Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Which is what most of us would like to see, at least in this Chamber. We have a problem on the House side; they only want a 6- month bill, but we want a 6-year bill.

Mr. CONRAD. As one of the first orders of business when we turn to the 6-year bill.

Mr. CONRAD. Yes.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator. If I could just conclude the thought, a number of our States are very concerned about the highway legislation because, although we are going to have a 6-month extension here, they are concerned about having a short construction season and about our completing work on a highway bill in a timely way.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask the leader his intentions when we return, what the first order of business would be. The leader and I had had a chance to have a conversation last Friday, and he had indicated to me his intention was at that time that we would go to the highway bill when we return. Is that still the Senator's intention.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Dorgan, the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1997. This is landmark legislation for our home State of North Dakota. The legislation that we are introducing amends the 1986 Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act and fundamentally shifts the focus of the project from large-scale irrigation to delivery of drinking water to communities in our State and to our four Indian reservations. The Dakota water Resources project is necessary to assure the citizens of North Dakota an adequate supply of quality water for municipal, rural and industrial [MR&I] uses. In fact, without these amendments to the 1986 Garrison Act, many communities in North Dakota will be forced to be without clean and reliable water supplies. The importance of a clean, safe water supply cannot be overstated. The improvement of our water quality and the adequacy of future water supplies is critical to the economic future of North Dakota. I direct the attention of my colleagues to this chart, which shows the difference between water supplies that is not atypical for rural North Dakota. This is a jar that has the water in many rural parts of our State, because the ground water is just not of high quality. This shows the water delivered to rural North Dakotans via pipeline. I think this tells the story. North Dakota needs safe, clean, reliable water. The bill we are introducing today is designed to deliver it. Water development is essential for economic development, agriculture, recreation and improving the environment. This legislation will provide an adequate and dependable water supply throughout North Dakota, including communities in the Red River Valley. Water is an essential resource to sustain the population and economic growth of that region. A portion of the funding will also fund irrigation projects in North Dakota and on the Indian Reservations, as well as the development of fish and wildlife projects. The U.S. Senate is well aware of the history of failed promises on water development projects on the Missouri River. People of our State and on reservations have sacrificed 550,000 acres of land, including homes, farms, and in many cases their livelihoods, for flood protection downstream. The Federal Government has failed to live up to its side of the bargain. I ask the Senate today, please look at this legislation; let us have a debate and a discussion, but do not fail to honor the promises the Federal Government made to North Dakota. To compensate North Dakota for the loss of 550,000 acres of valuable Missouri River bottom land due to the construction of the Garrison and Oahe Dams, the Garrison diversion project was authorized in 1965. It was to provide affordable access to Missouri River water as a basic element of the State's long-range plans for water management and development. That promise has not been kept. The next chart I have here shows the areas of our State that would be benefited by the legislation we are introducing today. This chart shows the northwest area water supply project, the Southwest pipeline project, and the other areas of the State, including the Red River Valley, that would have safe, clean, dependable sources of water as a result of this legislation. Mr. President, North Dakotans are fully committed to a scaled back, modernized project. Within the State of North Dakota we have worked long and hard to produce a new project. The MR&I focus of the Dakota water resources project is the best way to move forward. It represents the best potential to meet North Dakota's water needs. We realized 6 years ago that the Garrison project of 1986 would never attain its original goals. Since that time the relevant interests in North Dakota have engaged in a bipartisan effort to reformulate Federal law to address the contemporary and future water needs of our State. I believe this legislation will provide water to communities in need in North Dakota in an environmentally sensitive manner. It is important to note that we have involved representatives of the conservation community from both the national and State level to develop the legislation we introduce today. We are especially pleased to have the support of the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society for this legislation. I also want to assure our neighbors to the north, in Canada, that we will abide by international obligations. The Dakota Water Resources Act contains provisions to ensure compliance with the Boundary Water Treaty of 1909 between the United States and Canada. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to highlight some of the provisions in the Dakota Water Resources Act. The Dakota Water Resources Act authorizes $300 million for MR&I projects across North Dakota and an additional $200 million for MR&I projects on the four Indian reservations within the State. These MR&I projects are essential to ensure a safe and clean water supply throughout North Dakota. This legislation also includes $200 million to meet the comprehensive water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley. Also, the bill stipulates that the State of North Dakota will select one or more project features from options identified to meet those needs, including the delivery of Missouri River water to the Red River Valley. This legislation includes debt forgiveness for the State of North Dakota for costs of previously constructed facilities that will not be utilized or will be only partially utilized. This legislation includes $40 million for the construction of the Four Bears Bridge across Lake Sakakawea within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. Lake Sakakawea is the body of water which was created by the construction of Garrison Dam. The resulting lake not only flooded valuable farmland on the reservation, but divided the reservation. The current bridge, which is the only route to cross Lake Sakakawea, is functionally inadequate and cannot handle current traffic flows. The structure poses a significant safety hazard and hampers access to emergency and medical services. The Dakota Water Resources Act contains numerous provisions to ensure that this project is constructed in an environmentally-sensitive manner. The legislation permits the State to establish a water conservation program, utilizing funds provided for MR&I. Also, this bill includes $25 million for a Natural Resources Trust, currently the Wetlands Trust, and an authorization of $1.5 million to fund a wetlands interpretive center. The purpose of the trust is to preserve, enhance, restore and manage wetlands and associated wildlife habitat, grassland conservation and riparian areas in the State of North Dakota. This legislation contains other important provisions, including: authorization of $5,000,000 for recreation projects in North Dakota; authorization for a study of bank stabilization along the Missouri River below Garrison Dam; designation of the current Lonetree Reservoir as a wildlife conservation area; a requirement for the Federal Government to pay for operation and maintenance on mitigation lands; deauthorization of certain irrigation areas; additional flexibility for the Indian tribes in determining irrigation sites within the reservations; ensures no increase for rural electric cooperatives using power generated by the dams on the Missouri River; and a provision that ``upon transfer of the Oakes Test Area to the State of North Dakota, but not later than one year after enactment of this act Federal funds authorized by this act may not be used to subsidize the irrigation of any crop at the Oakes Test Area.'' The Dakota Water Resources Act represents a significant bipartisan effort within North Dakota to meet the contemporary and future water quantity and quality needs of our State and provide for the long-term economic development of North Dakota. I look forward to working with the members and staff of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on this legislation, specifically Senator Murkowski and Senator Bumpers, the chairman and ranking member respectively. I also look forward to discussing the need for the Dakota Water Resources Act with my Senate colleagues and would invite their support for this legislation that is essential for the future of North Dakota. Mr. President, this legislation has the unanimous support of the congressional delegation, the Governor, state legislative leaders, tribal leaders, North Dakota water interests, and the North Dakota Rural Electric Cooperatives. It also has the support of a major state conservation group and mayors of the major affected cities. The Dakota Water Resources Act is the consensus product of an extensive negotiating process. I want to express my personal appreciation to each of the State elected leaders who served as the State negotiating team. I am deeply grateful for their efforts. They were undertaken in good faith, in a bipartisan spirit because we recognize the critical importance of the completion of this project for the future economic health and strength of our State. Our State leaders have come together in an unprecedented way. I am submitting for the Record, and I will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record after my statement and after the bill, the letters of support, including a letter signed by Senator Dorgan, Congressman Pomeroy, Governor Schafer, North Dakota Senate majority leader Gary Nelson, North Dakota Senate minority leader Tim Mathern, North Dakota House majority leader John Dorso, and North Dakota House minority leader Merle Boucher as well as myself. The eight of us served as the State negotiating team. In addition to that, I am proud to say we have letters of support of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the Spirit Lake Tribe, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, and three affiliated tribes. We will also submit for the Record separate letters from the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society, the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, the North Dakota Water Users Association, the Cities of Grand Forks, Fargo, Minot, Dickinson, and Williston, the Southwest Water Authority, the North Dakota Water Resource Districts Association, the Souris River Joint Water Resource Board, the West River Joint Water Resource Board, the Devils Lake Basin Joint Water Resource Board, the North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives, the Greater North Dakota Association, which is the North Dakota Chamber of Commerce, the Fargo Chamber of Commerce, the Industrial Development Association of North Dakota, and the North Dakota Education Association. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record following my remarks and before the legislation itself.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this outpouring of support is unprecedented. In essence, our citizens are saying to Washington, take note. This is essential for our future. Before I conclude, I would like to say that in addition to many fine people in North Dakota who helped in the crafting of this legislation, I want to recognize the special efforts of staff members of mine who worked long and hard to produce these results: Robert Van Heuvelen, Derik Fettig, Kirk Johnson, and Mary Knapp. Their dedication in getting amendments drafted has contributed tremendously to the positive product we are introducing today. They have been instrumental in forging the consensus which is a hallmark of this legislation. Through careful attention to detail, endless rounds of communications with all interested parties and preparation of myriad of drafts, these four professionals have made a real mark. As many in North Dakota will attest, Robert, Derik, Kirk, and Mary exemplify the finest that we find among congressional staff. I thank them for their contribution today. In addition to my own staff, I want to take this moment to also thank three other outstanding congressional staffers for their help in achieving this result: Doug Norell, the legislative director for Senator Dorgan, Andrea Nygren, Ruth Fleischer, and Mike Eggl of Senator Dorgan's staff, Karen Frederickson and Amy Goffe, the chief of staff and legislative assistant, respectively, for North Dakota Congressman Earl Pomeroy. This has been a collaborative effort among the delegation, the State's elected leaders and their staffs. And I thank them for it. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Will the leader yield for a question?

