Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Certainly.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, before I yield time, I do think that a number of comments that have just been made both by the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from California [[Page S 18156]] deserve a quick response, because I do not believe that they accurately characterize the bill. It was ironic, in fact, that the Senator from Delaware came down here and excoriated us for approximately an hour and a half on the attitude this bill takes, specifically citing one of the programs, which is prison construction, where we have created the possibility of States to obtain approximately $0.5 billion in prison construction for illegal aliens. This was not done to benefit my State. My State does not have a whole lot of illegal aliens running around. This was done to benefit the State of California, the State of Texas, the State of Florida, and it was done at the expense, as was pointed out most vividly by the Senator from Delaware, at the expense of some of the smaller States, of which I happen to be a representative. So I find a certain irony when the Senator from California comes down and attacks this bill on the basis that it is not doing enough. I find equal irony when the Senator from Massachusetts comes to the floor and says we are not spending enough money, when this bill increases the spending in the crime area by 19 percent. To do that, it had to take the money from the State Department and the Commerce Department because we were assigned a certain allocation. So if the Senator from Massachusetts, or other Senators, wish to attack the nature of this bill and the amount of money being spent on crime prevention in this bill, which happens to be a 19-percent increase--a substantial increase considering the present climate--I believe they should tell us where they want to take more money from-- from Commerce or the State Department? On the issue of the drug courts, the fact is that under the block grant proposal, drug courts are not eliminated. They are an available option for any State that decides to expand and use drug courts. It is very much available under that block grant. There are other points on which I will probably have to reserve my right to put a written statement in the Record. I now yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Thompson.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

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

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and request the time be allocated equally to all sides.

Mr. GREGG. I certainly appreciate the Senator from Nevada's interest in this, and his understanding of the importance that tourism plays in the economy, obviously of his great State, but many of our States, tourism being the largest employer in the State of New Hampshire. However, I think the concerns that the House raised had some credibility. They were concerned about the fact that this agency, although on a theoretical downward glidepath toward being eliminated, may actually have a certain Phoenix-like quality to it, as a result of the conference may actually be coming back to us with the request for funding which would be in the multiple millions of dollars, approximately $50 million as a joint venture exercise. So I think they decided that rather than go through the gnashing of teeth and trauma of fighting this battle a year from now, to fight it now and terminate the agency. They were very insistent in their position. I suspect that it will be difficult, depending on how this bill comes back, to change that position. But I am certainly happy to sit with the Senator and work with him on any ideas that he might have. I think the real concern here is that we be on a glidepath to termination and that we not be on a glidepath that is sort of a touch and go.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield myself time. The Senator from Nevada has expressed a good case in the context of ``we are going to terminate this agency; is it $12 million or $2 million we need to do that.'' The concern the House raised, I think, is a legitimate concern. I want to give a very distinct clarification on this. As I understood the small business conference report, they wanted to follow, or suggested they follow, the Canadian system where the private sector does put in $50 million, but the Government puts in a matching amount, and that there is, if not stated, at least an implication we are going to end up with a joint program involving the Federal Government or a request for a joint program involving the Federal Government once the private sector has raised the $50 million. I think that is the concern. That type of contingent, potential liability should be nipped now rather than get into the fight at a later date. We will certainly rejoin this issue when we get the bill back, and I appreciate the Senator's thoughts.