S6288 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 8, 1995

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL

RESOURCES

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing

has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to consider S. 638, the Insular

Development Act of 1995.

The hearing will take place Thursday, May 25, 1995, at 2 p.m., in room

SD–366 of the Dirksen Senate Office

Building in Washington, DC.

Those wishing to testify or who wish

to submit written statements should

write to the Committee on Energy and

Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Jim Beirne at (202) 224–

2564 or Betty Nevitt at 202–224–0765.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

fBUDGET SCOREKEEPING REPORT

∑ Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I

hereby submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report prepared by the

Congressional Budget Office under section 308(b) and in aid of section 311 of

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,

as amended. This report meets the requirements for Senate scorekeeping of

section 5 of Senate Concurrent Resolution 32, the first concurrent resolution

on the budget for 1986.

This report shows the effects of congressional action on the budget

through May 5, 1995. The estimates of

budget authority, outlays, and revenues, which are consistent with the

technical and economic assumptions of

the concurrent resolution on the budget (H. Con. Res. 218), show that current

level spending is below the budget resolution by $5.6 billion in budget authority and $1.4 billion in outlays. Current

level is $0.5 billion over the revenue

floor in 1995 and below by $9.5 billion

over the 5 years 1995–99. The current estimate of the deficit for purposes of

calculating the maximum deficit

amount is $238 billion, $3.1 billion

below the maximum deficit amount for

1995 of $241 billion.

Since my last report, dated April 24,

1995, there has been no action that affects the current level of budget authority, outlays, or revenues.

The report follows:

U.S. CONGRESS,

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,

Washington, DC, May 8, 1995.

Hon. PETE DOMENICI,

Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The attached report

for fiscal year 1995 shows the effects of Congressional action on the 1995 budget and is

current through May 5, 1995. The estimates

of budget authority, outlays and revenues

are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of the 1995 Concurrent

Resolution on the Budget (H. Con. Res. 218).

This report is submitted under Section 308(b)

and in aid of Section 311 of the Congressional

Budget Act, as amended, and meets the requirements of Senate scorekeeping of Section 5 of S. Con. Res. 32, the 1986 First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget.

Since my last report, dated April 24, 1995,

there has been no action that affects the current level of budget authority, outlays or

revenues.

Sincerely,

JUNE E. O’NEILL,

Director.

THE CURRENT LEVEL REPORT FOR THE U.S. SENATE, FISCAL YEAR 1995, 104TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, AS

OF CLOSE OF BUSINESS MAY 5, 1995

[In billions of dollars]

Budget resolution (H.

Con. Res.

218) 1

Current

level 2

Current

level over/

under resolution

ON-BUDGET

Budget authority ....................... 1,238.7 1,233.1 ¥5.6 Outlays ...................................... 1,217.6 1,216.2 ¥1.4 Revenues: 1995 ................................. 977.7 978.2 0.5 1995–99 ........................... 5,415.2 5,405.7 ¥9.5 Deficit ........................................ 241.0 238.0 ¥3.1 Debt subject to limit ................. 4,965.1 4,764.5 ¥200.6

OFF-BUDGET

Social Security outlays: 1995 ................................. 287.6 287.5 ¥0.1 1995–99 ........................... 1,562.6 1,562.6 3 0. Social Security revenues: 1995 ................................. 360.5 360.3 ¥0.2 1995–99 ........................... 1,998.4 1,998.2 ¥0.2

1 Reflects revised allocation under section 9(g) of H. Con. Res. 64 for the

Deficit-Neutral reserve fund. 2 Current level represents the estimated revenue and direct spending effects of all legislation that Congress has enacted or sent to the President

for his approval. In addition, full-year funding estimates under current law

are included for entitlement and mandatory programs requiring annual appropriations even if the appropriations have not been made. The current

level of debt subject to limit reflects the latest U.S. Treasury information on

public debt transactions. 3 Less than $50 million.

Note: Detail may not add due to rounding.

THE ON-BUDGET CURRENT LEVEL REPORT FOR THE U.S.

SENATE, 104TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, SENATE

SUPPORTING DETAIL FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995 AS OF

CLOSE OF BUSINESS MAY 5, 1995

[In millions of dollars]

Budget authority Outlays Revenues

ENACTED IN PREVIOUS SESSIONS

Revenues ................................... ................... ................... 978,466

Permanents and other spending

legislation ............................. 750,307 706,236 ................... Appropriation legislation ........... 738,096 757,783 ................... Offsetting receipts ................ (250,027) (250,027) ...................

Total previously enacted ....................... 1,238,376 1,213,992 978,466

ENACTED THIS SESSION

1995 Emergency Supplementals

and Rescissions Act (Public

Law 104–6). ......................... (3,386) (1,008) ................... Self-Employed Health Insurance

Act (Public Law 104–7) ....... ................... ................... (248)

Total enacted this session .......................... (3,386) (1,008) (248)

ENTITLEMENTS AND

MANDATORIES

Budget resolution baseline estimates of appropriated entitlements other mandatory

programs not yet enacted .... (1,887) 3,189 ................... Total current level 1 ................... 1,233,103 1,216,173 978,218

Total budget resolution ............. 1,238,744 1,217,605 977,700

Amount remaining:

Under budget resolution ....... 5,641 1,432 ................... Over budget resolution ......... ................... ................... 518

1 In accordance with the Budget Enforcement Act, the total does not include $3,905 million in budget authority and $7,442 million in outlays in

funding for emergencies that have been designated as such by the President and the Congress, and $841 million in budget authority and $917 million in outlays for emergencies that would be available only upon an official

budget request from the President designating the entire amount requested

as an emergency requirement.

