgotten in Washington, about ``the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.'' If it takes us days, weeks, or months to wipe the Government clean from the tarnish of Whitewater, then that is what we must do. The Senate cannot continue to wash its hands of this responsibility. The investigation must continue. If it takes us days, weeks, or months to wipe the Government clean from the tarnished Whitewater, then that is what we must do. The Senate cannot continue to wash its hands of this responsibility. The investigation must continue. Now, I know my colleagues argue many points, but I believe they ignore the merits. They argue time and money, but they ignore the facts. They say, ``What is the big deal about Whitewater?'' But, again, they ignore the fact that nearly two dozen friends and associates of the Clintons have become casualties of Whitewater being sent back home in disgrace, charged or convicted of crimes related to Whitewater, or even worse. And, also, they charge that the investigation is political, but they ignore the fact that it would be more political to end this investigation without getting the answers. It is political, but the politics are being played by the White House and our Democratic colleagues in not allowing this investigation to continue. If there is nothing to fear, why not get the job done and put it behind us? Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I wish to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to make a few remarks to go along with Senator Murkowski's remarks on a lot of reservations some of us have about extending the debt limit without tying it to a responsible balanced budget amendment, so that we do not literally give Congress an open checkbook to go ahead and spend and spend and spend. I wanted to clarify that we are here today to consider a short-term extension to this debt ceiling, to give us time for 2 weeks to work out a further extension of this. What are we asking today? We are asking to be able to borrow more money. For what? To pay interest. I tell people back home, it is like if you go to one banker to borrow money so you could pay interest to another banker you owe on another loan. If you get into that position, you are in financial trouble. That is what we are doing here, borrowing more money year after year, and it does nothing but cover up a history of mismanaging this country's finances. This is without going back and addressing the problem. We have to get our finances in order. We have to agree on a balanced budget within the next 7 years. This should not be viewed as a political excuse to put off balancing this budget. The debt ceiling should only be passed, and I will only vote for it, if it has some specific instructions on how we are going to achieve a balanced budget and not to just say, well, we are going to borrow some more and add to the debt, which is going to put our children even deeper into their financial problems, so we can go on and continue business as usual here in Washington. We cannot do that any longer. We need to have some real reforms when it comes to the problems of the entitlements, welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid. We have been working toward this, and, hopefully, within the next couple of weeks, we can work out something that will put us on that glidepath. I am going to propose what I call the ``taxpayer protection lockbox,'' which means that if revenues exceed even our spending forecasts, those extra dollars will not be given to Congress to spend on even a larger Government. But if there are additional revenues available, they will be returned to either the taxpayer in the form of tax relief, or they can only be spent to reduce the debt. But once we set this spending level, we want to make sure that, if additional revenues do come in, Congress does not have an open checkbook to spend even more. So I wanted to respectfully ask that we examine this problem and make sure that any extension in the debt limit is tied to a balanced budget. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, when Minnesotans gather to talk about the issues that matter to them most, as they did on Tuesday at their precinct caucuses, there is a common theme that weaves between nearly all of them, especially when they are speaking directly from their hearts. They are looking for a better life. They want a good job that pays a decent wage. They want to put enough food on the table. They want a strong roof over their heads, for many, a place they can call their own. And after the bills have been paid, they would like a little extra at the end of the month to squirrel away in a savings account. The most striking truth about seeking that better life is that most folks aren't doing it just for themselves. They are pursuing it for their children, too, in the hopes of offering them the best opportunities for success. In other words, they are searching for prosperity. It is interesting that prosperity and the struggle to achieve it has spread across the Nation to become a major theme of the 1996 presidential campaigns. The media have just begun to focus on the troubles facing working people, and the stagnating wages and high taxes that have pushed prosperity out of reach for many middle-class families. But where have the media been? Working families have been feeling the pinch for a long time. ``Our economy is the healthiest is has been in three decades,'' announced President Clinton in his State of the Union Address. Is it really? There is plenty of evidence to the contrary--and four areas are especially troublesome: First, the economy itself has dropped to a sluggish pace. The Federal Government released new numbers just last week confirming that economic growth has slowed to a trickle, up by only nine-tenths of a percent during the last 3 months of 1995. Second, job growth has slowed as well, to about half the rate we'd expect to see in a normal recovery. The U.S. Labor Department says that pay and benefit increases last year saw their lowest climb in about 14 years, since the Government first began tracking these statistics. They could, in fact, be the leanest increases since before World War II, an unfortunate trend analysts say could easily continue. Third, wages continue to slip as Americans take home fewer and fewer dollars. Real weekly earnings for an average worker dropped three-tenths of a percent in 1995. That means families are taking home almost $800 a year less than they did before President Clinton was elected in 1992. That is $800 they no longer have to spend on necessities such as groceries, medical expenses, or insurance. Fourth, while the economy is slowing down, taxes have accelerated. Americans have never paid a higher percentage of their income in taxes than they are paying today. In 1950, an average worker paid about 2 percent of his earnings to support our Federal Government. Today, an average family sends 25 percent or more of its earnings to Washington, and that does not include the additional tax burden once State and local taxes are heaped on top of that. Now if the economy itself was not blocking the road toward prosperity, the record high taxes alone would have done it. Together, they have proven to be a lethal combination for American families and American workers. None of this will come as any surprise to middle-class, working Americans. After all, they are the ones paying the taxes at the same time they watch their paychecks shrink. But they can find some comfort in the fact that it is their anxieties--that is, the anxieties of parents hoping to eke out a better life for themselves and their children in the face of tremendous obstacles--that will perhaps become the defining issues of the 1996 elections. It all comes down to economic growth, income, and jobs. We know what is blocking the way, but how did the roadblock get there in the first place? Do you remember the prank we used to pull when we were kids, when we would attach a dollar bill to the end of a fishing line and plant it in the middle of a sidewalk? As soon as someone spied the bill and reached down to grab it, we would yank on the string, moving that dollar out of reach and leaving the poor victim embarrassed and empty-handed. That is what the Clinton administration is doing to the middle class. They tempt working Americans with a dollar bill and the prosperity it represents, but they yank it away just as soon as somebody begins to get close to it. Rather than offering opportunities for success, the Government has allowed working people to become trapped between falling incomes and rising taxes. Whatever you call it--the ``middle-class squeeze'' or the ``Clinton crunch''--it is cheating the middle class out of their hard- earned dollars. Just look at your paycheck, look at your tax forms, look at what you are paying for government, who is spending your money, and how they are spending it. In most cases, the bureaucrats have your credit card and are spending it, I believe, without any real accountability. It should make Americans angry that much of the money they work so hard for is being wasted on programs that do not work, or plainly just cost too much. Unfortunately, past discussions about issues like wage stagnation and economic growth have too often centered around the minimum wage or corporate profits, and that is not what working men and women care about, though. They are interested in their net income--what is left after you take out Federal taxes, State taxes, payroll taxes. And under the Clinton administration, there has been less and less left over in your pay envelope, thanks in part to the President's tax increases and the Federal mandates that are sapping the precious resources of our job providers, businesses have been forced to keep wages lower. They would like to invest their dollars improving salaries and benefits, but any additional dollars that might have been available to improve the lives of employees have been confiscated by the Federal Government. Even when job providers find the means to offer wage and benefit increases, tax hikes mean families do not see much of a difference in their paychecks after it is done. And so family incomes--the amount of dollars they have left to spend on food, transportation, clothing, housing, et cetera--have actually dropped every year of the Clinton Presidency. A Government-mandated increase in the minimum wage is not the only solution--although many argue that is all we have to do and many problems would be cured--because low wages alone are not the problem. The Clinton administration simply cannot stop spending, and requiring more and more tax dollars to feed that spending, taking away most of the money that could be used for better salaries, or new jobs. If the Government would reform itself, if it would curb its spending and cut taxes, middle-class families would not need