May 23, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7247 

they would have extended from Manhattan’s city hall to the city of White 

Plains more than 30 miles away. On 

that street, there would have been a 

robbery every 165 yards and a murder 

every half mile. And in Brooklyn, 1 out 

of every 10 people got food from public 

storehouses. 

These pathologies met their match 

through society’s intermediary, nongovernmental, organizations. Their 

warm-hearted and hard-headed approaches helped save women and children and men. As the historian Marvin 

Olasky notes, ‘‘The solutions these reforms came up with forestalled an epidemic of illegitimacy and saved thousands of children from misery.’’

I believe that as we confront our own 

social pathologies, we must, we must 

do it the same way—with new ideas for 

the 1990’s that were the standard fare 

of the 1890’s. We must meet our challenges with a greater role for States 

and a greater role for intermediary organizations—both larger ones like the 

Salvation Army and the Goodwill and 

smaller ones like Best Friends and the 

Sunshine Mission. 

So while the CIVIC Act begins the 

process of moving welfare from Washington to the States, it also begins the 

vital task of reinvigorating our intermediary organizations—organizations 

which can help meet people’s deepest 

needs, organizations that we know will 

help solve our welfare problems. 

The change that we want to see will 

not occur overnight. Neither will it 

come without hard work and thorough 

debate. The end of colonialism was not 

an easy process either. For independence means risk, the sacrifice of security. Economic mobility means work, 

hard work. But no nation and no people 

who have ever tasted the sweet fruits 

of freedom has called for the return of 

its colonial rulers. 

By Mr. GREGG (for himself, Mr. 

REID, Mr. COATS, Mr. BRADLEY, 

Mr. KYL, Mr. COHEN and Mr. 

LAUTENBERG): 

S. 847. A bill to terminate the agricultural price support and production 

adjustment programs for sugar, and for 

other purposes; to the Committee on 

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. 

AGRICULTURAL PRICE SUPPORT LEGISLATION

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise 

today with Senators REID, BRADLEY, 

COATS, COHEN, LAUTENBERG, and KYL to 

announce the introduction of legislation to repeal the sugar program. This 

legislation will eliminate the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s [USDA] price 

support, subsidized loans, producer assessments, and marketing allotments 

for sugar. 

The sugar program is big government 

at its worst. At a time when the American people are demanding that the 

Federal Government assume a more 

limited role in society, this program 

goes in the opposite direction. Instead 

of leaving the sugar industry to market forces, the USDA wields the heavy 

hand of government intervention. 

Why should Congress repeal the 

sugar program? That is a good question, and I will give you but a few examples: 

It has been estimated by the General 

Accounting Office [GAO] that the program costs consumers and sweetener 

users an average of $1.4 billion annually. The producers who sell the most 

sugar reap the biggest benefit. Right 

now, the world sugar price is half that 

of the United States. 

The sugar program stifles competition. In 1991, the GAO estimated that 42 

percent of the program’s benefits went 

to only 1 percent of the growers. The 33 

largest sugar plantations receive over 

$1 million each year. 

The U.S. has generally supported free 

and fair trade. How can we justify artificially inflating the price of a domestic commodity just to enrich and protect a particular industry? This legislation would not impact existing rules on 

tariffs and quotas. Therefore, there 

would be no dumping of foreign sugar 

into the U.S. market. 

Like most Americans, I strongly support reducing the Federal budget deficit. Due to import tariffs and a 1.1 

cents-per-pound tax on producers, the 

sugar program operates a no-net-cost 

to the Federal budget. While this is 

true, the program costs the American 

taxpayers $1.4 billion. The sugar program is a regressive tax, which imposes 

a much greater burden on those who 

spend a great deal on consumption. 

Under the present system, the benefit 

of reducing the Federal budget deficit 

is far outweighed by the high cost to 

the American consumer. 

