Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 257. Although this bill is not as comprehensive or detailed as I would prefer, I have come to the conclusion that S. 257, as amended, sends an important signal of our country's commitment to defending itself from ballistic missile attack from a rogue state. As my colleagues are aware, I am an advocate for national missile defense, and have authored legislation that has advanced the NMD program. I urge the Administration to include funding in the budget that would allow for NMD deployment, and am pleased that $6.6 billion was added to the future years defense plan for this purpose. Increasingly, I am convinced that we need NMD sooner rather than later. Last July, the Rumsfeld Commission reported that several rogue states could develop an ICBM capable of threatening our country before we expect it. Recent missile tests by North Korea and Iran have confirmed the essence of the Rumsfeld panel's findings. I was disturbed by these developments, but have long said that we should be prepared before we are surprised. Our country needs to move forward aggressively with NMD. But because our NMD program does not exist in a vacuum, it needs to be guided by what I call three common sense criteria: compatibility with arms control, affordability, and use of proven, tested technology. As introduced last year S. 257 did not address these concerns, and its authors were refusing to entertain amendments. For these reasons, in 1998 I opposed this measure. I am pleased that the bill's authors decided to support improving S. 257 through the amendment process. With the addition of the amendments offered by Senators Cochran and Landrieu, today I am prepared to support S. 257. Allow me to briefly discuss the impact of these amendments. Yesterday the Senate, on a 99-0 vote, approved an amendment offered by Senator Cochran that will ensure that considerations of affordability and use of proven technology will not be neglected. By stating that funding the NMD will be subject to Congressional authorization and appropriations, the Cochran amendment indicates that no final decisions about deployment, funding levels, or the system's technological maturity have been made. I thank my esteemed colleague from Mississippi for his comments on this point during his colloquy with Senator Bingaman earlier today. Let me repeat: as amended, S. 257 is not the final word on NMD cost and use of proven technology. Even more significant was the amendment offered by the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee's Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Senator Landrieu. In affirming that it is our nation's policy to pursue continued negotiated reductions to Russian nuclear forces, the Landrieu amendment makes unmistakably clear that as our NMD program moves forward we will take into account our arms control agreements and objectives. Because there can be little hope of Russian agreement to further nuclear reductions in the absence of continued United States support for the ABM Treaty, following through on the Landrieu amendment will require continued adherence to the ABM Treaty. I would also like to note that I have been assured by the President's advisors that in no way will S. 257 by interpreted by our nation's arms control negotiators as a repudiation of the ABM Treaty. Administration officials continue to make it clear that the ABM Treaty remains the ``cornerstone of strategic stability,'' and that the Administration has a ``strong commitment to the ABM Treaty.'' I cannot understate the importance of these amendments. Without them, I would again vote against S. 257. It is true that I would have preferred that the Senate would today be passing a more comprehensive NMD bill, one that is more explicit about the importance of our arms control agreements and offers specific guidance on affordability, system component selection, and technology development and deployment. It is my intention to introduce legislation which will describe in more detail how the NMD program should proceed. For the time being, however, I regard S. 257 as a constructive contribution to our NMD program. It will do no harm to our nation's security, and will put our nation's potential enemies on notice that we are working aggressively to establish a defense against ICBMs. As amended, S. 257 will also help ensure that concerns of arms control, cost, and use of proven technology will be carefully considered. This is a good bill, and will have my support.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that time for this introduction be allocated against the time on this amendment but appear as in morning business.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Conrad and Mr. Dorgan pertaining to the introduction of S. 623 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I rise today to introduce the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1999, as cosponsored by my colleague, Senator Dorgan. Our colleague, Congressman Pomeroy, is introducing identical legislation in the House of Representatives today. Mr. President, the Dakota Water Resources Act represents a fiscally responsible, environmentally sound, treaty-compliant approach to completing the Garrison project. The U.S. Senate is well aware of the history of failed promises on water development projects on the Missouri River. The 1944 Flood Control Act authorized six main-stem dams along the Missouri River. These structures flooded about 550,000 acres of land in North Dakota. These were prime agricultural lands that were flooded. We were promised that we would get certain things in return for the loss of these lands. We were promised that we would get a major water project for the State of North Dakota. Unfortunately, only part of that promise has been kept. You can see here the kinds of things that have happened. This is the town of Elbowoods, July 7, 1954. This town is now under water. It is not the only town that is under water. Town after town along the Missouri was flooded in order to give protection to downstream States, to remove from them the flood threat that so long had devastated them economically. We accepted the permanent flood, a flood that came and has never gone. That flood has cost our State tremendously. All we are asking is that the promise that was made to us in exchange for flooding these 550,000 acres now be kept. Mr. President, the Dakota Water Resources Act would assure North Dakota an adequate supply of quality water for municipal, rural, and industrial purposes. In fact, without these amendments, many communities in North Dakota will be forced to be without clean and reliable water supplies. I think you can see these two jars. This is water that is delivered to rural North Dakotans via a pipeline. It is clean. It is healthy. It is wholesome. This is the typical water supply for rural North Dakotans. It looks like coffee or dark tea. This is actually what comes out when you turn on your spigot in the homes of many of the people in rural North Dakota. This is like living in the Third World. I tell my colleagues, there is nothing quite like getting ready to step into a bathtub of water when it looks like this; even worse, to have your child getting ready to step into a bathtub of water that looks like this. This is absolutely at the heart of what we are trying to accomplish with the Dakota Water Resources Act, to provide clean, healthy supplies of water to our population. Mr. President, water development is essential for economic development, agriculture, recreation and improving the environment. The legislation that we are offering today will provide an adequate and dependable water supply throughout North Dakota, including communities in the Red River Valley. This picture shows what we have faced in the past. This is 1910. This is the Red River, the famous Red River of the North. You could have walked across this river. You can see, at that point it was nothing more than a few puddles. It had virtually dried up. Now, since that time we have had major cities spring up, and we can't face a circumstance in which those towns would be high and dry. Fargo, ND--I think many people have heard of Fargo, ND--Grand Forks, ND; they are on the Red River. They depend, for their water supplies, on the Red River. Yet periodically in history the Red River all but dries up. We need to make certain that there is ample supplies of water so that we aren't facing that circumstance. The bill that we are offering today is addressing the current water needs of our State. Those needs are significantly different than what we faced in 1944. Let me briefly summarize the bill. It provides $300 million for statewide MR&I projects. It provides $200 million for tribal MR&I projects--in many cases, the water conditions on our reservations are even worse than the ones that I have shown that pertain in much of rural North Dakota--$200 million to deliver water to the Red River Valley to make certain that those towns and cities have reliable and adequate supplies of water; $40 million to replace the dangerous Four Bears Bridge that was required because of flooding that occurred, a bridge was built--that bridge is now badly out of date and dangerous-- $25 million for a natural resources trust fund; $6.5 million for recreation projects; and an understanding that the State pays for the project facilities that it uses. We think that is a fundamental principle that ought to be recognized. Those are the key elements of the bill that we are offering. Let me say, this bill is friendly to taxpayers as well, because our bill, while proposing $770 million of new authority to complete the project, deauthorizes many parts of the project that were previously authorized. The total project cost of the Dakota Water Resources Act would be roughly $1.5 billion, nearly $500 million less than the current cost of constructing the remainder of the 1986 project that is already authorized. In other words, we are trading in parts of the project that no longer make the most sense in exchange for new elements which do make sense, and we are doing it in a way that is cost-effective for the taxpayers, reducing the overall bill by $500 million. Now, there are some, representing certain national environmental organizations that will remain unnamed here, who have said that this is nearly a billion dollars of new spending. They aren't telling the truth. That is not the truth. We are reducing the spending by deauthorizing certain features previously authorized in exchange for new ones, less costly ones that make sense in light of contemporary needs. Mr. President, North Dakota has been waiting a long time, a long time for the promise to be kept to our State. It is desperately needed. Mr. President, this legislation represents a fiscally responsible, environmentally sound, treaty-compliant approach to completing the Garrison Project that was promised in North Dakota. I look forward to continuing to work with Members of this body and the other body and the administration to advance this legislation. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I rise today to introduce the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1999, as cosponsored by my colleague, Senator Dorgan. Our colleague, Congressman Pomeroy, is introducing identical legislation in the House of Representatives today. Mr. President, the Dakota Water Resources Act represents a fiscally responsible, environmentally sound, treaty-compliant approach to completing the Garrison project. The U.S. Senate is well aware of the history of failed promises on water development projects on the Missouri River. The 1944 Flood Control Act authorized six main-stem dams along the Missouri River. These structures flooded about 550,000 acres of land in North Dakota. These were prime agricultural lands that were flooded. We were promised that we would get certain things in return for the loss of these lands. We were promised that we would get a major water project for the State of North Dakota. Unfortunately, only part of that promise has been kept. You can see here the kinds of things that have happened. This is the town of Elbowoods, July 7, 1954. This town is now under water. It is not the only town that is under water. Town after town along the Missouri was flooded in order to give protection to downstream States, to remove from them the flood threat that so long had devastated them economically. We accepted the permanent flood, a flood that came and has never gone. That flood has cost our State tremendously. All we are asking is that the promise that was made to us in exchange for flooding these 550,000 acres now be kept. Mr. President, the Dakota Water Resources Act would assure North Dakota an adequate supply of quality water for municipal, rural, and industrial purposes. In fact, without these amendments, many communities in North Dakota will be forced to be without clean and reliable water supplies. I think you can see these two jars. This is water that is delivered to rural North Dakotans via a pipeline. It is clean. It is healthy. It is wholesome. This is the typical water supply for rural North Dakotans. It looks like coffee or dark tea. This is actually what comes out when you turn on your spigot in the homes of many of the people in rural North Dakota. This is like living in the Third World. I tell my colleagues, there is nothing quite like getting ready to step into a bathtub of water when it looks like this; even worse, to have your child getting ready to step into a bathtub of water that looks like this. This is absolutely at the heart of what we are trying to accomplish with the Dakota Water Resources Act, to provide clean, healthy supplies of water to our population. Mr. President, water development is essential for economic development, agriculture, recreation and improving the environment. The legislation that we are offering today will provide an adequate and dependable water supply throughout North Dakota, including communities in the Red River Valley. This picture shows what we have faced in the past. This is 1910. This is the Red River, the famous Red River of the North. You could have walked across this river. You can see, at that point it was nothing more than a few puddles. It had virtually dried up. Now, since that time we have had major cities spring up, and we can't face a circumstance in which those towns would be high and dry. Fargo, ND--I think many people have heard of Fargo, ND--Grand Forks, ND; they are on the Red River. They depend, for their water supplies, on the Red River. Yet periodically in history the Red River all but dries up. We need to make certain that there is ample supplies of water so that we aren't facing that circumstance. The bill that we are offering today is addressing the current water needs of our State. Those needs are significantly different than what we faced in 1944. Let me briefly summarize the bill. It provides $300 million for statewide MR&I projects. It provides $200 million for tribal MR&I projects--in many cases, the water conditions on our reservations are even worse than the ones that I have shown that pertain in much of rural North Dakota--$200 million to deliver water to the Red River Valley to make certain that those towns and cities have reliable and adequate supplies of water; $40 million to replace the dangerous Four Bears Bridge that was required because of flooding that occurred, a bridge was built--that bridge is now badly out of date and dangerous-- $25 million for a natural resources trust fund; $6.5 million for recreation projects; and an understanding that the State pays for the project facilities that it uses. We think that is a fundamental principle that ought to be recognized. Those are the key elements of the bill that we are offering. Let me say, this bill is friendly to taxpayers as well, because our bill, while proposing $770 million of new authority to complete the project, deauthorizes many parts of the project that were previously authorized. The total project cost of the Dakota Water Resources Act would be roughly $1.5 billion, nearly $500 million less than the current cost of constructing the remainder of the 1986 project that is already authorized. In other words, we are trading in parts of the project that no longer make the most sense in exchange for new elements which do make sense, and we are doing it in a way that is cost-effective for the taxpayers, reducing the overall bill by $500 million. Now, there are some, representing certain national environmental organizations that will remain unnamed here, who have said that this is nearly a billion dollars of new spending. They aren't telling the truth. That is not the truth. We are reducing the spending by deauthorizing certain features previously authorized in exchange for new ones, less costly ones that make sense in light of contemporary needs. Mr. President, North Dakota has been waiting a long time, a long time for the promise to be kept to our State. It is desperately needed. Mr. President, this legislation represents a fiscally responsible, environmentally sound, treaty-compliant approach to completing the Garrison Project that was promised in North Dakota. I look forward to continuing to work with Members of this body and the other body and the administration to advance this legislation. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, on Friday, March 5, I was necessarily absent in order to join Secretary of Energy Richardson in Bismarck for meetings with representatives of North Dakota energy industries and to meet with the Governor and other State officials about water resources. Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 33 on S. 280, to table the Graham amendment which would have prohibited the implementation of the ``Know Your Customer'' regulation by Federal banking agencies, I would have voted ``nay.'' Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, throughout the 105th Congress, the Administration and the Congress focused considerable attention on information technology (IT) issues, particularly the difficulties that many American companies are experiencing in recruiting skilled workers to fill key positions in information technology. The Department of Commerce, early in the 105th Congress, released a study, ``America's New Deficit: The Shortage of Information Technology Workers,'' alerting us to the severe shortage of information technology workers. This report was supported by a study from the Information Technology Association of America, ``Help Wanted 1998: A Call for Collaborative Action For the New Millennium,'' which estimated that there are more than 340,000 highly skilled positions in information technology that are not filled. Moreover, the Department of Labor projected that our economy will require more than 130,000 information technology jobs in three fields--systems analysts, computer scientists and engineers, and computer programmers--every year for the next 10 years. Mr. President, the shortage of skilled high-tech workers is not unique to any one region of the country--Silicon Valley, Dallas, Atlanta, or Northern Virginia. It is a matter of urgent concern across the country. The shortage affects every State, every sector of the economy, and its impact was documented during a conference of more than 350 educators, State officials, and business community leaders that I hosted last fall in Bismarck, North Dakota. The conference was scheduled to examine the challenges and opportunities of information technology in the 21st century. Without question, the shortage of skilled IT workers is a major concern for State officials and the North Dakota business community. During the conference, many North Dakota business leaders from firms, including Great Plains Software, Gateway, U.S. West, and North Central Data Co-op, confirmed the difficulties they are having in recruiting employees with qualified information technology skills. The business community and educators, representing all levels of education, emphasized the importance of expanding opportunities in information technology training and education. Last year, during the closing days of the 105th Congress, we took the first step to respond to the concern over the shortage of skilled high- tech workers by increasing the annual cap on H1-B visas for foreign workers recruited to work in U.S. high-tech industries. As important as this first step is, the increase in H1-B visas by itself will not adequately respond to the shortage of skilled workers in the U.S. Nor is it acceptable to authorize an increase in the number of foreign workers coming to the U.S. to fill IT vacancies without taking steps to ensure that American workers and students have opportunities to train and qualify for these excellent opportunities. Mr. President, that is why, during consideration of the American Competitiveness Act last year, I introduced legislation, S. 2089, to allow employers an income tax credit for information technology training expenses paid on behalf of employees or other individuals who are entering information technology careers. I believe it is essential that we provide every opportunity to American workers and individuals to become aware of opportunities in information technology, and to ensure that training and education is available at all levels. I regret that we did not adopt this important initiative during the 105th Congress. Today, I am introducing this legislation to provide employers a tax credit for information technology training. I am very pleased that Senators Feinstein, Johnson, Daschle, Sarbanes, Boxer, Snowe, Murray, Reid, and Robb are cosponsoring this important initiative. This legislation is also endorsed by the Information Technology Association of America, the Software and Information Industry Association, the Computing Technology Industry Association, the Information Technology Training Association, and the American Society For Training and Development. Under this legislation, the tax credit would be an amount equal to 20 percent of information technology training program expenses, not to exceed $6,000 in a taxable year. The value of the credit would increase by 5 percent if the IT training program is operated in an Empowerment Zone, Enterprise Community, Rural Economic Area Partnership (REAP) zone, in a school district in which at least 50 percent of the students in the school district participate in the school lunch program, in an area designated as a disaster zone by the President or Secretary of Agriculture, or