Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. The Senator is exactly right. The tax cut alone in the second 10 years is nearly $2 trillion. Obviously, there are additional costs. Because of additional interest costs, if you spend the money or run it in tax cuts, you lose the interest earnings. So you add to the interest costs of the United States. That is why Senator Byrd put in place this very wise rule, so we would not undermine the fiscal integrity of the United States. Now there is a move to waive that rule. It ought to be resisted. It ought to be defeated. This morning a column in the Washington Post by Robert Samuelson addressed this issue in ``The Reagan Tax Myth.'' He pointed out the danger, the riskiness, the radical nature of the tax proposal before the Senate, and pointed out that it is all based on projections that very well may not come true. In fact, he pointed out: . . . there is no case for big tax cuts based merely on paper projections of budget surpluses. He pointed out: The projections, for example, assume a steep drop in both defense spending and domestic discretionary spending that may be unwise, particularly for defense. He goes on to say: Suppose that spending exceeds projections by one percentage point of national income and that tax revenues fall below projections by the same amount. In today's dollars, these errors--not out of line with past mistakes--would total about $170 billion annually. Most of the future surpluses would vanish. They would vanish. Mr. President, I think it is very important. We have heard repeatedly from our friends on the other side of the aisle that they are only providing 25 percent of the surplus in tax cuts. They are not telling the whole story. They are being very selective about what they tell the American people. They say we have $3 trillion of projected surpluses-- projected. Let's remember they are projected; they may not happen. And they say they are only providing $800 billion of tax relief. I ask for 1 additional minute.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the distinguished Senator from New York. I rise to urge my colleagues to resist the move to waive the budget procedures. I think it is important to remember the history. The budget reconciliation process was devised to expedite consideration of deficit reduction measures. That was the purpose. The bill before the Senate now perverts that process by using expedited procedures to secure enactment of a measure to increase the deficit. Fortunately, Senator Byrd crafted the Byrd rule to prevent abuse of reconciliation's expedited procedures. He did that to protect the fiscal integrity of the United States. This move to waive that rule is a move to undermine the fiscal integrity of the process. It ought to be resisted by every Member, especially those who profess to be conservative. Section 313(b)(e) of the Byrd rule provides that any provision in the reconciliation bill that would decrease revenue in years beyond the budget window violates the Byrd rule and would be automatically stricken from the bill upon a point of order being waived. It is clear this measure, this risky tax cut scheme, explodes in the second 10 years. This chart shows what happens with the tax scheme being proposed. It starts out modestly, but it grows geometrically. In the second 10 years, it absolutely explodes. It goes from being an $800 billion tax cut over the first 10 years to being over a $2 trillion tax cut in the second 10 years.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce new, permanent farm legislation. I think virtually everyone from farm country understands that our farmers have been hit by a triple whammy--the triple whammy of bad prices, bad weather, and bad policy. The results are catastrophic. In my home State of North Dakota, one of the most agricultural States in the Nation, our farmers are being pressured as never before. They are in a cost price squeeze that is almost unprecedented. The results will be the loss of thousands of farm families unless there is a Federal response. I think most of us know we need to have a disaster response because prices have collapsed, and adverse weather conditions continue across the country. So it is critically important that we take short-term steps to address what is happening in farm country. A disaster bill is not enough. We need more than that. We also need to respond with a long-term change in farm policy. If I could direct the attention of my colleagues and others who might be watching to this chart, when I talk about the triple whammy of bad prices, bad weather, and bad policy, this shows what has happened to prices over the last 53 years. The blue line shows what has happened to wheat prices; the red line to barley. As a viewer can see, we are now at the lowest level for these commodities in constant dollars in 53 years. We are witnessing a price collapse that is almost unprecedented. That is putting enormous pressure on our producers. In addition to that, in my State we have been hit by almost a 5-year pattern now of bad weather--weather that is overly wet in my State; other parts of the country it is overly dry. In North Dakota, we have 3 million acres that have not even been planted this year. On top of bad prices and bad weather, we are also hit by bad policy because the last farm bill put us at a very severe disadvantage with our major competitors, the Europeans. The EU trumps the U.S. in farm support. This chart shows just with respect to wheat and corn for 1999--the red bar is what the Europeans provide their producers on wheat; the blue bar what we are doing in the United States. You can see, they are trumping us by 38 percent. In other words, their support is 38 percent higher in wheat, 46 percent higher in corn. It does not end there because the Europeans are also badly outspending us with respect to export subsidy. This shows for 1998--the last year for which we have full figures--this is the European Union in red: $5 billion a year of support for subsidies. This is the United States: $104 million. For that 1 year alone, the Europeans are outspending us, are outgunning us, 50 to 1. It is no wonder that our farmers are at a disadvantage. We, in effect, are saying to our farmers: You go out there and compete against the French farmer, the German farmer; and while you're at it, you take on the French Government and the German Government, as well. That is not a fair fight. If we look worldwide at agricultural export subsidies, what we see is that the European Union accounts for 84 percent of agriculture subsidies worldwide. The United States has 1.4 percent. We are outgunned 60 to 1 by that measure. Whether it is 50 to 1 or 60 to 1, the hard reality is, the U.S. producers are not in a fair fight. Something must be done to respond. If we look back at the policy change that was made in the farm bill-- our last farm bill--what we see is there was a dramatic cut in the level of support for our producers. Under the previous farm bill, the 1990 farm bill, we were getting on average $10 billion a year of support for our farmers. That was cut in half to $5 billion--that at the very time our major competitors are spending $50 billion a year to support their producers. So $50 billion for Europe; $5 billion for the United States. It is not a fair fight. The result is, our farmers are losing the battle. I call this ``unilateral disarmament.'' We would never do that in a military confrontation. Why have we done it in a trade confrontation? The results are the same: They win; we lose. The chief negotiator for the Europeans told me several years ago: Senator, we believe we are in a trade war in agriculture with the United States. He said: Senator, we believe at some point there will be a cease-fire. We believe there will be a cease-fire in place, and we want to occupy the high ground. And the high ground is market share. How well that strategy and plan are working, because the Europeans, in just the last few years, have moved from being major importers to being major exporters. They have gone from being the biggest importing region in the world to being the biggest exporting region in the world, and they have done it the old-fashioned way--they have gone out and bought these markets. In the last 10 years alone, they have spent $500 billion, and now they are starting to get a return on that investment, because in the last trade negotiation, what happened? Europeans have a higher level of support than we do. They are at a higher level. We are at a lower level. Was there a closing of the gap? Not at all. Instead, the conclusion was equal percentage reductions on both sides--36 percent in export subsidies, 24 percent in domestic support. The result is that our farmers were again left in a second position. If it happens again in the trade talks that are to begin this fall, our farmers will be put in a position of perhaps falling off the cliff, being put in a position that they cannot possibly survive. Some say let's let the market work. I am all for letting the market work. But that is not what is happening in world agriculture. What is happening in world agriculture is, the Europeans are spending enormous sums of money to win a dominant position. They believe that is a position they can preserve because they think the United States is unwilling to fight back. We have to prove them wrong. We have to demonstrate that the United States is not going to roll over, is not going to surrender, is not going to give up, that we intend to fight for these markets to achieve a level playing field so our farmers have a chance to compete. Our farmers can compete against anyone anywhere, but they can't compete against the governments of the European Union. That is not a fair fight. We can see the pattern because while we have cut support for our producers and the Europeans have had a 50- to 60-to-1 edge on us with respect to export subsidy, the value of our farm exports has dropped like a rock. We have gone from $60 billion a year as recently as 1996 to, this last year, $49 billion. At the same time, if we look at the European pattern, we see they have gone from being a major importer to a major exporter. They have a strategy; they have a plan. It is working. If we don't fight back, we are going to wake up after this next round of negotiations and we are going to find that the United States is falling off the cliff. We are going to find literally thousands of our farm families consigned to failure. That is the message I have received in farm meeting after farm meeting all across my State. I asked our Trade Representative: What is our leverage in the next round of trade talks? The truth is, we have no leverage because the Europeans are occupying the high ground. They are waiting for the cease-fire, the cease-fire in place. They are waiting to win this victory. They are confident the United States will not fight back. We have to prove them wrong. We have to demonstrate that the United States is not willing to cede these markets. This chart shows what has happened to just one commodity, wheat. This blue line is European exports; the red line is American exports. You can see the trend line for the United States is down, down, down--lots of zigzags along the way, but the trend line is straight down; the European trend line, straight up. They have had a little setback recently, but you can see they have gone from being in a totally inferior position, a more than two-to-one gap between us to our advantage, to their now being in the dominant position, and they have accomplished this in less than 20 years. That is what my FITE legislation is all about. It says: Let's fight back. Let's send a message the United States is not going to wave the white flag of surrender. The United States intends to fight for these markets. The United States intends to give our farmers a fair chance to compete. That is what this legislation does. These charts show it. FITE levels the playing field for wheat. Under our proposal, as I described before, Europe is at $5.20 in wheat, we are at $3.22. We would level the playing field. If they are going to provide $5.20, we will provide $5.20. We do the same thing on corn. We even the score on corn. They are at $4.85 today. We are at $2.25 a bushel on corn. If they want to stay at $4.85, we will match them; we will meet them in the competition. We will take them on head to head, dollar for dollar, so we don't surrender these markets and find ourselves in an inferior position. Not