a hike in the minimum wage or risk losing their jobs because of it. In our current economic climate, it is the working folks who have the most to lose. The wealthy do not need our help. The poor already have the safety net of welfare and the hundreds of Federal programs it opens up to them. But who is watching out for the working people? They are the ones being squeezed. Yet the Clinton administration just does not get it, despite all the talk from the White House about the need to reform Government and balance the budget. Just last week, President Clinton requested an additional $8 billion from Congress for increased domestic discretionary spending. How can you go on national television one week to declare that ``the era of big Government is over,'' and then come to Congress just a few weeks later, hat in hand, asking for another 8 billion dollars' worth of even bigger Federal Government? Where do we get the money--higher taxes, or borrow it and make our kids pay? My colleagues on the other side of the aisle still do not get it, either. They staked out a new agenda of their own last week as part of a campaign to portray themselves as the soul of the working class. Incredibly, their proposal includes more job-killing taxes on the Nation's job providers. That, of course, comes after they spent months trying to delay and derail our efforts to balance the budget and offer meaningful tax relief to American families. Republicans have put on the table a balanced budget, welfare reform and Medicare reform. But who has stood in the way of getting that passed so the American people can begin to enjoy the benefits? It has been the Democratic leaders in this Congress and the President who have kept that from happening. Mr. President, too many years of big Government have proven it: more taxes, more spending, more regulations, and more Government programs will not lead to more jobs and higher pay. We will never tax our way to prosperity or spend our way to economic success. Unlike those Johnny-come-latelys in the White House and here on Capitol Hill who talk a good game about serving the middle class but never step up to the plate on their behalf, the taxpayers' agenda Republicans are fighting for has always been focused on the working class. We have heard their calls for tax relief--and we delivered. We have heard their calls for opening the economy to more jobs, better paying jobs--and we delivered. We have heard their calls for balancing the budget and putting an end to the legacy of debt we have imposed on our children and grandchildren--and we delivered. We have heard the pleas of working Americans who ask for nothing more than a chance to reach prosperity--and again we delivered. In the name of America's working class, we shipped each one of those proposals to the White House--and the President sent each of them back stamped ``Return to Sender.'' Mr. President, the balanced budget passed by this Congress, with its tax cuts and incentives to help stimulate growth and create jobs, is the best way we can help average Americans troubled by an economy that is heading down. We agree that the key to creating economic prosperity and good jobs is a healthy business climate. We understand that those jobs can help instill independence and dignity, and create more opportunities for anyone trying to get ahead. And we know that the key to empowering families to reach that better life, however they may define it, is to cut taxes and let them keep more of their own dollars. Mr. President, for the working-class people of this Nation who have built their own success and today lead the lives they have always wanted, prosperity is not defined by the size of their last Federal handout or how much something they got for nothing. It is oftentimes about building something out of nothing, which, after all, is the definition of the American dream. I urge the President to put aside the election-year politicking and take a real stand on the side of the working class by working with Congress to right the economic wrongs created by his administration. It is not too late to give prosperity a chance, but it would be irresponsible to make Americans wait until the November elections have come and gone before we really try. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I am pleased that the conferees on H.R. 927, the ``Liberatad bill'' were able to reach an agreement with the administration that will offer a tough, united response to the recent destruction of two small planes and four American lives by Cuban MiG's. While I would have preferred a compromise which eliminated titles III and IV of the conference report, the agreement moves us in the right direction. I believe all of us are united in our desire to see a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba, Mr. President. The downing of the planes heightened the concerns of many of us that we should take further steps to bring about this transition. There are many differences in how we reach our goal of a democratically elected government in Cuba. While I supported the Senate version of the Helms- Burton legislation, I had some problems with the possible inclusion of titles III and IV of the House bill in a conference agreement. Fortunately, the conferees added waiver authority to enable the President to waive title III, and, in effect title IV, for national security reasons or if necessary to promote a democratic transition. Because election