Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, as was apparent to all who attended Mr. Rumsfeld's confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, our new President has made a good choice for Secretary of Defense, one of the nations most important offices. Mr. Rumsfeld held this senior position during the Ford administration, a time when some Members of Congress were just getting their start in public service. Decades of experience, respect from both sides of the aisle, thoughtfulness, and a strong commitment to this nation make Donald Rumsfeld well qualified to again serve as Secretary of Defense. As ranking member of the Budget Committee in this equally divided Senate, I look forward to working closely with Mr. Rumsfeld to craft a defense budget that strengthens our nation's defense and makes sense in the context of our national fiscal priorities. In light of the fact that both the status quo within our armed forces and massive increases in defense spending are untenable, I am interested in talking with the new Secretary about a sustainable defense budget and making policy and procedural changes at the Pentagon that might enable us to retool for the information age and get more for our defense dollar. As the new administration begins to review our nation's approach to arms control, missile defense, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, I would urge Mr. Rumsfeld to avoid preoccupation with specific numbers and keep efforts focused on a central objective: increasing strategic stability and nuclear safety. Toward that end, I hope the new Defense Secretary will support and expand the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, broaden shared early warning initiatives, encourage more military-to-military contacts with Russia, address the particular threats associated with Russia's enormous tactical nuclear stockpile, resist de-alerting initiatives which could increase strategic uncertainty in a crisis, and ensure that the U.S. retains a robust and balanced triad of strategic nuclear forces. I want the record to reflect that I have been concerned by some of this nominee's statements regarding arms control. As my colleagues are aware, Mr. Rumsfeld suggested during his confirmation hearing that the ABM Treaty is an outdated relic of the cold war, and has discussed abandoning the process of arms control and sizing our strategic forces unilaterally. I urge Mr. Rumsfeld to reconsider these views. No arms accord is perfect, but over the past several decades the arms control process has produced momentum toward more inspections, transparency, reciprocity, and confidence-building between former cold war rivals. This momentum toward greater stability and trust was hard-won and should not be abandoned. One need look no farther than Russia's failure to fully implement the 1991 Bush-Gorbachev handshake agreement on tactical nuclear reductions to see the folly of unilateralism in arms control. In the view of this Senator, any further strategic force reductions would best be undertaken in the context of a new START accord, one built upon recognition that the ABM Treaty is the cornerstone of strategic stability and can allow the limited, effective, affordable national missile defense we need to counter emerging rogue-state threats. Finally, I look forward to talking with the new Defense Secretary about the importance of Defense Department compliance with statutes directing that the entire B-52H bomber force be funded. Billions of dollars of upgrades and the world's most advanced precision weapons have transformed these airframes into airborne arsenal ships which today represent the fast, sharp end of the spear in our conventional deterrent force. Mr. President, Donald Rumsfeld has an impressive record. He is qualified to be Secretary of Defense. I congratulate him on his confirmation and wish him the very best. Nomination of Colin L. Powell

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am honored to have supported the nomination of Colin Powell to be our next Secretary of State. Few individuals submitted to the Senate for confirmation have the credentials, experience, values, and respect of the Nation that Colin Powell has. Colin Powell has served our Nation with distinction in both civilian and military capacities. Powell served the Carter Administration as an executive assistant in both the Energy and Defense Departments. During the Reagan Administration, Powell was chosen as a senior adviser to Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, and later held his first Cabinet post as National Security Advisor to President Reagan. During the Bush Administration, Colin Powell was nominated to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Most Americans, however, remember Colin Powell's role as the architect of Operation Desert Storm, and his unique skills in developing critical global alliances to defeat the Iraqis forces in 1991. Colin Powell, however, represents more than a distinguished military leader. His life and those values that he has encouraged our young citizens to follow, are an inspiration to us all. During the decade since Operation Desert Storm, I have admired Colin Powell's efforts to reach out to America's youth, encouraging our younger citizens to continue their education, and to aspire to higher goals in life. For Powell, the challenge was to make sure that every child in America understands that he or she is important, and that we, as leaders and parents, are going to make certain that every one of them achieves success in life. To achieve this goal, Colin Powell urged Americans to step forward as mentors for our youth, and to make certain that young people have access to computers and the Internet. In my opinion, no challenge, and no effort is more important than the education of our youth. Few individuals that have served in this capacity have faced the extraordinary challenges and threats around the world. Relations with China, Russia, the Balkans and the Middle East, as well as the continued nuclear threat and terrorism will demand his immediate attention and skills. I am confident of his abilities to handle these challenges, and I am honored to work with Secretary of State Powell on these most difficult issues. Not long ago, Colin Powell was asked during an interview on Scholastic.com ``what do you believe history will say about you?'' His response: ``my only request of history is that history books say that I was a good soldier and served the nation well.'' Mr. President, Colin Powell has already achieved that goal. I am confident of his continued outstanding service to our Nation during the next four years, and perhaps most importantly, as a wonderful example to the youth of America. Nomination of Donald Evans

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I look forward to working with Ann Veneman as Secretary of Agriculture. For North Dakota, there is no Cabinet position more important than this one. American agriculture faces a serious crisis that threatens the economic livelihood of North Dakota farmers and rural communities. Our next Secretary of Agriculture faces the challenge and responsibility of coming up with a new farm policy that addresses this crisis as well as the competitive challenges we face from overseas. Ms. Veneman has a long record on agricultural issues and will bring a depth of experience and commitment to the leadership of the Department of Agriculture. However, I must say her track record causes me some concern. Ms. Veneman was a cheerleader for the failed Freedom to Farm policy that has been such a disaster for North Dakota farmers. In fact, we've had to write economic disaster bills in each of the last three years to deal with the consequences of that disastrous legislation. Beyond that, Ms. Veneman was heavily involved in negotiating the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, which was another disaster for North Dakota. Nevertheless, I wish her well, and I'll do everything I can to work with her to change these policies. I think the first priority must be to rewrite the current federal farm policy. This is not working and it's very clear to everyone that it's not working. Prices are at record lows. Farmers are leaving the land. And rural main street businesses are suffering. Next, we must re-invigorate our agricultural trade policy. We've got to be engaged in world trade but it's got to be on a fair, competitive basis. I think we've got to level the playing field with our major competitors--the Europeans--who are outspending us 10 to one in terms of providing support for their producers. Leveling the playing field is one of my highest priorities, so we get farm income up and so our farmers have a fair chance to succeed. As a senior member of the Agriculture Committee, I look forward to working with Ms. Veneman as we take on these challenges.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for this time. We have an agreement. I believe it reflects well on both sides of the aisle and the leadership on both sides of the aisle. I think neither side of the aisle is fully satisfied. There are problems in this agreement, as there are problems in any agreement, but it is a very good first start. The hard reality is that the elected membership of this body is split 50/50. The elected membership, Senators, are split 50/50. So one would anticipate that the membership of the committees would be split 50/50. This is a result of an election. The people of our country have spoken. They have chosen who serves here, who represents them in this Chamber, and it is their decision that has determined the result. There has been much discussion of the Constitution and the Vice President's role. It is absolutely the case that under our Constitution the Vice President breaks ties. Those are ties on the floor of the Senate. The Vice President doesn't break ties in committees. So I think the arrangement that has been worked out between the two leaders is the only logical conclusion to which one could come. As a member of the Budget Committee and the lead Democrat on the Budget Committee, let me say that the Budget Committee will be among the first places to test this new arrangement. Senator Domenici, who will chair the Budget Committee after January 20, which I have the privilege of chairing for the next 2 weeks, has said he will give it his best effort to make this work. I come to the floor to say I make the same pledge, that I will give my best effort to make this arrangement work. What I mean by that is what I have just had the opportunity to say to the Secretary-designate of the Treasury, Mr. O'Neill, in my office just moments ago, that bipartisanship is more than a word. It means that both sides give up part of their fixed positions. That is what bipartisanship means. If there is going to be compromise, it means that neither side gets precisely what it is seeking. But only through that kind of compromise and bipartisan spirit can we advance the agenda in this Chamber. Senator Domenici and I have already spoken several times. We had an extended discussion today. It is a good beginning. Again, I pledge my best effort to making this arrangement work. I think it can work. I believe if people of good faith join together, we can achieve much for our country. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, when this Congress finishes its work it will also mark the end of a particularly distinguished 30-year career in this body. I rise to pay tribute to my chairman on the Finance Committee and my friend, Bill Roth. No Senator could hope to serve under a more thoughtful and considerate Chairman than those of us on the Finance Committee have experienced over the last five years. Bill is a true gentleman who works as hard as any Senator I know to make sure that issues under his control have the broadest possible consensus. He has consistently reached out to members on our side of the aisle in order to make law in a way that honors the Senate's best traditions. Like Bill, I represent a small state. He knows, as I know, what a special responsibility that is. People in a small state expect to have a personal relationship with their Senators, and I know from the times I have taken short vacations in his beautiful state the deep affection Bill inspires all over Delaware. I am grateful for the opportunity I have had to work so closely with him on the important tax, health, and trade issues we deal with in the Finance Committee. Bill has a natural appreciation for the strong roles agriculture and tourism play in the economy of my state of North Dakota because they are such important components of Delaware's economy as well. He knows instinctively the value of looking for common ground. Even as he leaves the Senate, however, one thing will set Bill apart. Many Senators are well known among the public at large, but very few have their names become household words. Senator Roth earned his membership in that tiny elite. Bill's deep commitment to retirement security and savings led directly to the establishment of the Roth IRA, a retirement savings vehicle that will give savers decades from now a reason to be grateful to our beloved colleague from Delaware. When we consider the departure of Senator Roth in conjunction with the simultaneous retirement of the Senator from New York, the Committee on Finance is losing more than half a century of institutional memory and experience. That is a loss not only for our committee, but for the country as well. We wish Bill Roth all the best as he leaves us, but he will be greatly missed by his many friends and colleagues in the Senate.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, for the past six years, I have had the privilege of serving in the Senate with Rod Grams, a colleague who has distinguished himself on a number of important issues including budget, tax policy, and agriculture. He has served Minnesota with distinction as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, the Senate Budget committee, and the Joint Economic Committee. On a national level, Senator Grams is perhaps best known for his ``Families First'' plan, first discussed as part of the 1994 Republican budget alternative. This plan included a $500 per-child tax credit, a recommendation that eventually became part of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. On a more parochial level, I have worked closely with Senator Grams on issues affecting our farm communities, and in 1997 to help our states recover from the disastrous floods along the Red River Valley. Communities along the Red River were devastated by this 500 year flood which disrupted business and forced thousands of families from their homes. Senator Grams worked closely with delegations from North Dakota and South Dakota to make certain that the urgent needs of so many families and communities were met. He played an important role in ensuring bipartisan support and passage of the disaster relief legislation that was so critical for our states at that time. I know that many North Dakota families and businesses are very grateful for his support. I extend my best wishes to Senator Grams, and his family, and my appreciation for his support on critical agricultural, budget, and disaster issues that we have worked together on in committee and on the Senator floor together.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, before Congress adjourns for the year, I wanted to take a moment to pay tribute to Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, who is retiring this year. Senator Lautenberg served our nation in World War II, and later became a successful businessman. He helped to found a payroll services company, Automatic Data Processing (ADP), and built it into one of the largest computing services companies in the world. In 1982 Frank Lautenberg launched a new career, in public service, when he was elected to the United States Senate. He has represented his state well. Frank Lautenberg has been a leader on budget issues, a good friend to the environment, and an accomplished legislator in the areas of transportation and health care. I have served on the Senate Budget Committee with Frank Lautenberg since 1987; he became Ranking Member of the Committee in 1997. Senator Lautenberg played a key role in the 1997 negotiations on the bipartisan Balanced Budget Act, which completed the work of balancing the federal budget. That legislation provided important resources for education and health care, while cutting taxes for millions of Americans. Senator Lautenberg has also been a good friend to the environment, serving as the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee's Subcommittee on Superfund. Throughout his time in the Senate, Senator Lautenberg has fought to improve the Superfund program, and has worked for legislation preventing pollution, and ensuring clear water and clean air. Senator Lautenberg's accomplishments in the area of transportation are impressive. He serves as the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Transportation. Senator Lautenberg authored laws establishing the legal drinking age at 21, and was successful just this year in encouraging states to reduce legal blood alcohol limits to .08. He worked successfully to ban smoking on airplanes, and has championed funding for Amtrak and mass transit. Senator Lautenberg has also worked for some time on health care, including tobacco policy issues. He is a nationally recognized leader in the fight to protect our young people from the health consequences of cigarettes. In 1997, I was extremely fortunate that Senator Lautenberg was chosen to co-chair the Senate Democratic Task Force on Tobacco. Senator Lautenberg was a particularly strong proponent of provisions on second-hand smoke and the so-called ``look-back'' enforcement mechanism to reduce youth smoking rates. Frank Lautenberg's dedication and expertise on many issues will be missed greatly in the United States Senate, even as New Jersey natives welcome him home. I will miss my good friend and colleague.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute and recognize the accomplishments of a colleague, Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. Since joining the Senate in 1995, he has served with honesty, dedication, and integrity. As members of the Budget Committee, I had the opportunity to work with Senator Abraham on a number of important issues. A fiscal conservative, Senator Abraham work to balance the federal budget and cut government waste. He has also been a champion of keeping our Social Security dollars locked away. This is an interest in which Senator Abraham and I share a keen interest. Most recently, Senator Abraham was the lead sponsor of the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, legislation that will help ensure our nation's continued growth and leadership in information technology (IT). The bill authorized visas for 195,000 high-tech professionals to work in the U.S. to meet the growing demand for skilled IT workers throughout our economy. During consideration of the bill, I was pleased to work with Senator Abraham and his staff to include in the legislation long-term initiatives to ensure that Americans of all ages are trained to fill critical IT positions in our Information Age economy. During his time in the Senate, Senator Abraham also worked to curb unfunded mandates, stiffen sentences for cocaine dealers, and advocated stronger privacy protections for consumers on the Internet. His work has been thoughtful and our nation is a better place because of his efforts. Mr. President, it has been a pleasure to serve in the Senate with Spence. I have the utmost respect for my friend and colleague from Michigan, and appreciate all of his contributions to the United States Senate and our nation. I would like to join with my colleagues in wishing the Senator and his family the best in the future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to those paying tribute to Senator Slade Gorton upon his departure from the Senate. I have had the privilege of serving with Senator Gorton on the Senate Budget Committee for the past eight years. During this time, Senator Gorton has fought hard for the principles he believes in: a stable economy and a balanced budget. He has made a significant contribution to bringing fiscal discipline to our nation. As part of that effort, in 1996 Senator Gorton and I, as part of the Centrist Coalition, worked with many other Senators to forge a compromise budget resolution that balanced fiscal responsibility with our nation's discretionary spending needs. Senator Gorton can be proud of his contribution to ending the deficits of the 1980s and early 1990s. Senator Gorton has been a leader in the Senate by focusing on the high-tech revolution that has dramatically changed our economy. He has fought to ensure that we are teaching the next generation of high-tech workers in our schools and has fought to keep our high-tech sector the best-trained in the world. He has also been a champion of providing tax incentives for companies to conduct