Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the Senator from Georgia and also the Senator from North Carolina for bringing forward the Libertad Act, which is a very appropriate act in light of what has happened recently in Cuba, but it is more appropriate in light of what has happened in the last 37 years. This is not an event of momentary instance, as was just referred to by the Senator from New Mexico, in my opinion. This is a problem that has existed and confronted this country for 37 years, and we have failed to take the aggressive action we should have to relieve the Cuban people of the dictatorship which has oppressed them in the last 37 years. The least we can do as a nation is not aid and abet the activities of Fidel Castro and his actions, which have been to oppress his people, by giving him economic assistance and by giving him psychological support. This bill makes it very clear that no longer shall we give Cuba economic assistance in any way, indirectly or directly. We will no longer allow our citizens, American citizens, to have their property expropriated and mismanaged by this illegal and criminal government which now governs Cuba, but rather we will say clearly to the world that you have to choose between a democracy of America and American citizens whose rights are being abused, and in the instances of 2 weeks ago actually being killed, at the hands of this dictatorship, or you can choose the Government of Cuba operated by a dictator. That is what this bill essentially says. It says to the world it is time to choose up in this confrontation. Unfortunately, this administration has had a schizophrenic, almost bumper-car approach to its foreign policy, but also on its policy to Cuba, it almost looks as if with Cuba they are looking through the eyes of the radical chic, the 1960's view of the world, which still views Castro as some sort of character of sympathy or character of international quality, whereas, in fact, he has proven himself over 37 years to be nothing more than a petty 2-cent dictator who has oppressed his people for his own personal gain. Yet, this administration is not willing to face up to that, or has not been until American citizens lives were lost. Now we are going to give this administration and this country some teeth to come forward and say to Cuba, ``No longer will we tolerate your form of government and to support the Cuban people and especially Cuban Americans who have lost their property in that nation.'' So I want to commend again this bill, and I want to commend the authors of this bill. I was one of the original coauthors of this bill. I strongly support its initiatives, and I congratulate the Senator from North Carolina and the Senator from Georgia for bringing it forward today. I hope we will pass it overwhelmingly, send it to the White House, and we will finally see a definitive course from the White House by their signing this piece of legislation. I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to commend a group whose members make important daily contributions to many communities across the country, including the town of Bristol, NH. The International Supreme Council, Order of DeMolay has spent the past 77 years supporting their communities by assisting young men between the ages of 12 and 21 become better sons, citizens, and leaders. The Order of DeMolay urges these young men to lead lives full of filial love, reverence, courtesy, comradeship, fidelity, cleanness, and patriotism. This organization should be commended for its unwavering commitment and contributions to this Nation, and for participating in the molding of today's young men for a better world of peace and brotherhood. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate acknowledge the Order of DeMolay's meritorious service toward our families, communities, States, and Nation and I invite the citizens of the United States to recognize this organization's significant efforts in community harmony.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, may I inquire of the manager the present status of the timeframe? I understand I have half an hour, but the vote is scheduled for 11:30. I ask, if it is agreeable to the managers, that I be given my half hour before the votes go forward.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. GREGG. As I understand, I now control 15 minutes and someone in opposition controls 15 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. President, what this amendment does is address the sugar program. The sugar program has been an item of considerable controversy here in the Senate and in the House and in the farm program generally. The sugar program is, in my opinion, an outrage. I have said that a number of times on the floor of this Senate. It is a subsidy program where the consumers of this country are asked to pay somewhere between $1.5 and $2 billion of additional costs for sugar used in this country in order to benefit a few growers. It does not directly cost the Federal Government any money. It does, actually, cost money in the products we buy that are sugar related, but it is not a dramatic amount of money. What it is, essentially, is a tax on the consumers of this country in the form of the price for sugar, which greatly exceeds what the world market price is for sugar. In fact, if you look at the sugar program honestly, it is the only surviving element of Marxist economics in the Western Hemisphere outside of Cuba. It is a program totally dominated by the Government, where the Government sets the price, where the price is set in a manner which has no relationship to the marketplace, where market force has no impact on the production of the sugar, and where, as a practical matter, if the marketplace were allowed to come into play, American consumers would save around $1.5 billion a year. Now, the amendment which I offer does not repeal the sugar program. I have offered it on behalf of myself and Senator Reid from Nevada. The amendment that I have offered says, rather than giving the sugar program, which is an outrage on its face, a 7-year extension, we will only give it a 2-year extension. So we are essentially saying, listen, this program has enough problems so that it ought