pressures may make a waiver difficult, I would like to remind my constituents what my concerns with titles III and IV are. In my judgment, these titles will cause more harm to our own country than to serve their intended purpose of limiting foreign investment in Cuba and thereby exacerbating Cuba's economic problems, which would increase pressures for a new government. To remind my colleagues, there was concern about titles III and IV in the Senate, and neither of these titles was included in the Senate version of the bill. Modified versions of both titles are included in the conference report, along with the waiver authority. My primary concern with title III is its extraterritorial reach. I have concerns with laws which attempt to impose our own laws and standards on other countries that they face costly lawsuits if they seek to invest in Cuba on properties which ownership 37 years ago may be difficult to verify, is unwise, in my judgment. This kind of U.S. attempt to infringe on the sovereignty of other nations should concern us. Some of our allies have communicated to us that they do not view their investment in Cuba any differently than our own efforts to invest in Vietnam or China, which also could be on disputed properties. It is possible that one or more of these countries could reciprocate against us in the future, in injuring United States companies and jobs. While I sympathize with anyone who has had property confiscated in any country, I believe the foreign claims settlement process is the right way to pursue property claims for United States citizens. There are many certified claimants now eligible for claims against the Cuban Government for confiscated properties, which will be pursued once a transition has occurred in Cuba. This bill was designed to help Cuban-Americans, who were not United States citizens at the time of the takeover, receive similar benefits through the courts. Now, those citizens would have the right to pursue their claims in Cuba once a transition occurs, which would be a parallel effort to that of our own certified claimants. Title III would provide a private right of action in Federal courts to all United States citizens, including the Cuban-Americans who were not citizens at the time of confiscation. This is a radical departure to our traditional use of the courts and is contrary to international law. Despite efforts to narrow this right of action, this change will create a precedent in our courts that would allow this right to be extended to naturalized citizens of over 85 countries where we have had similar property disputes. This would result in a flood of lawsuits at a time we are striving for tort reform. One inconsistency in title III is that only properties valued over $50,000 at the time of confiscation can be involved in the lawsuits. I am not sure how this would accomplish the bill's authors' goal of limiting foreign investment in Cuba. And again, despite this attempt to limit the right of action, I still believe a court precedent is created for an expanded right of action in the future. The language which would terminate the right of action for new cases once a democratically elected government is in power combined with the President's current authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to nullify any claims and judgments against the Cuban Government after a transition also concerns me. This sounds attractive, but many legal experts have concluded that these citizens would have private property rights under the takings clause of the fifth amendment. So what will happen is that Cuba won't have to pay any judgments--the United States taxpayers will pay. They will pay treble damages for property confiscated from people who weren't citizens at the time. United States citizens who were certified claimants for years will be only partially reimbursed from funds negotiated from the new Cuban Government. Title IV forces the President to restrict visas for any foreigner who traffics in any property under dispute. Fortunately, this language was made prospective, for new investments. Further, it would not kick in if title III is waived. It is further limited since visas are not currently required for residents of all countries which may be subject to this restriction in the future. However, this title could affect multinationals with thousands of employees globally in the future, most of whom would have had nothing to do with decisions to invest in Cuba. In a global economy it could be counterproductive to limit this type of access. Mr. President, I support this conference report but hope that the President will exercise his authority to waive title III.