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure today to rise to pay tribute to Paul O. Bofinger, president of the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, upon his retirement. Paul has served the New Hampshire conservation community loyally for 30 years as an intelligent and clear voice of reason and stubborn common sense. Upon graduation from Cornell University in 1953 and the University of Michigan in 1955, Paul has been actively involved in the New Hampshire conservation debate. Paul's profound insight and powerful influence on New Hampshire environmental policy has helped to create the special tradition of balance and consensus building that we are proud of in New Hampshire. Over the past three decades Paul Bofinger has received numerous awards and honors including the American Foresters John Artson Warder Medal, the Nature Conservancy's Conservation Achievement Award, the University of New Hampshire Granite State Award, and the Audubon Society of New Hampshire Tudor Richards Award. Paul received a 1982 Governor's Award of Distinction and was named 1994 Forester of the Year by the Granite State Division of the Society of American Foresters. He is a Franklin Pierce College Honorary Doctor of Human Letters, and a recipient of the Chevron Conservation Award. Paul Bofinger served in 1984 and 1985 at Harvard University as a C. Bullard Fellow. Paul's leadership assured the success of the New Hampshire Land Conservation Investment Program and the creation of the majestic Lake Umbagog National Fish and Wildlife Refuge. Under his presidency, the New Hampshire Forest Society has become one of the premier land trusts in the Nation. During the past several years Mr. Bofinger and the New Hampshire Forest Society have contributed greatly to the work of the Northern Forest Lands Council. He has positioned New Hampshire as a leader in the regional effort to protect the traditional land use patterns of the great Northern Forest for the benefit of future generations. Through Paul's stewardship of New Hampshire conservation policy, his strong commitment to the development of broad consensus- based groups, and his disciplined approach to conservation policy through respectful dialog, New Hampshire's forest conservation and land use process has become a model for the rest of the country to learn and benefit from. Mr. President, I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating Paul Bofinger on an exemplary career as a leader of New Hampshire forest conservation and a voice of wise moderation. I wish him good fortune and Godspeed as, upon retirement, he pursues new life challenges.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. We are not going to be able to accomplish what is that overriding, absolutely essential goal which is that we get this budget in balance so our children have a nation which is solvent. So, as we move down this road, recognizing there is a tremendously large amount going on in this world today which distracts the attention of Americans, recognizing our first concern and interest must be for our soldiers who are going into Bosnia, I do hope we will not lose focus on the fact that the future of our children is being decided today on the issue of whether we get to a balanced budget. We are not going to be able to get from here to there unless this administration starts putting forward some honest proposals.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, obviously the issue of Bosnia has the attention of America, as it well should because American soldiers are being put in harm's way. We as a nation should equally focus on the issue of these negotiations that are going on between Congress and the President over how we reach a balanced budget, because as our soldiers are in harm's way in the immediate sense, as they move into Bosnia, our Nation is clearly in harm's way as a result of the continued deficits which we run and the fact that we are putting our children's future at risk by presenting them with a nation that is bankrupt if we do not get under control our national debt. So I think it is important to review where we stand and try to reflect on what the two sides present. Where we stand is that about a week and a half ago, this Nation's Government essentially came to a standstill, stopped, because we could not agree on whether or not we should reach a balanced budget. The Republicans had put forward a balanced budget bill and we passed it. It says that we should reach a balanced budget in 7 years. That is not an excessively short amount of time. In fact, it is probably too much time. We should probably be reaching a balanced budget sooner. But we agreed to 7 years because we felt that was something that could be attained and which was reasonable. The administration, the President specifically, had said, over a period of time, they were for a balanced budget also. He said specifically he was for a balanced budget, at one time in 5 years. He had said he was for a balanced budget in 6 years. He had said he was for a balanced budget in 7 years. He had said he was for a balanced budget in 8 years. He had said he was for a balanced budget in 9 years. And he had said he was for a balanced budget in 10 years. We chose 7 years. We thought that was right about in the middle of the different proposals he had put forward and we hoped he would be comfortable with it. As a result of the closure of the Government, there was an agreement finally reached and the administration has now stated they are committed to balancing the budget in 7 years and that they are committed to doing that using, as an independent scoring agency to determine the fairness and accuracy of the numbers, the Congressional Budget Office. That is a major step forward, obviously, in the process. It is unfortunate that it took a shutdown of the Government to accomplish that. We, as Republicans, remember, were willing to go forward to reach a balanced budget. We had actually passed the resolution to accomplish that with specifics, without requiring that the Government be shut down. It was the administration which would not come to the table until there was a Government shutdown, which would not agree to a balanced budget until there was a Government shutdown. So, as we move into the process of revising the history books, which always seems to occur after events take place, let us remember that Republicans had already committed to a 7-year balanced budget prior to the shutdown and that the shutdown--the outcome of the shutdown was that the administration also agreed to a 7-year balanced