only do we even the score with respect to support to producers, we even the score with respect to export subsidy, because in the FITE bill we provide $4 billion a year of support for export subsidy, because we believe that will send a message to the Europeans that the United States intends to fight. This would put us in a strong position for the talks this fall because right now we have no leverage. The question is, How do we respond? I have a series of letters from groups endorsing the FITE legislation. I ask unanimous consent to have them printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. CONRAD. We have support from the North Dakota Farmers Union, the North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Co-ops, the North Dakota NFO, the U.S. Duram Growers Association, the Milk Producers Association of North Dakota, the American Renewable Oil Association, the North Dakota Bankers Association, the Central Power Electric Cooperative Board of Directors, the Square Butte Electric Cooperative, the North Dakota Rural Development Council, and even a resolution of support from the Midwestern Legislative Conference of the Council of State Governments that, while not endorsing the specifics of this legislation, specifically endorsed the concept in which they say: The Midwestern Legislative Conference favors legislation that would include support to American producers which would put prices received for crops on an even par with those of our European Union competitors. Mr. President, the Midwest Council of State Governments has it right. We simply cannot permit our farmers to be left at a competitive disadvantage. We must fight back. That is what the FITE legislation will do. We have had an unprecedented outpouring of support in North Dakota. In addition to those who have sent written comments, the North Dakota Wheat Commission has gone on record supporting this legislation. We have many more who are considering resolutions of support. I am hopeful that this will start a ground swell that will spread across the country and send a message that the United States does not intend to give up our agricultural dominance. That would be a mistake. It would be one we would live to regret. We are very close now to these negotiations this fall. If we don't alter dramatically the negotiating environment, we are going to lose. Make no mistake about it. We are going to lose. It doesn't have to be that way. It should not be that way. But it is in our hands. We have a choice to make. Do we fight back, or do we give up? At a time of unprecedented economic prosperity in this country, it would be a travesty for us to have lost the world agricultural trade battle because we were unwilling at this critical moment to respond. I hope we don't let this opportunity pass us by. Some people watching me say: Well, why should we help farmers? I believe farm families are the backbone of strength for this country. They are absolutely fundamental to America's success. They have long been the dominant source of our trade surpluses. Overall, we run massive trade deficits. But in agriculture, we have run trade surpluses. It has been one of two sectors of this economy that has run trade surpluses, and we are right at the brink of losing that. That would be a tragedy for this country--not just because of the dollars or just because of the economics, but because of what it would mean to the fundamental strength of this country. In Europe, they made a decision. They decided they wanted to have people out across the land. They didn't want everybody forced into the cities, so they made it possible for people to prosper in the rural parts of Europe. Perhaps their being hungry twice before informed those decisions. But whatever the reason, you can travel through the French countryside and the German countryside and it is prosperous; they are doing well. But go through the countryside of my State and what you see is an area that is in economic decline. It is not just in North Dakota; it is all across the heartland of America. The question is, Are we going to let it go? You know, it would be one thing if it were a fair competition. It would be one thing if it were simply the fact that our farmers weren't as competitive or as efficient as our competitors. But that is not the case. It is not the case. The fact is, our farmers are as competitive and as efficient as any in the world. What is hurting them is that other nations are willing to fight for their producers, and we have been in retreat. We have to decide what kind of country we want to have. Do we want everybody to move to town? Or do we want people out across the land? Europe has made a decision that they want people out across the countryside, and they have made it possible economically to be there. Now the choice comes to us. The hour is late because these negotiations will start this fall, and if we don't do something to change the rules of the game, our side is going to lose. It doesn't have to be that way. It should not be that way. But we have choices to make in this Chamber, and across in the other Chamber, about what is going to be the policy of America, what is going to be our position. I hope very much that we will decide we are going to give our farmers a fighting chance. I hope very much that we are going to make a decision that the best policy is to have people out across the land, not to have everybody come to the cities. I hope very much we are going to conclude that it is in our national interest, just as the Europeans have concluded that it is in their interest, to give farmers a fighting chance. There is no way they are going to win this battle when the odds are stacked against them: 10-to-1, 50-to-1, that is the unevenness of the fight our farmers are in now. It is in our hands; it is our decision. I hope very much that we can start across this country a move to say: Let's fight back. Let's put our farmers on a level playing field. Let's rearm our negotiators. Let's prepare for this battle. Let's not lose. Let's win a victory that would make a difference for hundreds of thousands of farm families across America and the cities and towns that are dependent upon them and, at the end of the day, for a country that needs them. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce new, permanent farm legislation. I think virtually everyone from farm country understands that our farmers have been hit by a triple whammy--the triple whammy of bad prices, bad weather, and bad policy. The results are catastrophic. In my home State of North Dakota, one of the most agricultural States in the Nation, our farmers are being pressured as never before. They are in a cost price squeeze that is almost unprecedented. The results will be the loss of thousands of farm families unless there is a Federal response. I think most of us know we need to have a disaster response because prices have collapsed, and adverse weather conditions continue across the country. So it is critically important that we take short-term steps to address what is happening in farm country. A disaster bill is not enough. We need more than that. We also need to respond with a long-term change in farm policy. If I could direct the attention of my colleagues and others who might be watching to this chart, when I talk about the triple whammy of bad prices, bad weather, and bad policy, this shows what has happened to prices over the last 53 years. The blue line shows what has happened to wheat prices; the red line to barley. As a viewer can see, we are now at the lowest level for these commodities in constant dollars in 53 years. We are witnessing a price collapse that is almost unprecedented. That is putting enormous pressure on our producers. In addition to that, in my State we have been hit by almost a 5-year pattern now of bad weather--weather that is overly wet in my State; other parts of the country it is overly dry. In North Dakota, we have 3 million acres that have not even been planted this year. On top of bad prices and bad weather, we are also hit by bad policy because the last farm bill put us at a very severe disadvantage with our major competitors, the Europeans. The EU trumps the U.S. in farm support. This chart shows just with respect to wheat and corn for 1999--the red bar is what the Europeans provide their producers on wheat; the blue bar what we are doing in the United States. You can see, they are trumping us by 38 percent. In other words, their support is 38 percent higher in wheat, 46 percent higher in corn. It does not end there because the Europeans are also badly outspending us with respect to export subsidy. This shows for 1998--the last year for which we have full figures--this is the European Union in red: $5 billion a year of support for subsidies. This is the United States: $104 million. For that 1 year alone, the Europeans are outspending us, are outgunning us, 50 to 1. It is no wonder that our farmers are at a disadvantage. We, in effect, are saying to our farmers: You go out there and compete against the French farmer, the German farmer; and while you're at it, you take on the French Government and the German Government, as well. That is not a fair fight. If we look worldwide at agricultural export subsidies, what we see is that the European Union accounts for 84 percent of agriculture subsidies worldwide. The United States has 1.4 percent. We are outgunned 60 to 1 by that measure. Whether it is 50 to 1 or 60 to 1, the hard reality is, the U.S. producers are not in a fair fight. Something must be done to respond. If we look back at the policy change that was made in the farm bill-- our last farm bill--what we see is there was a dramatic cut in the level of support for our producers. Under the previous farm bill, the 1990 farm bill, we were getting on average $10 billion a year of support for our farmers. That was cut in half to $5 billion--that at the very time our major competitors are spending $50 billion a year to support their producers. So $50 billion for Europe; $5 billion for the United States. It is not a fair fight. The result is, our farmers are losing the battle. I call this ``unilateral disarmament.'' We would never do that in a military confrontation. Why have we done it in a trade confrontation? The results are the same: They win; we lose. The chief negotiator for the Europeans told me several years ago: Senator, we believe we are in a trade war in agriculture with the United States. He said: Senator, we believe at some point there will be a cease-fire. We believe there will be a cease-fire in place, and we want to occupy the high ground. And the high ground is market share. How well that strategy and plan are working, because the Europeans, in just the last few years, have moved from being major importers to being major exporters. They have gone from being the biggest importing region in the world to being the biggest exporting region in the world, and they have done it the old-fashioned way--they have gone out and bought these markets. In the last 10 years alone, they have spent $500 billion, and now they are starting to get a return on that investment, because in the last trade negotiation, what happened? Europeans have a higher level of support than we do. They are at a higher level. We are at a lower level. Was there a closing of the gap? Not at all. Instead, the conclusion was equal percentage reductions on both sides--36 percent in export subsidies, 24 percent in domestic support. The result is that our farmers were again left in a second position. If it happens again in the trade talks that are to begin this fall, our farmers will be put in a position of perhaps falling off the cliff, being put in a position that they cannot possibly survive. Some say let's let the market work. I am all for letting the market work. But that is not what is happening in world agriculture. What is happening in world agriculture is, the Europeans are spending enormous sums of money to win a dominant position. They believe that is a position they can preserve because they think the United States is unwilling to fight back. We have to prove them wrong. We have to demonstrate that the United States is not going to roll over, is not going to surrender, is not going to give up, that we intend to fight for these markets to achieve a level playing field so our farmers have a chance to compete. Our farmers can compete against anyone anywhere, but they can't compete against the governments of the European Union. That is not