to be reviewed on a fairly regular basis. It should not be extended for 7 years. The benefits of this program run to a very small number of people. In fact, there is one sugarcane grower who gets about $60 billion a year. About 50 percent of the benefit of the program as it affects sugarcane growers runs to about 17 sugarcane growers which has been represented to us; whereas the detriment to this program runs to every American who has to pay an outrageous, inflated, arbitrary nonmarket price for sugar. Not only does the program have a debilitating effect on our consumers, but it has a negative impact on our international relations because our sister States who want to produce this product cannot produce it and sell it to the United States, specifically, our Caribbean neighbors. And it is having a significant environmental impact in Florida where sugarcane production, which has been arbitrarily increased as a result of this subsidy, is having a dramatic impact on the viability of the Everglades. So the program itself makes no sense. There will be a representation on the other side the program has been changed. That is not true. As a practical matter, the program may have been changed superficially, but the substantive effect of the program has not been changed. The bottom line question is: How much will sugar cost in the marketplace in the United States? Well, there is not a marketplace, really. It will cost about twice the rate it would cost in the world market under the changes. There will continue to be an inflated and subsidized sugar program under the proposal in this bill. So why the 7-year extension? It comes down to what is called greed, pure and simple greed. The fact is, people know they cannot defend the sugar program. They know if they did not stick it on this bill and bury it in the bowels of this bill, it would never survive the light of day. Even Johnny Cochran could not defend this program before a jury of fair arbiters. The fact is, this program is a pure and simple robbery of the American consumer for the benefit of a very small number of producers. Here we are, the center of capitalism in this country, rejecting the whole concept of capitalism, having a program which basically eliminates the marketplace. Mr. President, I yield myself an additional minute. It says, the marketplace does not have any bearing on how much you should pay for sugar but, rather, a few powerful lobbyists should control how much you pay for sugar. It really is outrageous. But, as I pointed out, even though I find the whole program unbelievable, especially in light of the fact that the Republicans, who are supposedly supporters and defenders of the marketplace, control this Congress, I find it unbelievable we are continuing this program. Our amendment, as supported by the Senator from Nevada, does not terminate the program. It simply takes it from a 7-year program to a 2-year program. That is still too long, but it seems to be a reasonable attempt at compromise. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. GREGG. Does the Senator from Vermont have a closing statement? I would like to maintain the right to close.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, no amount of smoke and mirrors here is going to obfuscate the basic fact that you can go into the marketplace--in fact, it was quoted today on CNBC--and buy sugar at 10 cents a pound on the international market, but if you go out and buy it in the United States it will cost you 20, 21, 22 cents a pound. That is because the difference goes to a few growers who have a hammerlock on the political system. And does it not cost the taxpayers money? That statement was made--it does not cost the American taxpayers money. Of course, it costs them money; $1.5 billion a year in subsidy is carried by the American consumers in order to benefit 17 cane growers who get 42 percent of the benefit, as the Senator from Nevada so aptly pointed out. The idea that we are presenting is not to eliminate the program. We are saying just do not extend it for 7 years. Do not put this outrage on the back of the American consumers for 7 years, which would cost approximately $20 billion in subsidies having to be paid by the American consumer. We are saying just hit them for 2 years, just hit them for 2 years. And then let us go back and look at the program again. We are not saying eliminate the program. We are saying just do not be greedy. Be reasonable. Give us a 2-year extension instead of a 7-year extension. But what would be wrong with eliminating the program? The idea was you would get free sugar; we are not going to be happy until we get free sugar. We do not want free sugar. What we want is prices set by the marketplace. This is called capitalism. It is the concept of Adam Smith, comparative advantage. Those are things Republicans used to stand for. They happen to be things this country was built on. They are things which should be returned at some point in the sugar program. We are not asking they be returned today. All we are asking is that the sugar program only be extended for 2 years instead of 7 years--not an unreasonable request. Mr. President, I certainly thank the Senator from Nevada for his support and the other Senators who cosponsored this amendment. And I hope that others will join us in putting a 2-year extension in place instead of a 7-year extension in place for a program which should not be extended at all. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG. I yield back the rest of my time.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this is not about reform. There is no reform in this package. The price of sugar will remain twice the market price under this bill or under the old law. This is an issue of whether or not the sugar program will be locked in for 7 years as a huge subsidy and expense for the American consumers to bear, or whether we are going to continue it for 2 years and come back and revisit the issue. We are just asking for a reasonable chance to revisit the issue over the next 2 years, continue the program for 2 years, come back and take it up. So I hope the people will take a look at this and be willing to vote for a 2-year extension, rather than a 7- year extension.