budget. So, something was accomplished by the shutdown. It was unfortunate it was necessary. But what was accomplished was that this administration finally settled on a number, 7 years, for a balanced budget. Now we proceed with the negotiations as to how we get there. I have to say, I have been watching these negotiations, as I suspect many of us have--although we have been distracted, clearly, by the Bosnia situation--and I have become concerned because, while we have put forward a plan, the Republicans have put forward a plan which is very specific and which in real terms accomplishes what is necessary to get this country's fiscal house in order so we will be passing on to our children a nation which is financially solvent rather than a Nation that is bankrupt, we have, as yet, seen nothing from the administration in terms of specifics. Where is their budget plan that gets us to balance? We have ours on the table--3,000 pages. In fact, the other side of the aisle had great entertainment, making fun of the length of our proposal. It is a lengthy proposal because it is a specific proposal and a real proposal. What we need to see from the administration are specifics as to how they wish to get to a balanced budget. It is very difficult, I suspect, for those negotiating in this process to be negotiating without one side being willing to come forward and say what they are willing to do. So I think it is incumbent on the folks who follow this process, recognizing we are all a bit distracted, and rightly so, by what is happening in Bosnia and the immediate threat to our American soldiers-- but, even in the context of that I think it is incumbent upon all of us in this country to be asking the question, ``How does this President intend to get to a balanced budget in 7 years? What are his proposals?'' We saw his budget that he sent up here in June. That was a 10-year budget. It did not get to balance. In fact it had deficits of $200 billion for the entire 10-year period, each year for the 10-year period. For this administration to get to balance, they must come forward with proposals which slow the rate of Federal spending by approximately $750 billion over the next 7 years. We have come forward with proposals that do that. Where are the administration proposals? My sense is that they do not want to come forward with proposals because they are not sincere, to be quite honest. I do not believe they are sincere. If they were sincere they would come forward with these proposals. But the fact that they have not raises serious doubts as to their sincerity in their efforts. I hope I am wrong but, as of right now, I think the facts show I am right. I think the American people should start asking themselves what type of administration, what philosophy of Government allows the executive branch to agree to a 7- year timeframe for reaching a balanced budget but refuses to come forward and define how they are going to get to that balanced budget? What is the philosophy of an administration that does that? I do not believe it is a philosophy that is sincerely committed to a balanced budget. I believe it is a philosophy that is more involved in the politics of the issue than the substance of the issue. That is the problem. We cannot afford, as a nation, any longer to be involved in the politics. We need to be involved with the substance of the balanced budget. In order to get involved in the substance, we need to have this administration come forward and state specifically how it intends to get to a balanced budget in 7 years. We have done it. The reason we have done it is because we understand that, if this is not accomplished, and not accomplished at this time, at this moment in history where the opportunity is so ripe, that we may not have a chance at any later date to do it again. And, if we do not do it now, if we do not put in place now the decisions that are necessary to change the spending patterns of this Government in the outyears so we reduce its rate of growth--we are not talking about cutting the Federal Government, we are talking about reducing its rate of growth. In fact, in the Medicare area we are talking about adding $349 billion of new spending to Medicare and allowing it to grow at a rate that actually exceeds what the President projected in one of his budgets that he sent up. But, if we do not make the changes necessary to reduce the rate of growth in the Federal Government and make those changes now by changing the programs which drive spending, specifically the entitlement programs, then we are going to end up, as a nation, passing on to our children a country that is bankrupt. That is an extremely cynical act to have occur at the time when all the parties have formally stated that they are opposed to having that occur. That is the irony of this. All the parties have now formally stated they are willing to reach a balanced budget. Yet one of the parties has been unwilling to state how it is going to get there. Thus, you have to question their sincerity. The fact is, if we do not do this now, if we do not make these changes now which accomplish a balanced budget--and we do not have to follow the plan laid out by the Republicans. We would be happy to see a plan from the other side of the aisle, specifically from the administration, or a joint plan worked out. But we need to have the facts from the administration first and the proposals from the administration first. If we do not follow such a plan and put such a plan in place now, we are not going to be able to accomplish it. Mr. President, I ask for an additional minute.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3074

Mr. GREGG

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

Mr. GREGG. Are we in morning business, Mr. President?