a fair fight. We can see the pattern because while we have cut support for our producers and the Europeans have had a 50- to 60-to-1 edge on us with respect to export subsidy, the value of our farm exports has dropped like a rock. We have gone from $60 billion a year as recently as 1996 to, this last year, $49 billion. At the same time, if we look at the European pattern, we see they have gone from being a major importer to a major exporter. They have a strategy; they have a plan. It is working. If we don't fight back, we are going to wake up after this next round of negotiations and we are going to find that the United States is falling off the cliff. We are going to find literally thousands of our farm families consigned to failure. That is the message I have received in farm meeting after farm meeting all across my State. I asked our Trade Representative: What is our leverage in the next round of trade talks? The truth is, we have no leverage because the Europeans are occupying the high ground. They are waiting for the cease-fire, the cease-fire in place. They are waiting to win this victory. They are confident the United States will not fight back. We have to prove them wrong. We have to demonstrate that the United States is not willing to cede these markets. This chart shows what has happened to just one commodity, wheat. This blue line is European exports; the red line is American exports. You can see the trend line for the United States is down, down, down--lots of zigzags along the way, but the trend line is straight down; the European trend line, straight up. They have had a little setback recently, but you can see they have gone from being in a totally inferior position, a more than two-to-one gap between us to our advantage, to their now being in the dominant position, and they have accomplished this in less than 20 years. That is what my FITE legislation is all about. It says: Let's fight back. Let's send a message the United States is not going to wave the white flag of surrender. The United States intends to fight for these markets. The United States intends to give our farmers a fair chance to compete. That is what this legislation does. These charts show it. FITE levels the playing field for wheat. Under our proposal, as I described before, Europe is at $5.20 in wheat, we are at $3.22. We would level the playing field. If they are going to provide $5.20, we will provide $5.20. We do the same thing on corn. We even the score on corn. They are at $4.85 today. We are at $2.25 a bushel on corn. If they want to stay at $4.85, we will match them; we will meet them in the competition. We will take them on head to head, dollar for dollar, so we don't surrender these markets and find ourselves in an inferior position. Not only do we even the score with respect to support to producers, we even the score with respect to export subsidy, because in the FITE bill we provide $4 billion a year of support for export subsidy, because we believe that will send a message to the Europeans that the United States intends to fight. This would put us in a strong position for the talks this fall because right now we have no leverage. The question is, How do we respond? I have a series of letters from groups endorsing the FITE legislation. I ask unanimous consent to have them printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. CONRAD. We have support from the North Dakota Farmers Union, the North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Co-ops, the North Dakota NFO, the U.S. Duram Growers Association, the Milk Producers Association of North Dakota, the American Renewable Oil Association, the North Dakota Bankers Association, the Central Power Electric Cooperative Board of Directors, the Square Butte Electric Cooperative, the North Dakota Rural Development Council, and even a resolution of support from the Midwestern Legislative Conference of the Council of State Governments that, while not endorsing the specifics of this legislation, specifically endorsed the concept in which they say: The Midwestern Legislative Conference favors legislation that would include support to American producers which would put prices received for crops on an even par with those of our European Union competitors. Mr. President, the Midwest Council of State Governments has it right. We simply cannot permit our farmers to be left at a competitive disadvantage. We must fight back. That is what the FITE legislation will do. We have had an unprecedented outpouring of support in North Dakota. In addition to those who have sent written comments, the North Dakota Wheat Commission has gone on record supporting this legislation. We have many more who are considering resolutions of support. I am hopeful that this will start a ground swell that will spread across the country and send a message that the United States does not intend to give up our agricultural dominance. That would be a mistake. It would be one we would live to regret. We are very close now to these negotiations this fall. If we don't alter dramatically the negotiating environment, we are going to lose. Make no mistake about it. We are going to lose. It doesn't have to be that way. It should not be that way. But it is in our hands. We have a choice to make. Do we fight back, or do we give up? At a time of unprecedented economic prosperity in this country, it would be a travesty for us to have lost the world agricultural trade battle because we were unwilling at this critical moment to respond. I hope we don't let this opportunity pass us by. Some people watching me say: Well, why should we help farmers? I believe farm families are the backbone of strength for this country. They are absolutely fundamental to America's success. They have long been the dominant source of our trade surpluses. Overall, we run massive trade deficits. But in agriculture, we have run trade surpluses. It has been one of two sectors of this economy that has run trade surpluses, and we are right at the brink of losing that. That would be a tragedy for this country--not just because of the dollars or just because of the economics, but because of what it would mean to the fundamental strength of this country. In Europe, they made a decision. They decided they wanted to have people out across the land. They didn't want everybody forced into the cities, so they made it possible for people to prosper in the rural parts of Europe. Perhaps their being hungry twice before informed those decisions. But whatever the reason, you can travel through the French countryside and the German countryside and it is prosperous; they are doing well. But go through the countryside of my State and what you see is an area that is in economic decline. It is not just in North Dakota; it is all across the heartland of America. The question is, Are we going to let it go? You know, it would be one thing if it were a fair competition. It would be one thing if it were simply the fact that our farmers weren't as competitive or as efficient as our competitors. But that is not the case. It is not the case. The fact is, our farmers are as competitive and as efficient as any in the world. What is hurting them is that other nations are willing to fight for their producers, and we have been in retreat. We have to decide what kind of country we want to have. Do we want everybody to move to town? Or do we want people out across the land? Europe has made a decision that they want people out across the countryside, and they have made it possible economically to be there. Now the choice comes to us. The hour is late because these negotiations will start this fall, and if we don't do something to change the rules of the game, our side is going to lose. It doesn't have to be that way. It should not be that way. But we have choices to make in this Chamber, and across in the other Chamber, about what is going to be the policy of America, what is going to be our position. I hope very much that we will decide we are going to give our farmers a fighting chance. I hope very much that we are going to make a decision that the best policy is to have people out across the land, not to have everybody come to the cities. I hope very much we are going to conclude that it is in our national interest, just as the Europeans have concluded that it is in their interest, to give farmers a fighting chance. There is no way they are going to win this battle when the odds are stacked against them: 10-to-1, 50-to-1, that is the unevenness of the fight our farmers are in now. It is in our hands; it is our decision. I hope very much that we can start across this country a move to say: Let's fight back. Let's put our farmers on a level playing field. Let's rearm our negotiators. Let's prepare for this battle. Let's not lose. Let's win a victory that would make a difference for hundreds of thousands of farm families across America and the cities and towns that are dependent upon them and, at the end of the day, for a country that needs them. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like now to take a moment to acknowledge the accomplishments of my former colleague and friend James Sasser, the United States Ambassador to the People's Republic of China. I need not remind the Senate of the quality of his leadership as fellow member, and former chairman, of the Budget Committee. It is not his 18 year tenure in the Senate that I want to discuss at this time, but his distinguished work as Ambassador to China. Over the past three years, the People's Republic of China has been turbulent both socially and economically. From the reversion of Hong Kong in 1997, to the heightened concern about human rights violations, to the recent developments in Kosovo, it is an understatement to say that the task set before James Sasser was daunting. From the onset of his appointment in 1996, during the Chinese missile testing in the Taiwan straits, James Sasser has worked tirelessly towards a ``strong, stable, prosperous China,'' and towards the realization of an equally healthy relationship with United States. The frontier of Chinese-US relations is a fast changing one, and Sasser's efforts have been considerable. Through the continued promotion of tariff reduction he has helped to launch American business towards the exploration of the Chinese market and helped to secure important trade commitments in the negotiations of the PCR's accession by the WTO. There has also been considerable progress on the human rights front during the term of Sasser's Ambassadorship. Coupled with the release of prominent political and religious leaders, the PRC's ratification of the International Covenant of Economic and Social Rights is one of the most significant signs of progress with respect to civil rights in China. Sasser has also pioneered agreements with the PCR concerning the nonproliferation of nuclear technology, striving'' to cooperate on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and halt the spread of nuclear weapons technology.'' It is with regret that I acknowledge James Sasser's departure. His counsel will be greatly missed. His accomplishment as US Ambassador to China will be remembered as important in advancing the opportunity for a sound relationship between the two countries. I would like to extend my sincere thanks for a job well done.