Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. When the United States leads, others will follow. I am proud to be associated in this regard. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial from the Washington Post on this issue, ``Burma Beyond the Pale.''

Mr. MOYNIHAN. He was murdered because he was found in possession of a fax machine.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, Senators such as I, such as Senator Paul Wellstone, cannot conceive that the party of Social Security and of civil rights could support this legislation which commences to repeal, to undermine both. Our colleagues in the House did not, nor should we. The Washington Post concluded this morning's editorial, I quote: This vote will likely end up in the history books, and the right vote on this bill is no. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 20 seconds.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I have the honor to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished friend from New Jersey, Senator Bradley.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I have the honor to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished friend from Illinois.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, cane sugar refining has been around in America since the beginning of the Republic. Christopher Columbus introduced sugarcane from West Africa to Santo Domingo on his second voyage in 1495. Our Nation's leading cane sugar refiner, Domino Sugar, which is headquartered in New York City, has been in business for nearly 200 years. Domino's Brooklyn refinery has been in operation for 119 years. The refining industry is an important part of our economy, employing thousands of Americans in good-paying manufacturing jobs. The Domino employees at the Brooklyn plant, for instance, make about $40,000, on average. Domino alone employs over 800 people in New York and 2,000 nationwide. Refined Sugar Inc., located in Yonkers, employs another few hundred. These refining jobs are, for the most part, located in inner cities and along urban waterfronts where other manufacturing jobs are scarce. But the refining industry is on the brink of collapse. In the last 10 years, the number of cane sugar refineries nationwide has been cut in half, from 22 to 11. Plants in Boston and Philadelphia have closed; a refinery in Hawaii may have to close later this year. Other domestic refiners, including Domino and Refined Sugar Inc., have had to shut down several times because they have been unable to obtain adequate quantities of the raw product and affordable prices. The domestic refining industry--one of the last bastions of manufacturing in some of our cities--is being crippled by overly restrictive administration of the sugar price support program. The loan rate for sugar is 18 cents per pound. But bowing to pressure from beet sugar producers, the administration has kept cane imports so low that the domestic price for raw sugar has fluctuated between 22 and 25 cents per pound. These prices are far higher than what is necessary to prevent loan forfeitures, and they have stimulated beet sugar production, which has driven down the price of refined sugar. Cane refiners operated in the red throughout 1995. The situation has eased somewhat this year as the administration belatedly and sporadically increased the quotas. But more is needed, and it is needed urgently, or we will lose this industry. I understand my colleagues' concerns about potential disruptions to sugar growers in their States. In turn, I would expect them to share my concern about the very real disruptions refiners in my State and elsewhere are experiencing. The House version of H.R. 3603 includes an eminently sensible provision, section 729, designed to ensure that the sugar price support program is operated in a fashion beneficial for both growers and refiners. The provision stipulated that no Federal funds could be spent to support raw cane sugar prices at more than 117.5 percent of the statutory loan rate of 18 cents per pound. This amounts to a little more than 21 cents per pound. A very reasonable price for producers. More than the loan rate, more than enough to prevent forfeitures--a price sufficient to repay loans and cover interest and transportation of raw sugar to market. And a price at which refiners can operate. In practice, the House provision would require the Secretary of Agriculture to allow sufficient imports from existing quota holders so that the price does not exceed 21.1 cents per pound. Growers would profit. Refiners could stay in business. Adequate supplies would be available at affordable prices. Let me be clear. I'm no fan of the sugar price support program. It's Soviet-style intervention in the market. But if we are stuck with it-- for the time being--at least we can operate the program so that it doesn't drive our refiners out of business. The House provision does not abolish the sugar program. It does not lower the loan rate for sugar. It will not induce loan forfeitures or cost the Federal Government any money. Indeed, revenue from import duties would increase. And the provision does not open the door for ``subsidized European sugar.'' I think the House provision is a very fair compromise that balances the interests of producers, refiners, and end users. I urge the Senate conferees to H.R. 3603 to agree to the House provision, or something much like it. Last year, when Congress reviewed the sugar price support program and a majority decided to retain it, there was an understanding the program would be operated in a way that is beneficial not only to producers, but to refiners, users, and consumers alike. Implementation of the program has left something to be desired in this respect. Section 729 would help. I entreat the Senate conferees to H.R. 3603 to support the House provision. Otherwise, we will be driving thousands of manufacturing jobs overseas. emergency disaster loan program