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Conrad and Mr. Dorgan pertaining to the introduction of S. 1515 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senators Grassley and Jeffords as a proud cosponsor of legislation to extend the wind energy production tax credit. I want to commend the primary sponsors of this legislation for their leadership in developing this bill. The bill we are introducing today takes an important next step in encouraging the development of this very important source of renewable energy. Wind energy offers great promise for putting America on the road to greater energy independence and economic prosperity. I have been a long-time supporter of developing additional sources of renewable energy, particularly energy from wind and crops. In 1993, Senator Grassley and I introduced S. 1180, the Wind Energy Incentives Act of 1993, to provide additional incentives for developing our wind energy resources. My home State of North Dakota has abundant wind energy resources, more than any other State. I have often referred to North Dakota as the ``Saudi Arabia of wind energy.'' I strongly support encouraging development of additional sources of energy because I am extremely concerned that the United States continues to face a serious energy problem. While we do not see the long gas lines of the 1970's, today we import more than half the oil we use, up from about 30 percent in 1974. While we no longer depend on just a few sources for that oil, it remains a dangerous dependence, and makes up a significant portion of our trade deficit. In 1992, Congress passed and the President signed the Energy Policy Act, which took a number of important steps toward developing our own energy resources here at home. One provision was the production tax credit of 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour for wind energy. This credit is meant to reduce the cost of these renewable energy sources to make them competitive with conventional energy sources. It is also meant to encourage the development of these new resources to the point where economies of scale enable them to compete in their own right. The wind production tax credit established by the 1992 Energy Policy Act is set to expire in just 2 years. However, the financing and permitting required for a typical new wind facility requires 2- to 3- years of lead time. Because the wind production tax credit will expire in 2 years without the extension we are introducing today, investment funds to develop new wind projects are drying up, unnecessarily halting future project planning. Additionally, the cost of wind energy production has dropped significantly from its earlier days, and as the technology matures the cost will continue to drop. I urge my colleagues to join us in taking this step toward energy independence by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senators Grassley and Jeffords as a proud cosponsor of legislation to extend the wind energy production tax credit. I want to commend the primary sponsors of this legislation for their leadership in developing this bill. The bill we are introducing today takes an important next step in encouraging the development of this very important source of renewable energy. Wind energy offers great promise for putting America on the road to greater energy independence and economic prosperity. I have been a long-time supporter of developing additional sources of renewable energy, particularly energy from wind and crops. In 1993, Senator Grassley and I introduced S. 1180, the Wind Energy Incentives Act of 1993, to provide additional incentives for developing our wind energy resources. My home State of North Dakota has abundant wind energy resources, more than any other State. I have often referred to North Dakota as the ``Saudi Arabia of wind energy.'' I strongly support encouraging development of additional sources of energy because I am extremely concerned that the United States continues to face a serious energy problem. While we do not see the long gas lines of the 1970's, today we import more than half the oil we use, up from about 30 percent in 1974. While we no longer depend on just a few sources for that oil, it remains a dangerous dependence, and makes up a significant portion of our trade deficit. In 1992, Congress passed and the President signed the Energy Policy Act, which took a number of important steps toward developing our own energy resources here at home. One provision was the production tax credit of 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour for wind energy. This credit is meant to reduce the cost of these renewable energy sources to make them competitive with conventional energy sources. It is also meant to encourage the development of these new resources to the point where economies of scale enable them to compete in their own right. The wind production tax credit established by the 1992 Energy Policy Act is set to expire in just 2 years. However, the financing and permitting required for a typical new wind facility requires 2- to 3- years of lead time. Because the wind production tax credit will expire in 2 years without the extension we are introducing today, investment funds to develop new wind projects are drying up, unnecessarily halting future project planning. Additionally, the cost of wind energy production has dropped significantly from its earlier days, and as the technology matures the cost will continue to drop. I urge my colleagues to join us in taking this step toward energy independence by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan. I also listened with great interest to the remarks of our colleague from Texas, Senator Gramm. I, too, was struck when he said the American people don't understand trade. I must say, I disagree. I think the American people understand it very well. I think they understand that freer trade is in our interest, but I also think they understand that sometimes we don't do a very good job of negotiating these trade agreements with other countries, and, as a result, we quite often find ourselves at a disadvantage. That is not in America's interest. We ought to do a better job. When it is a question of this fast-track proposal, I must say, I favor fast track, but I don't favor this fast-track proposal because it is flawed. It should be fixed, but there has been no serious attempt to fix it. Mr. President, without question, we are the most competitive nation in the world. Others have higher barriers erected against our goods than we have erected against theirs, and that is why fundamentally it is in our interest to negotiate trade agreements with other nations to reduce their barriers to our exports. There is no question that is in America's economic interest. For that reason, I voted for the GATT agreement, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. But I also recognize that the devil is in the details, and we have seen that both with the Canadian Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement. There were flaws in those trade agreements, serious flaws that should have been fixed before America signed off on those trade agreements. Before I go further into the details of what was wrong with NAFTA and the Canadian Free Trade Agreement and how those flaws came about, I would like to report to those who are listening on what happened in the Senate Finance Committee in considering the fast-track legislation that is before us, because I find just the process that has led us to where we are today disturbing. Senator Gramm said this is the most important measure this Congress will consider this year. I don't know about that, but certainly it is a very important measure. I would guess the American people think, well, the committees have gone over this, they have debated it, they have discussed it openly and freely, Members have had a chance to offer amendments. That is how the process usually works around here, but that isn't what happened on this bill that is before us today. No, no, something quite different happened. We had a meeting, a closed meeting, outside of the public eye in the back room of the Finance Committee. A number of us had a chance to say, look, we think there are flaws in this legislation that ought to be fixed. The chairman told us he didn't want any amendments when we went out into the formal session. I didn't know that he meant by that that he wouldn't permit any amendments, but that is what happened, because when the closed meeting ended and we went out into public session, something occurred there that I have never seen in my 10 years in the U.S. Senate. There was no debate, there was no discussion, there were no amendments, because none were permitted. Instead, this legislation was combined with the Caribbean Basin initiative and the tax provisions of the highway bill. They were wrapped all into one vote, no rollcall. The three of them together were voice voted, and no amendments were permitted. That is what happened. That is not my idea of the legislative process. What are the advocates of this legislation so afraid of? Why can't we have votes on amendments? Why can't we have a debate? We certainly didn't have it in the Senate Finance Committee that has the jurisdiction over this legislation. I think I found a number of reasons maybe why they don't want to have amendments considered and they don't want to have a chance for debate and discussion. Maybe it is because there are flaws in this agreement and they would just as soon not discuss those flaws. Mr. President, I think I detect at least three serious flaws in what is before us. First of all, we have to understand what fast track is all about, and I think every Member here understands that fast track means that individual Members give up their right to amend legislation implementing