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my distinguished colleagues from Maine, New Hampshire, and Nebraska in introducing the Rural Education Initiative Act. Over the past five years, Congress and the Administration have significantly increased education funding for States and local school districts. They have also undertaken a number of new initiatives in response to educational concerns including Class Size Reduction and the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program. Unfortunately, rural schools are not benefiting from these new initiatives or from funding increases to the same degree as many urban and suburban schools. In fact, on the basis of discussions with educators in North Dakota, Federal education laws are discouraging many rural schools from making the best use of funds that are currently allocated by formula from the Department of Education. The formulas developed to allocate education funding, formulas which take into consideration a number of factors including student enrollment, in many cases do not result in sufficient funding to permit the smaller school to most effectively use the funds for local educational priorities. Many small, rural schools, for example, don't have the enrollment numbers or special categories of students that result in sufficient revenue under the education formulas to hire a new teacher under the Class Size Reduction initiative, or to participate in a more specialized education program like the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program. Additionally, these schools are not able to compete as effectively as larger districts for funding under some Department of Education competitive grant programs. Limited resources do not permit smaller districts to hire specialists to prepare and submit grant applications. In some cases, the only option for a smaller school district is to form a consortium with other rural districts to qualify for sufficient funding. No more clearly are the concerns of rural school educators expressed than in a letter that I received from ElRoy Burkle, Superintendent for the Starkweather Public School District, in Starkweather, North Dakota, a school district with 131 students. In his letter, ElRoy expressed the difficulty that smaller, rural schools are having in accessing Federal education funds. ElRoy remarked, ``. . . school districts have lost their ability to access funds directly, and as a result of forming these consortiums in order to access these monies, it is my opinion, we have lost our individual ability to utilize these monies in an effective manner that would be conducive to promoting the educational needs of our individual schools.'' Mr. President, the Rural Education Initiative Act responds to the unique needs of rural school districts by enabling these districts to more fully participate in Department of Education formula and competitive grant programs. Under Section 4 of the proposed legislation, school districts with less than 600 students would be eligible to pool resources from four DOE formula programs, and use the funding for quality of instruction or student achievement priorities determined by the local school district. These programs include the DOE's Class-Size Reduction, Eisenhower Professional Development, Title VI (Innovative Education Strategies), and Safe and Drug Free Schools, Title I GOALS 2000, Individuals With Disabilities Education, and Impact Aid are not included in this legislation. Additionally, to qualify for funding under the Rural Education Initiative Act, a school district would elect not to apply for competitive grant funding from seven programs including Gifted and Talented Children Grants; State and Local Programs for Technology Resources; 21st Century Community Learning Centers; Grants under the Fund for the Improvement of Education; Bilingual Education Professional Development Grants; Bilingual Education Capacity and Demonstration Grants; and Bilingual Education Research, Evaluation, and Dissemination Grants. In opting out of these competitive grant programs, the rural school district would be entitled to a formula grant, based on student enrollment, to use for education reform efforts to improve class instruction and student achievements. The grant amount would be reduced by the level of funding received by the School district under the formula grant programs outlined in Section 4. To remain in the Rural Education Initiative, school districts, after five years, would be required to assess the academic achievement of students using a statewide test, or in the case where there is no statewide test, a test selected by the local education agency. Additionally, the Rural Education Initiative Act will not abolish or reduce funding for any DOE education program including the eleven grant programs discussed in this initiative. Mr. President, It's very important that we consider the Rural Education Initiative Act as part of the re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act during the 106th Congress. No issue is more important for rural America than the future of our schools. In North Dakota 86 percent of school districts, 198 schools, have less than 600 students. Additionally, many of these school districts are facing declining enrollments. According to the Report Card for North Dakota's Future (1998) prepared by the North Dakota Department of Public Instruction, over the past two decades school districts in the State have declined from 364 to 214, almost 40 percent. This decline in student population is not unique to North Dakota. Many other states have a significant percentage of rural school districts, and many are also experiencing a decline in rural student population. While the quality of education, including smaller classes, in many of these smaller communities remains excellent, the more limited resources of smaller, rural schools, coupled with the declining student enrollments, pose extraordinarily challenges for rural schools across America. These factors along with current Federal education formulas have limited the ability of smaller districts to take full advantage of federal education grants. In some instances, they have limited educational opportunities for students such as distance learning, or advanced academic and vocational courses. Rural schools are unique and have educational needs that are not being met. Mr. President, I want to commend the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) for the key role they have played in the development of this rural schools initiative. AASA has a remarkable record of achievement on behalf of the education community, parents, and students. For several years, they have been examining the difficulties that rural schools were experiencing in applying and qualifying for Federal education funding. The proposal developed by AASA would have a significant impact on almost 200 school districts in North Dakota. I also want to commend the Organizations Concerned About Rural Education for their efforts on behalf of this initiative, and the exemplary work on behalf of other educational issues for rural America. Again, I congratulate Senator Collins for taking the lead on this important education initiative, and I strongly urge the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions to carefully consider this legislation and the educational needs of rural schools during the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Mr. Burkle, a summary of the bill, and a description of the rural schools formula under the Rural Education Initiative Act, prepared by the American Association of School Administrators be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my distinguished colleagues from Maine, New Hampshire, and Nebraska in introducing the Rural Education Initiative Act. Over the past five years, Congress and the Administration have significantly increased education funding for States and local school districts. They have also undertaken a number of new initiatives in response to educational concerns including Class Size Reduction and the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program. Unfortunately, rural schools are not benefiting from these new initiatives or from funding increases to the same degree as many urban and suburban schools. In fact, on the basis of discussions with educators in North Dakota, Federal education laws are discouraging many rural schools from making the best use of funds that are currently allocated by formula from the Department of Education. The formulas developed to allocate education funding, formulas which take into consideration a number of factors including student enrollment, in many cases do not result in sufficient funding to permit the smaller school to most effectively use the funds for local educational priorities. Many small, rural schools, for example, don't have the enrollment numbers or special categories of students that result in sufficient revenue under the education formulas to hire a new teacher under the Class Size Reduction initiative, or to participate in a more specialized education program like the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program. Additionally, these schools are not able to compete as effectively as larger districts for funding under some Department of Education competitive grant programs. Limited resources do not permit smaller districts to hire specialists to prepare and submit grant applications. In some cases, the only option for a smaller school district is to form a consortium with other rural districts to qualify for sufficient funding. No more clearly are the concerns of rural school educators expressed than in a letter that I received from ElRoy Burkle, Superintendent for the Starkweather Public School District, in Starkweather, North Dakota, a school district with 131 students. In his letter, ElRoy expressed the difficulty that smaller, rural schools are having in accessing Federal education funds. ElRoy remarked, ``. . . school districts have lost their ability to access funds directly, and as a result of forming these consortiums in order to access these monies, it is my opinion, we have lost our individual ability to utilize these monies in an effective manner that would be conducive to promoting the educational needs of our individual schools.'' Mr. President, the Rural Education Initiative Act responds to the unique needs of rural school districts by enabling these districts to more fully participate in Department of Education formula and competitive grant programs. Under Section 4 of the proposed legislation, school districts with less than 600 students would be eligible to pool resources from four DOE formula programs, and use the funding for quality of instruction or student achievement priorities determined by the local school district. These programs include the DOE's Class-Size Reduction, Eisenhower Professional Development, Title VI (Innovative Education Strategies), and Safe and Drug Free Schools, Title I GOALS 2000, Individuals With Disabilities Education, and Impact Aid are not included in this legislation. Additionally, to qualify for funding under the Rural Education Initiative Act, a school district would elect not to apply for competitive grant funding from seven programs including Gifted and Talented Children Grants; State and Local Programs for Technology Resources; 21st Century Community Learning Centers; Grants under the Fund for the Improvement of Education; Bilingual Education Professional Development Grants; Bilingual Education Capacity and Demonstration Grants; and Bilingual Education Research, Evaluation, and Dissemination Grants. In opting out of these competitive grant programs, the rural school district would be entitled to a formula grant, based on student enrollment, to use for education reform efforts to improve class instruction and student achievements. The grant amount would be reduced by the level of funding received by the School district under the formula grant programs outlined in Section 4. To remain in the Rural Education Initiative, school districts, after five years, would be required to assess the academic achievement of students using a statewide test, or in the case where there is no statewide test, a test selected by the local education agency. Additionally, the Rural Education Initiative Act will not abolish or reduce funding for any DOE education program including the eleven grant programs discussed in this initiative. Mr. President, It's very important that we consider the Rural Education Initiative Act as part of the re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act during the 106th Congress. No issue is more important for rural America than the future of our schools. In North Dakota 86 percent of school districts, 198 schools, have less than 600 students. Additionally, many of these school districts are facing declining enrollments. According to the Report Card for North Dakota's Future (1998) prepared by the North Dakota Department of Public Instruction, over the past two decades school districts in the State have declined from 364 to 214, almost 40 percent. This decline in student population is not unique to North Dakota. Many other states have a significant percentage of rural school districts, and many are also experiencing a decline in rural student population. While the quality of education, including smaller classes, in many of these smaller communities remains excellent, the more limited resources of smaller, rural schools, coupled with the declining student enrollments, pose extraordinarily challenges for rural schools across America. These factors along with current Federal education formulas have