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I concur with our chairman. The Committee on Finance reported H.R. 3286, the Adoption Promotion and Stability Act of 1996, unanimously on June 12, 1996. It is on the calendar, and the majority leader has promised prompt action on it. As the chairman has indicated, the Finance Committee bill provides an additional credit for special needs children. This was a subject of bipartisan concern during the Finance Committee's consideration of the bill. The pending amendment fails to take special needs cases into account, and in any event the amendment is not germane to the reconciliation legislation before us. I join Chairman Roth in raising a point of order that the amendment of the Senator from Alabama is not germane.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, may I point out that yesterday 46 Democrats voted for an amendment by our distinguished Democratic leader which had a conditional entitlement. It maintained for a period of 5 years a right of a child to some public support if needed. This measure would abolish that entitlement in title IV of the Social Security Act, an entitlement which is provided for the aged, the unemployed, for the disabled. We would only strip the Social Security Act of the provision for children. I hope Democrats, who put that legislation in place 60 years ago, will not vote to repeal it today. It is not reform. It is repeal. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I spoke of Mr. Daschle's amendment yesterday, and I spoke to Mr. Biden and Mr. Specter's amendment today.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, there will be no objection on this side of the aisle to the proposal to strike that will now be made. But may I point out that after a not inconsiderable debate, the Committee on Finance, following the lead of its distinguished chairman, voted 17 to 3 not to strike this measure. But other considerations have appeared.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, we have approximately 45 minutes. I would like to divide that to 27\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Louisiana, or anyone he should recognize.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. If the Senator will give me just 3 minutes.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. If people want to speak, they better show up. There is no Senator on this floor wishing to speak on this matter. I have not been informed of any. I have been told that there might be, but there comes a time when that will no longer do.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. The Lott amendment was not to the Byrd but to the strike?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. The ideal--we are doing nothing but realities today. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. None.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I believe there are Democratic Senators who would like to speak on this measure. I do not know their names.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Certainly. Unanimous Consent Agreement

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, we have no objection, at least to this amendment. But does the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee not want to proceed to the matter of striking the Medicaid provision?

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield to myself whatever time I may require. I will express, once again, my admiration and gratitude for the tone of thoughtful inquiry which the chairman brings to these discussions. We will not agree today. We have not in a whole year in this regard, but we certainly are trying to lay out arguments and information as best we understand it. I think we know where we are going today, but it does not preclude us from one last effort. There is still hope. You may yet change your mind, but I do not think so today.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I think, in the interest of symmetry and the fact of seniority and the overwhelming presence of the chairmanship, that the Senator from Delaware should speak now. In any event, I would like to hear him in the hopes that I might think of something to reflect upon.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am happy to do it.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, as I rise today, I find myself thinking of the passage with which Hannah Arendt begins her classic work, ``The Origins of Totalitarianism.'' She speaks of the disasters of the First World War, and then the Second World War, and now the prospects of a third, final encounter between the two remaining world powers. She says, ``This moment of anticipation is like the calm that settles after all hopes have died.'' If I sound subdued today, I hope it will be taken in that light, rather than any diminished sense of the importance of what we are about to do, because we are all somehow subdued today. The Senate floor is all but empty. I see four Senators. The lobbies are empty. There is no outcry against what we are doing. Two fine editorials appeared this morning in the Washington Post and the New York Times saying, ``Do not do this.'' But those are rare voices at this moment. We learn in the press that the President is concerned that there be vouchers made available for diapers. This is commendable, but scarcely a suggestion that something fundamental is about to happen. What is about to happen is we are going to repeal title IV-A of the Social Security Act, the provision established in 1935 in the act, aid to families with dependent children. This will be the first time in our history that we have repealed a core provision of the Social Security Act. Further, we are choosing to repeal the provision for children. It is as if we are going to live only for this moment, and let the future be lost. I said that there were few voices. Actually, there is one unified voice: that of every national religious group and faith-based charity. But we seem unable or unwilling to listen. They all oppose ending the entitlement. Catholic Charities USA and the Catholic bishops, especially, the National Council of Churches, Bread for the World, have persisted in this matter. Other organizations, as I say, are once again silent. Having briefly aroused themselves, they have sunk back into apathy, or resignation--or agreement with what is about to be done. We will not know if we do not hear. Yesterday, Members of Congress received a letter from Father Fred Kammer, president of Catholic Charities USA, who wrote: The welfare reform proposal before you reflects ignorance and prejudice far more than the experience of this Nation's poorest working and welfare families. This bill would end the basic guarantee of protection to our neediest families, and, in the words of Milwaukee's Archbishop, Rembert Weakland, OSB, nullify ``America's 60-year covenant with its poor children and those who nurture them.'' It would also punish children born to welfare parents, legal immigrants, and desperately hungry citizens. Welfare reform is acutely needed in this country, reform which is designed genuinely to move people who can do so from welfare to work. Today's proposals are largely a sham designed to appease the ignorant and to pander to our worst prejudices in an election year. There is little here to recommend to believers, for whom Jesus of Nazareth said, ``Whatever you do to the least of my sisters and brothers, you do to me.'' And then Father Kammer says: Please stop this so-called ``welfare reform'' now lest election and budget politics shred the fabric of this Nation's protections and supports for its most vulnerable families. Again in the words of Archbishop Weakland, ``This is not welfare reform, but welfare repeal.'' The Nation, its historians, and its poorest families will little remember what you say here, but they will long remember what you do here. Sincerely, Fred Kammer, S.J. President, Catholic Charities