the basic research and development that has helped fuel the dramatic growth of the high-tech industry in recent years. Finally, let me recognize the work Senator Gorton has done as Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. Every year he has had a difficult task developing a spending bill for the Interior Department and related agencies. He has also helped other Senators to meet needs in their own states, and I appreciate all of Senator Gorton's help over the years to meet particular needs in North Dakota. Even when Senator Gorton could not meet all the requests his colleagues presented, he was always fair in his consideration of each Senator's needs. Senator Gorton's dedication to the long-term health of our economy, his work for the high-tech sector, and his leadership on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee are but just a few examples of his work that have produced clear results not only in Washington state, but also for our entire nation. He will be missed here in the Senate, and I wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Senator John Ashcroft as he prepares to leave the Senate. For the past six years, Senator Ashcroft has done important work as a member of the Commerce, Judiciary, and Foreign Relations Committees in the United States Senate. For example, Senator Ashcroft has focused on reforming our nation's use of agricultural sanctions during foreign trade disputes. We share a common vision that we must not use food as a weapon in our disputes with other nations, and Senator Ashcroft has made a high priority of changing this policy. His work is important both domestically and internationally, and he can be proud of his contributions. I also appreciate Senator Ashcroft's recent work with Senator Dorgan, Senator Bond, and me on the Dakota Water Resources Act. This legislation is critical for the economic future of North Dakota, and I greatly appreciate the constructive role Senator Ashcroft played in representing the interests of his state. During discussions on this bill he was a tenacious advocate for his state's interests. His diligence in representing his state's interests, coupled with his willingness to gain an understanding of the water needs of my state, ultimately helped us reach a compromise acceptable to both states. The people of Missouri can be proud of his work fighting for their interests. More generally, Senator Ashcroft has been a man of his word who served his state and his country with distinction. I join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in wishing him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today, I wish to pay tribute to the very distinguished Senator from New York, who will be retiring at the end of this Congressional session. Senator Moynihan, as his recent biography makes clear, has been an intellectual giant in the Senate and throughout his service to our nation. The breadth of his interests--and his knowledge--is extraordinary. From questions about the architecture and urban development of Washington, D.C. to the problems created by single parent families to the workings of the International Labor Organization, Senator Moynihan has thought deeply and designed policy answers. I don't think there's a Senator who hasn't learned something from Senator Moynihan's vast stock of personal experience, understanding of history, and ability to draw parallels between seemingly unrelated topics to enlighten our understanding of both. I have had the particular pleasure of serving with Senator Moynihan on the Finance Committee for eight years. As Chairman and as ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Moynihan has been a true leader. Starting in 1993, when I took Senator Bentsen's seat on the Committee and Senator Moynihan claimed his chairmanship, Chairman Moynihan successfully guided the 1993 economic plan through the committee and the Senate. That budget, which I was proud to help shape and support, laid the foundation for our current record economic expansion. That same year, we worked together to expose the shortcomings of the North American Free Trade Agreement. After Republicans took control of the Senate in the 1994 election, Senator Moynihan was a fierce critic of their excessive budget proposals. We joined in opposing shortsighted proposals to have Medicare ``wither on the vine,'' turn Medicaid into a block grant, and destroy welfare rather than reforming it. Senator Moynihan was, as always, an especially passionate defender of teaching hospitals, warning that the plan to slash spending for Medicare's graduate medical education would threaten medical research in this country--a fear that has proved well-founded as teaching hospitals have struggled to survive the much smaller changes enacted as part of the compromise Balanced Budget Act that emerged in 1997. The Finance Committee--and the Senate--will not be the same without him. Who else will be able to gently tutor witnesses on the importance of the grain trade in upstate New York in the early nineteenth century to a current debate about health care policy? Who else will call for the Boskin and Secrecy Commissions of the future? And who else will educate his colleagues on the inequitable distribution of federal spending and taxation among the various states? Mr. President, I will miss Pat Moynihan. But I have no doubt that he will continue to be part of the debate. As Senator Moynihan retires to his beloved farm in upstate New York, I join my colleagues in looking forward to more and more insightful treaties on new and complicated policy issues.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my good friend Senator Bob Kerrey. I have mixed emotions knowing that the United States Senate, the State of Nebraska, and the nation are losing a valued public servant at a time when we can ill afford to lose a person of such great talent. I am saddened thinking about the loss of his valued presence in this chamber. But, I also recognize that my friend is leaving by his own choice to take on the challenges of a new adventure as president of the New School University of New York City. New challenges and new accomplishments are about to be added to his already legendary list of achievements that include Medal of Honor recipient, entrepreneur, governor, and Senator. I smile as I think about the good company my colleague has been at the Senate Committee on Agriculture. I always felt as if the hearing room brightened up a notch when Senator Kerrey entered the room. I appreciated greatly the fact that we never failed to share a few light moments together, even as we worked to help the farmers and ranchers we represent. His collegial approach crossed the aisle, too. Senator Kerrey moved landmark agricultural legislation to passage with hard work and the respect he garnered from his colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as he did this session with the crop insurance reform bill. We also served together on the Senate Finance Committee, where Senator Conrad has been an absolute bulldog on the issue of entitlement reform. Senator Kerrey headed up the bipartisan entitlement commission and served on the Medicare Commission. He was a particularly active participant in the centrist coalition, which worked to find common ground on budget issues during the partisan stalemate in 1995 and 1996--an effort that helped produce the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. On these very difficult issues, Senator Kerrey has always been willing to consider policies that make sense for the long term even when these policies carry a high political price in the short term. He was a leader in insisting that the Senate version of the Balanced Budget Act contain long term Medicare reforms as well as short term fixes. Yet throughout these discussions, Senator Kerrey has also been a strong defender of the most vulnerable among us--from children in low income families struggling to get by with cash assistance, food stamps and Medicaid to rural seniors who depend on adequate Medicare reimbursement to maintain health care in their local community. All of us will miss his keen intellect, his insight and his candor. We will miss his terrific sense of humor. We will miss his positive attitude. We will miss the unique perspective he brings to every discussion. We will miss his integrity and his courage. But most of all, we will miss the boundless enthusiasm he brings to public service. There is no question the Senate will soon be made poorer by his departure, and there is no doubt Senator Kerrey will make the university community he now joins richer by brining these wonderful attributes to his new position. We thank you Senator Kerrey for your service to the United State Senate. And I thank you for your friendship.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to pay a tribute to my friend and colleague from the State of Florida who has decided to leave the Senate after a distinguished 12-year career here. It has been my pleasure to work with Senator Mack during that time on a number of important issues. He has always been willing to reach across the aisle when bipartisan cooperation can make the difference. As colleagues on the Finance Committee, we have cosponsored each other's bills on such varied subjects as benefits for retired coal miners, fairer treatment for real estate under the Internal Revenue Code, and keeping gray market cigarettes out of the U.S. market. Senator Mack has been a generous, thoughtful, and constructive member of our committee, and we will miss his presence there every much. Year in and year out, I am constantly impressed with the energy, intelligence, and commitment that Connie Mack brings to the challenging job of representing such a large and diverse State Floridians have been privileged to have the benefit of his effective advocacy for their concerns. I am confident that a man with public policy interests over as wide a range as Connie has shown during his tenure in the body is still going to be checking in with his old friends in the Senate to let us know what he's thinking. I hope we will see him often in the coming years. I am happy to join my colleagues in wishing only the best for Connie and Priscilla as they move on to the next chapter in their lives.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the leadership and accomplishments of a respected colleague who will be departing at the end of this term. Senator Chuck Robb has served in the Senate as a representative of Virginia for more than a decade. During his tenure, he has been a strong advocate for a wide range of important legislative reform activities. During his time in the Senate, Senator Robb has fought to strengthen national security, maintain fiscal responsibility, and protect the environment. He has also been widely recognized for his longstanding commitment to improving education. As a former Governor of Virginia, Senator Robb was instrumental in increasing resources for schools. Building on these efforts, he spearheaded efforts to help states and localities build and renovate schools, promoted legislation to put 100,000 new teachers in the classroom, fought for school safety initiatives, and championed measures to wire schools to the Internet. These are important efforts that have benefited children and teachers across the nation. As colleagues on the Finance Committee, we have fought to address the challenges facing Social Security and Medicare. Just this year, we worked closely to develop a proposal to provide prescription drug coverage for all Medicare beneficiaries. I am proud to say that this proposal would provide much needed drug coverage to millions of seniors citizens and disabled individuals. I would also like to note that I am proud to have worked with a colleague with such a distinguished military background. Senator Robb served our nation for more than 34 years, during which time he received national honors for his leadership and commitment to serving our nation. For these and many other reasons, I have been honored to serve with Chuck Robb. I would like to join my colleagues in wishing him and his family all the best in the future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the leadership and accomplishments of an esteemed colleague who will be retiring at the end of this term. Senator Richard Bryan has served in the Congress as a representative of Nevada for more than a decade. During his tenure, he has been a tireless advocate of a wide range of legislative reform activities. Throughout his career, Senator Bryan has fought for improving natural resources, enhancing the quality of the nation's classrooms, and protecting privacy on the Internet. Senator Bryan has also been nationally recognized for his efforts on behalf of consumers. As the former Chairman of the Senate Consumer Affair Subcommittee, Senator Bryan was responsible for enacting laws to give consumers new powers to correct errors found on their credit reports and led the fight against telemarketing fraud. Perhaps most notably, Dick Bryan was a champion of 1993 legislation that required air bags be installed in every new car sold in the U.S. These are important accomplishments that benefit consumers across the nation. As colleagues on the Finance Committee, we have fought to address the challenges facing Social Security and Medicare. Just this year, we worked closely to develop a proposal to provide prescription drug coverage for all Medicare beneficiaries. I am proud to say that this proposal would provide much needed drug coverage to millions of seniors citizens and disabled individuals. I have also had the opportunity to work with Senator Bryan to address a very important priority for the nation--balancing the federal budget. We enjoy federal budget surpluses today because of the efforts of members like Senator Bryan who supported measures to cut government waste and get our fiscal house in order. For these and many other reasons, I have been honored to serve with Dick Bryan. I would like to join my colleagues in wishing the Senator and his family the best in the future and in paying tribute to Dick Bryan's lifelong commitment to public service. I wish him well.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I too want to speak about the former Governor of Missouri, Mel Carnahan. Over the last 3 weeks, I was engaged, along with my colleague, Senator Dorgan, in intense negotiations with Governor Carnahan and the two Senators from Missouri with respect to a major water project in our State, the Dakota Water Resources Act. We had the opportunity to talk to Governor Carnahan directly, and we talked to his top staff repeatedly. I found him to be a fierce advocate for the people of Missouri, just as I have found Senator Bond and Senator Ashcroft to be fierce advocates for the people of Missouri. We have had a difficult time reaching conclusion on our water project because of objections from the State of Missouri. But the representatives of that State--Senator Bond, Senator Ashcroft, and Governor Carnahan--worked in good faith with us, all the while protecting vigorously and aggressively the interests of their State. I respect that. That is what representatives are supposed to do. I found Governor Carnahan to be absolutely ferocious on the issues that he thought were important to the people of his State. When I heard the news that he had been killed in a tragic plane accident, it saddened me. It saddened our family because we are certain that the Carnahans are suffering greatly. And the people of Missouri have had a terrible loss. It reminded me of a similar incident with a Missouri Senate candidate more than 20 years ago, Congressman Litton, who was also killed in a light plane crash in that State. It almost makes one wonder if Missouri is somehow star crossed with leaders of that caliber--so widely respected by the people of their States--being lost in these tragic accidents. I send my best wishes to the Carnahan family and to people all over the country who are grieving at the loss of the Governor of that great State. We are thinking of the family and thinking of the friends and staff of Governor Carnahan. As I say, I have had several weeks in which I talked frequently to the Governor's chief of staff and the head of his department of natural resources. I found them to be very good people, very decent people-- very difficult to negotiate with but very good people. We share their loss. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are now considering the Agriculture appropriations conference report. It is critically important to a number of our States. It certainly is critically important to mine. We are faced with one of the toughest downturns in the agricultural markets in the history of our country. We currently have the lowest real prices for farm commodities in 50 years, and we are in a very serious situation as a result. Literally, thousands of farm families will be forced off the land if there is not an adequate Federal response to this crisis. A number of years ago we passed a new farm bill. That farm bill is not working. I think the proof is abundantly clear. The fact is, we have had to write disaster bills every year for the last 3 years to try to deal with this collapse in farm prices. The situation now is even more grave as we have dealt not only with collapsed prices but also with what I call the triple whammy of bad prices, bad policy, and bad weather. In my State, as in many others, farmers have not only had to cope with very low prices but, in addition to that, weather conditions that have dramatically reduced the value of the crop even from these very low prices. I just had a farmer stop me when I was home and tell me he was offered 75 cents a bushel for his grain--75 cents a bushel. A lot of people wonder, what is a bushel? We talk about these things in farm terms. I think many people in the country have no idea what a bushel represents. A bushel is almost 60 pounds. Can you imagine getting 75 cents for that product? That is ruinous. That is confiscatory. And it will drive thousands of farm families into bankruptcy if there is not a response. Thankfully, each of the last 3 years, there has been a Federal response. Three years ago, I am proud to say, the first amendment was mine, offered with Senator Dorgan, to begin to respond to this crisis of collapsed prices. That developed into a $6 billion assistance package. Last year, we had another package. Senator Grassley of Iowa and I offered the only bipartisan package of assistance, and it formed the basis for what was agreed to, an $8.7 billion package. This year, for the third year in a row, we have already passed, and the President has signed into law, a package of $7.2 billion of assistance, again to offset these collapsed prices. But since that package was passed and signed into law, we also have these weather disasters across the country. In my State, overly wet conditions have led to an outbreak of a disease called scab that has dramatically lowered the value of the crop. In other parts of the country, there has been devastating drought, a situation where farmers have not received any rain throughout the growing season. As a result, they have almost total losses. In this bill we will vote on next week, there is an additional $3.5 billion of assistance, including provisions to address the quality loss affecting my State's farmers; $500 million to address the quality loss circumstance in which farmers go to the elevator and in some cases the people at the elevator say, we won't buy your grain at any price because it is so loaded with this fungus called scab. That is the nature of the crisis. It is so important that next week we pass that bill. It is so important that this aid start to flow. It is so important that we say to farm families across America, we are not going to let you fail because of a failed farm policy written in Washington. We are not going to let you face a circumstance just because our major competitors, the Europeans, are outspending us 10 to 1 in their support for their producers, that we let our people fall by the wayside. We are not going to say to our producers, just because the Europeans account for 84 percent of all the world's agriculture export subsidy--we only account for 1.4 percent--just because they are outgunning us 60 to 1 on that measure of support, we are not going to let you go under because of a failed policy out of Washington. These are critical times. Our major competitors, the Europeans, have done everything they can to support their producers. I am not being critical. I admire them. They have stood up for their people. They understand that if you just abandon them to this world market, where we see catastrophic prices, what that will mean is an exodus from the rural parts of Europe, just as we are seeing that kind of circumstance in America. We are seeing thousands of farm families leave the land because the economics just don't work. We obviously need this rescue package. We need this assistance. More than that, we need a new farm policy, one for the longer term, one that recognizes what is happening in world agriculture, one that understands the Europeans are supporting their producers at a rate of $300 an acre on average while we support our producers at a rate of $30 an acre on average. It is no wonder that Europe is moving up in world market share and we are moving down because our friends in Europe are doing it the old-fashioned way--they are going out and buying markets that have traditionally been ours. They have a strategy; they have a plan. Their plan is to dominate world agricultural trade. They are putting the money up to do it. The harsh reality is that USDA now tells us for the first time in as long as anyone can remember, Europe is poised to surpass us in world market share. Let me repeat that: This year USDA tells us for the first time in memory Europe is poised to pass us in world market share for agricultural products. That ought to be a warning to all of us of what is happening. It is happening because the Europeans have spent tens of billions of dollars a year, nearly $50 billion a year, supporting their producers, paying for export subsidies so they can buy markets that have traditionally been ours. Shame on us if we allow them to take us out of world markets that have been ours for decades. That would be a serious mistake. When I ask the Europeans, how is it you are able to convince your people to step up and support your producers in the way that you do, they say, it is very simple: we have been hungry twice in Europe. We never intend to be hungry again. We are not going to rely on outside food sources to feed our people. We just are not going to do it. I hope next year we will begin the debate on a new farm policy, and we will recognize that unilateral disarmament does not work. It doesn't work in military affairs; it doesn't work in an agricultural trade confrontation. It hasn't worked with this new Federal farm policy. It has been a disaster. I don't know of any better proof for that than the simple fact we have had to write disaster bills the last 3 years to try to cope with the wreckage that is represented by this Federal farm policy: the lowest prices in 50 years; thousands of farmers being pushed off the land; an agricultural economy that is in deep trouble. I hope next week, when we take a vote on the Agriculture appropriations bill, there will be strong bipartisan support for that package, and then when we convene next year we will begin the debate on a new Federal farm policy, one that recognizes that our major competitors are on the move. They are on the march. They have a strategy. They have a plan. They have an intention to dominate world agricultural trade, and we have an obligation to fight back, to give our producers, our farmers a fair fighting chance. So far we have said to our farmers, you go out there and compete against the French farmer or the German farmer. And while you are at it, you take on the French Government and the German Government, too. That is not a fair fight. Our producers can compete against any producers anywhere in the world, but only if they have a level playing field, only if it is a fair fight. They can't win if the deck is stacked against them. That is precisely what is happening now. The deck is stacked against our producers in a way that is devastating. It reminds me of the cold war, where we built up to build down. I believe we have to follow that same principle in this trade confrontation with Europe. We have to add resources to force them to the table to negotiate to level the playing field so our producers are not at this extraordinary disadvantage where Europe spends $300 an acre on average to support their producers while we spend $30, where the Europeans account for 84 percent of all the world's agricultural export subsidy while we account for only 1.4 percent, outgunned 60 to 1. It is pretty hard to win a fight when you are outgunned 60 to 1 or 10 to 1. It makes it virtually impossible for our very efficient producers, very hard-working people, to have any kind of a chance. These are the harsh realities of what is occurring in world agriculture. I hope next week, when that bill comes before the Chamber, we will stand up and vote aye. I hope when we start next year the debate and discussion about a new farm bill, we will recognize the harsh realities of what is happening in these world agricultural markets. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have just learned very tragic news that a young man from my home State of North Dakota is among those now listed as missing and presumed dead on board the U.S.S. Cole. He is Petty Officer 2nd Class Kevin Shawn Rux. I want to express my deepest sympathies to the family. Our Nation honors this young man for his service and sacrifice. Our prayers are with his family in their grief today, and with all the fathers, mothers, spouses, sons, and daughters of those who lost their loved ones in this terrible attack. I want to reassure the family this Nation will not rest until we find the criminals responsible for the death of Kevin Shawn Rux and his shipmates. This country will hold them accountable for these murders. Again, we share the grief of the family of this young man. He was doing his duty. He was serving his country. We admire very much his service, and we deeply respect his sacrifice. My colleague from North Dakota would also like to comment. We would appreciate that.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. There are Members on our side who would like to offer amendments, and on their behalf I am constrained to object at this point.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Again, there are Members on this side who would like to offer amendments to that legislation, and on their behalf I am constrained to object.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the National Rural Development Partnership (NRDP) Act of 2000 introduced yesterday by my friend from Idaho, Senator Craig, and 25 of our distinguished colleagues. The NRDP is a nonpartisan interagency working group whose mission is to ``contribute to the vitality of the nation by strengthening the ability of all rural Americans to participate in determining their futures.'' Today the NRDP is comprised of nearly 40 State Rural Development Councils [SRDCs]. The NRDP also brings to the task of developing rural America more than 40 agencies, in addition to state, local, tribal, for- and non-profit organizations. The Partnership has thrived in recent years because of the hard work of thousands of dedicated Americans throughout the country who are committed to reinvigorating rural life through coordination of their efforts and those of the public and private sectors. However, the NRDP has never been formally authorized. The future of this important organization can only be secured if the NRDP, the National Rural Development Council, and the SRDCs are formally recognized by the Congress and authorized to receive appropriations. Mr. President, that is exactly what this legislation would do. Additionally, the Craig-Conrad bill delineates specific responsibilities for each component of the NRDP while refocusing and reinvigorating many current activities. It does not, however, create any new bureaucracy. This legislation grew out of a hearing of the Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization that Senator Craig and I, as chairman and ranking member, held on March 8 of this year. The support expressed at that hearing for the NRDP was broad-based and considerable. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of the NRDP's work. Every region of our nation has benefited. In my part of the country, the NRDP has been particularly valuable in bringing together previously independent rural development efforts, creating a synergistic effect. As I have discussed on the Senate floor and in committee on numerous occasions, in the Upper Great Plains we are facing a crisis of staggering proportions, placing unprecedented stress on every aspect of economic and community life. This is a very serious matter for the entire country. The farms of the Dakotas and the surrounding states produce wheat, corn, and soybeans in abundance, but something much more important: good families and great kids. The rural way of life helps foster the values of hard work and fortitude that have made America great. In my view, the ongoing crisis in agriculture represents as great a threat to our nation's future as any of the foreign threats we face today. As we work to combat this domestic national security threat and preserve the rural way of life, the NRDP is a truly vital asset. I hope all my colleagues will join the 27 of us on this bill in pressing for its passage and enactment at the earliest possible moment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today the Senate will complete action on one of the most important bills in the 106th Congress, S. 2045, the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, legislation that will help ensure our nation's continued growth and leadership in information technology (IT). S. 2045 will authorize visas for 195,000 high-tech professionals to work in the U.S. to meet the growing demand for skilled IT workers throughout our economy. The legislation also authorizes long term initiatives to ensure that Americans of all ages are trained to fill critical IT positions in our Information Age economy. I am pleased to strongly support this legislation. Senate action to increase the ceiling on H1B visas for the next three years, however, is also a warning that we are not providing sufficient incentives or education opportunities to encourage our young people, as well as individuals of all ages, to consider careers or retraining in information technology. In 1998, Congress passed legislation to increase the number of H1B visas for skilled workers to enter the U.S. At that time, the Department of Commerce reported a shortage of 600,000 skilled IT workers in the U.S. Since 1998, the demand for skilled workers has increased dramatically. Earlier this year, the Information Technology Association released its most recent report, ``Bridging the Gap'', on the demand for skilled IT workers in the U.S. That report estimated a shortage of more than 843,000 skilled workers. Moreover, the Department of Labor projected that the U.S. economy will require more than 130,000 new IT workers every year for the next ten years. Clearly, with our rapidly expanding economy, and the critical need to maintain our leadership in information technology, we face an extraordinary challenge from this shortage of skilled high-tech workers. As economies throughout the world recover, particularly in Asia, we cannot continue to assume that we will meet our demand for high-tech workers by increasing the cap on HIB visa every few years. Throughout this debate on the IT worker shortage since 1998, I have recommended incentives to encourage IT worker training and partnerships between businesses and the education community. Earlier in the 106th Congress, I introduced legislation, S. 456, to authorize a tax credit of up to $6,000 for employers who provide IT worker training. Unfortunately, the Senate has not yet adopted this legislation. I am, however, very pleased that Vice President Gore has recognized the importance of this IT worker training incentive and included this proposal as a priority on his information technology agenda. More recently, I also introduced S. 2347, the Information Technology Act of 2000, to encourage IT training partnerships between universities or colleges and the information technology community through a program of matching Federal grants. I urged that these partnerships focus on training for Americans that have traditionally not participated in the growth in information technology--women, veterans, Native Americans, dislocated workers, seniors, and students who have not completed their high school diploma. I am especially pleased to have had such strong endorsements for this proposal from groups including the Disabled Veterans of America, National Education Association, American Association of University Women, Green Thumb and the Computing Technology Industry Association. Mr. President, while I regret that we have not been able to authorize tax incentives for businesses who provide IT training for workers, I am very pleased that S. 2045 authorizes funding for high-tech partnerships, as I proposed in S. 2347, through the Department of Labor. Funding for the training would come from the fees collected under the H-1B visa program. S. 2045 also expands K-12 training for educators in IT through the National Science Foundation, including the professional development of math and science teachers in the use of technology in the classroom. Expanding opportunities for IT training for educators was another important objective in S. 2347. S. 2045 also helps our educational and research communities by exempting them from the cap on recruiting skilled academic professionals. Finally, I would like to express particular appreciation to the managers of the bill for accepting my amendment regarding J-1 visa waivers. My amendment will improve underserved communities' access to physician services by ensuring the Conrad State 20 J-1 visa waivers do not count against the H-1B visa cap. Mr. President, the shortage of skilled high-tech workers will continue to be a major issue during the 107th Congress, and I believe it will be necessary for us to provide additional training incentives in the coming years to meet the growing domestic demand for IT workers. As I noted earlier, as economies throughout the world continue to expand, and countries including Singapore, China, and Malaysia develop their own high tech corridors, it will be difficult to recruit high- tech workers from these Asian countries to fill positions in the U.S. In my view, rather than continue our dependence on H1B visa holders to meet our skilled worker demand, we must expand our efforts to encourage young people to consider careers in information technology and to train current workers to enter the IT field. This will continue to be a top priority for me during the 107th Congress, and I look forward to working with my colleagues and the information technology community on this critical issue. I commend my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee for reporting a measure that provides important incentives for IT training as well as expanded education and training opportunities for teachers through the National Science Foundation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today as a senior member of the Budget Committee to talk about what I see as a breakdown in the budget process in the Senate. I think every member of the Budget Committee and every Member of the Senate ought to be concerned about what has happened the last several years but even more dramatically this year, in what can only be called a virtual meltdown of the budget process. Those who are watching may say, well, what do we care what the budget process is. We care about the budget outcome. And that is exactly right. The most important thing is the budget outcome. But many times how you start has a lot to do with how you end up, and I am afraid we have now developed a disastrous operating procedure around here. We start out with a fiction of a budget; we end up with no accountability, no control, and chaos at the end. That is where we are today. This is chaos. Every Member of the Senate knows that is true. We have a circumstance now where bills are passed in committee, never come to the floor of the Senate, go to a conference committee, the Democrats are locked out of the conference committee, and Senators are denied their right to offer amendments to improve legislation. That is not the way the process is supposed to work. Together we have to mend it. If we don't, we are going to have a circumstance where someday, when the Democrats are going to be back in control, we can operate this way. And if you are in the minority and you are locked out and prevented from offering amendments, your ability to represent your constituents is badly diminished. This is not just a Democrat issue or Republican issue. This is a question of how we function in this body. It is in all of our interests to have a process where Senators' fundamental rights are protected so they can carry out their fundamental responsibilities. When I say we are in chaos, the story in the Washington Post yesterday, front-page story, tells us that is true. Here is the story: ``Spending Floodgates Open on Hill.'' Congress is moving to approve the biggest spending increase since Republicans took control in 1995. The binge is setting off alarms among fiscal conservatives and threatens to absorb a chunk of the future surplus. ``It is just a free for all,'' said Senator McCain. ``They are all equal opportunity pork-barrelers . . . This is the worst ever.'' I agree with Senator McCain. This is the worst ever. We have a process that is broken. The budget resolution is being paid no attention. That was predictable because the budget resolution made no earthly sense. It wasn't real. It was a fiction. As a result, we have no control, no accountability for what follows. Everybody is on their own. Every one of these committees is on their own. They are out there dividing them up, throwing it in. We are going to have--I predict today--a stack of paper on our desks, and we are going to be told: Take it or leave it; vote for it or the Government will shut down. That is where we are headed. It is very clear to anybody who is watching. That should not be the way we conduct the people's business. What is especially troubling about all this is that we have made enormous progress over the last several years, enormous progress in getting our fiscal house in order. We should not put at risk that progress. We should not put at risk the prosperity that has followed getting our fiscal house in order. I want to look at the last three administrations and their record on deficits. I think it is instructive as we go into this election season. I think it is instructive as we consider what is occurring in the Senate and the House of Representatives right now. If we go back 20 years ago, 1981, President Reagan came in. He had the old trickle-down economics. It was a disaster in terms of deficits; the deficits skyrocketed. We went from a deficit of about $80 billion to over $200 billion and tripled the national debt during his years. Fiscally, it was a chaotic time. President Bush came in; the deficit was $153 billion. By the time he left, it was $290 billion--more than double. That is the record. It is in the books. I know it makes tough reading for some of our friends on the other side, but that is their record on the fiscal health of this country. The fact is, they had a policy of deficits and debt, and those deficits and debt threatened the fundamental economic security of the country. In 1993, we had a new administration. This is their record--not a question; these are the facts. I remember President Reagan used to say facts are stubborn things. He was absolutely right about that. Facts are stubborn things. In 1993, the deficit was $255 billion. We passed a 5-year plan to reduce the budget deficit and to get it under control. Our friends on the other side said that if we passed that plan, it would crater the economy. That is what they said at the time. They said it wouldn't reduce the deficit. They said it would increase it. They said it wouldn't reduce interest rates; that it would increase them. They said it wouldn't reduce inflation; that it would increase inflation. We can go back now and check the record. They were wrong on each and every count--not just a little bit wrong, completely wrong. Look at the record. Every year of that 5-year plan, the deficit went down and went down dramatically, until we got to the fifth year of the plan and we were headed toward surplus. That is the record. We can look back and see who is right and who is wrong. It is just as clear as it can be. The question is, Are we going to put all of this at risk? The President announced just the other day that we are going to have a $230 billion budget surplus, a $230 billion budget surplus for fiscal year 2000. Just 8 years ago, we had a $290 billion budget deficit. The results from this fiscal policy have been very clear. Before I get to the results, let me show how it happened. How did we get into this position? We got into this position by, in 1992, passing a plan that cut spending and, yes, raised taxes on the wealthiest 1 percent-- raised income taxes on the wealthiest 1 percent. The revenue line went up; the spending line came down. We balanced the budget. We created surpluses, and the economic results have been dramatic and extraordinarily positive. We now have the longest economic expansion in our Nation's history. This was recorded on February 1, 2000, in the Washington Post, the headline, ``Expansion is Now Nation's Longest,'' 107 months of economic growth, the longest economic expansion in our Nation's history. It is not just a record of economic expansion. It is the other positive results we obtained as well by getting our fiscal house in order: the lowest unemployment rate in 42 years; and on inflation, the lowest sustained level since 1965. We have the lowest level of sustained inflation in 35 years because we got our fiscal house in order. The welfare caseload has been cut in half; the percentage on welfare in the country is the lowest since 1967. This is the record. It is very clear. Those of us who supported welfare reform, those of us who supported the budget plan to get our fiscal house in order, those decisions have paid off for the country, and we should not put it all at risk. Federal spending as a percentage of our national income is the lowest it has been since 1966. Federal spending is the lowest as a percentage of our national income since 1966. These are the kinds of positive results we have developed as a result of a budget plan that added up, that made sense, that got our fiscal house in order. Some say, gee, income taxes are the highest they have been in a generation. Not true. The reason we have expanded revenue--yes, we raised rates on the wealthiest 1 percent. That is undeniable. That is correct. That was part of the plan that got our fiscal house in order. But it is also true that we passed sweeping tax cuts, child care credit, expansion of the earned-income tax that dramatically reduced the income taxes of tens of millions of Americans. On March 26 of this year, the Washington Post, on page 1, ran a story under this headline: ``Federal Tax Level Falls For Most; Studies Show Burden Now Less Than 10 percent'' on a significant part of the American public. Most Americans, this year, will have to fork over less than 10 percent of their income to the Federal Government when they file Federal income taxes. The fact is, for many segments of our society, income taxes, combined with payroll taxes, have gone down. That is because of the expansion of the earned-income tax, and that is because of the child credit. In fact, if you compare the tax burden for working families--according to the Tax Foundation, this is for a family earning $68,000 in 1999--from 1975--this is both income taxes and payroll taxes--their tax burden declined from 10.4 percent to 8.9 percent. That is not Kent Conrad's numbers; those are the numbers from the Tax Foundation. The Washington Post, in that same story, pointed out: For all but the wealthiest Americans, the Federal income tax burden has shrunk to the lowest level in 4 decades, according to a series of studies by liberal and conservative tax experts, the Clinton administration, and two arms of the Republican controlled Congress. This is the record and these are the facts with respect to what has happened to the income tax burden. Because we have gotten our fiscal house in order, we have seen a substantial reduction in the publicly held debt. We are in a position, if we make no other changes in law, to pay off the publicly held debt of the United States by the year 2009. We all understand there are proposals for additional spending and for tax cuts that will move that back. The fact is, if we made no changes in current law, we could pay off the publicly held debt in the country by the year 2009. In fact, we are right here on this scale. We have already started paying down the debt. In the last 3 years, we have paid down, I think, over $300 billion of publicly held debt. That is a dramatic transformation, a huge improvement. Let me just be clear. I give most of the credit to our side of the aisle which, in 1993, passed a 5-year budget plan that did most of the heavy lifting. We didn't have a single vote from the other side of the aisle. But it is also true that in 1997 we finished the job with a bipartisan effort. I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that was good that we were able to come together in 1997 and do something together to finish the job. Now the question is: Do we stay on this course or do we go off in some other direction and go back to what I consider the bad old days of debt, deficits, and decline? I hope not. I hope we avoid going back in the deficit ditch. Let's look ahead. Here is what we are told now. Over the next 10 years, the projections are--remember, they are projections, and projections can change--telling us we can count on $4.6 trillion of surplus. That is extraordinary, the turnaround that has been accomplished. First of all, remember that those are projections. They have improved by a trillion dollars in the last 6 months. They could go the other way in the next 6 months. Let's remember, they are projections. Two, let's remember the $2.4 trillion--more than half of it--is from Social Security. I think both sides have agreed that we are not going to raid Social Security--at least we agreed rhetorically we are not going to raid Social Security. Another almost $400 billion is Medicare. So you add those two together, and that is $2.8 trillion of the $4.6 trillion, Medicare and Social Security, and that leaves about $1.8 trillion of non-Social Security, non-Medicare surplus. When I look at the budget plan of Governor Bush, it doesn't add up. It just doesn't add up. This is what concerns me about derailing the progress we have made and going back into the deficit ditch. Let me go through the math. I don't think it can be challenged. We have the projected surplus of $4.6 trillion. The Social Security surplus is $2.4 trillion. The Medicare surplus is $400 billion. That leaves a remaining non-Social Security, non-Medicare surplus of $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years that has been projected. The Bush tax cut is--his large main proposal costs $1.3 trillion. The other tax cuts that he has endorsed in the campaign are another $300 billion. The interest cost of those tax cuts is another $300 billion. So he has completely wiped out the non-Social Security, non-Medicare surplus. It is gone, poof. Then he has an additional problem that is very big. He has recommended Social Security privatization. The transition cost of that proposal--or proposals like that one--is about $1 trillion. Where does that come from? Where does that $1 trillion come from? Is he going to take it out of the Social Security surplus? If he does, he has violated the pledge everybody has made here not to raid the Social Security surplus because that money is needed to meet the promises that have been made to existing Social Security recipients. If he takes that $1 trillion out of there, that undermines Social Security solvency because it is a transfer of money to allow people to set up private accounts. Now, in addition to that, he has used every penny of the non-Social Security, non-Medicare surplus for tax cuts. Where is the additional money for defense? He made a big point in this campaign that we are not at the level of readiness we should have. Where is he going to get any money to deal with that when all of his money--non-Social Security and non-Medicare surplus--goes for tax cuts? Where is he going to get the additional money for education he has called for in this campaign? It doesn't add up. What worries me very much is that we are going to go right back into the deficit ditch we just crawled out of. What a mistake that would be; what a tragedy for this country it would be to go back to deficits and debt and ultimate economic decline. I hope very much our colleagues will avoid that mistake. Let me just say that it isn't just the Bush plan that threatens that, in my judgment. I am also worried about those who have massive new spending ideas because this fiscal responsibility, this course that we have embarked on to get our fiscal house in order, can be threatened in several different ways. One way is this Bush plan which, to me, is a financial disaster for the country if we ever adopt it. I hope very much that we do not. That would put us right back in the deficit ditch. But another way to threaten it is out-of-control spending. When you don't have a budget process that has any discipline to it, doesn't have any reality to it, you allow this kind of spending frenzy that is now going on in the committees to emerge. There is no accountability, no plan, and there is fundamentally no discipline. I hope some colleagues are listening. We did a little calculation about what is out there going through the committees. The $60 billion 1-year effect they are talking about in the Washington Post is dwarfed by the 10-year effect because we are talking about a 10-year effect of $450 billion by decisions that are being made in some closed room somewhere where one-half of Congress is being excluded. That is not the way to do business. I hope very much that people on both sides who do not want to see us return to the bad old days of deficits and debt will get together in these final hours and agree that there has to be a better way of doing our business. I know it is not going to change this year, but I hope very much that next year we get back to a budget process that has some integrity to it and some discipline to it because if we fail, I fear very much that we are going to go right back to the bad old days of deficits and debt. That would be a profound mistake for the country. As one considers how far we have come and the dramatic improvements that we have made, they weren't easy. I know about the votes in 1993 to put in place a 5-year budget plan to get our fiscal house back in order. People lost their political careers as a result. That is not the biggest sacrifice to make. I know that. But the fact is, it was hard. It passed by a single vote in this Chamber. It passed by a single vote over in the House. We have had such incredible prosperity in part because of the result of those decisions that created the framework so that the American people's hard work, ingenuity, and creativity could lead this economic resurgence. But we see other people who are hard-working and creative living in a failed system. We see it in Russia. We see it in other parts of the world. The fact is that we have a system that works because the monetary and fiscal policy of the United States over the last 8 years has been a good one, has been a sound one, and has been an effective one. But it can all be lost. It can be jeopardized. We can go right back very easily to deficits and debt. All we have to do is pass massive tax cuts that do not add up and pass massive new spending plans in concert with those tax cuts, and we will be right back to deficits, debt, and ultimate economic decline. This is a matter of choices. It is a matter of choices for those of us who serve in Congress. It is a matter of choices for the American people as they go to the polls. I trust the wisdom of the American people. I trust the wisdom of my colleagues in Congress. I think when people have both sides of the story, they make pretty good judgments. Part of our responsibility is to make certain that people get both sides of the story. I think I have made the point that Governor Bush has most of his priority placed on tax cuts. That really jeopardizes the fiscal discipline that we have achieved. As I look at what he has proposed, and the $2.2 trillion, which is the surplus without Social Security, and you look at his plan and the additional tax cuts and the interest lost as a result of those tax cuts, you can see not only that he is using up the entire non-Social Security, non-Medicare surplus, he is using up almost entirely the surplus not counting Social Security. That is not a balanced plan. That is a plan that has enormous risk to it. On top of that, his tax cuts aren't fair. He gives 53 percent of the benefit to the top 35 percent of the American people. That is the analysis by the Citizens for Tax Justice. The lowest 60 percent of the income earners in America get 11 percent of the benefits. Again, that is not just Kent Conrad talking; that is not just Citizens for Tax Justice talking. Senator John McCain in his campaign pointed out that 38 percent of Governor Bush's tax cut goes to the wealthiest 1 percent. That is Senator John McCain's analysis of Governor George Bush's tax plan. What is the fairness in that? Thirty-eight percent of the benefit goes to the wealthiest 1 percent? The Governor is fond of saying that the surpluses are not the Government's money; it is the people's money. He has that exactly right. This money is the people's money. Absolutely. The question is, what should be done with the people's money? His idea is to give 38 percent of that to the wealthiest 1 percent. What kind of a plan is that? Wouldn't it be better to take the people's money and pay off the people's debt? That is what I believe ought to be the top priority. Let's dump this debt. Let's get rid of it once and for all, especially before the baby boomers start to retire. We have a window of opportunity that is going to last about another 12 years. This is the time to dump the debt. I offered a budget plan to my colleagues that would use 72 percent of these surpluses for debt elimination, 12 percent for tax relief, 12 percent for high priority domestic needs such as defense and education and health care. That, to me, is a set of priorities for the American people. This plan of Governor Bush does not add up. John McCain said it well in his campaign. He said: ``More importantly, there is a fundamental difference here,'' talking about the difference between himself and George Bush. ``I believe we must save Social Security. We must pay down the debt. We have to make an investment in Medicare. For us to put all of the surplus into tax cuts I think is not a conservative effort. I think it is a mistake.'' That was John McCain. John McCain had it right. There is nothing conservative about this plan that has been put forward by Mr. Bush. It is a radical plan. On the notion that the Bush budget doesn't add up, again, it is not just my analysis. This appeared in the Wall Street Journal. Both candidates agree they could afford to set aside Social Security revenues which account for about $2.4 trillion of the projected surplus. That leaves roughly $2.2 trillion. Of course, they have not subtracted out the Medicare money. They go on to say: ``Mr. Bush has a larger problem. His proposals most likely wouldn't fit even under CBO's $2.2 trillion surplus'' of non-Social Security money. They are right. It doesn't fit within the funds. That leaves an enormous vulnerability. I hope before we leave that all of us will think very seriously about what the priorities are. When I compare Gore and Bush on the question of budgets, Gore is proposing a plan that pays off public debt by 2012. He has $3 trillion of the surplus dedicated to dumping the debt; George Bush about half as much. These are pretty straightforward facts. The fundamental question is, what is our priority? I believe the top priority ought to be to dump this debt, to pay off this debt. In fact, the plan I have offered would devote even more of the projected surplus that Mr. Gore does to eliminating debt. Every economist who has come before the Budget Committee and the Finance Committee has said the highest and best use of these projected surpluses is to eliminate the national debt and do it now while we have a window of opportunity before the baby boomers start to retire. I believe that. I agree with that. I hope we establish budget plans that have that fundamental principle and put that priority where it should be--on eliminating this debt while we can, because when the baby boomers start to retire, the numbers are going to turn against us in a very, very aggressive way. This is our opportunity. I hope we take it. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Sustaining Access to Vital Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Act of 2000. This bill would take important steps to strengthen the emergency medical service system in rural communities and across the nation. Across America, emergency medical care reduces human suffering and saves lives. According to recent statistics, the average U.S. citizen will require the services of an ambulance at least twice during his or her life. As my colleagues surely know, delays in receiving care can mean the difference between illness and permanent injury, between life and death. In rural communities that often lack access to local health care services, the need for reliable EMS is particularly crucial. Over the next few decades, the need for quality emergency medical care in rural areas is projected to increase as the elderly population in these communities continues to rise. Unfortunately, while the need for effective EMS systems may increase, we have seen the number of individuals able to provide these services decline. Nationwide, the majority of emergency medical personnel are unpaid volunteers. As rural economies continue to suffer, and individuals have less and less time to devote to volunteering, it has become increasingly difficult for rural EMS squads to recruit and retain personnel. In my state of North Dakota, this phenomenon has resulted in a sharp reduction in EMS squad size. In 1980, on average there were 35 members per EMS squad; today, the average squad size has plummeted to 12 individuals per unit. I am concerned that continued reductions in EMS squad size could jeopardize rural residents' access to needed medical services. For this reason, the legislation I introduce today includes two components to help communities recruit, retain, and train EMS providers. First, this proposal would establish a Rural Emergency Medical Services Training and Equipment Assistance program. This program would authorize $50 million in grant funding for fiscal years 2001-2006, which could be used by rural EMS squads to meet various personnel needs. For example, this funding could help cover the costs of training volunteers in emergency response, injury prevention, and safety awareness; volunteers could also access this funding to help meet the costs of obtaining State emergency medical certification. In addition, EMS squads would be offered the flexibility to use grant funding to acquire new equipment, such as cardiac defibrillators. This is particularly important for rural squads that have difficulty affording state-of-the-art equipment that is needed for stabilizing patients during long travel times between the rural accident site and the nearest urban medical facility. This grant funding could also be used to provide community education training in CPR, first aid or other emergency medical needs. Second, the Sustaining Access to Vital Emergency Medical Services Act would help individuals meet the costs of providing services by offering all volunteer emergency medical personnel a $500 income tax credit. Volunteers could use this credit to cover some of the incidental expenses incurred in providing services, such as purchasing gasoline for the vehicles they use to respond to emergencies or to buy medical gear like safety gloves and clothing. It is my hope that this tax credit would provide an incentive for unpaid EMS volunteers to continue providing services and for new volunteers to join rural emergency medical squads. In addition to the provisions I have just described, this legislation also includes two other measures that would provide additional resources to EMS squads. The Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 reduced inflationary update payments to ambulance providers through 2002. This means that during this time frame, ambulance providers have not been given adequate resources to keep up with increasing service demands. To ensure ambulance providers receive appropriate resources, this legislation would eliminate the BBA market basket reductions and would instead provide a full inflationary update over the next two years. Also, this bill would provide an extra one percentage point increase in fiscal year 2001 to all EMS providers. In addition, this proposal takes steps to fix the shortcomings of the newly implemented Medicare ambulance fee schedule. The negotiated rulemaking committee that developed the fee schedule voiced concern that the payment system does not adequately account for the costs of providing emergency care to low-volume rural areas. In response to this concern, the Committee included an add-on payment for services provided to rural areas. While this payment adjustment is a step in the right direction, we must go further in identifying low-volume areas and ensuring EMS providers are paid appropriately for serving these communities. This proposal would direct the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to conduct a study and provide recommendations to Congress on options for providing more appropriate payments to the nation's rural EMS providers. In conjunction with providing these recommendations, HHS would be required to implement any appropriate reimbursement changes by January 1, 2002. It is my hope that the Sustaining Access to Vital Emergency (SAVE) Medical Services Act will help ensure EMS providers can continue providing quality medical care to our communities. I urge my colleagues to support this important effort.