limited the ability of smaller districts to take full advantage of federal education grants. In some instances, they have limited educational opportunities for students such as distance learning, or advanced academic and vocational courses. Rural schools are unique and have educational needs that are not being met. Mr. President, I want to commend the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) for the key role they have played in the development of this rural schools initiative. AASA has a remarkable record of achievement on behalf of the education community, parents, and students. For several years, they have been examining the difficulties that rural schools were experiencing in applying and qualifying for Federal education funding. The proposal developed by AASA would have a significant impact on almost 200 school districts in North Dakota. I also want to commend the Organizations Concerned About Rural Education for their efforts on behalf of this initiative, and the exemplary work on behalf of other educational issues for rural America. Again, I congratulate Senator Collins for taking the lead on this important education initiative, and I strongly urge the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions to carefully consider this legislation and the educational needs of rural schools during the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Mr. Burkle, a summary of the bill, and a description of the rural schools formula under the Rural Education Initiative Act, prepared by the American Association of School Administrators be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, for the fourth time the Senate is being asked to vote on a so-called lockbox without being given the opportunity to consider amendments. What is the majority afraid of? Why aren't they willing to vote on amendments? That is the way we do business in the Senate. Somebody makes a legislative offering, and then Members have a chance to amend and a chance to vote to decide what is the best policy for this country. I have believed for a very long time and I have fought repeatedly in the Budget Committee, in the Finance Committee, and on the floor of the Senate to stop the raid on Social Security surpluses. I see our friends on the other side all of a sudden become defenders of Social Security. Some Members have not forgotten. Sometimes our friends on the other side of the aisle think we have amnesia, but we remember the repeated attempts on the other side to amend the Constitution of the United States with a so-called balanced budget amendment that would have looted and raided Social Security to achieve balance. We remember very well. It was done in 1994; it was done in 1995; it was done in 1996; it was done in 1997; and here is the language. This language makes clear that the definition of a balanced budget was all the receipts of the Federal Government and all the expenditures of the Federal Government, including Social Security. Then they were going to call that a balanced budget. That is what they were doing in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997--an absolute raid on the Social Security trust funds and trying to put that in the Constitution of the United States. All of a sudden, they are defenders of Social Security. I welcome the transformation. I welcome them coming over to our side and agreeing now that we ought to protect Social Security. But why won't they allow amendments? What are they afraid of? Are they afraid to vote? I think they are. I think they are afraid to vote. I think they are afraid to vote because we have an amendment that provides a lockbox for Social Security, one that is defended against what can happen out here on the floor--unlike the amendment being offered now. It is defended by sequestration. Their amendment has no such defense. I think they are afraid to vote on an alternative because we not only protect Social Security but Medicare. Looking at the Republican ``broken safe,'' we try to look inside and find out what is there. What we find is that there is not one single additional penny for Medicare in the Republican lockbox. No, Medicare is left out of the equation. Senator Lautenberg and I believe Medicare ought to be protected with Social Security. We ought to have a lockbox to protect both. We ought to have procedures that defend them, not create enormous loopholes that can be used to again loot Social Security and not protect Medicare. The fact is, the amendment we want to offer that they will not let this side consider is an amendment that provides $698 billion for Medicare over the next 15 years; the Republican plan provides nothing, zero, not one penny. That is why they don't want to vote. They don't want to vote because they don't want to protect Social Security and Medicare. It is fascinating what a difference a year makes. Just 1 year ago we had a debate in the Budget Committee of the Senate. Here is what the Republicans were saying then. This is Senator Pete Domenici, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee: Mr. President, this is a very simple proposition . . . We suggested, as Republicans, that Social Security and Medicare are the two most important American programs to save, reform, and make available into the next century . . . I believe the issue is very simple--very simple: Do you want a budget that begins to help with Medicare, or do you want a budget that says not one nickel for Medicare; let's take care of that later with money from somewhere else. Senator Domenici was right then. They don't want to consider the amendment that would do exactly what he is talking about--protect Social Security and Medicare. They want to forget the position they were taking just a year ago. Here is another member, a senior Republican member of the Budget Committee. He said 1 year ago: But the fundamental strength of it is, whether they are democrats or republicans who have got together in these dark corners of very bright rooms and said, what would we do if we had a half a trillion dollars to spend? . . . the obvious answer that cries out is Medicare . . . I think it is logical. People understood the President on save Social Security first and I think they will understand save Medicare first . . . Medicare is in crisis. We want to save Medicare first. It is 1 year later now. All of a sudden those brave words are forgotten and our friends on the other side want to prevent us from even considering an amendment that would do what they were advocating a year ago, save Social Security first and save Medicare first. Now they want to forget Medicare. Now they do not want to provide an additional dime for Medicare, even though it is endangered in a more immediate way than is Social Security. One more quote from the chairman of the Budget Committee: Let me tell you for every argument made around this table today about saving Social Security, you can now put it in the bank that the problems associated with fixing Medicare are bigger than the problems fixing Social Security, bigger in dollars, more difficult in terms of the kind of reform necessary, and frankly, I am for saving Social Security. But it is most interesting that there are some who want to abandon Medicare . . . when it is the most precarious program we have got. The reason I believe our colleagues on the other side do not want any amendments is because they do not want to vote on an amendment that Senator Lautenberg and I are prepared to offer that would save Social Security first, every penny, and save Medicare as well. They do not want to vote. That is not the way the Senate ought to operate. That is not what we should do here. Let me conclude by saying the amendment we have would save $3.3 billion in debt reduction; the Republican plan, $2.6 billion. Our plan is superior. We ought to have a chance to vote.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would amend the Trade Act of 1974 to make farmers eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) similar to that provided to workers in other industries who suffer when there is an increase in imported products. This bill would provide equitable treatment for farmers when imports affect the prices of the commodities they grow. When imports cause layoffs in manufacturing industries, workers are eligible for TAA. However, when imports cause agricultural commodity prices to drop, farmers lose income but they don't lose their jobs. That means they generally don't get benefits from TAA. Let me explain why. Farmers typically do not earn a salary check. Farmers get paid for the crops or livestock that they grow. When commodity prices are low, the check the farmers get for all the hard work of growing crops or livestock for a whole year may be so low that they cannot cover family expenses. In some cases, the payment they get for selling their crops or livestock is so low that they cannot even cover the costs necessary to produce the commodity (such as feed, seed, fertilizer, etc.), so the farmers lose money for the year. Low prices resulting from imports directly reduce farmers' incomes, but because farmers do not actually lose their jobs, they do not qualify for the TAA benefit. For example, farmers in my state are experiencing record low prices that result, in part, from a flood of imports of wheat, barley and livestock from Canada. These imports cost North Dakota farmers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost income. But North Dakota farmers have not been able to take advantage of the TAA program. The bill that I am introducing today would provide some equity by ensuring that farmers whose income was affected by imports would be eligible for TAA benefits just like other workers. Most of us would agree that trade is extremely important to our overall economy. International trade allows Americans to sell U.S.-made products to world markets, rather than just to those who live in this country. Trade also allows American to buy products that the rest of the world produces. And trade is especially important to our agricultural economy. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, one-third of U.S. crop land produces for export. U.S. agricultural exports are a bright spot for our nation's balance of trade. In 1999, the United States is expected to export $49 billion worth of goods, compared to agricultural imports this year of $37.5 billion. Thus, agricultural exports contribute $11.5 billion to our balance of trade with other nations. Nonetheless, many farmers and other citizens feel that they can be hurt by free trade. When we import commodities that compete with what Americans are producing, then some American producers--whether they are workers, firms, or farmers--can be hurt by falling prices for the goods they produce. As a result, the lack of trade adjustment assistance for farmers has undercut support for trade among many family farmers. By giving farmers some protection against precipitous income losses from imports, the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers Act can help strengthen support for trade agreements that expand agricultural export opportunities. We need to be sure that we don't leave American farmers behind, and that we treat farmers fairly in comparison with other American workers and industries. That's why I am introducing this bill, the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers Act. This bill would amend the Trade Act of 1974 to provide trade adjustment assistance to farmers by partially compensating them for income lost due to the effect of imports. Here's how it will work. Farmers would receive benefits that would be triggered when two conditions are met. First, the national average price for a specific commodity for the previous marketing year must have dropped more than 20 percent below the average price in the previous 5-year period. Second, increased imports--or a high level of imports--must have contributed importantly to the commodity price reduction. A group of farmers who grow a particular commodity (or a commodity group representing them) would submit an application for trade adjustment assistance to the Labor Department. The Secretary of Labor (consulting with the Secretary of Agriculture) would determine whether the two triggers had been met. If the commodity is determined to be eligible, then individual producers could apply for benefits. Farmers who are eligible for benefits under the program would receive a cash assistance payment equal to half the difference between the national average price for the year (as determined by USDA) and 80 percent of the average price in the previous 5 years (the price trigger level), multiplied by the number of units the farmers had produced. The maximum cash benefits available to farmers under this program would be $10,000 per year. Training and employment benefits that are available to workers under TAA would also be available, on an optional basis, to farmers who are eligible for cash assistance benefits under the law. For example, a farm family that was suffering from low prices due to increased imports might consider retraining to learn skills in the high-tech computer industry, which they could use in an at-home business to supplement farm income. In most years, this program would likely have a modest cost because very few commodities, if any, would be eligible for assistance. However, in a year like the last we have just been through--when hog and wheat prices dropped precipitously--this program would be one tool to provide a modest amount of support to compensate farmers for the harmful effect of imports on their commodity prices and thus their incomes. Thus the bill would treat family farmers fairly, including them in the protections available to others in our economy who are hurt by the increased trade that, in the aggregate, benefits us all. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting American family farmers as they compete in the global market place.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would amend the Trade Act of 1974 to make farmers eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) similar to that provided to workers in other industries who suffer when there is an increase in imported products. This bill would provide equitable treatment for farmers when imports affect the prices of the commodities they grow. When imports cause layoffs in manufacturing industries, workers are eligible for TAA. However, when imports cause agricultural commodity prices to drop, farmers lose income but they don't lose their jobs. That means they generally don't get benefits from TAA. Let me explain why. Farmers typically do not earn a salary check. Farmers get paid for the crops or livestock that they grow. When commodity prices are low, the check the farmers get for all the hard work of growing crops or livestock for a whole year may be so low that they cannot cover family expenses. In some cases, the payment they get for selling their crops or livestock is so low that they cannot even cover the costs necessary to produce the commodity (such as feed, seed, fertilizer, etc.), so the farmers lose money for the year. Low prices resulting from imports directly reduce farmers' incomes, but because farmers do not actually lose their jobs, they do not qualify for the TAA benefit. For example, farmers in my state are experiencing record low prices that result, in part, from a flood of imports of wheat, barley and livestock from Canada. These imports cost North Dakota farmers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost income. But North Dakota farmers have not been able to take advantage of the TAA program. The bill that I am introducing today would provide some equity by ensuring that farmers whose income was affected by imports would be eligible for TAA benefits just like other workers. Most of us would agree that trade is extremely important to our overall economy. International trade allows Americans to sell U.S.-made products to world markets, rather than just to those who live in this country. Trade also allows American to buy products that the rest of the world produces. And trade is especially important to our agricultural economy. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, one-third of U.S. crop land produces for export. U.S. agricultural exports are a bright spot for our nation's balance of trade. In 1999, the United States is expected to export $49 billion worth of goods, compared to agricultural imports this year of $37.5 billion. Thus, agricultural exports contribute $11.5 billion to our balance of trade with other nations. Nonetheless, many farmers and other citizens feel that they can be hurt by free trade. When we import commodities that compete with what Americans are producing, then some American producers--whether they are workers, firms, or farmers--can be hurt by falling prices for the goods they produce. As a result, the lack of trade adjustment assistance for farmers has undercut support for trade among many family farmers. By giving farmers some protection against precipitous income losses from imports, the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers Act can help strengthen support for trade agreements that expand agricultural export opportunities. We need to be sure that we don't leave American farmers behind, and that we treat farmers fairly in comparison with other American workers and industries. That's why I am introducing this bill, the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers Act. This bill would amend the Trade Act of 1974 to provide trade adjustment assistance to farmers by partially compensating them for income lost due to the effect of imports. Here's how it will work. Farmers would receive benefits that would be triggered when two conditions are met. First, the national average price for a specific commodity for the previous marketing year must have dropped more than 20 percent below the average price in the previous 5-year period. Second, increased imports--or a high level of imports--must have contributed importantly to the commodity price reduction. A group of farmers who grow a particular commodity (or a commodity group representing them) would submit an application for trade adjustment assistance to the Labor Department. The Secretary of Labor (consulting with the Secretary of Agriculture) would determine whether the two triggers had been met. If the commodity is determined to be eligible, then individual producers could apply for benefits. Farmers who are eligible for benefits under the program would receive a cash assistance payment equal to half the difference between the national average price for the year (as determined by USDA) and 80 percent of the average price in the previous 5 years (the price trigger level), multiplied by the number of units the farmers had produced. The maximum cash benefits available to farmers under this program would be $10,000 per year. Training and employment benefits that are available to workers under TAA would also be available, on an optional basis, to farmers who are eligible for cash assistance benefits under the law. For example, a farm family that was suffering from low prices due to increased imports might consider retraining to learn skills in the high-tech computer industry, which they could use in an at-home business to supplement farm income. In most years, this program would likely have a modest cost because very few commodities, if any, would be eligible for assistance. However, in a year like the last we have just been through--when hog and wheat prices dropped precipitously--this program would be one tool to provide a modest amount of support to compensate farmers for the harmful effect of imports on their commodity prices and thus their incomes. Thus the bill would treat family farmers fairly, including them in the protections available to others in our economy who are hurt by the increased trade that, in the aggregate, benefits us all. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting American family farmers as they compete in the global market place.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of myself, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Bingaman to engage the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee in a colloquy.

Mr. CONRAD. I wonder if I could direct a question to my colleague from North Dakota, who also has some familiarity with this program. Senator Dorgan, am I correct to understand that a lack of BQM-74 procurement in fiscal year 2000 could result in the Navy's inventory falling below the CNO's requirement?

Mr. CONRAD. This is most distressing. I wonder, could the Senator from New Mexico provide some background on the BQM-74's current funding status?

Mr. CONRAD. In light of the unquestioned importance of the BQM-74 and the action taken by the House authorizers and Senate appropriators, I wonder if the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee believes that this matter can be addressed in conference.

Mr. CONRAD. On behalf of myself, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Bingaman, I thank the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Members for their important assurances. wartime embargo

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the bill before us. In this bill the Armed Service Committee has done a good job of reconciling important yet competing needs for defense funding under daunting fiscal constraints. This bill will be an important contribution to our efforts to strengthen our already first-class military, and enhance important benefits for American military personnel, their dependents, retirees, and veterans. I am especially pleased that this legislation includes my amendments concerning Russia's tactical nuclear stockpile, National Missile Defense, and Air Force cruise missiles. I would offer to the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member my most sincere thanks for working with me on these important amendments, as I would for the assurances they offered regarding the Navy's BQM-74 in a colloquy with Senator Dorgan, Senator Bingaman, and myself. Before reviewing several of the bill's provisions, I would like to reflect for a moment on the context in which the Senate is considering this year's defense authorization bill. Mr. President, I have had the honor and privilege of serving the people of North Dakota and the nation in the United States Senate for 13 years. However, this is the first time during my tenure that the Senate has taken up a defense authorization bill while our forces are engaged in hostilities. I know I am not alone in being especially mindful of the fact that the provisions we approve here today will have a significant impact on our brave men and women in uniform as they do their jobs in Balkans and over Iraq. I am pleased that several sections of this bill address concerns and needs that have been identified during Operation Desert Fox and the current air campaign against Yugoslavia. Now, Mr. President, allow me to highlight several particularly good provisions of this bill, for which Chairman Warner and Senator Levin should be congratulated. First, this measure wisely provides full funding for vital missile defense programs. National Missile Defense that is affordable, makes sense in the context of our arms control agreements, and utilizes proven technology has always had my support, and it is encouraging to see that it has been fully funded for fiscal year 2000. After damaging cuts in recent years, the revolutionary Airborne Laser program has also been fully supported this year by the Committee. Chairman Warner and Senator Levin must also be praised for including many of the provisions passed earlier this year by the Senate as part of S. 4, the Soldier's Sailor's, Airmen's, and Marine's Bill of Rights. Several of the most beneficial include a base COLA of 4.8 percent for all personnel, coupled with reform of the pay tables. Servicemembers will also now be able to participate in a Thrift Savings Plan. Third, the bill recommends significant funding boosts for vital strategic forces. The Minuteman III Guidance Replacement Program will be kept on schedule with a $40 million hike, and $41.4 million has been wisely added for B-52 upgrades identified as top unfunded priorities by the Air Force. Additionally, the Committee has also supported important housing improvement projects at Minot and Grand Forks Air Force Bases in North Dakota, and acted to accelerate construction of a $9.5 million apron extension at Grand Forks. Finally, I am pleased that the Strategic Forces Subcommittee has recommended a reduction in the minimum START I Trident submarine force level that must be maintained until START II is ratified by the Russian Duma. The Commander in Chief of the U.S. Strategic Command has assured me that we can meet our deterrence needs with 14 Trident boats, and that retirement of four submarines will not adversely affect our nation's security. All of these provisions