Notes: Numbers in parentheses are negative. Detail may not add due to

∑

rounding.

TIME FOR REAL FARM REFORM

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, no

•

fother legislation which is likely to

come before the Congress this year will

have more direct impact on my State,

North Dakota, and the people who live

there than the 1995 farm bill. For a

farm State, for a State with a predominantly rural economy, it is critically

important legislation.

When Congress and the President

begin to draft that legislation, I believe it is essential that we be about

the business of fundamental reform.

The time for farm program facelifts

has long since passed. It is time for

real change, change that returns the

farm program to its fundamental and

original mission: helping family farmers survive and prosper.

I recently wrote a guest editorial

which was published in a number of

North Dakota newspapers which outlined my thinking on this important

issue in some detail. I would like to

share that article, and those thoughts,

with my colleagues and ask that it be

reprinted at this point in the RECORD.

The editorial follows:

NO MORE FACELIFTS FOR THE FARM

PROGRAM—IT’S TIME FOR REAL REFORM

(By U.S. Senator Byron L. Dorgan)

The new U.S. Secretary of Agriculture,

Dan Glickman, is coming to North Dakota

Friday at my invitation to meet with family

farmers. His visit comes at both an opportune and very challenging time.

This year Congress will cut federal spending to reduce the deficit. It will also write a

new five year farm program. The two are

closely related. Budget pressures will limit

the amount of money available for a farm

program.

Farm program price supports have already

been cut deeply—slashed by 62% since 1986—

but still, some leaders in the new Congress

are pushing for even deeper cuts. House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R–TX) and Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Richard

Lugar (R–IN) are calling outright for the federal farm program to be phased down and, effectively, abolished.

Those of us who believe that a decent farm

program is essential to the survival of family

farmers face a major challenge. To retain a

decent farm program, we are going to have

to propose new, and more effective approaches. We must take a fresh look at what

works and what doesn’t in the farm program.

I hope that will be the focus of the discussion in North Dakota on Friday with the

Secretary of Agriculture.

At the outset we have to admit that the

current farm program doesn’t work very

well.

First, price supports are too low to offer

real protection to family-sized farms. That’s

because the nation’s largest farms—often big

corporate farms—soak up too much of the

farm program’s funds.

Second, the current farm program is far

too complicated.

Third, it is built on a ‘‘supply management’’ approach that no longer works. In the

new global market place of the 1990’s and beyond, it is virtually impossible for one nation to control supplies. When we cut production of a commodity, other countries

eargerly step in and fill the gap.

The bottom line is that the current farm

program does not do a good job serving as a

safety net for family farmers nor does it do

much to boost market prices for farm commodities.

Under the current program, we have ended

up with more government employees to run

the farm program, and fewer family farmers.

That’s moving in the wrong direction.
May 8, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6289

So, this year we need real reform—not another farm program facelift.

A NEW APPROACH

The first thing we must do in re-thinking

the federal farm program is to establish a

new benchmark for farm legislation, one

that focuses on preserving and building a

network of family farms which are the backbone of rural America’s economy and its

communities.

The first sentence in the new 1995 Farm

Bill should state, clearly, that the objective

of the federal farm program is to help preserve and build a network of family farms.

Everything after that must work to make

that goal a reality.

If the purpose of the farm program isn’t to

give family farmers an opportunity to make

a living on the farm, then we ought to scrap

it. We don’t need a farm program that helps

giant agri-factories plow the ground.

THE DORGAN PLAN TO STRENGTHEN FAMILY

FARMS

I propose a family farm-targeted farm program, which would provide a better price

safety net for family farmers.

It would end government interference so

that all farmers could make their own production decisions based on the best use of

their land resources, the opportunities of the

marketplace, and their skills and knowledge

as producers.

Here is how it would work:

1. My plan would establish a new Family

Farm Target Price at $4.50 per bushel on

wheat (compared to the current target price

of $4.00 per bushel) up to the first 20,000 bushels of production. Proportional target prices

and production levels would be set to cover

feed grains or a producer’s mix of basic farm

program commodities.

2. Farmers would be free to make their

own decisions about what they produce based

on the market situation. Production beyond

the amount of grain eligible for target

prices, would be up to the farmer, and would

not receive farm program benefits.

If someone wants to farm an entire county,

they have every right to do that. But under

my plan, they, like family-sized farms would

get price protection for 20,000 bushels of

wheat produced. What they produce above

that, they do without any government interference, and without price supports—they assume all the risks of the market place.

3. On those first 20,000 bushels of wheat,

the plan would provide non-recourse marketopportunity loans set at out-of-pocket production costs as determined by the Secretary

of Agriculture. Crops produced beyond this

benchmark level would not be eligible for

this loan.