associated with a small business with no more than 200 employees. Mr. President, last year we responded to the IT worker shortage by increasing the opportunities for skilled high-tech workers from other countries to come to the U.S. to work in the information technology field. Now we have an obligation to make certain that the same exciting opportunities in information technology are available to American workers and other individuals interested in information technology careers. I welcome additional cosponsors of this legislation, and I strongly urge my colleagues to incorporate this important bill in the tax legislation that we are expected to consider in the 106th Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, throughout the 105th Congress, the Administration and the Congress focused considerable attention on information technology (IT) issues, particularly the difficulties that many American companies are experiencing in recruiting skilled workers to fill key positions in information technology. The Department of Commerce, early in the 105th Congress, released a study, ``America's New Deficit: The Shortage of Information Technology Workers,'' alerting us to the severe shortage of information technology workers. This report was supported by a study from the Information Technology Association of America, ``Help Wanted 1998: A Call for Collaborative Action For the New Millennium,'' which estimated that there are more than 340,000 highly skilled positions in information technology that are not filled. Moreover, the Department of Labor projected that our economy will require more than 130,000 information technology jobs in three fields--systems analysts, computer scientists and engineers, and computer programmers--every year for the next 10 years. Mr. President, the shortage of skilled high-tech workers is not unique to any one region of the country--Silicon Valley, Dallas, Atlanta, or Northern Virginia. It is a matter of urgent concern across the country. The shortage affects every State, every sector of the economy, and its impact was documented during a conference of more than 350 educators, State officials, and business community leaders that I hosted last fall in Bismarck, North Dakota. The conference was scheduled to examine the challenges and opportunities of information technology in the 21st century. Without question, the shortage of skilled IT workers is a major concern for State officials and the North Dakota business community. During the conference, many North Dakota business leaders from firms, including Great Plains Software, Gateway, U.S. West, and North Central Data Co-op, confirmed the difficulties they are having in recruiting employees with qualified information technology skills. The business community and educators, representing all levels of education, emphasized the importance of expanding opportunities in information technology training and education. Last year, during the closing days of the 105th Congress, we took the first step to respond to the concern over the shortage of skilled high- tech workers by increasing the annual cap on H1-B visas for foreign workers recruited to work in U.S. high-tech industries. As important as this first step is, the increase in H1-B visas by itself will not adequately respond to the shortage of skilled workers in the U.S. Nor is it acceptable to authorize an increase in the number of foreign workers coming to the U.S. to fill IT vacancies without taking steps to ensure that American workers and students have opportunities to train and qualify for these excellent opportunities. Mr. President, that is why, during consideration of the American Competitiveness Act last year, I introduced legislation, S. 2089, to allow employers an income tax credit for information technology training expenses paid on behalf of employees or other individuals who are entering information technology careers. I believe it is essential that we provide every opportunity to American workers and individuals to become aware of opportunities in information technology, and to ensure that training and education is available at all levels. I regret that we did not adopt this important initiative during the 105th Congress. Today, I am introducing this legislation to provide employers a tax credit for information technology training. I am very pleased that Senators Feinstein, Johnson, Daschle, Sarbanes, Boxer, Snowe, Murray, Reid, and Robb are cosponsoring this important initiative. This legislation is also endorsed by the Information Technology Association of America, the Software and Information Industry Association, the Computing Technology Industry Association, the Information Technology Training Association, and the American Society For Training and Development. Under this legislation, the tax credit would be an amount equal to 20 percent of information technology training program expenses, not to exceed $6,000 in a taxable year. The value of the credit would increase by 5 percent if the IT training program is operated in an Empowerment Zone, Enterprise Community, Rural Economic Area Partnership (REAP) zone, in a school district in which at least 50 percent of the students in the school district participate in the school lunch program, in an area designated as a disaster zone by the President or Secretary of Agriculture, or associated with a small business with no more than 200 employees. Mr. President, last year we responded to the IT worker shortage by increasing the opportunities for skilled high-tech workers from other countries to come to the U.S. to work in the information technology field. Now we have an obligation to make certain that the same exciting opportunities in information technology are available to American workers and other individuals interested in information technology careers. I welcome additional cosponsors of this legislation, and I strongly urge my colleagues to incorporate this important bill in the tax legislation that we are expected to consider in the 106th Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. Chief Justice, I have served twelve years in the United States Senate. I respect this institution and all of you as colleagues. I especially respect the job our leaders have done in this trial. They have performed in the highest tradition of the United States Senate. Most of all, I respect our oath of office: to ``preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' I know all of us take that oath seriously. At the end of this proceeding, however, we may reach different conclusions about what the Constitution compels us to do. The simple truth is that this case is not black and white. As Mr. Manager Graham said, reasonable people may come to different conclusions. There is one thing on which we all agree: The President's conduct was wrong. In fact, it was very wrong. But the question before us is not whether the President's conduct was wrong. The question is whether that conduct meets the Constitutional standard for removing a President from office. That requires us to make a profound judgment on whether we should overturn the results of a national election. 67 members in this chamber can nullify the votes of the 47 million Americans who voted for President Clinton. That is an awesome power. It must be used with great restraint. There are three questions we must answer in the affirmative to remove a President: First, did the President commit the crimes he is charged with? Second, are these crimes properly addressed by impeachment, or would they be better left to the criminal justice system? Third, do the charges rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors and justify the removal of the President of the United States? the sufficiency of the evidence Let me start with the first question. The charges against the President are perjury and obstruction of justice. Five experienced Federal prosecutors representing both Republican and Democratic Administrations concluded that no responsible Federal prosecutor would bring perjury charges based on the facts in this case. The President in his grand jury testimony acknowledged an intimate and inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky. The details of that relationship are in conflict. But I do not believe relatively minor differences in the details of that relationship would result in a perjury conviction. On the obstruction charges, again the federal prosecutors told us they would not bring charges based on the facts in this case. Ms. Lewinsky has testified that no one ever asked her to lie or promised her a job for her silence. Ms. Lewinsky further testified she never discussed the contents of her testimony with the President, ever. Finally, she also testified that she believed she could file a truthful affidavit. But there are two elements of the obstruction of justice charges that do trouble me. One is the transfer of gifts from Ms. Lewinsky to Betty Currie. That could constitute concealment of evidence. But Betty Currie has testified five times that Ms. Lewinsky called her to arrange for the transfer of gifts. And both the President and Betty Currie have denied that the President initiated the transfer. The second troubling charge is the questioning of Betty Currie by the President after his deposition in the Jones case. I find it hard to believe the President was just refreshing his memory when on two occasions he put the same set of questions to Ms. Currie. That could constitute witness tampering. But at the time of these conversations, Betty Currie was not a witness in any judicial proceeding. And she has testified that she did not feel pressured to agree with the President. Although I am not certain that there was no wrongdoing, I do conclude that the charges have not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. impeachable crimes That leads me to the second question: even if these charges were proven, is this a matter for impeachment, or should it be left to the ordinary course of judicial proceeding? For me, it is a question best answered by the rule of law that governs us all: the Constitution of the United States. James Madison kept a journal of the Constitutional Convention. In it, he said many of the Founders opposed impeachment altogether. Others believed impeachment was needed to protect against treason, bribery, or other ``attempts to subvert the Constitution.'' So a carefully crafted, very narrow compromise was adopted. Article II, section 4 originally read: ``The President . . . shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States.'' James Wilson, a nineteenth century constitutional scholar has written that impeachment was designed for ``great and publick [sic] offences by which the Commonwealth was brought into danger.'' These charges against the President just do not measure up to that standard. Hiding presents under a bed. Asking a secretary leading questions. These can hardly be the great and public offenses that our Founding Fathers had in mind. These charges, and the facts behind them, simply do not bring our commonwealth into danger. So is the President above the law? Most emphatically, no. William Rawles, a contemporary of the Founders and a distinguished commentator on the Constitution wrote: ``In general, those offenses which may