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent to proceed then as in morning business for a period of up to 10 minutes.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, as the President tonight begins the process of trying to convince America that we should put American soldiers' lives at risk on the ground in Bosnia, I think it is appropriate to take a look at some of the other foreign policy activities of this administration in the terms of what they represented as being when they originally proposed it and what has occurred in reality. Probably the most significant example of this administration presenting a policy in one form and having it executed in another form is today being seen in Haiti. When the President decided to go into Haiti--and he did this on a unilateral action, as much as his policies in Bosnia so far have been unilateral--he stated to us that the purpose of this was to restore democracy, to put back in place the elected leader of a government that had been replaced by a military coup of sorts, and to allow the nation of Haiti to reestablish economic strength and have the capacity to pursue a peaceful and democratic and economically prosperous future. He told us that our troops would be there briefly and that the cost would not be excessive. I think we need, however, now to take a look at what has actually happened in Haiti, whether or not the policies of the administration as represented have actually come to pass. First, let us look at the issue of who they have put back in power in Haiti, Mr. Aristide. Has Mr. Aristide turned out to be a democratic individual? I think it would be hard to put that identification on him. He has been an individual who has had a history of being violently anti-American, of being a proponent of Marxist philosophy, of being an individual who has historically proposed the use of violence against his political enemies. Did he change his way when he was put in as President by us as a nation, using our military? It does not appear he has. In a meeting which took place--it was not a meeting, it was a ceremony of mourning for a person who had been unfortunately killed by violence in Haiti-- about a week and half ago, Mr. Aristide called on his supporters to use violence. This is the President of the country, someone who has been put in place by American forces, someone who is protected by American soldiers, calling for the use of violence against the citizens of his country, mob violence against the citizens of his country. As might be expected, the people of Haiti responded to this call from their President for mob violence with mob violence. It is estimated that many people died, maybe as many as 11; homes were burned, looting occurred, and the streets were on fire. The words that he used to counsel this violence were reported as being, ``Go to the neighborhoods where there are big houses and heavy weapons, and retaliate against the big men,'' inciting the mob to violence. That is the leadership of the individual who we have put the American imprimatur of authority on, who this White House has chosen as their leader in Haiti. Has he also accepted the fact that elections should occur in December? We are not sure of that. In another recent meeting just a few days ago, there was a nonbinding resolution put forward by his supporters which called on him to remain in office beyond the election for another 3 years. Such action would be inconsistent with, should he undertake it, the constitution, which he is allegedly functioning under in Haiti, which says he cannot succeed himself, and his term is up in February. What was his response to that nonbinding resolution which was put forward by his own people and which you have to presume he laid a hand in authoring, at least his people did, with his countenance? He said to the delegates, ``If you want me for 3 years, I will walk with you. I think what you think,'' a pretty clear statement that he has no great interest in the elective process or in his own Constitution, which he is allegedly sworn to support. In addition, of course, the election, which is coming up on December 17, is a fraud and has been made so by President Aristide's party. Four of the five opposition parties have decided not to participate. We know that it is going to essentially be a nonelection election, the purpose of which will be simply a ballot-box-stuffing event for the confirmation of the Aristide party. The opposition parties have been crushed both through mob violence and through use of a controlled press, and there is very little in the form of what anyone would arguably call democracy occurring in Haiti today. And at what price has this occurred to the American taxpayers and American military? First off, as I said, we have used our military to basically prop up a dictator in Mr. Aristide. In doing that, we have undermined, in my own estimation, the credibility of American military force, which is not supposed to be used for the purposes of promoting dictatorships but clearly is. In addition, it is costing us, the taxpayers of this country, approximately $2.2 billion, or at least that is the best number we can estimate. I think personally that is low, but that is still a lot of money. And $2.2 billion is all the taxes that are paid by the folks that I represent in New Hampshire in any given year. Somehow I think those folks would have preferred to have their money go to better schools or better environment or better roads somewhere in our country, than to go into the coffers of Mr. Aristide in Haiti. What has that $2 billion purchased the people of Haiti? It has purchased them Mr. Aristide back in power, that is correct, but not a great deal more. In fact, as a result of the policies of this administration, we put in place sanctions, which was a mistake to begin with, as I said earlier, when they were put in place, sanctions which ended up terminating essentially the private sector in Haiti. The loss of jobs was dramatic; tens of thousands of jobs which were in the private sector which existed in Haiti were lost as a result of the sanctions. Have we seen those jobs restored? Has there been a return to democracy, to a market economy in Haiti? Has there been any expansion of the private sector in Haiti? Marginal at best. In fact, Mr. Aristide, who prior to being put back in power as a celeb in residence of this administration when he was here in Georgetown, stated rather aggressively his views that he believed [[Page S 17517]] in a socialist approach to government and since being the President has refused to privatize a number of the state-controlled activities which it was understood he was going