One of the greatest environmental 

crises facing the State of Florida is the 

degradation of the Everglades. The Everglades is a national treasure, which 

is threatened by phosphate and pesticide runoff. The sugar program’s continued high price supports have for 

years stimulated overproduction in the 

Everglades agricultural area. In effect, 

the Federal Government has encouraged the destruction of the Everglades 

through heavy-handed government 

intervention and misguided attempts 

to regulate the economy. 

The repeal of the sugar program 

would have a minimal, if any, impact 

on jobs in the sugar industry. The 

American sugar industry, the pro-sugar 

lobby, has estimated a job loss of 

420,000. This is factually and statistically untrue. The Census Bureau and 

the USDA have estimated that the 

sugar industry only accounts for 46,000 

jobs. In fact, even with the program, 

sugar industry jobs fell by 18 percent 

between 1982 and 1992. It is believed by 

many economists that any job losses in 

the sugar industry would be offset by 

gains realized in the sweetener industry. 

Mr. President, the time for wasteful 

and inefficient commodity programs 

like the sugar program has come to an 

end. I hope the Senate will move quickly to pass this legislation and send a 

message to the relatively few that benefit from this program that the American consumer deserves a better deal. 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I am 

pleased to rise today to join Senator 

GREGG and Senator REID to introduce 

legislation to eliminate the sugar program. The Federal Government has 

been meddling in the sugar market for 

over 200 years, and I believe the time 

has come to end what has become a 

wasteful practice. 

The supporters of the sugar program 

argue that the system operates at no 

cost to the Federal Government, and 

therefore there is no need to eliminate 

this harmless program. Technically 

speaking this assertion is true; the 

Federal Government does not send 

checks to sugar growers. But the federal government does artificially raise 

the price of sugar by limiting imports, 

and, as a result, American consumers 

pay an additional $1.4 billion each year 

for sweetened products, according to 

the Government Accounting Office. So 

while Americans may not pay for this 

program through higher taxes, they do 

pay for it every time they buy a soda, 

or a candy bar, or anything else which 

contains sugar or other sweeteners. 

The supporters of the sugar program 

argue that this program is vital to the 

livelihoods of family farms. Unfortunately this program, like many other 

agricultural subsidies, was designed to 

help family farms, but actually tends 

to support big businesses. Seventeen of 

the over 1,700 sugarcane farms received 

roughly 58 percent of the benefits of 

this program in 1991. One family in 

florida receives an estimated $65 million a year as a result of the artificially high prices. Mr. President, this 

certainly does not fall within my definition of a ‘‘family’’ farm. 

Finally, the supporters of the sugar 

program argue that the elimination of 

this program will kill the domestic 

sugar industry. While there will likely 

be some changes to the industry if this 

program is eliminated, I take issue 

with the argument that there is no life 

after subsidies. During World War II, a 

price support system was established 

for potatoes. Several years later Congress abolished the program. But the 

potato industry remains vibrant in the 

United States to this day. From Maine 

to California, farmers continue to grow 

potatoes without the benefit of a subsidy they once enjoyed. 

Mr. President, the time has come to 

end the sugar program. Simply stated, 

its benefits go primarily to a select 

few, while its costs are borne by every 

consumer in America. Because food accounts for a higher share of the household budget of low-income families, 

these higher costs are especially regressive. For the sake of these families, I hope the Senate will pass this 

important legislation. 

f 

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS 

S. 230

At the request of Mr. DOLE, the name 

of the Senator from Massachusetts 

[Mr. KERRY] was added as a cosponsor 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7248 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 23, 1995 

of S. 230, a bill to prohibit United 

States assistance to countries that prohibit or restrict the transport or delivery of United States humanitarian assistance. 

S. 256

At the request of Mr. DOLE, the name 

of the Senator from Montana [Mr. 

BURNS] was added as a cosponsor of S. 

256, a bill to amend title 10, United 

States Code, to establish procedures for 

determining the status of certain missing members of the Armed Forces and 

certain civilians, and for other purposes. 