be committed equally by a private person as a public officer, are not the subject of impeachment . . . [A]ll offenses not immediately connected with office, except the two expressly mentioned, are left to the ordinary course of judicial proceeding.'' I do not argue that no private wrongs can rise to the level of impeachable offense, but they must be heinous crimes. Article I, section 3, of the Constitution says: ``Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office . . . but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to law.'' The President is not above the law. He can be prosecuted, indicted, convicted, and sentenced for alleged wrongful acts, just like any other American. We have our Founding Fathers' own words, distinguishing between public crimes and those that involve the President's conduct as a private individual. We have their deeds to guide us as well. When Vice President Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel and was indicted for murder, impeachment was not even considered. Almost two hundred years later, the House Judiciary Committee dismissed a tax evasion charge against President Nixon when an overwhelming majority of the Committee concluded, in the words of Congressman Ray Thornton, ``these charges may be reached in due course in the regular process of law.'' In the case before us today, the underlying offense is that the President had an extra-marital affair. He is alleged to have lied about that under oath, and to have obstructed justice. These are serious allegations, and we have considered them seriously. Offensive as they were, the President's actions have nothing to do with his official duties, nor do they constitute the most serious of private crimes. In my judgment, these are matters best left to the criminal justice system.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the conferees who worked on the fiscal year 1999 omnibus appropriations bill for retention of my amendment calling for inclusion of North Dakota in the Midwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, or HIDTA. As North Dakota Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp and US Attorney John Schneider have pointed out, North Dakota--like other Midwestern states--has been inundated by a relentlessly rising tide of methamphetamine trafficking, production, and abuse. Unless action is taken swiftly, the Attorney General and US Attorney warn that North Dakota is at high risk to attract a meth manufacturing industry. This is because my state's sparse population, great size, and abandoned buildings offer excellent locations for meth laboratories. Counter-drug operations in the southwestern US are also forcing this easily-relocated industry to find alternative production locations. The numbers speak for themselves. There were no meth purchases by undercover agents in North Dakota in 1993. By 1997, there were 181 meth-related cases reported by state and federal law enforcement. In 1993, meth-related cases represented only 6 percent of the drug-related workload of the Office of the US Attorney. In five short years this number has skyrocketed to 75 percent. It is undeniable that increased production of meth in North Dakota along with associated trafficking has contributed to a spike of violent crime. This unacceptable increase in meth-driven crime in North Dakota is placing a growing burden on North Dakota law enforcement, and represents a growing danger to the people of my state. It demands an immediate--and coordinated--federal response. Similar problems in the states of South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas were countered with the formation of the Midwest HIDTA. North Dakota meets all the statutory criteria for inclusion in the Midwest HIDTA. In the words of Heitkamp and Schneider, joining the HIDTA will allow federal, state, and local law enforcement to ``work together to disrupt, dismantle, and destroy street and mid-level elements of methamphetamine organizations and/or groups operating in North Dakota, the Midwest, and Canada.'' During floor consideration of the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, I was pleased to work on this matter with the distinguished leadership of the Treasury-Postal Appropriations Subcommittee, Senators Campbell and Kohl. I greatly appreciate their good work in conference to retain my amendment. I am also pleased that the conference report includes additional funding for the new HIDTAs designated in this legislation, and I urge the Administration to consider favorably North Dakota's request for $1.97 million in fiscal year 1999 funding for integration of my state into the Midwest HIDTA. Mr. President, passage of the omnibus bill is an important step in getting tough on methamphetamine in my state. It is simply imperative that there be coordinated federal, state, and local law enforcement response to North Dakota's drug crisis, and I again thank Senators Campbell and Kohl for their assistance in making this a reality. District of Columbia Appropriations

Mr. CONRAD. I agree with my colleagues. Through the section 29 tax credit for nonconventional fuels, Congress has supported the development of environmentally friendly fuels from domestic biomass and coal resources. There are lignite resources in my state that could compete in the energy marketplace if we can find a reasonable incentive for the investment in the necessary technology. As soon as possible in the 106th Congress, I hope we will give this crucial subject the attention it deserves.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I appreciate the responses from my colleague from North Dakota, and I wish to briefly comment on this matter. As the sponsor in previous congresses of legislation that would require HCFA to defer to state law on this issue, I am pleased that HCFA has finally issued a proposed rule that would in fact defer to state law. This issue has been hanging over us for many years, and it seems that the only way to finally resolve it is for HCFA to publish its final rule based upon the proposed rule and let the states decide. As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I would add that we included a provision in our Medicare package in 1995 that would defer to state law on the issue of physician supervision of nurse anesthetists. That provision was not included in the final package as a result of an agreement between the two associations to focus on a reimbursement issue instead. However, I want to emphasize earlier comments that HCFA should neither be discouraged nor delayed in moving forward in publishing a final rule.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 2263, legislation that encourages the posthumous award of the Medal of Honor to Theodore Roosevelt. The courage demonstrated by Col. Theodore Roosevelt as he led the First US Volunteer Cavalry in an attack on San Juan Heights, Cuba, has rightly become a part of American folklore. That day, on July 1, 1898, in one of the most famous military actions in our nation's history, Roosevelt showed why he is rightly regarded as an American hero. Roosevelt had every reason to expect to be awarded the Medal of Honor. Award of this most prestigious medal to ``TR'' was recommended by his commanding general. Unfortunately, political considerations at the time stood in the way. As Roosevelt's great grandson, Tweed Roosevelt, testified before Congress last month, however, TR did not take the occasion of his assumption of the presidency to retaliate against those who had denied him an award he clearly deserved. The same character he showed in battle during the Spanish-American War continued to be evident once Roosevelt reached the pinnacle of power in the United States. Fortunately, today the Senate is taking legislative action that will allow this injustice to be corrected. One century after TR and his Roughriders charged up San Juan Heights, the Senate stands ready to pass legislation that would authorize and request that the Medal of Honor be awarded posthumously to Theodore Roosevelt. I was pleased to work with the distinguished leadership of the Senate Armed Services Committee on this matter, and thank them for their good work. As those of my colleagues who have studied Roosevelt's life are aware, my state has a special connection with Theodore Roosevelt. TR liked to say that the years he spent in the Badlands of North Dakota were the best of his life. Today, Theodore Roosevelt National Park stands as an enduring reminder of TR's love for North Dakota and the profound impact that my state had on this remarkable American. As a North Dakotan and an American, I am pleased that the life and ideas of Theodore Roosevelt are receiving renewed attention. TR's ruggedness, patriotism, optimism, and spirit reflect what is best about our country. He also articulated a vision of America that remains compelling today, and merits a new look. Teddy Roosevelt called for maintaining a strong national defense, protecting our environmental treasures, encouraging entrepreneurship, and, by broadening access to education and health care, ensuring that every American has a viable shot at realizing their dreams. This is a vision we all would do well to pursue. Again, Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for their support of the legislation before us today, and congratulate the Armed Services Committee for its leadership in seeing that an historical wrong can be righted before the end of this session of Congress. Theodore Roosevelt was a great American who displayed remarkable courage in battle. It is good to know that the bill we will pass today will help get him the recognition he deserves. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the tremendous accomplishment of a number of young American athletes. Specifically, I want to bring to the attention of the United States Senate the accomplishment of the 1998 United States All-Star High School Junior National Ultimate Frisbee Team at the recently completed Ultimate Frisbee World Championship Tournament. Mr. President, High School Ultimate Frisbee, or ``Ultimate,'' players from all over our great land competed for positions on the U.S. team. Competition was fierce and the United States fielded a team of nineteen young men and one young woman at the tournament which was played at the beautiful National Sports Center in Blaine, Minnesota at the end of August. Blaine is a suburb on the northern edge of the Twin Cities. ``Ultimate'' is a fast growing, noncontact, sport. It resembles the fast-paced action of soccer and the thrill of American football. First developed at Columbia High School in Mapelwood, NJ, in 1968, Ultimate Frisbee is now played around the world. Teams representing many nations, including Canada, Great Britain, Germany, and Sweden, came to the World Championships. I must note for the Record, Mr. President, that the junior World Championships have been dominated by Sweden. The Swedish team entered the 1998 World Championships with a string of World Championships dating back to 1983, interrupted only by the 1992 tournament victory of Taiwan, ROC. In light of their impressive record, Sweden understandably was seeded first, Germany second, the U.S. third. Yes, Mr. President, our team entered the world tournament as an underdog. This was particularly apt in light of the fact that several of the teams had not only practiced together, but had also played together in numerous other tournaments. In fact, several of the competing teams were even sponsored by their governments. Not so for Team USA! Our American ambassadors bought their own uniforms, paid their own ways to Minnesota and covered the expenses associated with two weeks at the National Sports Center. Even our coaches had to volunteer! I am pleased to report that not only did the American team represent our Nation with a great deal of enthusiasm, but they also quickly coalesced into a real team. This was essential. With less than a week of practices under its belt, the U.S. team, which had never played together before, would face the stiffest Ultimate Frisbee competition in the world. To make a long story short, Mr. President, the U.S. Team proceeded through the first round (10 games) of the tournament undefeated, handing defending Champs Sweden their first two defeats in 6 years and soundly defeating all other competitors, including second seed Germany. Going into the semifinals, Team USA emerged as the decided favorite. It then decisively defeated Great Britain in the semifinal. On Saturday, August 22, in a game begun in a driving rain storm, Team USA won the championship game against defending Champion Sweden. Yes, Mr. President, the U.S. team prevailed. The U.S. All-Star High School Ultimate Frisbee Team won the gold meal. Suffice it to say, we celebrate the great athleticism and victories of these young American athletes. We also have good cause to be proud of their great spirit as well. Spirit is very highly prized in ``Ultimate,'' which does not field referees. To its credit, in ``Ultimate,'' great spirit is often as prized as a great victory. In this effort, our young American athletes demonstrated that good spirit and good play are wholly compatible. Mr. President, I rise to commend the members of the U.S. Junior National Team. Let me name each of the players and their home towns: Harper Alexander of Atlanta, Georgia; Jody Avirgan of Silver Spring, Maryland; Philip Burkhardt of Seattle, Washington; Sam Chatterton- Kirchmeier of Seattle, Washington; Jeremy Cram of Seattle, Washington; Bryan Edwards of Seattle, Washington; Jules Hirschkorn of Amherst, Massachusetts; Pauline Lauterbach of Atlanta, Georgia; Zach Morrison of Newton, Massachusetts; Kyle Neeson of West Newton, Massachusetts; Josh Nugent of Amherst, Massachusetts; Sam O'Brien of St. Paul, Minnesota; Isaiah Robinson of Leverett, Massachusetts; Brian Rogers of Amherst, Massachusetts; Jeremy Schwartz of Scarsdale, New York; Matt Shamey of Leverett, Massachusetts; Michael Shiel of Chicago, Illinois; Jason Simpson of Decatur, Georgia; Ben Van Heuvelen of Bethesda, Maryland; and Garrett Westlake of Nashville, Tennessee. These are truly world class athletes deserving of recognition. Team USA was led to victory by an impressive world class coaching staff. The Head Coach, Tiina Booth, has created and nurtured the Ultimate Frisbee program at Amherst Regional High School in Amherst, Massachusetts. Her Assistant Coaches were Dave ``Mo'' Moscoe of Boulder Creek, California, and Mike Baccarini, who coaches the Ultimate Frisbee Teams of Paideia High School near Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. President, I want to commend the coaches as well for their inspiration, hard work and tremendous contribution to the effort. In short, Mr. President, please join me in congratulating the members and coaches of the U.S. Junior National Ultimate Frisbee Team on their victory. We are proud of you and the Gold Medals you have won for our country!

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have just learned that the Federal Reserve Board has moved to reduce interest rates by a quarter of a point. The irony for me is that about an hour ago, I came to the floor to give a speech to urge the Federal Reserve Board to take action to reduce interest rates. I left my office to come here, and just when I arrived, the Chair had left for the press informational meeting. I do not know exactly when the Federal Reserve Board acted, but I was going to urge them to take such action because of the growing financial crisis we see around the world. I noted in the speech that I intended to give about an hour ago, urging the Federal Reserve Board to take this action, that recently Newsweek magazine had a cover story entitled ``The Crash of 1999: It Doesn't Have to Happen.'' I also noted that yesterday in the Wall Street Journal there was an opinion piece by Robert Eisner entitled ``Act Now to Prevent a Recession,'' and a news story also in yesterday's Wall Street Journal indicating that ``Asia Waits in Vain for Money to Return.'' Mr. President, the point that is critically important to understand is that we cannot be an island unto ourselves. I noted with interest the statement of Alan Greenspan, the head of the Federal Reserve, on September 23, 1998, when he said: It is not credible that the United States, or for that matter Europe, can remain an oasis of prosperity unaffected by a world that is experiencing greatly increased stress. It seems very clear the United States is being affected. We have seen growth in the second quarter of 1998 drop to 1.6 percent--down from 5.5 percent in the first quarter. And if corporate profits sag, the business investment which has accounted for nearly a third of our growth over the last 4 years could decline. Most importantly, the world economic situation is deeply troubling. If we look at what has happened in world stock markets, going back to September of last year and then looking forward to August of this year, only the United States has been holding up. We have seen dramatic declines in Japan, in Hong Kong, and, of course, a virtual collapse in Russia. Earlier this summer, I was at a meeting with the Russians in Europe. At that meeting, I met with the top people of their economics institute who went through the actual numbers, the financial numbers, for Russia. And I must say, I left there increasingly alarmed. Frankly, Russia is in much deeper trouble than I think is commonly understood. They explained to me that they have at the national level about $3 billion a month of income--$3 billion. They have about $5 billion of fixed expenses. Mr. President, they have short-term debt due by the end of this year of $41 billion. They are in deep trouble. They are engaged in a giant Ponzi scheme of taking in money from outside and paying those that they are under the most pressure to pay. None of it adds up. This financial collapse in Russia, coupled with the Asian financial situation, threatens not only most of the developing world but it also can certainly have a dramatic effect on economic growth here at home. That is why I believe it is imperative that the United States take action, specifically with regard to the Federal Reserve Board reducing interest rates to give an additional lift to this economy. I am very pleased that the Federal Reserve Board took action today to reduce rates a quarter of 1 percent. But I think it is going to take more than that to get us through this crisis, to prevent a recession from hitting America. Total U.S. export volume has fallen nearly 6 percent this year, a very sharp reversal over the steady export increases in the preceding 6 years. In addition, the dollar value of our exports to Asia has dropped 13 percent this year while our trade deficit with Asia is projected to increase by nearly $50 billion from last year. Prices received by U.S. exporters, including our farmers, have fallen. I represent a farm State, perhaps the most agricultural or certainly one of the most agricultural States in our Nation. I can tell you, we are already in a deep recession because of collapsing commodity prices. Those prices are at a 52-year low, adjusted for inflation. So in real terms, the prices our farmers are getting are at a 52-year low. No wonder we have just had to pass a $6 billion rescue package. In addition, I think it is important to understand that one of the key reasons the Federal Reserve Board has been reluctant to reduce interest rates is because they are concerned about inflation. Well, I do not think inflation is the threat. There currently is virtually no inflation in the U.S. economy. Over the last 12 months, consumer prices are up less than 2 percent; in fact, they are up about 1.7 percent. Producer prices are actually declining. We are actually experiencing deflation in producer prices. And at that very moment, the real Federal funds rate is at a very high level. The real rate is at about 4 percent. Historically, if we look at the record, the real Federal funds rate is about 2 percent. So the real rate we are paying for interest on money today is about double the historical rate. Mr. President, that could be understood if we were facing an inflationary threat. But I believe, and I think the evidence suggests, that the greatest threat we are facing is a threat of recession. That is why I am very pleased the Federal Reserve acted today to reduce rates an additional one-quarter of 1 percent. I was disappointed when, at their last meeting, they did not cut more aggressively. And I hope they do not stop here. Further easing of interest rates is going to be necessary to avoid a very serious economic slowdown not only here but around the rest of the world. If you look at economic history, when other countries are slowing down--and we have seen dramatic slowdowns in much of Asia, in Russia, and now we are seeing the creeping effect of that slowdown in Central America, in Latin America, and South America--the only way to prevent this all from leading to recession here at home is to give a lift to the economy. And the best and simplest and most direct way to give a lift to this economy is to lower interest rates. As I have indicated, the real rate of interest in this country is at about double the historical rate. So certainly there is room for additional easing to avoid recession here and to help lift the rest of the world out of economic slowdown--in some cases a recession, in some cases potentially much worse than that. Mr. President, lower interest rates will expand consumer buying power, provide an important stimulus to the U.S. economy, and help restore consumer confidence, which has dropped markedly since the beginning of the year. Businesses, of course, will also be paying less in interest costs, which will help to sustain profits and to encourage continued strong business investment. Finally, lower interest rates will make other investments in troubled economies more attractive, helping to stem capital outflows from those countries that are so deeply troubled. Additional interest rate cuts will send important psychological reassurance to world markets and to American consumers and businesses. Cutting interest rates is, I believe, a prudent insurance policy against the threat of recession here at home and a deepening recession abroad. The Federal Reserve Board should be commended for taking action today. And I would urge them to be prepared to take further action to avoid the kind of slowdown in this country that will only make world recovery that much more difficult.