to privatize as part of getting the economy going again. And so not only were the jobs lost, and they have not been re-created, as a result of the sanctions, we are seeing an administration in Haiti which has accomplished very little in the effort to create a market force in Haiti. So all in all, it is not a great success story. But what is really of significant concern--even I think should be of concern for the American people as we go down the road toward the Bosnian debate--is the gap between what was represented was going to happen and what was represented would be and what has occurred, the gap between how Mr. Aristide was defined by this administration and who he really is, which is dramatic, the gap between what then was told to us was going to cost us and what it eventually has cost us, the fact that we may have American soldiers on the ground there well past February when we are supposed to have them out, another example. And so, as we move down the road on the decision on Bosnia, I think the American people have the right to ask the serious and difficult questions of this administration and to be a little suspicious of the answers and presentations as to what this administration's views and decisions are in Bosnia. We just recently read--I did not read it, but we heard synopses of a book published by Robert McNamara, who was the Secretary of Defense under John Kennedy and under Lyndon Johnson, and who now states rather openly that he knew the war in Vietnam was wrong, that it was a mistake from a public policy standpoint, but that because of the need to protect, basically, the political position and ego of the Presidency, they continued to pursue the war in Vietnam--truly one of the more disconcerting revelations to come forward from a leader of this country, certainly in this half century, but I suspect a very accurate one. Maybe we should put a new term in the American language called ``McNamaranism.'' That is when you pursue a policy which you know is substantively wrong but you pursue it because of the political need or the need of the ego or the need of the presentation of the Presidency to the people. You pursue it not because you know it is right substantively, not because you know it is going to correct a problem which you think is there, but because you know, as a member of the policymaker at the highest level in Government, that if you do not pursue it, you are going to put at risk the President's imprimatur of authority, his personal leadership role or his reelection efforts. McNamaranism--I think that is a term that we should start with and we should identify. Clearly, McNamaranism occurred in the early sixties. I think a form of McNamaranism has occurred in Haiti. We pursued a policy in Haiti not because we knew we were going to correct that country. We knew that country was going to continue to have serious economic problems and serious political problems no matter what we did, because it has had those problems a long time and we do not have the wherewithal to change that culture unless we are willing to essentially take that country over and dominate it for years, something we tried to do from 1919 to 1935 and failed to do during that period. So we know it will take longer than that length of time, which is when we last occupied that country. But we went into Haiti because this administration had a political need to go into Haiti, to be quite blunt. There were certain forces within the constituency which support this Presidency who demanded unequivocally that we go into Haiti, and they were effective in making their case. So it was a political decision to go into Haiti, even though substantively we knew we were not going to correct the situation, and we are now seeing the result of that. McNamaranism struck us in Haiti. Let us hope that McNamaranism does not strike us in Bosnia. Mr. President, I yield back my time. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the House as in morning business

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. No, the Senator did not misinterpret my remarks. Karl Marx was an economist first. He became affiliated with communism, of course, but his basic theory of economics was that you should essentially, through controlling the marketplace from the top down, move dollars from one segment to another as the state determined appropriate. That was the basic theme of Marxism, that the state should use the power of the state to move dollars from one group to another and manage the marketplace both through transfer of wealth through income-related activities and also transfer wealth through pricing activities. That was the basic theme of Marxism. If you look at the sugar program, the open market price for sugar today is 10 cents a pound. That is what it was quoted at on CNBC just yesterday. The price support is set at 18 cents a pound, but the target price that is used, which is outrageous to begin with, the target price which is used by the Agriculture Department is somewhere around 21, 22, 23 cents a pound. I am not sure. It is right in that range. The basic reason, of course, being under the structure they do not want anybody to end up having to pay back their loan. So they make it possible for the price to be so much higher than even the support price that no loans ever end up going into default. Maybe there is some other term you use for this that is appropriate, but when there is no market force of any nature involved in pricing the product, that is certainly not capitalism. It is certainly not an Adam Smith approach to managing a commodity. It is a management by the state of the price of the commodity to benefit the producers of the commodity, and in this case it happens to be that 42 percent of the benefit runs to sugar growers who represent 1 percent of all the sugar farmers, happening to be the cane growers in this instance, not the sugar beet growers, who would happen to be from Nebraska. I happen to think we could restructure this program where your sugar beet growers have a much better opportunity to get some of that 42 percent of the benefit and not have the consumers pick up the $1.4 billion subsidy which is incurred as a result of setting the price arbitrarily at the number which has no relationship and which is almost 100 percent higher than at what the free market sets the price. So did I use the term Marxist economics to characterize it? Yes, because it is a state-run, state-dominated, state-controlled price- setting mechanism, which is the classic definition of Marxist economics. If it were a free market or if it were a quasi-free market, you might use some other term. If it were a quasi-free