Mr. GREGG

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

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to continue part of the discussion that occurred earlier which was carried forward by the fine Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley, and to a certain extent by Senator Domenici, the chairman of the Budget Committee, which involves the issue of where we stand in this whole budget process, because a very important fact has been confirmed. About 6 months ago we on the Republican side said that the Medicare trust fund was in serious trouble, that the senior citizens of this country were at risk for their health insurance because the Medicare trust fund was going broke. Now, we did not arbitrarily come up with that statement. We took that statement from the fact that the Medicare trustees, three of whom are appointed by the President and serve in his Cabinet, stated in their report of April 3, 1995, that the Medicare trust fund was going to go broke in the year 2002 if something was not done to fundamentally repair it. So we made the tough decisions of the party. We stepped forward, and we made proposals which made the Medicare trust fund solvent. Our proposals were included in the Balanced Budget Act, which gave this country for the first time in 25 years a balanced budget and which gave our senior citizens a solvent Medicare system. What happened? The President of the United States and his legions demagogued that act, claimed that we were attacking senior citizens, and used every scare tactic they could on senior citizens. The fundraising powerhouses here in Washington who scare seniors regularly got their machines of paper cranked up and sent out letters to seniors across this country representing that the Republicans were misrepresenting what was happening with the Medicare trust fund and were trying arbitrarily and inappropriately to take on the Medicare trust fund, when, in fact, what we were proposing would bring solvency to the trust fund. A couple of days ago, the chickens came home to roost for this administration because now, not only do their trustees have a report filed which says that the trust fund is going to go broke, we find that the track for the trust fund to go broke, to go bankrupt, has been accelerated, and that it is unfortunately ahead of schedule. A report by the Medicare trust fund actuary states, ``Things turned out a little worse than we expected. We had projected that 1997 would be the first fiscal year with a deficit when, in fact, this year becomes the first fiscal year with a deficit.'' What does that mean? That means, for the first time in the history of the Medicare trust fund, since 1972, this will be the first year when more money goes out of the trust fund than comes into the trust fund. That is a bankruptcy spiral that we have begun. I have a chart here which we have used before. It looks like a plane crash. In fact, it is called the plane crash chart, which shows what is happening with the Medicare trust fund. This chart assumed what the trustees originally told us, which was the trust fund would go broke in the year 2002, that it would start to run a deficit in the year 1997. We have to change this chart now. The trust fund now has a track that is something like this. It goes to the negative this year, and somewhere out here before the year 2002 it goes broke. If this administration does not step up and stop demagoging the issue and scaring seniors, what they are going to deliver to seniors is a trust fund that is broke. What right does this administration have to abuse the senior citizens in this manner? What right do they have to stand in one room at one microphone and say, ``Republicans are harassing and inappropriately attacking the trust fund and Medicare,'' while at the same time the facts show that, if a correction does not occur, the trust fund goes broke? A higher level of irresponsibility in managing this country and managing the finances and managing the future of our seniors probably has not been seen in recent times than what has happened over the issue of Medicare over the past 6 months as this administration and this President specifically have consistently misrepresented the Republican position and have failed to step up to the plate to address what is a critical issue for seniors. Basically this administration can no longer hide on the issue. The fact is their trustees have said it is going to happen, and now their actuary has said it is not only going to happen, but it is happening. It is happening in reality. We are now into a bankruptcy spiral in the Medicare trust fund. So, Mr. President, I suggest you stop running for reelection and that you sit down and do the job you are paid for, which is to come forward with a proposal which puts the Medicare trust fund back in balance or, alternatively, accept ours. Mr. President, I thank you for your time. Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, tomorrow, or possibly Friday, we will be voting on cloture motions dealing with the Farm Program and a variety of bills dealing with the Farm Program. Within the context of the entire Farm Program, there are a lot of subprograms, and one that I wish to talk about is the Sugar Program. The Sugar Program in this country has proceeded since the early 1980's to be a program of inordinate subsidy for a few small farmers--for a few farmers; they are not small farmers--at the expense of the consumers of this country. Last year, it was estimated that the Sugar Program cost the consumers of this country approximately $1.4 billion. It has cost the consumers of this country approximately $10 billion over the last decade. That is because we have in this country a system in the Sugar Program where we artificially inflate the cost of sugar to benefit a few growers of sugarcane and some sugar beets, but primarily in this instance it is benefiting sugarcane growers. This makes no sense. This program is appropriately tied to sugar, I guess, because the last vestiges of Marxism in the world of any