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 also want to note that we have now had a budget agreement. I just heard the announcement of our colleagues that we have reached a conclusion. I know there are details still to be sorted out, but this is good news. But I must say, I do not think we are ending on a proud note. We are going to wind up with eight appropriations bills grouped together in one omnibus package. That isn't the way we ought to do business here. And, frankly, this situation with omnibus appropriations bills has been getting worse every year. Five bills were grouped together 3 years ago; six bills were grouped together two years ago; and now eight bills will be grouped together this year. This is not the way we ought to conduct ourselves. And I think there was a failure this year, a failure for the first time in 24 years, with no budget resolution. The budget resolution, after all, is the blueprint that guides us in the appropriations process. I think there was a substantial failure this year, the first time since we have had a Budget Act, a failure to achieve a budget resolution. That slowed the appropriations process and left us in this posture of having to group all of these bills together--which comprise a third of all federal spending--and pass them, perhaps in a vote that won't even be a recorded rollcall vote. It is a sorry spectacle and one which I think brings dishonor to this Chamber. I hope very much we find a way to avoid this practice in the future. I hope very much that next year we would have a budget resolution, we would have it on time, or close to on time. After all, the budget resolution was supposed to have been done April 15. For the first time in 24 years we did not have a budget resolution. In addition, we missed the deadlines, although that has happened often, but always before we have achieved a budget resolution. This year, for the first time in 24 years, there was none. I remember very well President Reagan said in his 1987 State of the Union Message that we should never again have a continuing resolution that had multiple appropriations bills all stacked together. In his budget message in February of 1988 he said very clearly to Congress, ``Don't do this anymore. Don't do it again. It is wrong.'' Yet here we are, falling back into these old ways. It is unfortunate. With respect to this agreement, I think it is also important to say that the surplus has, by and large, been preserved. There are emergency spending measures, that Congress and its Leadership must designate as ``emergencies.'' I think one could question whether all of them really constitute emergencies, but, by and large, they are emergencies. The agriculture emergency, certainly that is an emergency response; the spending for the embassies that were destroyed by terrorist attack, certainly that constitutes emergency spending; much of the spending that is in the defense bill constitutes emergency spending. Those items, under our own budget rules, are considered outside the normal budget process. We have avoided what some were advocating--a very massive multi-year tax reduction, which would have come directly from the Social Security surplus. I think that would have been a profound mistake. I, for one, believe the American people deserve a tax cut, but I don't think it should come from raiding Social Security surpluses. Some of the language we use in this town is somewhat misleading. We say that there is a $70 billion surplus on a unified basis. That means when you put all of the revenue of the Federal Government in the pot and all of the spending of the Federal Government into the same pot, we have $70 billion more in terms of revenue than we have in terms of spending. But it is important to remember that is counting the Social Security funds. This year Social Security is running a $105 billion surplus. If we put the Social Security money aside--which we should do--we would still be running a budget deficit of $35 billion. Until and unless that operating deficit is ended--and we now project that will end in 2002, and we won't be using any Social Security surpluses in that year, and we will actually balance on what I consider a true basis--until that is achieved, I don't believe it is appropriate to have new nonemergency spending or to have unpaid-for tax cuts. If we are going to have new spending that is nonemergency spending, it ought to be paid for. If we are going to have tax reductions, they ought to be paid for. New spending and new tax breaks should not be paid for by taking it from the Social Security surplus. That is truly robbing Peter to pay Paul. I am pleased that other than the emergency spending, we don't have new spending that is not offset by cuts in other spending. I am also pleased that we didn't embark on a risky tax cut scheme that would have been paid for, in whole, out of Social Security surpluses. I believe that would have been irresponsible. I am remiss if I do not end on a note on agriculture. As I indicated, agriculture is critically important to my State. North Dakota has 40 percent of its State's income, 40 percent of its State's economy, based on agriculture. North Dakota, like many agricultural States, is in deep trouble. From 1996 to 1997, we saw farm income decline 98 percent. That is a disaster. That is an emergency by any definition. It is the result of a combination of the lowest prices in 52 years, coupled with natural disasters that have spread the disease called scab through our fields which have reduced production, coupled with bad policy. Frankly, it is a trade policy that allows unfairly traded Canadian grain to sweep into our country, displacing our own grain, reducing our own prices, putting enormous pressure on our farm producers. In the midst of all of this, our chief competitors, the Canadians and the Europeans, are spending 10 times as much as we are to support their farm producers. They are spending nearly $50 billion a year while we are spending, under the new farm bill, about $5 billion a year. Those are the pressures that our producers are under. It is an emergency. It is a disaster. I am very pleased that we have responded with a $6 billion package. I want to be swift to say that is not enough. The pain felt by farm families and the hole in income in farm country is so deep that even $6 billion won't fill it, but it will certainly help. We have come a long way from the moment in July that I offered on this floor a $500 million indemnity payment plan for those areas devastated by natural disaster. I say a special thanks to my colleague, Senator Dorgan, who cosponsored that amendment, and to Senator Craig, of Idaho, who is on the floor, who gave great help and support to us in that effort and who has played a leading role in trying to win greater support as the need increased, as natural disasters spread from our part of the country to other parts. We saw later this year drought conditions in Oklahoma, Texas and Louisiana, and hurricanes that affected much of the coastal areas of the southeastern United States. It started in our part of the country but it spread. That required a greater response. Again, I thank my colleague, Senator Craig, for the very constructive role that he played in assisting us to get a much stronger, more robust package of disaster assistance. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I also rise to engage the chairman of the committee in a colloquy to clarify the provision of the bill. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your response to the question from the Senator from Missouri. Workforce reductions at Farm Service Agency as well as other agencies within the U.S. Department of Agriculture have impacted the quality of services provided. Employees of the U.S. Department of Agriculture have expressed concern that fund transfers authorized by Section 8 of S. 2116 would be made from an agency's Salary and Expenses budgets and could result in additional workforce reductions. Given the increasing workload at Farm Service Agency field offices in many States, I feel that it is vital that this concern be addressed. Mr. Chairman, is it your intention that fund transfers will be made in a manner which does not jeopardize funds available for salaries?