market, I suppose you could characterize it as a farm subsidy program. But it is even beyond that. So that is why I used that term. I think it is an accurate characterization. I do not deem it pejorative in the sense it is inaccurate. It may be pejorative because that form of economics has been so rejected by the world now. But it is a fact that exists. Now, as to the dairy program, I would be willing to make a deal right here with the Senator that we put all products on the basis of market economics, we have no subsidies underlying any commodities. I will vote for it. If you want to take the dairy program out of any subsidy program, I will vote for that, if it is part of a package to take everything out. In fact, I would probably vote for it if it were not a part of a package to take everything out. Dairy is an issue in which I am not a great defender of the price supports either. I think the issue here that I raised with sugar is a legitimate issue and the characterization is accurate. So I yield to the Senator from Nebraska for his comment.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes so we might have a colloquy between myself and the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GREGG. I do not think the dairy program is an egregious example of price controls, because the dairy prices are much closer to a market-driven event than the sugar prices. So I would say we are somewhere in between. It is [[Page S 17428]] clearly not a capitalist system. It is clearly not a market system that we have in dairy, which it should be, and I strongly support moving to a market system. But it is nowhere near the egregious price-support levels that we have in the sugar system. So, no, I do not think I would say it is a purely state-dominated system, but it has clearly got too much state domination in it. I wish we would correct it.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to address a couple of topics. First, I want to congratulate the Senator from Missouri for his cogent comments on how we get to a balanced budget, how we score the question of spending, and how we maintain some semblance of credibility to the numbers here in Congress. I respect his leadership as a former Governor in this area and recognize that he understands, maybe more than many of us, the importance of having honest numbers because, of course, in his State they had to have a balanced budget--something, unfortunately, that we do not have to have at the Federal level. It would be nice if we did. When you have to live by a balanced budget, as he did as Governor of Missouri, the real numbers become very important. It is not a gamesmanship exercise here in obtaining real numbers and his points are well-taken as we move forward to try to resolve this continuing resolution process issue, that we have to have hard numbers that are real numbers so that there can be true movement toward a balanced budget, not something done by mirrors or smoke. I want to talk a little bit, also, about what the President has been saying about the balanced budget amendment which we passed yesterday, the balanced budget resolution. The President has once again in his radio address, as I understand it, misrepresented facts and the situation especially in the area of Medicare. It is now extremely ironic that the administration should continue to attack the Republican membership for our bill to balance the budget, which bill, at the same time, puts the Medicare trust fund into solvency and gives the senior citizens of this country choices which they do not have today, choices which are similar to those that we have as Members of Congress. It is ironic that the President and the Vice President and his minions should continue to attack us for putting forward a proposal like this, calling our proposals extremist, cuts, slashing of the Medicare system, when, in fact, the number agreed to and which was passed last night by this Senate and by the House and therefore by the Congress and sent down to the President for the rate of growth of Medicare which we have agreed to, which the Republicans have put forward, actually now exceeds the number that the President of the United States sent up as his rate of growth that he would like to see in the area of Medicare spending in his June budget. To go over it in specifics, in his June budget the President said he wanted Medicare to grow at 7.1 percent. Why did he say that? Because his trustees of the trust fund had just come back--Secretary Rubin, Secretary Shalala, and Secretary Reich had just come back--and said if we did not slow the rate of growth in Medicare the trust fund would go bankrupt in the year 2002, and the rate of growth of the trust fund was 10 percent. In other words, every year we are spending 10 percent more on Medicare than we spent the year before. The reason we are doing that is because the system is broken. So, the President understood this in his June submission and said, ``We have to slow that rate of growth to 7.1 percent annually, down from 10 percent.'' Then we put forward our proposal and we suggested the rate of growth, in our initial proposal, should be 6.4 percent. That is what the debate was about, the difference between 7.1 percent and 6.4 percent, or approximately 0.7 percent. Now, after negotiating with the House and making some changes to try to address the concerns of some of the seniors in this country and their groups, we have come forward with a budget which allows Medicare to grow at 7.4 percent. That is what the Republican resolution, the Balanced Budget Act which we passed last night, has as a number: 7.4 percent. I think it is very important the press and the people of this country take note of that. Because we are now 0.3 percent higher in our rate of growth in Medicare than what the President had in his budget submission in June. So, if he is going to continue to say we are slashing, cutting, savaging the Medicare system, then he must have the integrity to say that his proposal exceeded our slashes, exceeded our cuts, exceeded our attacks on Medicare, if that is the case. Of course, in fact, it is not the case. Actually what we have done is, rather than slash, cut, or in any other way negatively impact the Medicare system, we have actually created a new system which is going to strengthen the Medicare system. We are going to spend $349 billion more on Medicare over the next 7 years than we are spending if we were to just flat-fund it; a $349 billion increase in spending. Every senior in this country on Medicare today gets $4,900 in benefits, they are going to get $6,700 by the year 2002. They will not only get additional benefits in the way