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to recognize Peter Wojciechowski, from Anoka, MN for his dedication and service as president of the Minnesota Rural Electric Association over the past 10 years. Peter has been a pillar of the community. As the long-time owner of Thurston's Furniture in Anoka, to his service on a variety of civic boards, including the Anoka County library board and the Ham Lake Planning Commission, Peter has been a model Minnesota citizen. However, it is his work on behalf of Minnesota's electric cooperatives which I would like to recognize today. This month, Peter completes his term as president of the Minnesota Rural Electric Association, which represents 54 member-owned electric cooperatives in Minnesota. During his tenure, Minnesota's electric cooperatives led the Nation in creating jobs in rural areas. Under Peter's stewardship, electric co-ops have met the unserved needs of its rural members in telecommunications, water and waste water infrastructure and other services not readily available in the far reaches of greater Minnesota. Peter also represents Minnesota as a national director on the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and serves on the International Foundation Board which assists developing countries in establishing electric cooperatives. I want to commend Peter for his efforts and for the leadership he provided over the past 10 years on behalf of Minnesota's electric cooperatives. His contributions toward ensuring that the lights of rural Minnesota, rural America, and rural areas throughout the world burn bright are truly commendable and worthy of recognition. Mr. President, it is a privilege for me to insert Peter's accomplishments here on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. While I am pleased with the overall agriculture reforms in the underlying bill, I am disappointed that our efforts regarding real dairy reform have not succeeded at this point. I do understand the intense, and oftentimes, rigid regional conflicts these proposed dairy reforms typically generate in the Senate. Although I would have preferred comprehensive reform of the class I differential as well, I believe the milk marketing order reforms the chairman has just outlined would have provided a major step toward assuring a more market-oriented system. Will the chairman give his assurance that, in conference with the House, he will work toward adoption of milk marketing order reforms?

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, could the chairman describe the reforms that were initially negotiated for the information of the Senate?

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee in a discussion on Federal dairy reform. It is my understanding that considerable time has been spent in an effort to achieve a balanced series of reforms in milk marketing orders.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in offering this amendment to strike the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact from the farm bill. As a Senator from Minnesota, I rise today for the over 11,000 dairy farmers I represent--the most productive, yet overburdened, dairy producers in the world. For years, Minnesota's dairy industry has struggled against the harmful impact of an archaic Federal milk marketing order pricing scheme, which has played a key role in the loss of over 10,000 dairy farms over the last decade--an average of nearly 3 farms every day. These statistics emphasize the importance of fixing the dairy program. Yet, today we are faced with a proposal which would impose another set of burdensome regulations and harmful trade barriers on our dairy producers. If this dairy compact is enacted, it will increase the minimum price paid to dairy farmers in New England. These higher prices will likely increase dairy production in that region, causing New England milk producers and processors to seek additional markets in States like Minnesota. In the process, this overproduction has the potential to flood markets and depress milk prices paid to dairy farmers outside of the compact States. The long-term effect of these lower prices would be to drive the dairy industry from States like Minnesota out of business--leading to a shortage of milk within the region and requiring processors to import more expensive milk from other regions. Due to the 20-percent loss of milk production in Minnesota over the last decade, this is already happening. With the dairy compact, we run the risk of making this even worse for dairy producers around the country. In addition, the compact will result in the proliferation of anticompetitive trade barriers between the States. If enacted, the Compact Commission will have to make immediate decisions about how to keep lower priced milk in States outside the Northeast from entering their region. In order for the compact to survive, New England would have to engage in protectionist behavior, not from other countries, but from within the United States itself. At a time when we are trying to open up global markets for our Nation's farm producers, it makes no sense to encourage protectionism within our own borders. Yet, that is exactly what the dairy compact would do. The Nation's dairy industry should be exactly that--a national industry. Special favors for one region of the country will have a detrimental impact on the others. For far too long, regional politics have made the dairy program what it is today: archaic, unfair, unwise, and unworkable. Let us not take another step backward by authorizing this Northeast Dairy Compact. After all, the purpose of the Agricultural Marketing Transition Act is to remove the Government from interfering in the agricultural decisionmaking process and reduce the regional conflicts that have plagued our farm policy for years. The dairy compact would do just the opposite: It would expand the role of government in dairy policy, create an unfair advantage for dairy producers in New England, and further weaken the dairy industry in States like Minnesota. I will not stand for that. And neither should any other Senator. It is time to put an end to the failed dairy policies of the past--and certainly to the unwise proposal before us today. I urge my colleagues to join me in standing up for small dairy farmers across the country and voting to strike the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact from this bill.