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chairman for his helpful remarks.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to respond to some of the things I have heard over the weekend, and now some of the things I have heard on the floor of the Senate. I heard over the weekend on some of the talk shows that the reason the Congress does not have its work done for the year, the new fiscal year which began October 1, is that it is the President's fault. We have no budget resolution passed by this Congress. For the first time in 24 years, there has been a failure to pass a budget resolution. That budget resolution was due by April 15. The President plays no role in a budget resolution; that is the responsibility of this Congress. In fact, the President does not even have a chance to sign or veto a budget resolution. It is purely the responsibility of this Senate and the House of Representatives, and these bodies have failed in their responsibility, and they have failed for the first time in 24 years. It is easy to blame the President for everything in this town, but when it comes to a failure to pass a budget resolution, it is not the President's fault. The fault lies right here, right here in the U.S. Senate and at the other end of this building in the House of Representatives. It was our responsibility to pass a budget resolution. It was our obligation to pass a budget resolution. That is the blueprint that is to be followed in order to coordinate all of the appropriations bills. Little wonder, now that the new fiscal year has already started. The new fiscal year started October 1, and we don't have our work done. In fact, most of the appropriations bills have not been passed. That is not Bill Clinton's failure. That is not President Clinton's failure. That is the failure of this Congress. I also heard colleagues assert that the President is proposing spending the surplus. That is not true. The President is not proposing spending the surplus. The new spending on education the President is proposing is to be fully offset. He is not spending the surplus on education. That additional spending will be paid for by reducing other spending. That is the President's proposal, not spending the surplus. Then we hear assertions that the President is proposing spending the money on emergencies. Anybody who understands the budget rules of Congress understands that we set the budget rules and we say that if the money is for an emergency, it does not count in the normal budget process. Those are our rules. Now I hear my colleagues standing up and blaming the President. It is not his fault that we have said if it is emergency spending it is outside the normal budget process. What are these emergencies? I heard a lot of talk moments ago that this is for bureaucrats in Washington. Wait a minute. What are the emergencies that have been designated by our own rules as emergencies? First of all, money for the farm crisis that is occurring across America. If that is not an emergency, I don't know what is. We have had a series of natural disasters all across America, and much of this spending that the President has proposed as emergency spending is to respond to natural emergencies, natural disasters. That is exactly what we should do. It doesn't stop there, because we also have a crisis in agriculture because of collapsed income. In my State, from 1996 to 1997, farm income dropped 98 percent. If that is not a disaster, I don't know what is. I will just say to my colleagues who say the disasters in agriculture are not emergencies, go ask your farmers and see what they say. I tell you, the farmers in my State say it is an emergency. They understand they have had extraordinary natural disasters, from the incredible drought in Texas and Oklahoma to the extraordinary wet conditions in my part of the country that has led to an outbreak of a disease called scab that has decimated the crops. That, according to our own budget rules, is an emergency, and when you have an emergency, it is outside the normal budget process. The President is not advocating spending the Social Security surplus, he is following the rules that we have laid down. What are some of the other emergencies the President has asked us to respond to? One is the terrorist bombing of our Embassies in Africa. The terrorist bombings, are those emergencies? Without question, they are. That is according to our own budget rules. That is not money for bureaucrats in Washington, that is money to respond to a terrorist attack on the United States of America, and, according to our own budget rules, rules that we set down, that is an emergency. The President is not advocating spending the Social Security surplus. Interestingly enough, it is our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who proposed dipping into the surplus. It is our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who proposed a massive tax-cut scheme that would be spending the Social Security surplus, because every penny-- every penny--of their tax cut schemes would have come out of the Social Security surplus--every penny. That is raiding Social Security, and the President stood up and said, ``No, you don't touch that money.'' He said to them not to touch it. He is not touching it. He is following the rules that we have laid down. Those are the facts. When I look at the history of how we have gotten to where we are, I also have to respond to what I heard from some of my colleagues, that the Republican majority here is responsible for the first budget surplus in 30 years. Mr. President, here is the record on our budget deficits. This shows we have balance for the first time in 30 years. These are the deficits. We can see the deficits rose until, in the last administration, they reached $290 billion. In every year of this administration, the deficits have come down, so that this year we are showing a $70 billion surplus. When our colleagues say that it is the Republicans who brought us to a balanced budget, I have to say, wait a minute, let's check the record, let's check the facts. In 1993, the President put before Congress a plan to dramatically reduce the deficit. The Democrats supported that plan. Not a single Republican voted for it--not one. Not one Republican in the House, not one Republican here in the Senate, voted for that deficit reduction plan--not one. Yet, that plan is the only plan in the 12 years I have been in the Senate that has worked. It was a 5-year plan to reduce the deficit. It cut spending and it raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.5 percent of the people in this country. The Republicans say, yes, but we had a bipartisan budget deal in 1997 that we played a role in, and it is the reason that we balanced the budget. I will give my friends on the other side of the aisle some of the credit. It is true, they participated, along with Democrats. That was a bipartisan plan in 1997. This chart shows how much of the deficit reduction has come from the 1993 plan and how much of it has come from the 1997 plan. What you can see is that nearly 90 percent of the deficit reduction that has occurred flowed from the 1993 plan that not one single Republican voted for--not one. This part of the job has been done by the 1997 plan that was a bipartisan agreement. It accounts for about 15 percent of the total. Those are the facts. When I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle beating their chests saying they are the ones who balanced the budget, wait just a minute; the action that has done most of the heavy lifting was done by Democrats, and Democrats alone, in 1993. In 1997, the balanced budget plan, the thing that finished the job off, was done by both parties walking hand in hand. Those are the facts. The result of the economic policy that was put in place by the 1993 5-year plan has been one of the most successful economic plans ever adopted by this country. Again, not a single Republican voted for it. In fact, they said at the time--I remember so well because I am on the Budget Committee and I am on the Finance Committee, and I remember our friends across the aisle saying, ``If you pass this plan, it is not going to reduce the deficit, it is going to increase the deficit.'' Our friends across the aisle said, ``It won't reduce inflation, it will increase inflation.'' Our friends across the aisle said, ``If you pass this plan, it is going to crater the economy.'' Well, they were wrong on each and every count. Here is what has happened in terms of economic growth: During the Clinton administration, it has average 3.9 percent; during the Bush administration, 1.3 percent; the Reagan administration, 3 percent; the Carter administration, 3.6 percent; the Ford administration, 0.9 percent; the Nixon administration, 3.6 percent; the Johnson administration, 5.3 percent. In other words, this plan, this economic plan, has the highest level of private sector economic growth of any administration since the Johnson administration. Of course, in the Johnson administration the economy was fueled by a war. This is a peacetime expansion of an economy that has been remarkable and the strongest of any administration since the Johnson administration. On job growth, the economic plan that we put in place in 1993 has produced now over 17 million jobs--17 million jobs. The Reagan administration, that administration, generated 8.7 million. On real business productive investment, we see the highest rate of growth of any administration in decades--see real business productive investment growing at a rate of nearly 13 percent a year. That is the economic record. You can see we passed the economic plan in 1993; it has been virtually straight up since that time. That is not the only measure of economic performance. If we look at the inflation rate, we see that the inflation rate is now at its lowest in 33 years--lowest rate of inflation in 33 years. If we look at unemployment, we see that unemployment is at the lowest in 28 years--again, largely a result of the economic plan put in place in 1993, without a single vote from the other side--not one. That economic plan has produced truly remarkable results. If we look at interest rates, we can see, going back to 1977, we now have the lowest interest rates--measured as yield on a 30-year Treasury bond--the lowest in 20 years; under 5 percent for the first time in 20 years. If we look at other measures of the economic plan that was put in place by this President, and with votes of the Democratic Party, we can see the effect on welfare caseloads. Welfare caseloads now--the percentage on welfare--are the lowest in 29 years. That was the successful welfare reform plan that we passed. And we passed a crime bill that has produced 5 years in a row of declining violent crime in America. That is the record. When our friends want to talk about the record, they