trade agreements. That is a remarkable thing, because the greatness of this body is that every Member has a right to offer amendments on every bill in order to alter it, change it, to fix it. But we give up that right under fast track. The idea is that that is important to do, so that the President can negotiate trade agreements, because other countries would be reluctant to negotiate if the resulting agreements were then subject to amendment on the floor of the Senate. Mr. President, the idea is that in exchange for giving up the right to amend, that Congress will be fully consulted in negotiating those trade agreements. It is called consultation. Mr. President, I have been here now through GATT, through NAFTA, and through the Canadian Free Trade Agreement. And I think I can report, without fear of contradiction, that the notion that Congress is consulted is largely a formality. It is more of a wave and a handshake than it is any kind of serious consultation with Congress. None of that would matter so much if it did not mean that we lose the opportunity to correct flaws in agreements before they are signed off on by our country. Before Congress is faced with an up-or-down vote, you approve it all or you kill it. Under fast track, it is all or nothing. That is what is seriously wrong with what is in front of us. We have given up the right to amend but we have not gotten in exchange any serious consultation process to try to prevent mistakes from being made before agreements are reached. That is not in America's interest. The result has been, in previous agreements, that very serious flaws have been included that were injurious to America's interests. In a minute I will discuss one that has affected my State and affected it seriously. The second point I want to make, the second flaw that I have detected in this legislation, is we still have no means of correcting previous agreements that contain mistakes. I know people who are listening must think, ``How can that be? I mean, we have a circumstance in which we enter into trade agreements, but there is no mechanism for fixing mistakes that are contained in agreements we have already entered into?'' Well, as shocking as that might seem, that is precisely what we have. We have a circumstance in which, if there is a mistake in a previous agreement, there is no mechanism for fixing it. Some will say, who are trade experts and listening, ``Well, the Senator is not right. We do have a way of fixing things. We can file a section 301 case.'' Well, let me just say, for people who are not aware of the technical details in trade legislation, section 301 is like an atom bomb. Section 301 means we take retaliatory action against a country. But they, under trade agreements we have signed, can then retaliate against us. And guess what happens? If we go the route of a 301, which is rarely done-- rarely done--the country that we retaliate against for an unfair trade practice retaliates in turn against us. Obviously, then our country is very reluctant to take such an action. That leaves us without any practical way to fix the mistakes in past agreements. I was prepared, in the Finance Committee, to offer an amendment as part of the negotiating instructions to our trade negotiators that they ought to pursue a mechanism for fixing trade agreements that are flawed. Is that such a radical idea? Sounds like common sense to me. We ought to have a way of fixing agreements that have mistakes that are flawed. Mr. President, I am not just talking theoretically here. I am talking out of practical experience, of a bitter experience, that my State had with the so-called Canadian Free Trade Agreement. In North Dakota, we produce Durum wheat. We produce the vast majority of Durum wheat produced in the United States. In fact, nearly 90 percent of the Durum produced in America is produced in North Dakota. Durum, for those who may not be familiar with that term, is the type of wheat that makes pasta. Of course, pasta has enjoyed a dramatic increase in consumption in this country, and North Dakota has been the place that has provided the raw product. Well, in the Canadian Free Trade Agreement there was a flaw, there was a mistake, and that provided an enormous loophole for our neighbors to the north to put Durum wheat into our country on an unfair basis. And you know what happened? Canada took advantage of that loophole, that mistake, that flaw, and before you know it, they went from zero percent of the United States market--zero--to 20 percent of the United States market. I have a chart that just shows what occurred in Durum after the Canadian Free Trade Agreement. This is before the Canadian Free Trade Agreement. You can see they had zero percent of the U.S. market--zero. After the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, and its flaw, Canada started dramatic increases in exports to the United States. In fact, they reached this level, which represented 20 percent of the U.S. market. We then were able to put limitations in place--something we could no longer do because of succeeding trade agreements that we have signed-- and we were able to reduce their unfairly traded Canadian grain back to a more tolerable level. But we cannot put this kind of limitation in place anymore. So we are left with a circumstance where one of the major industries in my State is vulnerable to unfair competition. Some would say, ``Well, it sounds to me, Senator, like you're just afraid of competition out in North Dakota.'' Oh, no. We are not afraid of competition. We are ready to take on anybody, anytime, head to head in any market anywhere. We are among the most competitive agricultural areas in the world. But we cannot take on the Canadian farmer and the Canadian Government. And that is what we are being asked to do. Because, while the Canadian Free Trade Agreement says--and says clearly--neither side shall dump below its cost in the other's market, in a secret side deal, never revealed to Congress, our trade negotiator at the time told the Canadians, ``When you calculate your cost, you don't have to count certain things. One of the things you don't have to count, you don't have to count the final payment made by the Canadian Government to the Canadian farmer.'' Guess what the Canadians did? They dramatically decreased the payments that count, and they increased the amount of their final payment to the Canadian farmer. And they do not have to count one penny of the final payment for the purposes of determining whether they are dumping wheat below their cost into our market. I know that is a flaw. That is a mistake. That is unfair. But you go and try and fix it, and what you will find is there is no mechanism for fixing past flawed agreements. I think we ought to tell our negotiators, as part of their negotiating instructions, ``Go and try to get a mechanism for fixing trade agreements that have mistakes.'' But that amendment could never be offered in the Senate Finance Committee because no amendments were permitted. Why? I have never seen that in my 10 years in the U.S. Senate in any committee on which I have served. No amendments permitted--none. That reminds me of a different country and a different time--not the United States. Well, the third C that I talk about is currency valuation, because I think that, too, is something we ought to consider. There is no consideration in these trade negotiations about the currency stability of the country with whom we are negotiating. NAFTA is a perfect example of what that can mean. This chart shows that in the NAFTA agreement we were able to secure a tariff gain of 10 percent by that trade agreement because we were able to convince Mexico to reduce their tariffs by that amount. So we got a tariff gain of 10 percent in terms of our competitive position. Mexico, shortly thereafter, devalued its currency by 50 percent, completely overwhelming and negating what we had accomplished in the trade negotiation. Is it any wonder that we went from a trade surplus with Mexico before NAFTA to a $16 billion trade deficit with Mexico today? But nobody wants to talk about it, nobody wants to have an amendment offered that deals with this question. All I am asking is that when we are negotiating with a country, that we ought to get a certification from our President that he has examined the currency stability of the country with which we are negotiating so that he can assure us that there is little risk of a dramatic devaluation that would completely wipe out what we accomplished at the trade negotiating table. Common sense. It just makes common sense. You look before you leap. You examine the currency stability of the country with whom you are negotiating so that you can assure yourself they are not going to have a dramatic devaluation that wipes out what you accomplish at the trade negotiating table. That amendment was never considered because, again, no amendments were permitted in the committee. Mr. President, I would like to be able to vote for fast track. I believe in freer trade. But I also believe that there are serious flaws in this fast track proposal that deserve debate and discussion and votes on amendments. We were denied all of those in the Senate Finance Committee. I have never seen it in 10 years in the U.S. Senate. We are now going to have a chance here on the floor to offer those amendments--at least, I hope we are--I hope the majority leader is not going to come out here and fill up the tree and prevent amendments being offered by Members. Mr. President, this is a serious matter. Senator Gramm again said this is the most important vote we are going to have in the Senate this year. Again, I am not sure I would put it at the very pinnacle, but no question this is an important matter. The fact is, the United States has a lot to gain and a lot