S. 456

At the request of Mr. BRADLEY, the 

name of the Senator from Florida [Mr. 

GRAHAM] was added as a cosponsor of S. 

456, a bill to improve and strengthen 

the child support collection system, 

and for other purposes. 

S. 630

At the request of Mr. D’AMATO, the 

name of the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. HELMS] was added as a cosponsor of S. 630, a bill to impose comprehensive economic sanctions against 

Iran. 

S. 647

At the request of Mr. LOTT, the name 

of the Senator from Texas [Mrs. 

HUTCHISON] was added as a cosponsor of 

S. 647, a bill to amend section 6 of the 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 to require 

phasing-in of certain amendments of or 

revisions to land and resource management plans, and for other purposes. 

S. 770

At the request of Mr. DOLE, the 

names of the Senator from Illinois [Ms. 

MOSELEY-BRAUN], and the Senator from 

Missouri [Mr. ASHCROFT] were added as 

cosponsors of S. 770, a bill to provide 

for the relocation of the United States 

Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and 

for other purposes. 

S. 798

At the request of Mr. CONRAD, the 

name of the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. DORGAN] was added as a cosponsor of S. 798, a bill to amend title 

XVI of the Social Security Act to improve the provision of supplemental security income benefits, and for other 

purposes. 

S. 833

At the request of Mr. HATCH, the 

name of the Senator from Connecticut 

[Mr. LIEBERMAN] was added as a cosponsor of S. 833, a bill to amend the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to more 

accurately codify the depreciable life 

of semiconductor manufacturing equipment. 

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 34

At the request of Mr. SMITH, the 

name of the Senator from New York 

[Mr. D’AMATO] was added as a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 34, a 

joint resolution prohibiting funds for 

diplomatic relations and most favored 

nation trading status with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam unless the 

President certifies to Congress that Vietnamese officials are being fully cooperative and forthcoming with efforts to 

account for the 2,205 Americans still 

missing and otherwise unaccounted for 

from the Vietnam War, as determined 

on the basis of all information available to the United States Government, 

and for other purposes. 

f 

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED 

THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

BRADLEY (AND OTHERS) 

AMENDMENT NO. 1122 

Mr. BRADLEY (for himself, Mr. 

BREAUX, Mrs. MURRAY, Ms. MOSELEYBRAUN, Mr. GLENN, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. 

KENNEDY, and Mr. LIEBERMAN) proposed 

an amendment to the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 13) setting forth 

the congressional budget for the U.S. 

Government for the fiscal years 1996, 

1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002; as 

follows: 

On page 74, strike lines 12 through 24 and 

insert the following: ‘‘budget, the appropriate budgetary allocations, aggregates, and 

levels shall be revised to reflect 

$16,900,000,000 in budget authority and outlays of the additional deficit reduction 

achieved as calculated under subsection (c) 

for legislation that restores the full current 

law earned income tax credit under section 

32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

‘‘(b) REVISED ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES.—Upon the reporting of legislation 

pursuant to subsection (a), and again upon 

the submission of a conference report on 

such legislation (if a conference report is 

submitted), the Chair of the Committee on 

the Budget of the Senate may submit to the 

Senate appropriately revised allocations 

under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, budgetary aggregates, and levels under this resolution, revised by an amount that does not exceed the 

additional deficit reduction specified under 

subsection (d).’’. 

GRAMM (AND OTHERS) 

AMENDMENT NO. 1123 

Mr. GRAMM (for himself, Mr. COATS, 

Mr. COVERDELL, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mr. GRAMS, Mr. HELMS, Mr. 

KEMPTHORNE, Mr. KYL, Mr. LOTT, Mr. 

MACK, Mr. MCCAIN, and Mr. SMITH) proposed an amendment to the concurrent 

resolution (S. Con. Res. 13), supra; as 

follows: 

Strike all after the word ‘‘Section’’ on 

page 1, line 3 through page 79, line 15 and insert in lieu thereof the following: 

1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996. 