significance is the nation of Cuba, which always had a sugar-based economy. Now, you might argue, well, China is still a Marxist nation. Actually, China has become quite capitalistic. Cuba is the only country, certainly in the Western Hemisphere, it is the only dictatorship in the Western Hemisphere, in the world that still practices theoretically pure Marxism, Marxism being a system where essentially the State sets the price and the production of all commodities within the community. And, of course, the Cuban economy is always based on sugar. So maybe that is why we as a nation have for some reason decided in our sugar industry we are going to emulate Cuba because that is essentially what we do. We have in the Farm Program which we have designed in this country essentially a system of top-down market controls, production controls which create, at best, an economic structure which emulates what used to be the East European countries and at worst an economic structure which basically tracks the philosophy of social economics as designed by Karl Marx, because essentially what it does is say that the Government will set the price, the Government will set the production levels, not necessarily for the purposes of benefiting the consumer but for the purposes of benefiting the producer. We set up a structure here where the fact that sugar on the open market can be bought for 10 cents a pound has no impact on the price of sugar in the United States. Can you imagine that? The United States, the center of capitalism in the world, a market that all of the rest of the world looked to when other nations were trying to design their economies, has put in place in our Sugar Program a structure which is essentially a carbon copy of what they did in Eastern Europe, what they now do in Cuba, or still do in Cuba, in what we basically call a Socialist form of economics. Why do we do this? Why do we have a system which penalizes our consumers to the tune of $1.4 billion, which does not allow any competition for the price of sugar in the marketplace, which arbitrarily sets the cost of sugar, and which rewards a few growers of sugarcane specifically? Seventeen growers get 42 percent of the benefit in the sugarcane industry--17 growers get 42 percent of the benefit. In fact, one grower gets a benefit that is estimated to be almost $68 million a year. Why do we structure a system like this? Well, at the risk of using a pun, it is raw power, raw political power. The fact that the sugarcane, sugar producers lobby is so strong in the Congress of the United States, it has been able to maintain this totally unjustifiable system. How ironic it is that when the Republican Party, after 40 years, finally gets control over the Congress of the United States, we continue to allow this sort of antimarket system to flourish, to grow, and to abuse the consumers of this country. How ironic it is that this President--and I cannot fault him individually because the fault lies on both sides of the aisle on this one--but this President who has made such a large issue of protecting consumers in many other areas of his administration and has made this his cause celebre, allows a program which every year takes $1.4 billion out of the pockets of consumers and artificially transfers it to a nonproductive sector of our economy--I am not sure it is unproductive-- but a sector of our economy that does not want to compete. Why should not we have a sugar program which is willing to compete? There are some other side effects that also we ought to be concerned about besides the fact that we are basically taking the consumers of this country for a ride for the benefit of a few individual growers. There are some other issues we ought to be concerned about. There is the issue of environmental protection, the fact that as a result of having this artificially high-priced sugar, we have seen a huge amount of land in southern Florida converted to cane growing which land was the original watershed of the Everglades. It is not clear really what would be a better use of this land. I have to admit that the jury may still be out on that. But before the facts are known, the Everglades are under a tremendous effect, and the fact, first, that the water is not flowing in its original form--and there is the belief that the sugarcane activity is part of it--and, second, sugarcane activity is expanded artificially as a result of this. Another concern we should have is the effect it is having on our neighbors in the Caribbean. We just invaded Haiti because we felt that it was in economic and political chaos. One of the reasons that our neighbors in the Caribbean are in economic chaos is because we do not allow them to participate in competition with us. We have closed our markets to one of their primary goods--sugar. We live in fear, I guess, as a nation, that we cannot compete with Haiti. My goodness, how absurd. Obviously, with the technologies we have and the ability we have of growing products in this country, we can compete with our Caribbean neighbors. We would find, I suspect, that if we were to open our markets that sugar beets in many parts of this country would remain very viable and very competitive, sugarcane in parts of this country would remain very viable and very competitive, and we would have also the added benefit of allowing some of our Caribbean neighbors to maybe increase their standard of living a little bit by being able to sell us a little bit of their primary product. Maybe we would not have to go around invading them. We could save the dollars we spend on national defense in places like Haiti, and the dollars we spend on economic and political development in other regions of the Caribbean because we would have to help them out through what is known as the old-fashioned way, by letting them compete in the marketplace with us. So tomorrow we take up these farm bills, and there will be an attempt to shut off debate. One of the outcomes of shutting off debate and passage of these farm bills, or at least down the line in the