to lose. We have a lot to gain if we really accomplish freer trade in this world because we are the most competitive nation on the globe. We have a lot to lose if we negotiate flawed agreements. We have a lot to lose if we continue on the path that leads to a nearly $200 billion trade deficit in part because the United States has not been tough enough in negotiations with other countries. It seems to me these three C's that I have outlined--of consultation, of correcting prior agreements that have flaws and, third, that we consider the currency valuation of the country with which we are negotiating so that we can be confident they will not engage in a dramatic devaluation and completely offset what we have accomplished at the negotiating table--are commonsense measures. I hope my colleagues, when I have a chance to offer these amendments, will carefully consider them because this is an important matter. We have a chance to make this fast-track proposal much better, to guard the interests of the people of the United States much better. Mr. President, I will conclude as I began. I have supported well- crafted trade agreements. I was proud to vote for GATT. But I have opposed those agreements that I thought were flawed and not in the national interest. Now, again, all Members are going to have to make a decision and a determination. And I say to them, as a member of the Finance Committee that considered the legislation before us, that it is flawed, and it ought to be fixed. Hopefully, we will have the opportunity to do that on the floor of the Senate, which we did not have in the Senate Finance Committee. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act, the 1996 farm bill's research title. This bill will bring many benefits to the Nation's farmers and to producers in North Dakota. This bill is important not only to our farmers but to North Dakota State University, our five Tribal Colleges and all facets of agricultural production that are the State's lifeblood. In addition to establishing agricultural research priorities, the bill makes positive changes in the operation of the Nation's agricultural research system, which I am pleased to support. Specifically, this bill will increase the accountability of USDA funded research by increasing stakeholder input. Just this year, the North Dakota State Legislature created one of the first stakeholder groups in the country and gave it unprecedented power to direct the agricultural research at North Dakota State University. This 13-member group met for the first time in July to set priorities for agricultural research in North Dakota. We look forward to being able to serve as a model to other States planning to increase stakeholder input. I am very pleased the Agriculture Committee and now the U.S. Senate have strongly supported funding for agricultural research. Our Nation's economic base was founded on agriculture and as we drift toward an increasingly urban population, we drift from our agrarian roots but we must not ignore the importance of agricultural productivity. North Dakota farmers and livestock producers continually look to increase farm efficiency, profitability, and environmental stewardship by using new technologies. It is critical that federally funded research focus on these goals while producers maintain global competitiveness. The bill's Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems provides new funding of $100 million in fiscal year 1998 and $170 million for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2002 to competitively award research, extension, and education grants on issues related to food genome mapping, food safety and technology, human nutrition, new and alternative uses, production of agricultural commodities, biotechnology, and natural resource management. These are the directions that agricultural research must go in order for the United States to maintain its edge in the global market while providing greater harmony between agriculture and the environment. Mr. President, I am very pleased this bill incorporates my proposal to give policy research centers the authority to study the effect trade agreements have on farm and agricultural sectors, the environment, rural families, households and economies. Of special concern are the impacts of Canadian grain imports and international policies on the Northern Great Plains. Specifically, I would like them to examine the impact of multinational trade policy issues and North American cross- border policies on Northern Plains agriculture, identify strategies to improve export opportunities for this region of the country, and evaluate the impacts of national and international policies on the region's agricultural competitiveness, farm income, farm structure, and rural economies. Policy researchers at North Dakota State University requested this amendment to help obtain funding for the proposed Northern Great Plains Policy Research Center which would serve as part of the Food and Agricultural Policy Research institute consortium. I fully support their proposal. And finally, Mr. President, I am very pleased that the bill includes provisions to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to grant up to $5.2 million in each of years 1998 through 2002 to a consortium of land-grant universities combating diseases of wheat and barley caused by Fusarium graminearum and related fungi, commonly known as scab. Scab has had a profound effect on the farmers and economy of North Dakota and this year alone it is expected to cause $1.1 billion in economic damages. I cannot stress enough the importance of research to combat this horrible crop disease and thank my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, for working closely with me on this issue and my colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar, for including these provisions in the manager's package. Mr. President, so that everyone may fully understand the consequences of this crop disease, I would like to submit an economic analysis of scab's impact on my home State of North Dakota. I would also like to submit for the Record a recent newspaper article from the Grand Forks Herald, headlined, ``An agricultural nightmare,'' which describes scab's impacts and discusses the need for research to combat the disease. Mr. President, I ask that both submissions be printed in the Record in full. The material follows: The Market Adviser: Scab Losses Severe--George Flaskerud, Extension Crops Economist NDSU Extension Service Scab in spring wheat, durum and barley will have a severe impact on the economy of North Dakota this year. Estimates by the department of agricultural economics at North Dakota State University put the direct loss to producers at about $355 million. The total loss is expected to be about $1.1 billion when the indirect impact on the communities is included. This brings total scab losses since 1993 to about $2.9 billion. Demcey Johnson and I, with the help of others in the department, calculated the losses. These losses have severely damaged many farm financial statements. The median debt/asset ratio for North Dakota farmers increased from 48 percent in 1992 to 56 percent in 1996 and is expected to further increase this year. In addition, North Dakota had a net loss of about 2,000 farms between 1992 and 1996, in many cases due to scab. The debt/ asset ratios were derived from the records of farmers in the North Dakota Farm Business Management Education Program. The total direct loss in 1997 was the greatest of the scab losses since 1993. Yield losses were greater during 1993 and 1995 than during 1997, but, when the price effect was considered, the total direct loss during 1997 was record- setting. The price effect during 1997, to date, has been negative, on average, which accentuates the 1997 yield loss. The price effect has been negative because actual net selling prices have been below what they would have been during a normal year, on average. Many times over the past five years, a positive price effect offset some or all of the loss due to lower yield. Spring wheat scab losses have generally increased over time when both the yield and price effects are considered. Total direct spring wheat scab losses since 1993 were worse every year except one, the exception being 1996. Barley losses were substantial in three of the five years: the largest was in 1993 followed by 1997 and 1995. For durum, the yield effect exceeded the price effect in two of the five years, 1995 and 1996. Yield losses were calculated as the difference between trend yields and actual yields. Trend yields were derived from 1970-92 data, leaving out two drought years. The trends were extended to 1997 to derive losses during 1993-97. The yield losses were calculated for Crop Reporting Districts 2, 3, 5, 6, and 9, essentially the eastern portion of North Dakota that has suffered from scab. Price impacts were calculated as the difference between normal prices and actual net selling prices. For spring wheat, normal prices for 1993-97 were derived from the 1989- 92 price relationship between actual net selling prices and Minneapolis futures prices. For durum, normal prices for 1993-97 were derived by multiplying the 1993-97 spring wheat normal prices by a factor of 1.09, which is the long-term price relationship between durum and spring wheat prices. For barley, normal prices for 1993-97 were derived from the 1989- 92 price relationship between actual net selling prices and Duluth feed barley prices. These methods permitted both the yield and quality effects to be reflected in the price impacts. This analysis did not address such factors as insurance indemnity payments and disaster payments. Both were substantial in 1993. Based on my observation of yields in 1997, however, I would expect that insurance indemnity payments will be relatively low this year. Many yields appear to be about at the level where insurance indemnity payments would just start to be realized.