are steps in the right direction, but there are a number of matters in this bill of great concern. First, the Committee yet again did not provide adequate funding for the B-52H bomber force. Today, part of the fleet is deployed to keep an eye on Saddam, and 15 B-52s are participating in Operation Allied Force. The B-52 is the backbone of the long range bomber force, and it is my hope that the Committee will review its decision not the fund the entire force during conference. As I have said many times before, no airborne platform can deliver a greater quantity or quality of nuclear and conventional munitions as far without refueling at as little cost to taxpayers than today's thoroughly modernized, battle-tested B-52. I applaud Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye--the distinguish leadership of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee--for acting to fund all 94 B-52s in the fiscal year 2000 defense appropriations bill. Additionally, the bill unnecessarily increases spending on the Space Based Laser by $25 million. One day we will likely do the NMD mission from space. But that time is not now, when ground-based NMD will soon be available. Today, the SBL is unaffordable, a clear violation of the ABM Treaty, and simply not feasible. I hope the extra funding is reallocated in conference. Despite these drawbacks, this is a good bill. But it is a better bill in light of the addition of the amendments I offered today. Briefly, I would like to summarize each in turn. First, the 1999 Conrad Russian tactical nuclear weapons amendment responds to Russia's extremely disturbing announcement last month that it will not reduce its massive tactical nuclear stockpile, but rather will retain and redeploy many of these ill-secured thermonuclear weapons. My amendment includes a Sense of the Senate calling on the President to urge the Russians to match U.S. tactical nuclear cuts. Additionally, my amendment requires regular reports on Russia's tactical arsenal, which could be larger than ours by a factor of eight to one, and is not covered by any arms control treaty. My amendment builds on the bipartisan amendment I authored last year, and supports the related provisions in the bill before us. I thank the able leadership of the Armed Services Committee for supporting this amendment, as I do for accepting my amendment concerning NMD. As a result of this measure, the Secretary of Defense will be required to study the advantages of a two-site NMD system, as opposed to a single site, as is now being considered by the Administration. Although we may be able to defend all 50 states from a single site, there may be advantages from a two-site system related to defensive coverage, system security, and economies of scale. My amendment will make sure these are fully explored. Two sites are also not incompatible with arms control. In fact, the ABM Treaty as originally drafted included two sites, and it may be appropriate to go back to such an idea. The third amendment I offered here today responds to growing concern on the part of our military commanders about the rapidly diminishing supply of conventional air launched cruise missiles, or CALCMs. Simply put, the CALCM has performed brilliantly in Operation Allied Force. Its range of more than 1,500 miles, ability to carry a 3,000 pound warhead, and dead-on accuracy are unmatched by any other air- delivered cruise missile in the world. It represents a capability we will continue to need, long after the 60 or so left in the inventory, and the 320 now being converted from nuclear missions, have been expended. My amendment will require the Secretary of the AF to report to Congress on how the Air Force plans to meet the long-range, large warhead, high accuracy cruise missile requirement once the CALCMs are expended. In particular, three options will be reviewed: restarting the CALCM line, developing and acquiring a new variety of cruise missile with the same or better performance characteristics, and upgrading planned munitions. The time to start planning on this matter is now, and again I thank Chairman Warner and Senator Levin for working with me on this amendment. In closing, Mr. President, I would reiterate that the bill before us is a good one, and deserves the support of every Senator. No bill is perfect in every respect, but I am confident that this defense authorization bill will strengthen our armed forces and require studies that will enhance our national security. At a time when we are at war in the Balkans, ready for another on the Korean Peninsula, and continue an open-ended air campaign against Iraq, we owe our brave men and women in uniform no less.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the chair. Mr. President, Senator Dorgan, Senator Bingaman, and I have come to the Senate floor today to discuss with the Armed Services Committee's able leadership how the Congress might go about ensuring funding for procurement in fiscal year 2000 of the BQM- 74, a Navy target drone.

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, I rise today to talk about the continuing crisis in the farm economy. I have just been home the weekend before last. Everywhere I went in my State, people were saying to me: Senator, something has to be done. We are facing a crisis in rural America. The prices we are getting for things continues to be at very low levels--in fact, we have the lowest prices in 53 years--and at the same time everything we buy is going up. That is putting us in a cost/price squeeze that is truly strangling American farmers. The result is going to be devastating unless there is a response. Last year, the Federal Government did respond with a $6 billion program of disaster assistance that made a significant difference in rural America. About half of that money went for a support, a supplement that gave farmers some assistance when prices were collapsing. There was also a second major element for a disaster program, natural disasters around the country that had dramatically reduced farm income. That program made a significant difference. Those same conditions continue this year. Prices again are at very low levels, and we have seen natural disasters once again strike rural America. In fact, we now know to deliver on the promise we made last year on a disaster program is going to require more money than we appropriated. We appropriated about $3 billion for that purpose. We now know delivery on the program we passed is going to cost another $1.5 billion, because the signup of agricultural producers that is now completed indicates to us there are far more who are eligible than we thought when we wrote the program. That is, of course, because we were faced with a moving target. We were faced with additional natural disasters that deepened and worsened and made more farmers eligible. I believe we need that $1.5 billion to keep the promise made last year and another $2.8 billion that will be necessary to give the same kind of income support we provided last year, about a 50-percent AMTA supplemental. Why are these necessary? What is happening out there so those of us who represent farm country come to our colleagues and talk about a crisis in rural America? Perhaps the best way of showing what has happened is this chart that shows what has happened, over a 53-year period, to farm prices. As we can see, with spring wheat and barley prices from 1946 to 1999, we are now at the lowest level for barley and wheat prices in 53 years. That is the hard reality our farmers are coping with, the lowest prices in 53 years. We know that earlier this year hog prices fell to 8 cents a pound. It costs 40 cents a pound to produce a hog. To put these prices into some perspective, these are per bushel. We are down to a price per bushel of $2.60 to $2.70 for wheat. I know a bushel does not mean a lot to many people in our very urban society today, but a bushel of wheat weighs 56 pounds. So farmers are getting 5 cents a pound--actually something less than 5 cents a pound--for the product they produce. There is no way you can make it when you are getting 5 cents a pound for a product that costs at least 10 cents a pound to produce. But that is what is happening to farmers. Let me go to the next chart that shows what is happening to wheat prices received by farmers in relationship to cost. This green line shows the cost of production in 1997. You can see it is just about $5 a bushel. That is the cost. That is the best estimate of what it costs across the country to produce a bushel of wheat, just above $5. You can see the last time farmers were getting above $5 was back in 1996. Since that time, in 1997, it was far below the cost of production, and it has done nothing but get worse through 1998 and on into 1999. We are far below the cost of production. As I indicated, we are running, down here at $2.60 a bushel. The cost of production is over $5. It is no wonder farmers are saying we desperately need a Federal response. Why is it a Federal responsibility? For the entire history of the United States, we have recognized the special role of agriculture. We have recognized it is subject to dramatic swings in both production and prices, because, first of all, it is a product that depends on the weather, and the weather is very unpredictable, as we have seen across the country for year after year after year. On top of that, we are subjected to dramatic price swings. In the last several years, we have been influenced by the collapse in Asia; we lost one of our biggest customers. We have also seen a financial collapse in Russia. Of course, Russia was a key customer of the United States. Those two things have had a dramatic and adverse impact on price. You can see it here--prices down, down, down--and the cost of production staying up. That has put our farmers at an extreme disadvantage. While farmers are paying more but receiving less, it is not surprising, then, they find themselves in a cost/price squeeze. This green line shows the prices farmers paid for various inputs. As you can see, the prices farmers had been paying had been going up rather steadily. They have actually leveled off in the last 3 years. But look at what the prices that farmers have been receiving look like. That is this red line. We can see it peaked right at the time we passed the 1996 farm bill. The 1996 farm bill changed everything. It said, instead of adjusting what Government provides by way of assistance when prices fall, we will no longer do that. The new farm bill said we are going to have fixed payments that are sharply reduced year after year no matter what happens to prices. Here is the pattern we see: the prices farmers pay for goods they use to produce products going up; the prices they receive going down dramatically. The result is this enormous gap between what they are able to buy for, what they have to pay to receive goods, and what they are able to get when they sell their goods. This dramatic gap, this chasm now, between the prices farmers pay for what they have to buy and what they get for what they sell has opened up into such a large difference that literally tens of thousands of farm families are threatened. It would be one thing if the United States was alone in this world, if we did not have competitors to worry about, but we do have competitors. The Europeans are our chief competitors, and it is very interesting to see what they are doing. At the very time when we have dramatically cut support for farmers, cut support at the very time they are in the greatest need, because the gap between what they pay for and what they get has opened up in such a very serious way, we have cut dramatically the level of support we provide our farmers. In the last farm bill, we cut in half the support we provide our farmers. If we look at what our competitors, the Europeans, are doing, we see quite a different pattern. Our European competitors are spending far more than we are to support their farmers. If we go back to 1996, we can see the red bar is what Europe is spending in direct support; the yellow bar is what we are spending. We can see the pattern all through 1997, 1998, 1999, the year 2000--and these are projections for 2001 and 2002--that our competitors are providing much more support to their producers than we are providing ours. I conclude by saying we have a crisis in rural America. It requires a Federal response. I hope very much before this year has concluded that we have said farming is important in this country, that we understand it is in crisis, and that we are prepared to respond. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I join again with my friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, to introduce the Biomass and Coal Facilities Extension Act. This legislation would extend by eight months the placed-in-service date under section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code. We are offering the same bill we offered in the 105th Congress because the problem addressed by the bill remains uncorrected. The change we propose is necessary in order to alleviate a hardship taxpayers are suffering as a result of their reliance on actions taken by Congress nearly three years ago. A number of taxpayers made substantial commitments of resources to develop alternative fuel technology projects in good faith reliance on the incentives provided in the Small Business Protection Act of 1996. Under that law, Congress intended to ensure that alternative fuel technology projects involving coal and biomass would qualify for the credit provided under section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code as long as projects were subject to a binding contract by December 31, 1996 and placed in service by June 30, 1998. That should have settled the matter. However, a proposal offered by the Administration in February 1997 contained a proposal to shorten the placed-in-service deadline by a full year for facilities producing gas from biomass and synthetic fuel from coal. The Administration was concerned about what it characterized as rapid growth in the section 29 credit. Congress considered that argument, but concluded that no change in the 1996 legislation was necessary. In the tax legislative arena, even a mere proposal can have consequences. When the Joint Committee on Taxation published its analysis of the Administration's budget proposals in March 1997, it warned Congress about just such a consequence as it observed that ``[b]ecause the binding contract date has already passed * * * the proposal might place an unfair financial burden on those taxpayers who are bound to contracts entered into prior to the Administration's announcement.'' Mr. President, that is exactly what happened--many taxpayers who found themselves in that situation lost their sources of funding because financial institutions were obligated to take into account the possibility that the Administration's proposal could have become law. Because the tax credit plays a significant role in the financial examination lenders must make, its potential loss made securing the necessary financing impossible for taxpayers who were proceeding in good faith under binding contracts made in reliance on the provisions of the Small Business Protection Act of 1996. The bill would extend the placed-in-service date for a period eight months from the date of the bill's enactment. This would restore some of the time that taxpayers lost as a result of the confusion which resulted from the events of 1997. Let me emphasize that the bill would not authorize any ``new starts.'' The binding contract date provided in the 1996 Act would not be altered. The sole purpose of this bill is to allow taxpayers who began projects under the 1996 Act to proceed in an orderly manner to create the kinds of facilities that will help increase the country's useful energy resources.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I join again with my friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, to introduce the Biomass and Coal Facilities Extension Act. This legislation would extend by eight months the placed-in-service date under section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code. We are offering the same bill we offered in the 105th Congress because the problem addressed by the bill remains uncorrected. The change we propose is necessary in order to alleviate a hardship taxpayers are suffering as a result of their reliance on actions taken by Congress nearly three years ago. A number of taxpayers made substantial commitments of resources to develop alternative fuel technology projects in good faith reliance on the incentives provided in the Small Business Protection Act of 1996. Under that law, Congress intended to ensure that alternative fuel technology projects involving coal and biomass would qualify for the credit provided under section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code as long as projects were subject to a binding contract by December 31, 1996 and placed in service by June 30, 1998. That should have settled the matter. However, a proposal offered by the Administration in February 1997 contained a proposal to shorten the placed-in-service deadline by a full year for facilities producing gas from biomass and synthetic fuel from coal. The Administration was concerned about what it characterized as rapid growth in the section 29 credit. Congress considered that argument, but concluded that no change in the 1996 legislation was necessary. In the tax legislative arena, even a mere proposal can have consequences. When the Joint Committee on Taxation published its analysis of the Administration's budget proposals in March 1997, it warned Congress about just such a consequence as it observed that ``[b]ecause the binding contract date has already passed * * * the proposal might place an unfair financial burden on those taxpayers who are bound to contracts entered into prior to the Administration's announcement.'' Mr. President, that is exactly what happened--many taxpayers who found themselves in that situation lost their sources of funding because financial institutions were obligated to take into account the possibility that the Administration's proposal could have become law. Because the tax credit plays a significant role in the financial examination lenders must make, its potential loss made securing the necessary financing impossible for taxpayers who were proceeding in good faith under binding contracts made in reliance on the provisions of the Small Business Protection Act of 1996. The bill would extend the placed-in-service date for a period eight months from the date of the bill's enactment. This would restore some of the time that taxpayers lost as a result of the confusion which resulted from the events of 1997. Let me emphasize that the bill would not authorize any ``new starts.'' The binding contract date provided in the 1996 Act would not be altered. The sole purpose of this bill is to allow taxpayers who began projects under the 1996 Act to proceed in an orderly manner to create the kinds of facilities that will help increase the country's useful energy resources.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Harkin, Hatch, and Grassley in submitting a concurrent resolution that will ensure Medicare beneficiaries have access to the medical care they need. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 established the Medicare+Choice program and required that all services covered under traditional Medicare would also be covered in the Medicare+Choice program. Unfortunately, subsequent Medicare+Choice regulations do not ensure that beneficiaries participating in Medicare managed care will be eligible for the services provided by a chiropractor. Medicare beneficiaries have access to chiropractic services under Part B of Medicare. Chiropractors are uniquely educated and trained to perform chiropractic services, such as a manual manipulation to the spine to correct a subluxation, a covered service under the traditional Medicare program. When the Medicare+Choice program was created, it was the unequivocal intent of Congress to ensure that every beneficiary that chooses to enroll in a Medicare+Choice program would have access to all services covered under Medicare Parts A and B--including chiropractic services. Under the current Medicare+Choice regulations, managed care plans have incorrectly assumed that they can limit access to chiropractic care by referring patients to other types of providers. As the number of beneficiaries enrolling in Medicare HMOs continues to rise we must make sure that beneficiaries have access to the same services that they are promised under traditional Medicare--and chiropractic services are now exception. This legislation will clarify the Congressional intent to ensure that all chiropractic services covered under traditional, fee-for-Medicare are also covered under the Medicare+Choice program. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my distinguished colleague from North Dakota, in introducing legislation to authorize $1.7 billion in emergency funding for FY 2000 Veterans Health Administration programs. Since the release of the Administration's FY 2000 budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs, I have been deeply concerned by the level of funding--$17.3 billion--for the Veterans Health Administration. This concerned was heightened by comments in an internal memo by Dr. Kenneth Kizer, VA Undersecretary for Health, in February, regarding the FY 2000 veterans health care budget. In that memo, Dr. Kizer warned VA Secretary Togo West that the Administration budget for FY 2000 ``poses very serious challenges which can only be met if decisive and timely actions are taken.'' Dr. Kizer went on the say that unless the VA acts soon, ``* * * we face the very real prospect of far more problematic decisions, e.g. mandatory employee furloughs, severe curtailment of services or elimination of programs and possible unnecessary facility closures'' Indeed, Mr. President, I can confirm, that concern over VA health care funding in FY 2000, and the possibility of severe curtailment of services, and the furlough VA employees is a very real concern for North Dakota veterans and DVA officials at the Fargo VA Medical Center in North Dakota. Veterans health care funding in FY 2000, and the hope that funding can be authorized this year to under take critical environmental improvements at the Fargo DVA Medical Center are high priorities for North Dakota veterans. These key priorities were discussed during a visit to the Fargo DVA Medical Center earlier this year, at my request, by Deputy Secretary Hershel Gober. In fact, so concerned are members of the Disabled American Veterans nationwide, including North Dakota members, about funding for VA medical programs, that a rally has been scheduled on May 30th at the Fargo DVA Medical Center to heighten public awareness of the FY 2000 budget for veterans medical care and to press for additional funds. Mr. President, over the past few months, Members of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs and many of my colleagues have been working hard to increase funding for veterans medical care in FY 2000. I have strongly supported these efforts. During consideration of the FY 2000 budget resolution in committee, and when the resolution was reported to the Senate for consideration, I voted to increase funding for VA medical care by $3 billion, the figure recommended in the FY 2000 Independent Budget supported by the AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America. House and Senate conferees eventually agreed to increase veterans health care funding by $1.66 billion in FY 2000. Most recently, I cosigned a letter to Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee urging the committee to provide $1.7 billion above the administration's request for the Veterans Health Administration. Although Senate appropriators have not made a decision on how much to increase funding for veterans medical care, initial reports for a significant increase are not encouraging. Because of concerns that the FY 2000 appropriations for veterans health are not expected to be adequate, and may result in unnecessary furloughs and disruptions of health care services for veterans, Senator Dorgan and I are introducing legislation to provide an emergency authorization of $1.7 billion in funding above the administration's request for $17.3 billion for the Veterans Health Administration. This figure also represents the level of additional health care funding recommended for the VA to Senate appropriators by Senate Veterans' Committee Chairman Arlen Specter and Ranking Member John D. Rockefeller. We must make every effort to find these emergency FY 2000 funds for veterans medical care, and to include them in appropriate legislation to avoid disruptions in critical health care. We can do no less for our veterans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.