4. It would extend the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and make it more flexible to assist producers in meeting stewardship and environmental goals. Savings

achieved by making some changes in the

CRP program could be used to restore funding for other conservation programs that assist farmers, and to improve farm program

support prices.

5. It would limit participation in the farm

price support program to those who are actively engaged in farming, and end program

payments to off-farm investors. We could use

the savings to improve the safety net of

price supports for family farmers.

My plan tightly focuses federal farm programs—and dollars—on family farmers. It

would put price supports under family farmers, rather than under farm commodities.

It will provide our farm families the opportunity to make a living at efficient levels of

production.

It will provide an abundant supply of efficiently produced food and fiber for our nation, and make the best use of limited federal farm program dollars. It will provide the

strongest price support for the first increment of production which will provide the

most help for family sized farms.

It will end the practice of providing unnecessary and unlimited price protection to the

nation’s largest corporate farms, while

shortchanging the nation’s family farmers.

My farm program proposal would also end

the practice of paying price supports to offfarm investors. We would define who is really a farmer and who is farming the system.

Under my plan, the farm price safety net

would go to actual farm operators (and retired farmers who derive a majority of their

income from crop-share arrangements). The

safety net would extend only to those who

are engaged in the day-to-day running of a

farm operation or depend on a farm operation for a majority of their income.

We would repeal and close the loopholes by

which some of the biggest landholders and

corporations receive multiple farm program

entitlements.

We need to get back to the original purpose of agricultural programs: to preserve

and protect a network of family farms and

help them compete in an unpredictable world

in which weather, market conditions, and

economic policies constantly undermine

their efficiency and their productivity.

My family farm targeted farm program

would give family farmers a chance—an opportunity—to preserve a production system

and a lifestyle that is important to our country.

HONORING THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES

∑

fBASKETBALL COACH JIM

HARRICK

∑ Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise

to pay tribute to a great man and a

great head coach; Jim Harrick of the

UCLA Bruins.

While everyone may be familiar with

Jim’s most recent accomplishment,

winning the 1995 NCAA Championship,

those that have followed his career see

a man that has accepted challenge

after challenge and built a reputation

for success.

Jim attended the University of

Charleston were, in addition to receiving his bachelor’s degree in speech, he

earned a place in the Hall of Fame and

Alumni Gallery of Achievement. He

then went on to complete his master’s

degree in education from the University of Southern California.

Jim began his coaching career at

Morningside High in Los Angeles, averaging over 25 victories and winning

three Sky League titles in four seasons. After distinguishing himself as an

assistant coach at Utah State and later

UCLA, Jim accepted the head coach position at Pepperdine University. In his

nine seasons at Pepperdine, coach

Harrick won five conference titles, four

WCAC Coach of the Year Awards, and,

of course, the invitation to come back

to UCLA as the new head coach.

The UCLA basketball program has

flourish under Jim’s direction. He is

the first UCLA coach to have 7 consecutive 20-win seasons and 7 straight

tournament bids in his initial 7 seasons. At 146 wins and 54 losses, he also

owns the best UCLA record after his

first 200 games. Under coach Harrick’s

tutelage, the Bruins have advanced to

the NCAA tournament’s second round

five times, the Sweet 16 three times,

the Elite Eight twice and, in 1995,

earned the crowning achievement as

NCAA National Champions.

And it is important to note that Jim

Harrick’s successes have not all come

on the basketball court. He and his

wife, Sally, celebrate 34 years of marriage and proudly speak of their three

sons, Monte, Jim, and Glenn, and of

their granddaughter, Morgan Paige.

His integrity and character are well

known and have earned him invitations

to travel the world as an American

goodwill ambassador.

His dedication to the game, his concern with the well-being of the players,

his focus and determination, and the

integrity of the UCLA program all

show his fine qualities as a coach and

as an American.

f∑

ORDERS FOR TUESDAY, MAY 9,

1995

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I

ask unanimous consent that when the

Senate completes its business today, it

stand in recess until the hour of 9:15

a.m. on Tuesday, May 9, 1995; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date,

the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day,

and there then be a period for the

transaction of morning business, not to

extend beyond the hour of 10:30 a.m.,

with Senators permitted to speak for

up to 5 minutes each, with the exception of the following: Senator THOMAS,

20 minutes; Senator DASCHLE or his

designee, 20 minutes; Senator LEVIN, 20

minutes; Senator SANTORUM, 10 minutes; I further ask unanimous consent

that at the hour of 10:30 a.m., the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination of John Deutch

to be Director of CIA, to be immediately followed by a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the

Coverdell-Dole amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I

now ask unanimous consent that Senators have until 10:15 a.m. Tuesday to

file first-degree and second-degree

amendments; further, that the Senate

stand in recess between the hours of

12:30 and 2:15 Tuesday for the weekly

policy luncheons to meet.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, for

the information of all Senators, there

will be two consecutive rollcall votes

beginning at 10:30 tomorrow morning.

The first vote is on the Deutch nomination, to be followed by a vote on the

cloture motion on the Coverdell-Dole

amendment.