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, tribal colleges play a crucial role in Indian country. An educated population is central to all successful economic and community development efforts. Tribal colleges serve young people preparing to enter the job market for the first time, dislocated workers learning new skills, and people seeking to move off welfare and onto a career path. These schools are at the heart of efforts to strengthen native American communities. Tribal colleges serve more than 25,000 students nationwide. While meeting with tribal college students from North Dakota earlier this year, they told me how important it was for them to be able to attend schools near their homes, and how they planned to search for employment in their communities after graduation. Tribal colleges also strengthen Indian communities by increasing access to cultural resources, and by promoting the revitalization and preservation of American Indian and Alaska Native languages, visual and performance arts, and tribal history. Last October, President Clinton signed an Executive order regarding tribal colleges and universities, designed to ensure that they have Federal resources committed to them on a continuing basis. This Executive order demonstrates a recognition of the central mission of tribal colleges and universities: making educational opportunities accessible to people of all ages in Indian country. To this end, it is important that we increase the Federal resources available to the tribal colleges. I am a cosponsor of the Dorgan amendment to increase the fiscal year 1998 appropriation for tribal colleges by $2 million, to the level of the administration's request, and I strongly urge its adoption.

Mr. CONRAD

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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the pending amendment. I understand we will soon vote on the amendment of the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl. I wanted to take just a moment to address that amendment that is before the body. Mr. President, Senator Kyl has suggested that we increase Pell grant funding by $528 million. That is a worthy goal. That is something that I would like to see done. But he suggests paying for it by taking that money out of the low-income heating assistance program. The Senator from Arizona experiences a different reality than the one I experience. The Senator from Arizona says the energy crisis is over; the need for low-income heating assistance has ended. I could not disagree more. We have just had in my State the worst winter in our history. In fact, we saw heating oil prices spike significantly, with natural gas hitting an all-time high. Propane spiked dramatically, hitting an all-time high. Mr. President, this is not the time to end the low-income heating assistance program. We just went through a winter in which not only did we have the worst winter in terms of snowfall in our history, but we had, if I am not mistaken, eight blizzards and nine major winter storms. We also had the most powerful winter storm in 50 years in the first week of April. Mr. President, that was devastating in my State. In fact, this collection of storms was devastating in my State. Low-income heating assistance played a key role in helping people who are faced with the choice between heating and eating. That is not a choice anybody should have to make in this country. So, while I certainly support the underlying intention of the Senator from Arizona to increase assistance for Pell grants, I would simply point to the record of what we have already done. We have a $1 billion increase for Pell grants in this legislation; funding of $6.9 billion for Pell grants. Again, I would like to see that increased further. But I don't think the way to fund it is to dramatically reduce what is available for low-income heating assistance. This bill has $1 billion for fiscal year 1998 in low-income heating assistance and $300 million in an emergency contingency fund. To cut back by $528 million to add to Pell grants I don't think can be justified. So I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing the Kyl amendment, not because I am opposed to an increase in Pell grants but because I am opposed to taking it out of low-income heating assistance at a time when we have just experienced in the northern plains the worst winter in our history, and, if the almanac is to be believed, we may be faced with another tough winter this year. I hope that is not the case, but if it is, low-income heating assistance may make the difference between people making a decision of heating versus eating. Again, that is not a decision anybody should have to make. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Cochran in sponsoring this reachback tax relief bill to alleviate the inequitable hardships the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefits Act of 1992 imposed on certain companies. First, it is important to note that the Coal Act of 1992 assured coal miners and their dependents that their health benefits were permanently secured. And, it provided a statutory foundation to implement that commitment. This legislation continues that commitment and maintains the legal foundation to carry it out. However, the funding mechanism of the Act has produced severe financial hardship for many companies subject to it. Our legislation reforms the Coal Act to eliminate this very serious and growing problem. In order to fund the 1992 Coal Act, reachback companies, many long removed from deep coal mining, were subjected to a burdensome tax that in many cases threatens their existence. Many companies are no longer in the coal business, and long ago withdrew from the Bituminous Coal Operators Association [BCOA] having met their legal obligations to fund retiree health benefits. It is the BCOA that negotiated a series of collective bargaining agreements with their employees and at the urging of the BCOA, the final contract contribution formula did not fully fund the benefits. The solution to this funding shortfall came down to asking others to help pay, even those who had long ago left the coal business. We have now reached a point where reform is essential. As much as $16 billion in penalties have accumulated against companies for delinquent premiums. Some of the reachback companies are trying to pay by depleting their assets and thereby jeopardizing their ability to survive economically. Other companies simply cannot afford to pay. The Combined Benefit Fund trustees are currently suing delinquent companies to collect all unpaid premiums. These liabilities threaten the existence of many small companies and the jobs of the people employed by them. It is increasingly clear that this is a symptom of the serious shortcomings in the original legislation. These reachback companies deserve fairer treatment than the Coal Act now provides. Just as important, coal miners and their dependents deserve a Coal Act that will work in the long-run. To make matters worse, a recent federal court decision has had the adverse effect of reducing the Combined Fund revenues by ten percent and thus threatening the solvency of the Fund. If the decision is left standing, a shortfall is projected by the year 2002. We must act now to preserve the solvency of the miners' fund as well as provide the urgently needed reachback relief. This legislation reverses the court's decision and increases BCOA premiums, to preserve the long term solvency of the Fund and provide a modest level of reachback relief. Following are key reform elements in our legislation: (1) Eliminates premiums for certain reachback companies and significantly reduces premiums for other reachbacks; (2) Creates a cap on all small company premiums; (3) Creates relief for companies who paid withdrawal fees; and (4) Strengthens the fiscal integrity of the miners' fund by overturning the court decision and increasing BCOA premiums. The passage of the Coal Act in 1992 has saved the coal producing members of the BCOA more than $130 million per year over their prior annual benefit payment liabilities. The BCOA companies' $130 million annual windfall will need to be reduced in order to provide fiscal relief to the many reachback companies. When this comprehensive bill becomes law, BCOA companies will still benefit from about $100 million in annual savings. Mr. President, the problems being caused by the Reachback Tax are severe and require a remedy. Congress should act now to reform the Coal Act in order to provide equitable relief for all reachback companies as well as to permanently secure the miners' benefits. We should pass the Comprehensive Coal Act Reform proposal now.