(a) DECLARATION.—The Congress determines and declares that this resolution is 

the concurrent resolution on the budget for 

fiscal year 1996, including the appropriate 

budgetary levels for fiscal years 1997, 1998, 

1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, as required by section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 

1974. 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this concurrent resolution is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget 

for fiscal year 1996. 

TITLE I—LEVELS AND AMOUNTS 

Sec. 2. Recommended levels and amounts. 

Sec. 3. Debt increase. 

Sec. 4. Social Security. 

Sec. 5. Major functional categories. 

Sec. 6. Reconciliation. 

TITLE II—BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS AND 

RULEMAKING 

Sec. 201. Discretionary spending limits. 

Sec. 202. Extension of pay-as-you-go point of 

order. 

Sec. 203. Tax reserve fund in the Senate. 

Sec. 204. Scoring of emergency legislation. 

Sec. 205. Budget surplus allowance. 

Sec. 206. Sale of Government assets. 

Sec. 207. Credit reform and guaranteed student loans. 

Sec. 208. Extension of Budget Act 60-vote enforcement through 2002. 

Sec. 209. Repeal of IRS allowance. 

Sec. 210. Exercise of rulemaking powers. 

TITLE III—SENSE OF THE CONGRESS 

AND THE SENATE 

Sec. 301. Restructuring Government and 

program terminations. 

Sec. 302. Sense of the Senate regarding returning programs to the States. 

Sec. 303. Commercialization of Federal activities. 

Sec. 304. Nonpartisan Advisory Commission 

on the CPI. 

Sec. 305. Sense of the Congress on a uniform 

accounting system in the Federal Government. 

TITLE I—LEVELS AND AMOUNTS 

SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS. 

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 

1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002: 

(1) FEDERAL REVENUES.—(A) For purposes 

of the enforcement of this resolution—

(i) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as follows: 

Fiscal year 1996: $1,051,700,000,000. 

Fiscal year 1997: $1,063,800,000,000. 

Fiscal year 1998: $1,112,800,000,000. 

Fiscal year 1999: $1,165,700,000,000. 

Fiscal year 2000: $1,220,500,000,000. 

Fiscal year 2001: $1,285,700,000,000. 

Fiscal year 2002: $1,353,900,000,000. 

(ii) The amounts by which the aggregate 

levels of Federal revenues should be increased are as follows: 

Fiscal year 1996: $8,700,000,000. 

Fiscal year 1997: ¥$19,700,000,000. 

Fiscal year 1998: ¥$22,200,000,000. 

Fiscal year 1999: ¥$21,800,000,000. 

Fiscal year 2000: ¥$25,700,000,000. 

Fiscal year 2001: ¥$28,500,000,000. 

Fiscal year 2002: ¥$31,100,000,000. 

(iii) The amounts for Federal Insurance 

Contributions Act revenues for hospital insurance within the recommended levels of 

Federal revenues are as follows: 

Fiscal year 1996: $103,800,000,000. 

Fiscal year 1997: $109,000,000,000. 

Fiscal year 1998: $114,900,000,000. 

Fiscal year 1999: $120,700,000,000. 

Fiscal year 2000: $126,900,000,000. 

Fiscal year 2001: $133,600,000,000. 

Fiscal year 2002: $140,400,000,000. 

(B) For purposes of section 710 of the Social Security Act (excluding the receipts and 

disbursements of the Hospital Insurance 

Trust Fund)—

(i) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as follows: 

Fiscal year 1996: $947,900,000,000. 

Fiscal year 1997: $918,800,000,000. 

Fiscal year 1998: $997,900,000,000. 

Fiscal year 1999: $1,045,000,000,000. 

Fiscal year 2000: $1,093,600,000,000. 

Fiscal year 2001: $1,152,100,000,000. 

Fiscal year 2002: $1,213,500,000,000. 

(ii) The amounts by which the aggregate 

levels of Federal revenues should be changed 

as follows: 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS