Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, it is with great sadness I rise to mourn the passing of Senator John Chafee. Senator Chafee was much more than a colleague to me. Senator Chafee was a very close friend as well. The Senate has lost a giant, and I assuredly have lost a friend. John Chafee will go down in history as one of the best U.S. Senators to ever grace this Chamber. Senator Chafee was one of those rare people who was able to rise above partisanship and work constructively with others on both sides of the aisle to achieve important things for the American people. John Chafee always had a smile, he always had a feeling of the possible, and even in the darkest times when it seemed as if there was no way to bring people together in this Chamber, John Chafee had the confidence that if we just reached out, if we were rational and reasonable and talked to each other, we could accomplish great things. That was the spirit of John Chafee, and it will be in this Chamber long after he has left us. I look at his desk now and I see the bouquet of flowers there. What a fitting tribute to John Chafee because he graced any room he entered. That is the way I remember John. When I learned yesterday that he had died, I was thinking of my last encounter with John, which was on the floor last Thursday. I was exiting the Chamber with a group of Senators. I walked past him and he said: Hey, don't you talk to me anymore? Because I hadn't exchanged our usual greeting. I came back and I reached out to him. We shook hands, had a brief conversation, and I told him: John, you know I'll always talk to you. We had a little conversation about what was occurring in the Senate and what might be done to improve things. That was John Chafee. That was quintessential John Chafee. How are we going to make things better? He never spent a lot of time ruminating and worrying. Instead, he spent time figuring out how we were going to make things better. That is what I so admired about John Chafee, that and his basic human decency. You could not find a more decent person to work with in this Senate or in any other forum than John Chafee. I admired him so much because he really gave a life of dedication to public service. John Chafee, we all know, was very fortunate. He grew up in a family of means. He did not have to spend his life in public service. He could have been on ``easy street.'' But that is not the way John Chafee chose to lead his life. Instead, John determined he would take on one public challenge after another, whether it was serving in the Marine Corps, of which he was very proud, or whether it was serving his State as Governor, or serving as Secretary of the Navy, or serving here in the Senate. John Chafee had a life dedicated to public service. His State of Rhode Island and our country are the richer for it. I served on the Finance Committee with John. It was the only committee assignment we shared. But I soon became a partner and ally of John Chafee's on the Senate Finance Committee because we thought about issues in much the same way. John Chafee was somebody who believed deeply in fiscal responsibility. He felt very strongly that was something we should pursue. But at the same time, he had a progressive agenda. He was really the leading advocate for the mentally ill, the disabled, and the retarded. As the Finance Committee considered changes to Medicare and Medicaid, I was honored to work closely with John to make sure that changes did not negatively impact those groups. Together, I remember well, we sponsored an amendment to ensure that disabled children would not be removed from the Supplemental Security Income Program. As a result of John's leadership, more than 100,000 disabled children were able to maintain critical benefits to help their families afford the costs associated with their disability. That was John Chafee. He cared about other people--and really cared, not that superficial ``just talk the talk.'' John Chafee cared enough to take risks and to make a difference in people's lives. We all know John was also a strong advocate of health care. In many ways, he became the leader on the Finance Committee on issues of health care and especially health care as it related to low-income Americans. He wanted to make certain people had a chance, an opportunity. Oh, yes, John believed in personal responsibility; there was no question of that with John Chafee. But he also believed there were people who were less fortunate in life who also deserved a hand up--not a handout but a hand up. That, too, was John Chafee. I especially remember back in the early 1990s when we had a series of very thorny health care issues to work out. A group was formed on the Senate Finance Committee, the Centrist Coalition. That group worked under the leadership of John Chafee and John Breaux on a series of budget questions. That group was preceded by what we called the Mainstream Coalition, a group of Senators, Democrats and Republicans, who worked together to try to rescue health care reform when it looked as if it was going down the tubes. In fact, the Senate Finance Committee recessed and gave the Mainstream Coalition a chance to try to bring together the diverse interests in this Chamber so we could have a chance for health care reform to work. I remember spending hundreds of hours with John Chafee and that group down in John's hideaway working on health care reform-- hour after hour after hour. John did not want to give up. Even when it seemed as if there was absolutely no hope, John Chafee urged us to continue to work together, to talk together, and to try to come up with a plan that would make a difference in the lives of the American people. That was John Chafee. Later, with the Centrist Coalition, we focused on the budget. I remember the day we brought a budget resolution to the floor that the Centrist Coalition had put together. It was a very close vote. There were 20 of us in the Centrist Coalition: 10 Democrats, 10 Republicans. We met during the Government shutdown. We met throughout the spring. Even those of us on the Budget Committee separately debated the budget resolution. But when we entered S-201 of the Capitol, Senator Chafee's hideaway, we left all partisanship at the door. That was the rule. We debated numbers and entitlements and discretionary spending. We considered alternatives and options. We voted and we made decisions. We put together a budget package that received 46 bipartisan votes in the Senate despite the opposition of the leaders on both sides. We had the leader of the Democrats and the leader of the Republicans both in opposition to our plan, but we got 46 votes. I think it shocked many people--24 Democrats and 22 Republicans. I remember John's reaction. He was proud. He was proud we had come forward with a plan that commanded that kind of support on the floor of the Senate, even in the face of leadership opposition. Do you know what. I believe that plan helped form the basis for what came later. I believe that plan helped demonstrate to the leaders there really was support for balancing this budget, for getting our fiscal house in order and for making a difference. John Chafee was a leader in that effort, and he was proud of it. He deserved to be proud of it because he was making a difference. The vote on the Centrist Coalition budget and the effort that went into putting it together was public policy at its best. It could not have happened and would not have happened had it not been for Senator Chafee. He demonstrated extraordinary patience, always moving forward, always keeping the debate focused until consensus could be reached. I remember so well, John, your admonition to us: Steady as she goes. That was one of John's favorite sayings: Steady as she goes. His strong, steady leadership allowed the centrist coalition to be successful. That is how I will remember Senator Chafee, and that is just one of the reasons we will miss him so terribly in the Senate. I say to our dear friend, John Chafee, this afternoon as he said so many times to us: Steady as she goes, John, steady as she goes. We will miss you very, very much. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, some of our colleagues have denounced the Agriculture appropriations conference report as inadequate. I must agree. Without a doubt this bill is deficient. It fails to acknowledge the full impact of natural disasters that have been experienced by agricultural producers across the country. It fails to include adequate funding for the drought that has hit the Northeast. It fails to provide adequate funding for the hurricane damage to the Southeast and the Northeast. It fails to include adequate funding for flooded farmland in my own part of the country. This bill is also deficient in the way it got here because in the conference committee when it became clear that there were going to be steps to change the sanctions regime of this country, the minority, the Democrats, were simply shut out. That is wrong. That should not happen. But it did happen. So we are left with that result. As a result partly of that lockout, this bill fails to provide the kind of sanctions reform that ought to have occurred. In 1996 when we passed the last farm bill, the Republican leadership promised American farmers that what they lost in domestic supports they would make up through expanded export opportunities. That was a hollow promise. The harsh reality is that now the prices have collapsed, farmers are in desperate trouble, and there must be a Federal response. I wish this bill were better. I wish it contained adequate assistance for those who have been hit by hurricanes. I wish it had adequate assistance for farmers who have had their acreage flooded. I wish it had sanctions reform. Food should not be used as a weapon. It is immoral; It is ineffective; and it is inhumane. But the harsh reality is we are where we are. We have a conference report that is flawed. Indeed, it is badly flawed. The easy thing to do would be to vote against this conference report. But it would not be the right thing to do. This bill is not just about responding to natural disasters. It also responds to the price collapse that has occurred and threatens the livelihood of tens of thousands of farmers in my State and across the country. The need for emergency income assistance could not be more clear. I can say that in my State many farmers are relying on this bill as their only chance for financial survival. I don't say that lightly. It is the reality. If this assistance is not passed and distributed immediately, literally thousands of farmers in my State are going to go out of business. It is that simple. A way of life and the tradition of farming will be lost in dozens of communities across my State. The funding in this bill only meets the most basic needs of our producers. Make no mistake, it is absolutely essential. Prices for agricultural commodities are at their lowest levels in 50 years in real terms. Wheat and barley are the lowest they have been in real terms in over 50 years. Farm bankruptcies are rising; auctions are being held on an unending basis. If nothing further is done, thousands of our farmers will go out of the business. That is the stark reality in farm country. If we fail to pass this bill, we are going to mortgage the future of literally thousands of farm families. I think we should keep in mind this is not our last chance to get something done for those who have been so badly hurt, whether it is my farmers who have flooded acres, whether it is people in the Northeast and the Southeast hit by hurricanes, whether it is farmers in the Northeast hit by drought. There is another chance this year to get additional assistance. I sympathize with my colleagues from the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic States. They are not alone. In my State this year, we have been hit by severe storms, flooding, extreme snow and ice, ground saturation, mud slides, tornadoes, hail, insects, and disease. It is unbelievable what has happened in my State. Growing up in North Dakota I always thought of my State as dry. I now fly over much of North Dakota and it looks similar to a Louisiana rice paddy. There is water everywhere. Millions of acres are inundated and were never planted this year. Our farmers planted the lowest level of spring wheat since 1988, the year of intense drought. Yet prices remain very low--in fact, record lows. Barley production in North Dakota is down 42 percent. Yet prices remain very low. Things have gone from bad to worse this fall. Farmers were anxious to get into the field for harvest but were forced to stay at home and watch the rain. North Dakota farmers suffered through 2 weeks of rain at the end of August and early September, the key time for harvest. As a result, the completion of harvest has been delayed. Damage resulting from a delayed harvest is deducted from prices farmers receive for their crops. At this point, there is absolutely no way some farmers will come anywhere close to matching their expenses for this year. We simply must pass this bill to allow entire communities to survive. I was called by a very dear friend of mine 2 weeks ago describing what had happened to him. He was just beginning harvest when the rains once again resumed in our State. He had just cut his grain. It was on the ground and the rains came and continued day after day after day. As a result, that grain that was on the ground sprouted. He had 30-percent sprout in his fields. He took a sample into the elevator and the elevator said: Don't even bother trucking that in; we aren't going to buy it at any price. That happened all over my State. I know it has happened in other States, as well. Passing this bill and releasing this funding is absolutely critical for those farmers who have been so hard hit. Remember, passing this bill does not bar Congress from doing more in the future. We have other opportunities this year to help those who have been hit by a hurricane. There is other legislation moving through this body that has funds for those hit by hurricanes. That package can be improved upon. When we passed the emergency supplemental bill last May, we agreed to revisit agricultural emergency spending once the extent of the price disaster was known. We have done that. We can pass this bill now and assess future needs in response to natural disasters while this assistance is distributed. The statement of the managers on this bill made several references to the need for additional Federal spending for 1999 disasters. They have recognized the reality. I hope colleagues on the floor will understand there are additional opportunities to achieve the result they seek. The answer is not to kill this bill. This bill, however flawed, is a step in the right direction. It would be a profound mistake to defeat it. I close by urging my colleagues to support this conference report. We had an overwhelming vote in the Senate yesterday. It was an important vote to send the signal that this legislation ought to pass. My colleagues in the Northeast are not alone. In many ways, we are in the same circumstance. We desperately need those farmers who have flooded acres to have legislation that addresses their needs. We will have another chance. We will have another opportunity. That is the great thing about the Senate; there is always another chance. I close by looking at a picture that shows what is happening in my State. This is several sections of land in North Dakota. Everywhere you look is water, water, water--water everywhere. I have flown all over my State. It is truly remarkable; places that were dry for 30 years are now saturated. I talked about the price collapse. I want to visually show what it is farmers are contending with. This chart shows clearly what has happened to spring wheat and barley prices over the last 53 years. The blue line is spring wheat; the red line is barley. These are two of the dominant crops of my State. Today the prices in inflation-adjusted terms, in real terms, are the lowest they have been in 53 years. That is the reality. This chart shows the cost of wheat production with the green line; the red line shows what prices are. Prices have been below the cost of production the last 3 years. This is a disaster scenario of its own. This is the reality of what is happening in my State. This threatens the economic future of virtually every farmer in my State. The price is far below the cost of production. There are not many businesses that survive when it costs more to produce the product than is being received--not for a few months but for 3 years. The next chart shows a comparison of the prices farmers paid for their inputs--the green line that keeps going on--versus the prices that farmers received. We can see there is a gap and it is a widening gap. In fact, the closest we came to having these two on the same line was back at the time of the passage of the 1996 farm bill. Since that time, the prices farmers pay have gone up. Thank goodness they have stabilized somewhat in the last couple of years, but the prices they have received have collapsed. That is the hard reality of what our farmers confront. These are, by the way, statistics from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I want to conclude by saying we ought to pass this bill. It is not perfect. In fact, in many ways it is deeply flawed. But it is far better than the alternative of nothing. It is far better than to take the risk of sending this bill back to conference and having it come back in much worse shape. At least we can take this and put it in the bank because this does address the question of price collapse. It does not do a good enough job on the disaster side, but we have other opportunities that will come our way before this session of the Congress concludes. I will end by thanking the Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of the subcommittee, and Senator Kohl, his counterpart, for the good job they have done under very difficult circumstances. Make no mistake, there are 100 Senators and there are probably 100 different opinions of what agricultural policy should be and what an Agriculture appropriations bill should look like. But we do respect and admire the work they have done. We again thank them for their patience and perseverance bringing this bill to the floor. It deserves our support. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the cloture vote this afternoon. I acknowledge the work of our colleague, Senator Cochran, and our colleague, Senator Kohl, who are the chairman and ranking member of this committee. I have found in my time in the Senate that Senator Cochran is a very fair man. He is somebody who keeps his word. He always has time to listen. I appreciate that very much. I also appreciate the difficulty he has, along with Senator Kohl, in bringing this bill to the floor. This is not easy to do. It is a very difficult thing year after year, to deal with all of our colleagues on these very contentious issues. I thank my colleague, Senator Cochran, for his patience more than anything else because he has certainly demonstrated that. I also thank Senator Kohl because he has also listened carefully to the needs of our colleagues from around the country. I represent one of the most agricultural States in the Nation. My producers there have been hit by a triple whammy of bad prices, bad weather, and bad policy. The prices are the lowest they have been in real terms in over 50 years. There is a price collapse occurring that is putting enormous financial pressure on our producers. Bad weather. I guess the simple fact that we had 3 million acres in the State of North Dakota not even planted this year tells a story, not because it was too dry but because it was too wet. What an extraordinary circumstance. Back in 1988 and 1989, we had the worst drought since the 1930s. Now we have the wettest conditions in 100 years. Everywhere you go in North Dakota, at least in a big chunk of our State, there is nothing but water. Who could have believed this dramatic change? And we are hurt by bad trade policy and bad agriculture policy that has further burdened producers. There are several parts of this package that I think are critically important. The 100-percent AMTA supplemental payment is going to mean that a North Dakota wheat farmer, instead of getting a transition payment of 64 cents a bushel on wheat, is going to get $1.28. It may not sound like much to many of my colleagues, and it isn't much in the great scheme of things. That is going to make the difference between literally thousands of farm families having to be forced off the land and being able to survive for another year. That is critically important. Second, there is a 30-percent crop insurance discount. That is very important because we have not devised a crop insurance system that can work for the farmers of this country. So those are two important provisions. They deserve our support. As soon as I am positive about this bill, I also want to point out those parts of the bill that are deficient because there is inadequate disaster assistance in this bill. There is not enough money for those who are victims of Hurricane Floyd; there is not enough money for those who are the victims of the drought in the eastern part of the United States; there is not enough money for those farmers in my State who have been flooded out. These are farmers who didn't take a 30-percent loss or a 40-percent loss; they took a 100-percent loss because their land is under water. Mr. President, we have to do better. We will have a further opportunity to do so in the legislative process later this year. I hope very much we will do that. But right now, the right vote is to vote for cloture. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, October is ``Co-op Month,'' and today I would like to stress the importance of cooperatives to the nation and especially to my state of North Dakota. Cooperatives are pure examples of good business--companies formed, owned and democratically controlled by the people who use its services and who receive benefits from patronage. Cooperatives are institutions that demonstrate people making their lives better through hard work and their knowledge of the American economic system. In fact, the notion of cooperation is an ideal--people working together to accomplish a task and provide products and services for the public good. It is this basic philosophical idea, which so many find difficult to achieve, that the citizens of my state have been particularly adept at making a reality. North Dakota farmers have been leaders when it comes to improving their economic and social positions through cooperative community enterprise. From the great traditions of early political movements that created cooperative momentum--the American Society of Equity, the Nonpartisan League, and the Farmers Union--an educational base was formed that today still influences the drive for cooperative development. As a result, electricity and telephone service, pasta, sugar, bison and scores of other marketing and service cooperatives cover North Dakota today. Income is distributed, products and services are supplied, and employment and opportunity are spread throughout the state. Cooperatives are formed to protect the way of life for independent producers and provide essential services for rural communities. Member education, one-member, one-vote equity in business decisions, and relying on neighbors to form and maintain the institution are all cooperative principles that underpin the success of these ventures. The legendary hardships that have been overcome in my state's pioneering history required cooperation among neighbors for everything from food and shelter to aid in farm labor and human companionship. Cooperation and the formation of cooperative enterprise were logical means of ensuring rural survival. We have long known that through organization, we can accomplish any goal, and through cooperation we can work together to benefit all. Therefore, during October, the month designated to recognize the importance of cooperatives, I thank the members of cooperatives for taking the initiative to direct their economic futures and for contributing to the unique economic heritage of North Dakota and this nation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I ask for 30 additional seconds, if I might, and ask for it to be added on both sides.

Mr. CONRAD. Yes.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the budget gridlock we are now facing. We are considering a continuing resolution today because Congress has failed to do its job. Congress is supposed to pass the 13 appropriations bills by the new fiscal year. The fiscal year starts October 1. To date, only 1 of the 13 appropriations bills has been signed into law--1. This is failure on a grand scale. If you look back over the last several years, in 1995, 5 appropriations bills had not been acted on and had to be wrapped into a year-end omnibus measure. In 1996, it went to 6 appropriations bills that had to be wrapped in one package, put on the desk of Members with no chance for review and voted up or down. In 1998, it was 8 appropriations bills that had not been acted on in a timely fashion, that had to be wrapped together. This year maybe we are headed for 12. I do not know. Maybe we can get some others done. But so far, only 1 of the 13 appropriations bills has been signed into law. Does anyone see a pattern here? Does anyone see we have gone from 6 appropriations bills in 1996 not enacted to 8 in 1998 and now we have only 1 done on the eve of the new fiscal year? Our Republican colleagues who are in charge here, in the House and the Senate, bear responsibility for this failure to get the job done. I must say, the other side promised very clearly three things. They said they would get the budget done on time this year. They failed. They said they would hold to the spending caps that were put in place by the 1997 bipartisan budget agreement. They failed. They said they would not raid Social Security. They failed. On each and every one of these counts, our Republican colleagues have gone back on what they promised. In each and every case, they have said one thing to the American public and done another thing in Congress. I understand today they are getting really creative. Today, the Senate Appropriations Committee came up with $15 billion for the Labor- HHS bill. Where did they get it? They borrowed it from the defense bill. That is a new tactic. We have already passed the Defense bill. That is not signed either, by the way. Now they decide to go and borrow from that bill, they will put it over in the Labor bill, they will spend it there, and then they will come careening back and say they need emergency spending for the Defense bill. All of a sudden everything is an emergency with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. There are things that really are emergencies. The agriculture situation facing this country, that is an emergency. Hurricane Floyd, that is an emergency. But our Republican colleagues are calling everything an emergency. They are calling the census an emergency--the census. We do that every 10 years. We have done that since we started as a country and now they are calling that an emergency; something that was not foreseen, an emergency, something we did not know was coming. I must say, the former House Appropriations Committee chairman, the former Speaker-to-be, Bob Livingston, said: . . . the census has been with us since the conception of the Constitution of the United States. This is not an emergency. He is right. This is not an emergency. Nor is it an emergency as they have now designated the LIHEAP program, that is low-income heating assistance. We have had that program for 20 years. Now they say that is an emergency. Mr. President, we have heard a lot in the last few days. We heard we were going to a 13th month; that was going to solve the problem.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the other point that should be made is now our friends on the other side have started the raid on the Social Security trust fund. That is wrong. I had a reporter ask me: Senator, didn't you put them in this box a number of years ago during the balanced budget debate by insisting we not raid Social Security? I said: Absolutely, I am proud of it. We should not raid Social Security. If they want additional spending, they ought to pay for it. And they ought to do it without raiding Social Security. That ought to be a litmus test for any budget. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

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

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Today the Office of Management and Budget announced the unified budget is in surplus for fiscal year 1999 by at least $115 billion. That is significantly higher than the unified surplus of $70 billion for fiscal year 1998 and, in fact, is the largest dollar surplus in the history of the United States. This is a good day. This is a good day for the country, and this is a good day for the Congress. It is certainly a good day for the President and the administration. In 1992, the budget deficit was $290 billion. The forecast then was that the deficit for this year would be over $400 billion. That was the forecast in 1992 for where we were headed if we didn't change course. We did change course. The President proposed, and the Congress passed, a plan in 1993, a 5-year plan, that has worked splendidly. In each and every year of that 5-year plan, the deficit came down. In 1997, we passed a bipartisan addition to that plan. That addition closed the gap, made the difference, and finished the job. Now we can report we have budget surpluses. The job is not fully complete because while we are reporting a $115 billion surplus this year, the Social Security surplus is $124 billion. In this year, we are still using $9 billion of that $124 billion Social Security surplus for other things. We shouldn't do that. It ought to stop. But what dramatic progress we have made. We have gone from budget deficits of $290 billion just 7 years ago to a $115 billion budget surplus this year, and we are within hailing distance of stopping the raid on the Social Security trust fund. The Social Security trust fund is a $124 billion surplus in fiscal year 1999, and we are running a surplus of $115 billion. So we are very close to stopping the raid on the Social Security trust fund. I hope very much we are able to stay on that course. We know that is in real jeopardy for fiscal year 2000. We know that if everything plays out as is currently contemplated in the Appropriations Committees, we will be using between $30 billion and $40 billion of the Social Security surplus next year. We will be going backwards. Let's not do that. Let's not go backwards. Let's keep moving forward. Next year, let's be able to report that we are not using any of the Social Security surplus for any other purpose. That ought to be our goal. We are now in this remarkable position of being able to say that if we stay the course, if we don't go out on some big, new spending binge, if we don't have some radical, reckless tax scheme, we will be able to balance the budget without counting Social Security and we will be able to eliminate the publicly held debt of the country in the next 15 years. Every economist who has come before the Senate Budget Committee and every economist who has come before the Senate Finance Committee has said the highest and best use of these surpluses is to reduce the debt. What we did in 1993 confirms that view. Remember that in 1993 we took action on a 5-year budget plan to reduce the deficit each and every year. The idea was, that would take pressure off interest rates and that would give the greatest lift to the economy, that by reducing deficits and debt, we would reduce pressure on interest rates, that lower interest rates would help our economy perform more strongly, and we would improve our competitive position in the world. How well that strategy and plan have served this country. Each and every year of that 5-year budget plan passed in 1993 we reduced the budget deficit. Each and every year we were moving towards lower spending as a percentage of our gross domestic product. Every year of that 5-year budget plan we were moving towards the point at which we could start reducing the national debt. That plan worked. Now we are able to see the longest economic expansion in our history, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the lowest unemployment in 30 years, and the lowest welfare rates in 30 years, with total spending of the Federal Government being reduced. We have gone from 22.7 percent of our national income, our gross domestic product, going to the Federal Government to this year it being down to 19 percent. We are headed in the right direction. Let's keep that up. Let's move to a circumstance in which we will be able to report next year that we have stopped raiding the Social Security trust fund. Let's be able to report that we are on schedule to eliminate the publicly held debt of the United States in 15 years. What a great thing that would be for our country. How well that would position us for the baby- boom generation, because pretty soon we baby boomers are going to start to retire. We are going to add dramatically to the burden on the Federal Government from Social Security and Medicare, and the single best way to prepare for that eventuality is to reduce publicly held debt. We can do it. It is within our grasp. But we have to avoid new spending schemes and we have to avoid risky tax schemes if we are going to deliver on that promise. I hope very much that together we will stay the course and put America in a circumstance in which it is able to announce in 15 years that there is no publicly held debt in America. What a great circumstance that would be for our Nation. I can't think of anything that would be a better present to our children and our grandchildren than to be able to eliminate the publicly held debt in the next 15 years. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. The Senator is exactly right. I think back to the time when we were in the midst of that crisis and what a splendid response we got from HUD. I think people are often critical of Federal agencies. Certainly HUD, especially in the past, has received lots of criticism--well deserved, unfortunately. However, this new Secretary, Mr. Cuomo, has done a remarkable job of transforming that agency. We saw it firsthand in the flood disaster of 1997. Not only did they stay in all weekend down at HUD to get the money out to the affected communities, which was a splendid performance, but they were with us every step of the way in revitalizing and rebuilding that community. We have just seen the result. The Senator from North Dakota was with me and with James Lee Witt as we toured Grand Forks to see how that community is coming back. It would not have happened, the mayor of Grand Rapids said to me when we were at the League of Cities meeting Saturday night in North Dakota, without the assistance from the Federal Government that was received by the community of Grand Forks. The key agencies were obviously FEMA and HUD, also SBA. All of those were major contributors, as well as the Commerce Department and EDA. Those four agencies made a profound difference. The mayor said to me flatly, without the contribution made by HUD and Secretary Cuomo, that town would not have come back in the way it has in just this short period. It is truly amazing to drive through the streets of Grand Forks now, to see the schools that have been rebuilt, to see the downtown that is under construction--a new corporate center, a new county facility--to see other buildings that are being rehabilitated, to drive through the neighborhoods and see the new homes that have been constructed, hundreds of new homes, to see the devastated homes that have been taken out, to see the new greenway that is being created, and to go across the river and see a brand new superstore that is being built and will attract hundreds of thousands of people a year. This is a testimony to programs that work. We all know there are Federal programs that don't work. We all know there are times when Federal money is not well spent. This is an example of when the Federal Government proved its worth and proved its mettle, performed, and made a difference in the lives of tens of thousands of people. I want to publicly commend Secretary Cuomo and the people at HUD and to say this Community Builders Program ought not to be thrown over the side. We have 400 people who were recruited from 9,000 who applied to come to work for the Government for 2 years--in and out--to add their expertise and energy. We ought to continue the experiment. We know from every independent analysis this is a program that has worked.

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, last Friday, the Senate passed the VA-HUD appropriations bill. I first want to commend the chairman and ranking member of that subcommittee for the superb job they did in managing that legislation as it went through the Senate. I do want to indicate a concern about what was missing in that bill because there is one program that was not funded which I believe is very important to the country, certainly to my State, which is the Community Builders Program. It is my hope that this problem can be corrected in the conference committee. I asked the chairman and the ranking member of the VA-HUD appropriations subcommittee to pay special attention to attempting to provide the resources necessary to keep the Community Builders Program going. Despite HUD's successful efforts to reduce staff and provide better service, the committee bill will result in the termination of more than 400 community builders across the country. That is a program that is working. This program is designed to bring new blood into that agency. It has been called a prototype for the new type of public servant in the 21st century. HUD, in recruiting for those 400 positions, had over 9,000 applications, including lawyers, academics, and economic and community development experts. These are people who were asked to come and give 2 years to helping revitalize HUD. We signed them up. We recruited them. We signed contracts with them, and now we tell them, sorry, we have changed our minds--even though the program is working. I don't think so. The individuals who were selected to participate in community builders are experts in community outreach and development, who agreed to a 2-year term of service with HUD. They don't sit at a desk in Washington. They work in the 81 field offices doing face to face contact with people in the communities in which they serve. This is a program that has received accolades from every independent source that has looked at the program, including evaluations conducted by Booz, Allen & Hamilton, the respected private firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, one of the major accounting firms in the country, and the public strategies group--all who made independent reviews of the Community Builders Program and all of whom said it was a significant improvement for HUD. If the community builders are now eliminated, some HUD field offices will drop below the minimum staffing level and will have to close. That includes the only office in my State. We have only one and it is going to close. Some people say: North Dakota is a small State, a rural State, you don't have many housing problems. Well, I can tell you that is not the case. We do have serious housing problems. Go to the Indian reservations in my State and you will see housing problems that are enormously serious. But more than that, when disaster strikes, HUD is absolutely critical. We saw that in 1997 when the flooding disasters hit eastern North Dakota. Let me say that HUD's presence in the State was critically important to the recovery in North Dakota. Secretary Cuomo, in particular, was absolutely superb in his response to the crisis. He understood the very human impact this devastating flood was having on the people of Grand Forks and the people of eastern North Dakota, and he responded. He went out of his way to make certain that HUD's response took into account the unique circumstances of this event. Rarely have I seen public servants respond in the way we saw in the 1997 flood disaster in North Dakota. I have heard lots of criticisms of HUD over the years, but I can tell you firsthand that their response was extraordinary, and I will never forget it. Let me give one example. After the disaster bill passed Congress, top HUD staff, including the Secretary, stayed and worked all weekend at HUD headquarters in order to get the money out to North Dakota. That is a level of commitment we rarely see. They were there Saturday, Sunday, from morning until night, to get the money flowing. Indeed, we were able to get $50 million into the hands of the Grand Forks community within 48 hours after the legislation passed. That is the kind of performance one would like to see from public servants on a routine basis. That is what we saw from HUD. They delivered, and they delivered in a way I think makes us all proud. Because of HUD's quick work, Secretary Cuomo was able to provide that $50 million in disaster recovery funds to the city to meet the immediate needs shortly after the bill was signed by the President. Without those funds and the dedicated work of countless HUD staff, Grand Forks would not have been able to recover from that devastating flood. I toured Grand Forks with the head of FEMA, James Lee Witt. We were there during the August break, and we saw the resurgence of that community. It is remarkable. This is a town where more than 90 percent of the homes were affected by flood. This is a community that was also hit before the floods by the worst winter storm in 50 years. Then the floods came. In the midst of floods came fire. It was an extraordinary series of events, but there was also an extraordinary Federal response, and I am here today to thank my colleagues who stepped forward and were willing to assist. But I also want to recognize the extraordinary work of HUD, and specifically Secretary Cuomo, because rarely have I seen the kind of response we saw during our period of crisis. In part, it was because he had this new mechanism, these community builders across the country who were infusing new energy and new ideas into the agency that made that response possible. In Washington, we hear over and over that government needs to be more responsive to people's needs and that government needs to be more flexible and work similar to the private sector. I can say that in Grand Forks, HUD did just that. Grand Forks is not an isolated example. We saw it up and down the Red River Valley. It wasn't just in Grand Forks; it was in Fargo; it was in Wahpeton; it was in Grafton; it was in Menoken. Town after town that was threatened had a full Federal response, and no agency was more responsive than HUD; no people were more helpful than those community builders. That is why I thought it important to come to the floor and say restore the Community Builders Program, restore it in the conference committee. Let's not recruit some of the top people from all across the country, asking them to serve for 2 years, and then, after a year in a program that has been deemed successful by every independent entity that has examined the program, say to them: Forget it; go home. The amazing thing is, they won't go home because we have signed contracts with them. If we don't fund it, we are still going to have to pay for those positions. I hope very much the conference committee will restore the funding to the Community Builders Program, to say to those 400 people who have given so much, we recognize their contribution; we intend to keep them as part of a new HUD, a HUD that has been reformed, a HUD that is responding in a splendid way to disasters such as the one we faced in North Dakota.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, pursuant to rule XXII, paragraph 2, I yield my 1 hour to the minority leader, Senator Daschle.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today, I would like to recognize a very important organization in my state, the North Dakota Stockmen's Association. I would also like to congratulate them on their 70th anniversary as an organization. Over the years, the North Dakota Stockmen's Association has been an invaluable asset to their members and to me. In particular, after 70 years of representing North Dakota family farmers and ranchers, the Stockmen have made great contributions to the cultural and economic heritage of North Dakota. Their successes have been accomplished through hard work and their consistent ability to produce the highest quality beef in the world. Cattle provide an essential source of income for North Dakota farmers. Based on that fact alone, it is easy to understand the importance of the Stockmen's Association to my state's producers. While keeping the interests of cattle producers in the minds of elected officials, the members of this organization also provide valuable stewardship to the land, send their children to rural schools, support businesses, and help their neighbors through difficult weather and tough economic times. I would like to express my deep appreciation for their enduring efforts to support my state's communities, and again, I congratulate them for 70 years of service to the cattlemen of North Dakota.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Graduate Medical Education Fair Technical Amendment Act of 1999. This legislation will take important steps to sustain and improve the availability of medical professionals in communities in my State. Mr. President, as you know, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) included many measures to control rising health care spending, including provisions that reduced the level of resources for graduate medical education. In particular, the BBA set a limit on the amount of medical residents for which teaching hospitals can receive reimbursement. This cap was set according to the number of medical residents on staff as of December 31, 1996. While this reimbursement limit has helped to contribute to the overall savings generated by the BBA, I am concerned that it has unfairly limited the ability of certain programs to adequately train future health care providers. Over the last few years, we have heard much discussion about the issue of physician oversupply. As you may know, various experts suggest that the true problem regarding physician supply is an unequal distribution of physicians across the country. In my State of North Dakota, for example, more than 85 percent of the counties are in health professional shortage areas. There certainly isn't a physician oversupply in my state--we are grateful for the health care providers serving our communities and we are grateful to have facilities with the capability to train medical residents. Recently, it came to my attention that one of the teaching hospitals in my State had committed to training an increased level of medical residents. This situation arose because another facility in my State was no longer able to offer these residents an adequate training experience. The facility's decision to take on the new residents was important--while we cannot guarantee that physicians trained in my State will pursue permanent practice in the State, we know that providers are more likely to serve where they are trained. And it is important to note that the University of North Dakota produces a higher percentage of graduates who practice in rural settings than any medical school in the Nation. The facility took on these residents assuming that they would receive adequate Medicare graduate medical education reimbursement to train these individuals. Unfortunately, retroactively set BBA limits capped the allowable reimbursement level just prior to the time the residents in question came on board. Thus, the facility was already committed to training these residents but the funds they depended on to do so were no longer available. The result of this situation is that the entire graduate medical residency program is suffering and I am concerned tat this could result in reduced services for beneficiaries. The legislation I introduce today will correct the unintended consequence of the BBA by allowing a technical adjustment to medical resident caps in certain situations. I am confident this legislation will help ensure we have adequate resources to meet our health care needs well into the future. I urge my colleagues to support this important effort.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Graduate Medical Education Fair Technical Amendment Act of 1999. This legislation will take important steps to sustain and improve the availability of medical professionals in communities in my State. Mr. President, as you know, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) included many measures to control rising health care spending, including provisions that reduced the level of resources for graduate medical education. In particular, the BBA set a limit on the amount of medical residents for which teaching hospitals can receive reimbursement. This cap was set according to the number of medical residents on staff as of December 31, 1996. While this reimbursement limit has helped to contribute to the overall savings generated by the BBA, I am concerned that it has unfairly limited the ability of certain programs to adequately train future health care providers. Over the last few years, we have heard much discussion about the issue of physician oversupply. As you may know, various experts suggest that the true problem regarding physician supply is an unequal distribution of physicians across the country. In my State of North Dakota, for example, more than 85 percent of the counties are in health professional shortage areas. There certainly isn't a physician oversupply in my state--we are grateful for the health care providers serving our communities and we are grateful to have facilities with the capability to train medical residents. Recently, it came to my attention that one of the teaching hospitals in my State had committed to training an increased level of medical residents. This situation arose because another facility in my State was no longer able to offer these residents an adequate training experience. The facility's decision to take on the new residents was important--while we cannot guarantee that physicians trained in my State will pursue permanent practice in the State, we know that providers are more likely to serve where they are trained. And it is important to note that the University of North Dakota produces a higher percentage of graduates who practice in rural settings than any medical school in the Nation. The facility took on these residents assuming that they would receive adequate Medicare graduate medical education reimbursement to train these individuals. Unfortunately, retroactively set BBA limits capped the allowable reimbursement level just prior to the time the residents in question came on board. Thus, the facility was already committed to training these residents but the funds they depended on to do so were no longer available. The result of this situation is that the entire graduate medical residency program is suffering and I am concerned tat this could result in reduced services for beneficiaries. The legislation I introduce today will correct the unintended consequence of the BBA by allowing a technical adjustment to medical resident caps in certain situations. I am confident this legislation will help ensure we have adequate resources to meet our health care needs well into the future. I urge my colleagues to support this important effort.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I was informed of the concern of two North Dakotans who have distinguished themselves on behalf of veterans and their families regarding FY' 2000 funding for VA medical care- incoming National Commander of the Disabled Veterans of America Michael Dobmeier of Grand Forks, North Dakota and Lorraine Frier, National President of the Ladies Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars of West Fargo. Let me take this opportunity to warmly congratulate Mike and Lorraine on their recent election to these important national offices, and to thank them for their many years of distinguished service to our country. Yesterday, the Senate VA-HUD Subcommittee reported an appropriations measure for the Department of Veterans Affairs that will provide $18.4 billion for medical care for veterans. This figure is $1.1 billion above the Administration's budget request of $17.3 billion earlier this year, however, more than $600 below House appropriations recommendation of $1.7 billion for veterans medical care. The House action would increase VA medical care funding to $19 billion. While the House action does not meet the recommendations from the Independent Budget, Fiscal Year 2000 of $20.2 billion, the funding level does come closer to ensuring that the VA may not have to curtail medical services, close community-based clinics or layoff critical health care workers. Earlier this week, the Veterans of Foreign Wars warned that unless the Senate approves funding close to the House level of $19 billion, ``scores of community-based clinics will have to be closed, veterans will wait longer for care and some 8,500 health care workers laid off''. Mr. President, the crisis in funding for veterans medical care is shameful, particularly in light of the strong economic news that we have received almost daily over the past few months. How can a nation that has experienced such strong economic growth during the past few years, witnessed stock market growth beyond all expectations and discussed how to spend the Federal surplus, deny veterans the very best health care. How can we justify making veterans wait for months for specialized health care, closing outpatient clinics or reducing VA staffing levels. In my state of North Dakota, we have been working for several years to secure funding for $10 million in critical patient privacy and environmental improvements at the Fargo VA Medical Center-- a medical center more than 70 years old. Earlier this year when the Senate, during consideration of the budget resolution, failed to increase funding for VA medical care as recommended in the Independent Budget, Senator Dorgan and I introduced legislation, S. 1022, to authorize an emergency appropriation of $1.7 billion, above the Administration request, for veterans health care. In view of VA-HUD Subcommittee action in the Senate this week, we must work together to find additional funding for VA health care to bring that level closer to the recommended level in the Independent Budget. We must do better for our veterans; we can do no less for the sacrifices they and their families have made on our behalf.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Microsoft month. That might be a lucrative thing, to auction this off. That might be a way to solve the budget problem, instead of going to the 13-month plan the Republicans have, is to actually auction off a month. I think kind of the leading alternative, at least in my office, is ``Spendtember.'' That has gone over pretty well.

Mr. CONRAD. Did they have any idea for a name of the month?

Mr. CONRAD. Can you imagine? I wonder what is going to happen in the schools of America now that the Republicans have said there are 13 months. Can you imagine the confusion of the elementary schools as they are teaching children their months? Where is this month going to fit? What is it going to be called? I know the Senator from North Dakota has children in school. Have they been advised of this change?

Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. The Wall Street Journal, back in July, had this headline: ``The GOP Uses Two Sets Of Books.'' Now we are going to have a new headline: ``The GOP Uses Two Calendars.'' We have the one with 12 months, which I guess will run all the rest of our lives, but for budget purposes we will have 13 months. The second part of the story in the Washington Post today said: Senate Republican leaders embrace a longer fiscal year to ease spending woes. They want to spend the money, but they want to make it appear as though there is less spending in this year, so they add a 13th month. I don't think that is going to fool anybody. It certainly should be outside the rules of this body, if we are going to be serious about maintaining the fiscal discipline that has done so much to restore the fiscal integrity of this country. For the first time in 30 years, we have been able to balance the budget, largely as a result of the 1993 budget plan we passed. We received no help from our friends on the Republican side--not a single Republican vote, not one. That was a plan which put us on a path to reduce the deficit each and every year of the 5 years of that plan. In 1997, we added a little bit. That was done on a bipartisan basis. That was good. We did something together. But now our Republican friends are retreating to the notion that the way to solve the fiscal problems of the United States is to add a 13th month. That cannot be a serious proposal. I cannot believe our colleagues are going to engage in that kind of charade and that kind of game and that kind of gimmick in order to address the serious fiscal problems facing the country. After all, this progress has been made-- getting our fiscal house in order--having the lowest inflation rate in 30 years, the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years, the longest economic expansion in our history. We are now going to resort to budget gimmickry to address the additional challenges that we face? That is not the way a great country does its work.

Mr. CONRAD. Something like Federal Express month?