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Cochran in sponsoring this reachback tax relief bill to alleviate the inequitable hardships the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefits Act of 1992 imposed on certain companies. First, it is important to note that the Coal Act of 1992 assured coal miners and their dependents that their health benefits were permanently secured. And, it provided a statutory foundation to implement that commitment. This legislation continues that commitment and maintains the legal foundation to carry it out. However, the funding mechanism of the Act has produced severe financial hardship for many companies subject to it. Our legislation reforms the Coal Act to eliminate this very serious and growing problem. In order to fund the 1992 Coal Act, reachback companies, many long removed from deep coal mining, were subjected to a burdensome tax that in many cases threatens their existence. Many companies are no longer in the coal business, and long ago withdrew from the Bituminous Coal Operators Association [BCOA] having met their legal obligations to fund retiree health benefits. It is the BCOA that negotiated a series of collective bargaining agreements with their employees and at the urging of the BCOA, the final contract contribution formula did not fully fund the benefits. The solution to this funding shortfall came down to asking others to help pay, even those who had long ago left the coal business. We have now reached a point where reform is essential. As much as $16 billion in penalties have accumulated against companies for delinquent premiums. Some of the reachback companies are trying to pay by depleting their assets and thereby jeopardizing their ability to survive economically. Other companies simply cannot afford to pay. The Combined Benefit Fund trustees are currently suing delinquent companies to collect all unpaid premiums. These liabilities threaten the existence of many small companies and the jobs of the people employed by them. It is increasingly clear that this is a symptom of the serious shortcomings in the original legislation. These reachback companies deserve fairer treatment than the Coal Act now provides. Just as important, coal miners and their dependents deserve a Coal Act that will work in the long-run. To make matters worse, a recent federal court decision has had the adverse effect of reducing the Combined Fund revenues by ten percent and thus threatening the solvency of the Fund. If the decision is left standing, a shortfall is projected by the year 2002. We must act now to preserve the solvency of the miners' fund as well as provide the urgently needed reachback relief. This legislation reverses the court's decision and increases BCOA premiums, to preserve the long term solvency of the Fund and provide a modest level of reachback relief. Following are key reform elements in our legislation: (1) Eliminates premiums for certain reachback companies and significantly reduces premiums for other reachbacks; (2) Creates a cap on all small company premiums; (3) Creates relief for companies who paid withdrawal fees; and (4) Strengthens the fiscal integrity of the miners' fund by overturning the court decision and increasing BCOA premiums. The passage of the Coal Act in 1992 has saved the coal producing members of the BCOA more than $130 million per year over their prior annual benefit payment liabilities. The BCOA companies' $130 million annual windfall will need to be reduced in order to provide fiscal relief to the many reachback companies. When this comprehensive bill becomes law, BCOA companies will still benefit from about $100 million in annual savings. Mr. President, the problems being caused by the Reachback Tax are severe and require a remedy. Congress should act now to reform the Coal Act in order to provide equitable relief for all reachback companies as well as to permanently secure the miners' benefits. We should pass the Comprehensive Coal Act Reform proposal now.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I yield myself such time as I might consume off the ranking member's time. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, first of all, I want to acknowledge the efforts of the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, and the very great contribution of the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Senator Lautenberg. In addition, I want to recognize the exceptional efforts with respect to the tax bill of the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Roth, and Senator Moynihan, the ranking member. First, let me say with respect to Senator Roth, that he conducted the Finance Committee as I hope all committees of Congress would be conducted. He was absolutely fair. He conducted that committee with a bipartisan spirit. I think it made a great difference in bringing us to this point. I think for too long in Congress on both sides there have been those who conducted themselves in a very partisan way. Senator Roth chose to conduct himself in a bipartisan way. That did not mean Senator Roth gave up his long-held views on taxes and spending. He certainly did not, nor did others of us who may disagree. We had a full and fair debate, and all of us took principled positions that were ones we deeply hold. But there is no reason we cannot have full and fair debate and treat each other with respect. That occurred in the Finance Committee, and Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan deserve great credit. I want to say that at the outset. I hope that serves as a pattern of how we conduct ourselves going forward in the Senate. I think that is the model of how people in this country would like to see us conduct our business. So I want to say to Senator Roth, thank you for being a gentleman and conducting yourself with grace. Mr. President, I, too, am proud to have voted for the provisions that we passed this morning that will finish the job of balancing the unified budget. I am also going to be proud to vote for the tax bill. While it is not precisely as I would have written it if I were given a free hand, none of us can be given a free hand. We are part of a legislative body, 100 on this side, 435 in the House and, of course, we have the White House to consider because the President can exercise a veto. We worked together to fashion a result that is a compromise. I think it is a very principled compromise. I think it is a fair result. Frankly, I would have done more by way of deficit reduction. I wish we had been more ambitious. I wish we would have done more in long-term reform of entitlement programs. But that was not to be. That is for another day. Mr. President, we have made progress. This package in total does not reduce the deficit as much as I would have liked. But nonetheless there is solid deficit reduction here, about $175 billion of net deficit reduction over the 5 years. I have been part of a group of centrists, a group of 25 Senators evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. We had a more ambitious package of deficit reduction, I would say perhaps twice as much. I would like to have seen that package passed. We also supported in the Finance Committee on a bipartisan basis more far-reaching entitlement reforms, especially with respect to Medicare, but others in the House would not vote for those changes. Notwithstanding the fact that I would like to have seen a different package, a more ambitious package, the fact is this package is worthy of support. It does further reduce the deficit. It does bring us to unified balance. I want to make certain we all understand the difference between unified balance and what I would consider a true balanced budget. But it also provides expanded educational opportunity for our children. There is provided in the previous legislation we passed this morning a broader coverage for children in health care. It provides for tax relief. There are a whole series of provisions that I think are going to be useful, including child tax credits and educational credits. There is also tax reform in a number of other areas, including estate taxes. Estate tax relief will be especially important in a State like mine where we have many small businessmen and farmers. We have a package of increased savings opportunities. Nobody is more responsible for those than Senator Roth of Delaware. He has had a passion for expanding IRA's and they will provide an incentive, I believe, for further savings and investment. There are also capital gains changes that will be welcome in many circles. I personally would not have favored the extent of capital gains changes passed here. I would have favored a more targeted approach. But nonetheless, we did reach an agreement, and as I said earlier, this agreement is worthy of support. I, too, want to put this in perspective. I may have a different perspective than the occupant of the Chair as he expressed it a few moments ago. I remember 1993 very well. The deficit was $290 billion, and every projection that we had said the deficit was going higher. The Democrats at that time had just been elected to the White House. Democrats had control of the Senate and the House. We had to produce an economic plan, a 5-year plan, and we did. We passed that plan without any votes from the other side of the aisle, not one. In that plan, it is true, we raised taxes. I would not agree that it was the largest tax increase ever. I believe the tax increases that were passed in the early 1980's were larger in terms of relationship to the size of our economy. But nonetheless, we did raise taxes, raised income taxes on the wealthiest 1 percent in this country. We also cut spending--$250 billion of spending cuts--over 5 years. That package worked. Some on the other side said that if we passed that package it would crater the economy, that it would increase unemployment, that it would increase the deficit, that it would reduce economic growth. Well, the record is now in. The record is clear. Our friends on the other side of the aisle were simply wrong. That package did not increase unemployment. Precisely the opposite occurred. We had the creation of 12\1/2\ million new jobs in the last 5 years. Inflation is at a 31-year low. Unemployment is at a 24-year low. We have had remarkable economic growth. We have had business investment expanding at a rate of 10.5 percent a year. We have had the largest reduction in poverty in our history. This has been an economic plan that has worked remarkably well. So that is my perspective on how we get to where we are today. I will just show this chart. It shows the 1997 budget agreement is only possible because of the savings generated by the 1993 plan. Interestingly enough, if you look at the years from 1994 to 2002, the 1993 plan