of dollars, but they will get additional benefits in the way of opportunities. They will be able to go out and try some other types of health care delivery systems, many of those systems which we now as Members of Congress have available to us but seniors do not have available to them. In the same process, we are not going to limit their ability to stay in their present Medicare system. We are actually going to let them expand that ability, if they desire to do so. So, the President once again is being a bit disingenuous in his positions--to be kind. He is misrepresenting, not only his position but our position. What for? To pander to an electorate, to try to scare that electorate, to try to run for reelection rather than substantively address the issues which we have to address, which of course is that we need to balance this budget in order to make sure that our children have a chance for a prosperous lifestyle and our seniors have a Medicare trust fund that is solvent. So we have put forward this balanced budget which makes a great deal of sense, because if we do not pass this balanced budget, we would be passing on to our children no opportunity for prosperity because we would be passing on to them a country which would be confronted with trillions of dollars of additional debt which our children will have to pay. A child born today will have to pay $186,000 in taxes just to pay the interest on the Federal debt. That is not right. It is not fair. Our generation is spending our children's future and it is not right. So we passed this bill last night and it was a good bill. It had changes in basic programs which will be positive and which will make those programs deliver better services. But, as with all good bills that pass this Congress, when they are large bills sometimes something happens. Some little cadre of folks around here realizes those bills have a certain amount of momentum and they are going to pass because they are good bills and on balance everybody who is thoughtful about quality Government is probably going to vote for them and there will be a majority that will pass them. So they sometimes sneak little provisions into these bills that are not that good. But because you have an up-or-down vote on the whole bill and you cannot get those provisions out, you end up with those provisions in. In this instance, that occurred, unfortunately, and I want to talk briefly about that; sort of the dark side of the reconciliation bill, if you will, because, unfortunately, there were some dark corners in the reconciliation bill. [[Page S 17426]] The most egregious example of that was what happened with the sugar program. Let us first understand what the sugar program is in this country. It is basically a ripoff of the consumers of America to the tune of $1.4 billion every year. It is the last vestiges of a Marxist economic system in, probably, the world. Well, maybe they still have it in Cuba, a Marxist economic system. But the last real strong vestiges of it is right here in the United States in our sugar program. What does the sugar program do? It basically, arbitrarily, without any relationship to the market forces of the economy, fixes the price of sugar at a price which is 50 percent higher--30 to 50 percent higher than what sugar should cost Americans. In the open market today you can buy sugar at 10 cents. Under our system of farm subsidy and price control, we pay 22 cents, 23 cents. This is an outrage, but it is a cartel in this country that has a grip on the economics of the issue of sugar and, unfortunately, on this Congress, because it uses vehicles like the reconciliation bill to abuse the process. So, in this reconciliation bill there was not a 1-year, not 2-year, but a 7-year extension of this outrage, of this program which is the ultimate example of the former East European market approach to economics. It was extended because these folks were able to slip this in. And the irony of it, of course, is that it was put in by people who on most days are the greatest supporters of capitalism, and some of the strongest supporters of conservative thought on this floor. They slipped it in here, for whatever reasons I cannot imagine, because they could not justify it, I am sure, under any intellectual basis. But it got slipped in here for the purposes of raiding the pocketbooks of Americans, for the purposes of benefiting a very small group of people. The GAO did a study of this and 17 farms--17 cane farmers in this country get 58 percent of the benefit, 58 percent of the benefit. That is a huge amount of dollars on a $1.4 billion subsidy. That is a huge amount of dollars to one small group of individuals in this country who happen to have the capacity to have put their idea into this reconciliation. Now, there are many of us on our side--on both sides of the aisle, this is a bipartisan outrage at this--who find this to be an inexcusable event, who think the idea that an attempt to balance the budget should have in it a plan which essentially affronts the sensibilities of everything that Adam Smith ever stood for, and that the market economy ever stood for, that capitalism ever stood for, that our country's basic economic structure stands for--that that program should be in this bill is not only ironic, it is an outrage. However, due to the rules of this Senate, we were not able to remove it from this bill. But we all understand this bill, unfortunately, because it has a huge amount of good in it, unfortunately it will end up vetoed. It will come back to us. I want to put folks on notice. When it comes back, in whatever form it comes back, this sugar debate is not going to be allowed to be shoved into the back corner. This sugar debate is going to be out there, it is going to be on the front burner. Because the American people can no longer be subject to this outrage of having $1.4 billion transferred out of their pockets into the pockets of a few cane growers and a few processors, simply because somebody used the parliamentary rules around here to protect a program that is absolutely indefensible under any other circumstances. So, this issue shall be revisited when this bill is revisited and it shall be revisited with much more intensity than the last go-around. Because of the fact it was necessary, because of the overriding strength of this bill in the area of getting under control entitlement spending generally, on such things as Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare, and the overriding desire to address that, we had to unfortunately--we ended up, unfortunately, being gamed on the issue of sugar. But in the next go-around, I simply put people on notice that game will be joined with much more intensity because the consumers of this country do not deserve to have to pay $1.4 billion simply because a bunch of cane growers want to make money. I yield the floor. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Kassebaum, Nunn, Gorton, and Jeffords in introducing the Occupational Safety and Health Reform and Reinvention Act. Let me say at the outset that in proposing and considering OSHA reform, worker safety was our first concern. I am firmly committed to ensuring a safe and healthy workplace and will not support legislation which puts that in jeopardy. I believe in this bill that we have accomplished true OSHA reform without compromising the safety of our workers in any way. Throughout my career in public office, I have worked to make Government more efficient and more user and consumer friendly. Federal Government agencies have grown so large and become so bureaucratic that they are often not providing the kinds of services and proper oversight that was originally intended when they were created. Too often Government carries a heavy stick, but no carrot, when it interacts with individual citizens and businesses throughout our country. I believe that it is high time we take a close look at how we can improve the way Government works and, at the same time, provide incentives for the private sector to act more responsibly. Americans will be better served in a climate where people in Government, and in business, can work together to solve problems in a spirit of cooperation, rather than in an atmosphere strictly of threats, intimidation, and punitive measures. [[Page S 17345]] When OSHA was enacted, its intended purpose was to make the workplace free from ``recognized hazards that are causing, or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to . . . employees.'' As is the case with many programs established by Congress over the years, OSHA has developed a well-earned reputation for over-regulation. OSHA has moved from its original purpose of protecting workers to hindering businesses with excessive mandates. While I feel that much of the problem within OSHA is of a cultural nature, the bill we are introducing today will concentrate on relieving OSHA's oppressive and burdensome regulations, thereby removing a feeling among American employers and employees that OSHA is the ``bad cop.'' Our legislation puts in place partnerships for assuring safety and health in the workplace. This balanced approach will include a consultation program, voluntary compliance and third-party certification, employee involvement, warnings in lieu of citations for nonserious violations, and reduced penalties for nonserious violations. This legislation will use incentives, rather than penalties to enhance workplace safety. It will allow companies with ``clean'' safety records to implement their own health and safety programs. In closing, I would like to thank Senator Kassebaum on her leadership as chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee. Without her dedication and hard work this legislation would not be possible. I would also like to thank Senator Nunn, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Gorton. They both have been instrumental in the drafting of this important legislation. I look forward to working with them and the members of the Labor Committee on continuing to bring this legislation to fruition. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Kassebaum, Nunn, Gorton, and Jeffords in introducing the Occupational Safety and Health Reform and Reinvention Act. Let me say at the outset that in proposing and considering OSHA reform, worker safety was our first concern. I am firmly committed to ensuring a safe and healthy workplace and will not support legislation which puts that in jeopardy. I believe in this bill that we have accomplished true OSHA reform without compromising the safety of our workers in any way. Throughout my career in public office, I have worked to make Government more efficient and more user and consumer friendly. Federal Government agencies have grown so large and become so bureaucratic that they are often not providing the kinds of services and proper oversight that was originally intended when they were created. Too often Government carries a heavy stick, but no carrot, when it interacts with individual citizens and businesses throughout our country. I believe that it is high time we take a close look at how we can improve the way Government works and, at the same time, provide incentives for the private sector to act more responsibly. Americans will be better served in a climate where people in Government, and in business, can work together to solve problems in a spirit of cooperation, rather than in an atmosphere strictly of threats, intimidation, and punitive measures. [[Page S 17345]] When OSHA was enacted, its intended purpose was to make the workplace free from ``recognized hazards that are causing, or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to . . . employees.'' As is the case with many programs established by Congress over the years, OSHA has developed a well-earned reputation for over-regulation. OSHA has moved from its original purpose of protecting workers to hindering businesses with excessive mandates. While I feel that much of the problem within OSHA is of a cultural nature, the bill we are introducing today will concentrate on relieving OSHA's oppressive and burdensome regulations, thereby removing a feeling among American employers and employees that OSHA is the ``bad cop.'' Our legislation puts in place partnerships for assuring safety and health in the workplace. This balanced approach will include a consultation program, voluntary compliance and third-party certification, employee involvement, warnings in lieu of citations for nonserious violations, and reduced penalties for nonserious violations. This legislation will use incentives, rather than penalties to enhance workplace safety. It will allow companies with ``clean'' safety records to implement their own health and safety programs. In closing, I would like to thank Senator Kassebaum on her leadership as chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee. Without her dedication and hard work this legislation would not be possible. I would also like to thank Senator Nunn, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Gorton. They both have been instrumental in the drafting of this important legislation. I look forward to working with them and the members of the Labor Committee on continuing to bring this legislation to fruition. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.