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues made time last week to study a poll printed in the Washington Post. It took a close look at the American people and their relationship with the political process, and it was, at the same time, both enlightening and frightening. Mr. President, 40 percent of those responding to the poll did not know the name of the current Vice President; 40 percent of Americans were not aware that Republicans control both Chambers of Congress; 56 percent of the people surveyed could not name even one of their Representatives in the Senate; and 74 percent were not aware that we serve 6-year terms. Fully 67 percent of the people who answered the survey did not know that the U.S. Senate had passed a plan to balance the Federal budget. The newspaper makes the argument that the problem lies in education-- that the more knowledge an individual has about the political process, the more likely they are to care about what we are doing here in Washington. But I think an equally compelling case can be made that after decades of broken political promises, the voters have been conditioned to tune us out. They do not care about us because they believe that, deep down, we really do not care about them, either. We should not be concerned that the people do not know our names or the length of our terms or who controls which Chamber. But we ought to be deeply troubled that so many people seem to have lost faith in us. And we should be especially concerned that the poll reflects these things at a time when Congress has made promises, kept them, and has demonstrated a sincere commitment to turning this Government around. Mr. President, when the 104th Congress was gaveled into session a year ago, there were high expectations. There had been a dramatic transfer of power. People called it a sea change, a revolution. There was a radical, new message that had begun to break through the noise of the usual political rhetoric. We talked about new solutions. We talked about Government as a service provider, not our national nanny, or caretaker. We talked about making Washington more accountable to the taxpayers, and a more efficient consumer of taxpayer dollars. We talked about shifting the focus of the Federal Government from advocacy on behalf of tax recipients to advocacy on behalf of the Nation's taxpayers. We talked every day about our children and grandchildren, and what kind of future we would be leaving them if we turned our backs and did nothing. One year later, our message has not changed, and we have passed a great deal of legislation in the last year to put real muscle behind our promises. But we did not count on running headlong into an obstructionist President, gunning for reelection, who was willing to deny the people a better tomorrow in order to preserve the status quo. Mr. President, up until last year, I believed wholeheartedly in a mathematical absolute I first learned in high school geometry--that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. The idea has been around for so long--since the time of the ancient Greeks, in fact--that I never considered questioning it. But what I learned during the first session of the 104th Congress has forced me to rethink those early geometry lessons. You see, there is no line more straight than the 16-block stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue that runs between the U.S. Capitol and the front door of the White House. So when the American people elected a new Congress on our pledge to balance the budget, cut taxes, repair the welfare system, and save Medicare, it stood to reason that the road to enacting those fundamental reforms, in the shortest amount of time, would be a straight line as well: Congress would pass the laws, we would send them up Pennsylvania Avenue to the President, and he would sign them. But this President has managed to distort the laws of mathematics so badly that Pennsylvania Avenue has become not a straight line, but a tangled trail culminating in a dead end. Today, those 16 blocks are littered with legislative casualties that never had a chance against the veto pen of a President who is dead set against even the most basic reforms. Congress sent the President a balanced budget that acknowledges it is morally wrong to pass the debts of one generation onto the next. He vetoed it. We sent the President a tax relief package that offers a $500-per- child tax credit--and a lot of hope--to every middle-class, American family. He vetoed it. We sent the President a bill that delivers on his promise to ``end welfare as we know it.'' He said he liked it. Then he vetoed it anyway. We sent the President a plan that moves Medicare into the 1990's, rescues it from bankruptcy, and reforms the system by offering seniors something they have never had access to through their Government- provided health care plan and that was real choice. Once again, he killed it with a veto. Given yesterday's troubling news that the Medicare trust fund lost money in 1995 for the first time in 23 years, a full year earlier than expected, and may not survive until 2002, the President's veto appears even more shortsighted and misguided.

Mr. GRAMS. When I am through, I will yield for a question.