generated over $2 trillion of deficit reduction--$2 trillion. The plan we are talking about today will further reduce the deficit, but it will produce less than $200 billion of net deficit reduction through 2002. So most of the heavy lifting was done by the 1993 plan. I am extremely proud to have been part of that plan because it took courage to pass that plan. It was controversial and it was difficult, but it worked. Mr. President, today we are talking about a tax plan that, as I indicated, has many important elements. One of the elements that I think is very important in this debate is we are able to extend the child credit to people who are paying payroll taxes that do not have further income tax obligation. Some said it would be welfare to give a child tax credit to those who do not have an additional income tax obligation but are paying payroll taxes. I am very pleased that we were able to prevail in that debate because the reality is we have tens of millions of people in this country who are paying more in payroll taxes than they are paying in income taxes. In fact, 73 percent of the people in this country pay more in payroll taxes than they pay in income taxes. Those payroll taxes are not just being used to finance Social Security and Medicare. They are also being used to finance the ongoing operations of Government, because every year we are taking the Social Security surpluses and spending them. We are spending the Social Security surpluses to support the ongoing operations of Government. I will display this chart because it shows what has happened with payroll taxes. They have increased dramatically. They now make up about 35 percent of the revenue of this Government; and, again, 73 percent of the people in this country are paying more in payroll taxes than they are paying in income taxes. So I think it is entirely appropriate that we extended the child credit to offset payroll taxes for those folks who earn less than $30,000 a year. I might say, in my State, that is very nearly a majority of the taxpayers. The other provisions of this tax bill are also critically important. I am especially pleased with the education component because we have made an enormous investment in American families being able to send their kids on to higher education. That is good news for American families. The good news does not stop there. We have also expanded the incentives for people to save and invest. Again, I want to acknowledge the role of Senator Roth in that regard. In my State of North Dakota, we have tens of thousands of small businessmen and farmers who have looked at the estate tax provisions of current law and said, Senator, these have not been adjusted for decades. We are still stuck at $600,000, and it is time for an adjustment. I am especially pleased that in this legislation small businessmen and farmers next year are going to see that basic estate tax provision raised to $1.3 million. That is going to make a real difference in the ability of small business people in my State and the State of the occupant of the Chair to pass on their businesses or their farms to family members. I think that is what we want to do in this country. We do not want to break up a small family business or a small family farm. Someone may be listening and thinking, is a small family farm, 1.3 million? Given what's happened to land values in parts of our State and other parts of the country, as urban pressures have grown, absolutely that can be a small family farm. You can have a land value of $1.3 million and have people who are cash poor. I have friends who are in farming. If you went to their homes, you would find them living very modestly, very modestly, indeed--driving old cars, living in homes that have not had much done to them in maybe 20 years. Yet they have a land value of $1.5 million. But they have very little in the way of cash income. Yet the current estate tax works to break up those family operations. That is not what we want to be doing. These estate tax changes are going to be very positive. Mr. President, I want to end as I began by saying this has been a bipartisan effort, it has been a constructive effort, and it has brought us to this result. It is a good result. I also want to say that we have more work to be done. When we talk about balancing the unified budget, what that means is that we are taking Social Security surpluses and counting those in order to achieve balance. It is not my idea of a real balanced budget. I will really celebrate the day that we are no longer counting Social Security trust fund surpluses in order to say that we have balanced the budget. Let me just show this last chart, because this shows what has happened to the so-called unified deficit. It is the blue line. It shows back in 1992 we had a deficit of $290 billion. It has gone down every single year since the 5-year plan that we put in place in 1993. This year the projection is $67 billion. I think when the new figures come out in the next couple of weeks they will show that the deficit this year, instead of being $67 billion, as is the current projection, will be down even substantially from that, perhaps as low as $45 billion. Some are even now saying the deficit this year will be as little as $30 billion. We have had a cumulative deficit of only $11 billion in the first 9 months of this year. That is a remarkable success, from a deficit of $290 billion in 1992 to a deficit this year that may be as little as $45 billion. Then, under this plan we bump up next year. We don't know what the new projections will show. Then we are on a steady, declining path to unified balance in 2002. But the red line shows something else. It shows that while the deficit is in fact declining each and every year, we will still be left with a $109 billion deficit in 2002, when one includes the Social Security trust fund surpluses. So I think it is fair to say that this plan does balance the unified budget, it does provide tax relief, it does do other things that are very helpful to the American people. But I think it is also important to remind ourselves we still have progress that needs to be made. Because in 2002 we will still have a real deficit, when we consider those Social Security trust fund surpluses that are being thrown in the pot to claim balance. Even with that said, the fact is this package does represent progress at further reducing the deficit. It does represent tax relief. It does represent the other things that I referenced earlier, like expansion of educational opportunity for our families. It also provides, in the earlier legislation passed, a dramatic expansion of health care coverage for kids in this country who need it. With that, I yield the floor. I again thank my colleagues who have worked on a bipartisan basis to achieve this result.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. I say to my colleague, Senator Hagel, that I think they are under an informal understanding of going back and forth. I would be glad to hold off, if the Senator has another responsibility elsewhere. I would be happy to stand down and allow him to proceed.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume off Senator Moynihan's time.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to comment briefly on the agreement that has now been reached between negotiators on the budget and tax package. That agreement will soon be before us. I would like to put what has happened in some historical perspective. I have been reading and listening to the commentary over the last several days of how we got to the position we are in today, in which we can consider significant tax relief and continue on a path to balance the unified budget by the year 2002. I think we have to go back to 1993 when President Clinton came into office and faced a $290 billion deficit he had inherited from the year before. I think we have to go back to the economic plan that he laid on the table to get our fiscal house in order and to lay the basis for strong economic growth. When we go back to that period, I think we remember the situation we confronted. Deficits had been growing, were out of control. There were many who wondered if the best years of the United States were behind us. The President put out an economic plan that proposed cutting spending. It also proposed higher taxes on the wealthiest among us, asking the wealthiest 1 percent in this country to pay higher income taxes. That plan passed the Congress. In fact, it passed in this body only because the Vice President of the United States broke a tie and voted in favor. There were those on the other side of the aisle who said this plan, which was going to raise taxes on the wealthiest and was going to have spending cuts, was going to crater the economy. They said at the time it was going to increase unemployment; it was going to reduce economic growth. All these bad things were going to happen. Now we can look back and see what has really happened. None of the bad things came true. Instead, what we have seen is really a remarkable economic record. Just with respect to the deficit, the so-called unified deficit, it was $290 billion in 1992 and came down every year under that economic plan. This year, the most recent projection was $67 billion, but even that is now outdated. We are now told that the deficit this year may be $45 billion, or may be as little as $30 billion. So the fact is that the economic plan which passed in 1993, a 5-year plan, has exceeded every expectation. The deficit has come down each and every year under that economic plan and come down sharply. In fact, we are close to balancing the unified budget without any additional action. According to the Office of Management and Budget, if one looks at long term savings, what one sees is the savings from the 1993 deficit reduction