farm bill would be a 7-year extension of the outrage called the Sugar Program. That would be a rather bitter pill for the American consumers. That is not a sweet deal for American consumers. It may be a sweet deal to get a 7-year extension of this program for some of the growers, but it certainly would mean that under the present calculations that would be about another $10 billion of tax, because that is essentially what it is to American consumers. So I strongly oppose the attempt to do this. And along with the Senator from Nevada, who has joined me on this, Senator Reid, we will do all we can, I believe, to try to avoid allowing the consumers of this country to be once again pilfered by this program. As a result, I will attempt to oppose cloture. I hope that others who are concerned about the consumers of this country, about the environment of this country, and about our neighbors in Central and Latin America, would also join me in opposing cloture. Because it is not right. It is not right that a few folks because of their political influence and strength should be able to keep in place a program which should have died when the Berlin Wall fell. The fact is, it is very ironic and unfortunate that as a nation we continue to promote this concept that competition should not be allowed in the production of sugar. It is antithetical to all the Republican Party stands for. It is time to put an end to it. Madam President, I thank the Chair for the time to speak. I yield back such time as I may not have used, and I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.

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

Mr. GREGG. What is the regular order?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, on January 23, 1996, the Senate passed S. 1494, a bill extending several housing programs through October 1, 1996. I am pleased the Senate included in this bill language I developed in my legislation, S. 247, the Senior Citizens Safety Act of 1995. I am hopeful that the President will match the tough anti- crime rhetoric conveyed in his State of the Union Address, and sign this legislation when it arrives on his desk. This legislation will end the terror that, unfortunately, runs rampant throughout many elderly housing projects. It offers both local public housing facilities [PHA] and local property owners with the power to screen out and evict from public and assisted housing persons who illegally use drugs and whose abuse of alcohol is a risk to other tenants. In my home State of New Hampshire, most people are still afforded the luxury of not having to lock their front doors before turning in for the evening. However, many elderly residents of public housing facilities in my State and across America have been forced to not only lock their front doors, but are literally being held prisoner in their own homes. I believe this is outrageous. I have received numerous complaints from residents of elderly housing facilities throughout New Hampshire who are worried about their personal safety in housing specifically reserved for them. While community policing has gone a long way toward making many of America's neighborhoods safe for its elderly residents. No longer will people residing in public housing facilities be allowed to harass, shake down, or intimidate their elderly neighbors. Our elderly population remains vulnerable, and I am pleased the Senate has taken this action which will help protect them. Our housing laws must protect elderly residents. Currently, non- elderly persons, considered disabled because of past drug and alcohol abuse problems, are eligible to live in housing designated for the elderly. This mixing of populations may have filled up the housing projects across the country, but it has opened a Pandora's box of trouble. Simply put, Young, recovering alcoholics and drug addicts are not comparable with elderly persons. Many of these young people hold all night, loud parties, shake down many of the elderly residents for money, sell drugs within the housing facility, and generally disturb the right to the peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants. This legislation, by no means, circumvents the current housing eviction procedure. It simply mandates that these individuals with patterns of drug and alcohol abuse be evicted after one incident if it is determined by the local PHA that their behavior threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants. This legislation will help to restore order in housing projects throughout the country. It requires tenants to embrace personal responsibility by mandating tenants to sign a statement which says no person who will be occupying the unit set aside for the elderly will illegally use a controlled substance or abuse alcohol in any way. Additionally, the bill will allow the local PHA to evict those persons who continuously raise havoc within these housing projects. I want to commend the Senate for its action in passing this important legislation. It will make our public housing facilities safe for our most vulnerable citizens, the elderly.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the provisions of the Balanced Budget Downpayment Act that relate to the Commerce, Justice, State, the judiciary, and related agencies [CJS] appropriations bill provide for funding at the levels outlined in the fiscal year 1996 conference report under fiscal year 1995 terms and conditions, with certain exceptions which are spelled out in the legislation. Along with the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Hollings, I want to notify all departments and agencies funded under the CJS bill that the fiscal year 1996 conference report and statement of managers and the House and Senate reports relating to the fiscal year 1996 CJS bill should be used to the maximum extent possible in allocating resources under this legislation. With very few exceptions, the guidance provided in these documents will likely become the final guidance for expenditure of fiscal year 1996 funds. department of justice