do not ever want to compare the results in the last three administrations. So maybe we should remind them of what the results were in the last three administrations. This shows the Reagan administration record on deficits. When he came in, the deficit was about $80 billion. When he left, it was up to $150 billion. In between, it had gone up to over $200 billion a year in deficits. When the Bush administration came in, the deficit was running about $150 billion a year. Before he was done, it was $290 billion a year. Then the Clinton administration came in, and we passed the 1993 plan--again, without one single Republican vote--and each and every year of that 5-year plan the deficit has come down, until this year we have the first balanced budget in 30 years. When I say it is the first balanced budget, let me just say that in Washington what they call a balanced budget is not what we call a balanced budget anywhere else in America. In Washington, they call a balanced budget one that counts the Social Security surpluses. Here is another way of looking at what has happened. It shows that we have made dramatic progress. It also shows that we have not yet truly balanced the budget. The blue line shows what they talk about in Washington when they talk about the budget. But it is important to understand that it includes all of the revenue of the Federal Government and all of the expenditures of the Federal Government. That would make some sense if some of the revenues were not coming from trust funds. And if you exclude the Social Security trust fund, what you see is much the same pattern; that is, a dramatic reduction in the deficits. But what you also find is that if you exclude the Social Security surplus, we still have a deficit this year of $35 billion. Now, it is true, that is down dramatically from the last year of the Bush administration, when the true deficit, instead of being $290 billion, was really $341 billion if you excluded the Social Security surplus. But if you exclude the Social Security surplus this year, instead of having a $70 billion surplus, you have a $35 billion deficit. Some economists say, well, you really ought to put it all together. Well, maybe that is why they are economists. I can tell you this: If you were running a company and you tried to take the retirement funds of your employees and throw those into the pot, you would be in big trouble because that is a violation of the law. It is called fraud. You cannot take the retirement funds of your employees, throw those into the pot, and say you have balanced your operating budget. But that is what is done with the Federal budget. So I think it is important to understand that while it is true we have made enormous progress, we have come down dramatically with respect to the deficit, and in fact in terms of a unified budget, we are balanced for the first time in 30 years. If we did not count the Social Security surplus, we would still have a deficit of $35 billion. Mr. President, let me just conclude by saying, the fact is, when I hear our colleagues say, No. 1, President Clinton is responsible for our failure to have a budget resolution, that is absolutely untrue. There is not a Member of this body who does not understand the President does not have one thing to do with the budget resolution. The budget resolution is just that--it is a resolution by both Houses of Congress. It is our responsibility to pass a budget resolution, and this Congress has failed. For the first time in 24 years, there is no budget resolution. The Senate passed a budget resolution, but the Republicans in the House and the Republicans in the Senate could never agree, and so for months the appropriations bills were delayed. So here we are at the start of a new fiscal year--no budget, no appropriations bills, and we are sitting here wondering how it is going to end. I think we know how it is going to end, Mr. President. It is going to end with a huge continuing resolution. There will probably be thousands of pages. There will probably be seven or eight appropriations bills all glommed into one package. And remember what Ronald Reagan said about that kind of process? He said in his 1987 State of the Union Address: . . . the budget process is a sorry spectacle. The missing of deadlines and the nightmare of monstrous continuing resolutions packing hundreds of billions of dollars of spending into one bill must be stopped. Our Republican friends in the House and the Senate must not have been listening to former President Reagan, because they have not stopped it. In fact, what they have done is, every year for the last 3 years that they have been in control of this Senate and the House, that is exactly what they have done. They failed to do their work on time and, instead, they have handed us a stack of thousands of pages in a continuing resolution, with no time to review. And Ronald Reagan said the very next year, on February 18 of 1988, in his budget message: As I have stressed on numerous occasions, the current budget process is clearly unworkable and desperately needs a drastic overhaul. Last year, as in the year before, the Congress did not complete action on a budget until well past the beginning of the fiscal year. The Congress missed every deadline it had set for itself just 9 months earlier. He could have been referring to this Congress, because this Congress has failed to meet every single budget deadline. In fact, for the first time in 24 years, they have produced no budget. Our colleague across the aisle was talking about how a family operates. I do not know many families that never bother to come up with a budget, but that is what has happened here under the leadership of our friends on the other side of the aisle. For the first time in 24 years, there is no budget--none. That is their failure, not the President's failure. It is their failure. President Reagan went on to say that Congress missed every deadline. He said, ``In the end, the Congress passed a year-long 1,057-page omnibus'' appropriations bill with an accompanying conference report of over 1,000 pages and a reconciliation bill over 1,100 pages long. President Reagan said: Members of Congress had only 3 hours to consider all three items. Congress should not pass another massive continuing resolution [President Reagan said in 1988.] He went on to say: --and as I said in the State of the Union Address, if they do, I will not sign it. What a difference 10 years makes. Ten years ago, a Republican President said there should not be passed another continuing resolution. But here we are with a Republican-controlled Congress who has failed to even write a budget. That is the most basic responsibility of any Congress, to write a budget. This Congress, under Republican control, has failed in that most basic duty for the first time in 24 years. Why? Because the Republicans in the U.S. Senate who did pass a budget resolution--we passed it on a bipartisan basis--could never get together with the Republicans in the House of Representatives. So what we have is a colossal failure. I don't know how else to say it, but this is mismanagement on a grand scale. I hope people will remember what the record is because it does make a difference. America has enjoyed unprecedented prosperity in the last 5 years, prosperity that I believe came in significant part because of an economic plan that was passed in 1993, the 5-year budget plan, that actually did the job. It reduced the budget each and every year. I will show the comparison chart again. It reduced the budget each and every year since it was passed. When President Bush left town, he had a $290 billion deficit. If you weren't counting Social Security surpluses, it was even worse than that; it was $341 billion. Let's talk on a unified basis for a moment because that is how the press always reports it. Clinton came in and each and every year after we passed that 1993 plan, the deficit has come down. So now we have a $70 billion surplus. Again, I am quick to say I don't consider this a surplus because it is counting the Social Security surplus. Nonetheless, dramatic progress has been made in reducing the deficit. That has given rise to the strongest economy in almost anyone's memory. Our friends on the other side who are now in control are responsible for a dramatic failure, a failure to write a budget for the United States of America. The result is, here we are, the new fiscal year has started, we have no budget, half the appropriations bills aren't done, they will all be rolled into a stack of paper that will be probably 3 feet high, it will be slammed on our desks, and we will be told to vote on it 3 hours later. What a way to govern. What a way to manage. It is not Bill Clinton's fault that no budget was written here. A budget resolution is the distinct responsibility of the Congress. This Congress has failed. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to comment on the home health proposal that is before us and ask the Chairman of the Finance Committee to clarify his intentions with regard to addressing this issue in the next Congress. The current home health interim payment system isn't working. Under the current system, those agencies that abused the system and milked Medicare for every possible reimbursement dollar are rewarded with generous cost limits. However, North Dakota agencies that did not abuse the system, that worked hard to keep their costs down, are penalized with unrealistically low limits. Not only is this terribly unfair, it creates a terrible incentive for efficient, low-cost agencies to go out of business and transfer their employees and their customers to agencies that have ripped off the system. This system clearly penalizes North Dakota home health agencies and the beneficiaries who rely on their services. The median per beneficiary cost limit for North Dakota home health agencies is the second lowest in the country--a mere $2150 per year. In fact, the agency in North Dakota with the highest limit has a cap that is below the lowest limit in the state of Mississippi. There is no rational basis for this sort of inequity. Unfortunately, the proposal before us today takes only the smallest of steps toward correcting this inequity and leaves in place too many of the current incentives that favor high cost, wasteful home health agencies. I do not see how I can, in good conscience, go back to North Dakota home health agencies and tell them that we can only lift their payments rates 2 or 3 percent when agencies in other parts of the country will continue to have payment limits 3 and 4 times as high as theirs. It is not fair. It is not good policy. It is not good enough. For that reason, I will feel constrained to object to this legislation unless I can be assured by the Chairman of the Finance Committee that there will be an opportunity to do better next year.