Office of Justice Programs--Funding is included for discretionary and formula grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Program. It is the committee's intent that discretionary grants should be made in accordance with the joint statement of managers, and, that among those grants, the Justice Department should make funding the requirements of State and local law enforcement related to the 1996 Olympic Games a priority. Truth-in-sentencing grants--The pending bill contains language that withholds all funding for a new Truth-in-Sentencing Prison Grant Program until an agreement on revised legislative language can be reached. The sole exception to this provision is funding included under this program in the conference report to help reimburse States for the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens. The pending bill includes a provision that applies the terms and conditions of the 1996 conference report and statement of managers to amounts provided in the previous targeted appropriations legislation for various Department of Justice programs for the remainder of the fiscal year. Within these terms and conditions, Senator Hollings and I want to clarify the following points: Under the Interagency Crime Drug Enforcement Program, it is the committee's intent that the Attorney General, in consultation with the Office of Investigative Agencies Policies, will allocate resources among agencies participating in interagency crime and drug task forces based on current task force requirements. It is our intent that this review include a results-oriented analysis of task force operations. It is the committee's intent that funding provided for the Federal Prison System includes both the construction of new prisons under the terms specified in the statement of managers and continued support for the National Institute of Corrections. department of commerce Advanced Technology Program--The pending bill provides funding for the Advanced Technology Program [ATP] at a rate of operations of up to 75 percent of the final fiscal year 1995 appropriated level. The bill contains language which would prohibit funding for new ATP awards or grant competitions during the period covered by this legislation. During this period, ATP funding will be restricted to program administration and continuation grants for ATP projects awarded in fiscal year 1995 or earlier. The pending bill includes language similar to a provision contained in the conference report on the fiscal year 1996 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Act requiring that costs associated with personnel actions resulting from funding reductions included in subsection 201(a) bill be absorbed within the total budgetary resources available to each department or agency. This provision allows each department or agency to transfer funds between appropriations accounts as necessary to cover the personnel costs associated with program closeouts or downsizing requirements. This transfer authority is provided in addition to the authorities available under fiscal year 1995 terms and conditions and is subject to the committee's standard reprogramming procedures.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I introduce the Environmental Infrastructure Financing Act of 1996. The bill will amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow recycling facilities to be eligible for tax-exempt bond financing. A continuing problem in the development of recycling efforts is the need for markets for the materials that are being collected. Processes exist for remanufacturing the recycled materials into new products, but they frequently require extensive capital investment. An approach that is often attempted is the use of the Federal tax- exempt bond program, which does have a subcategory for solid waste projects. Solid waste recycling facilities should constitute a legitimate application of these funds; however, certain sections of the tax code define solid waste as being ``material without value.'' With recycled materials now being traded as commodities they do, in fact, have value, making the facilities which might process them ineligible for tax-exempt financing. This definitional problem impedes the construction of recycling facilities and hurts the development of recycling materials markets. My bill will correct this problem in the tax code and allow recycling facilities to obtain tax-exempt financing. The Environmental Infrastructure Financing Act of 1996 will foster the further development of the recycling industry and promote increased recycling on the State and local level.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I introduce the Environmental Infrastructure Financing Act of 1996. The bill will amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow recycling facilities to be eligible for tax-exempt bond financing. A continuing problem in the development of recycling efforts is the need for markets for the materials that are being collected. Processes exist for remanufacturing the recycled materials into new products, but they frequently require extensive capital investment. An approach that is often attempted is the use of the Federal tax- exempt bond program, which does have a subcategory for solid waste projects. Solid waste recycling facilities should constitute a legitimate application of these funds; however, certain sections of the tax code define solid waste as being ``material without value.'' With recycled materials now being traded as commodities they do, in fact, have value, making the facilities which might process them ineligible for tax-exempt financing. This definitional problem impedes the construction of recycling facilities and hurts the development of recycling materials markets. My bill will correct this problem in the tax code and allow recycling facilities to obtain tax-exempt financing. The Environmental Infrastructure Financing Act of 1996 will foster the further development of the recycling industry and promote increased recycling on the State and local level.