package are $2 trillion over 1994-2002. The budget agreement that the Senate will consider tomorrow is about $200 billion, about one-tenth as much. So if we go back and look at what made a difference here, the 1993 economic plan is the reason we have seen such dramatic deficit reduction and is the reason why we are in a position now to have tax relief for hard-pressed American taxpayers. It is very interesting to go back and review the record of what has happened in this economy since that 1993 economic plan was adopted. By the way, it is the only economic plan that was adopted during that period. It was adopted without any help from the other side, and now we can look at the record. The misery index. We used to talk a lot about the misery index. That is the combined rate of unemployment and inflation. The combined rate on July 14, 1997: 8.7 percent, the lowest average since the Johnson administration. That is a long time. Inflation: 2.8 percent per year, the lowest average since the Kennedy administration. Employment. Our friends on the other side of the aisle said when we passed the 1993 plan--it is still ringing in my ears--I remember a Senator on the other side of the aisle saying this was going to crater the economy. It was going to increase unemployment. It was going to reduce economic growth. It was going to be devastating. Well, we can now look back and see what happened. Employment has increased by 12.5 million new jobs--the only administration to exceed 11 million in our history. Deficit reduction. I have already talked about that. We have seen the unified deficit go from $290 billion to this year perhaps as little as $45 billion. Maybe even less. Business investment has grown at 10.5 percent a year, the fastest growth since the Kennedy administration. The stock market. We all know what has happened to the stock market. It has gone from 3,242 on January 20, 1993, when this President took office, to 7,922 on July 11 of this year. Now we know it is over 8,000--the fastest growth since World War II. And the poverty rate. The poverty rate in this country has declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 13.8 percent in 1995--the largest drop since the Johnson administration. Median family income has gone up $1,600 between 1993 and 1995--the fastest growth since the Johnson administration. Mr. President, I recall this history because I think it is important. It is important to understand what has worked in terms of economic policy. Some said in 1993, if you raise taxes on anybody in this country, that will have a devastating economic impact. They were wrong. They were simply wrong. I believe the reason they were wrong is because the benefits of deficit reduction to the economy far outweighed any negative consequences. No question, when you raise taxes that creates some drag in the economy. But it also had a beneficial component. The beneficial component was that deficit reduction took pressure off interest rates because we really did reduce the deficit. The fact there was a move to ask the wealthiest 1 percent in this country to pay more in income taxes combined with the spending cuts of the 1993 plan meant the deficits came down. That meant there was less Government borrowing. That took pressure off of interest rates. Interest rates came down. In fact, we know every 1 percent reduction in interest rates takes $128 billion a year off this economy. That is lower borrowing costs for businesses, lowering borrowing costs for farmers, lowering borrowing costs for individuals. And that made a profound difference in this economy. It helped this economy reignite. And, again, since 1993, we see the results--not only this dramatic decline in the deficit as a result of that economic plan, but also a remarkable resurgence of economic growth, savings, and investment. We've seen the lowest level of core inflation in 31 years, and in May the lowest unemployment rate in 24 years. That is a remarkable economic record. Some who are listening will say, well, Senator, you can't attribute this all to the 1993 plan. Fair enough. You cannot attribute it all to the 1993 plan because economic conditions are a result of not only fiscal policy but monetary policy as well. But make no mistake, the accommodative monetary policy we have had as a result of Federal Reserve Board decisions, follows the fiscal policy decisions that were made in 1993. That is not just my opinion. Alan Greenspan, the head of the Federal Reserve, says that himself. He has indicated that much of the strength we have seen in the economy can be attributed directly to the 1993 economic plan. I think if one is fair and objective one would say, no question, this economic resurgence in terms of Government policy is a combination of fiscal policy that was passed by Congress in 1993 and the monetary policy that the Federal Reserve Board has followed since that time. But what made possible those Federal Reserve decisions was the fact that we bit the bullet, that we took action to reduce the deficit. Because we took that action in fiscal policy and the Federal Reserve Board responded with accommodative monetary policy, the result has been this remarkable economic resurgence. There are other factors as well, but in terms of Government policy, what Government can do to affect outcomes, there is no question. The record is absolutely clear. The 1993 economic plan worked and worked remarkably well to strengthen this economy. Mr. President, I look forward in the coming days to discussing this economic package that has now been agreed to by negotiators. I look forward to talking about the spending side of the ledger as well as the tax side of the ledger, the agreement that will be before us tomorrow. I yield the floor, Mr. President, and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, along with my distinguished colleague from North Dakota, legislation to increase opportunities for oil and gas leasing on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in North Dakota. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, I understand the importance of increasing economic development in Indian country, in particular, development that creates high-paying, skilled employment. Members of the Three Affiliated Tribes at Fort Berthold have been working on a plan to create jobs and increase revenue through oil and gas development on the Fort Berthold Reservation, which lies within the oil-rich Williston Basin. At present, there are only seven oil producing wells on land owned by the Three Affiliated Tribes or tribal members. The Tribal Business Council is considering possibilities for development of oil and gas reserves of its tribally owned land and allotted lands of its members and is pursuing approval by the Bureau of Indian Affairs of an exploration and development agreement under the Mineral Development Act. The fractionated ownership of allotted lands complicates the leasing and exploration process. The Bureau must approve tribal oil and gas leases, and in order for the Bureau to approve a lease of Indian lands, all who have an interest in the land must agree to the particular oil and gas lease. The number of people who have an undivided interest in various land allotments grows larger each year and now involves hundreds of people. Thus, for an oil and gas exploration to commence, hundreds of oil and gas leases for small allotments of land would have to be executed. If any one person with an interest--no matter how small--in the land objects, the lease agreement would fail. Present law creates a nearly insurmountable barrier to this type of oil and gas development, even in the face of overwhelming support by allotted landowners. The legislation we are introducing today--which applies only to the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation--would allow an oil and gas lease to become effective if those individual owners of 50 percent or more of the interests in a particular tract of mineral acres agree to the lease. The bill also includes safeguards to ensure that all Indian owners of the allotments are entitled to the benefits of the leases. This legislation is an important step for oil and gas development on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation; it is supported by the Tribal Business Council of the Three Affiliated Tribes. I believe the bill can also serve as a model for addressing other problems in Indian country that have arisen as a result of fractionated heirship, and a first step toward a more comprehensive solution.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, along with my distinguished colleague from North Dakota, legislation to increase opportunities for oil and gas leasing on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in North Dakota. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, I understand the importance of increasing economic development in Indian country, in particular, development that creates high-paying, skilled employment. Members of the Three Affiliated Tribes at Fort Berthold have been working on a plan to create jobs and increase revenue through oil and gas development on the Fort Berthold Reservation, which lies within the oil-rich Williston Basin. At present, there are only seven oil producing wells on land owned by the Three Affiliated Tribes or tribal members. The Tribal Business Council is considering possibilities for development of oil and gas reserves of its tribally owned land and allotted lands of its members and is pursuing approval by the Bureau of Indian Affairs of an exploration and development agreement under the Mineral Development Act. The fractionated ownership of allotted lands complicates the leasing and exploration process. The Bureau must approve tribal oil and gas leases, and in order for the Bureau to approve a lease of Indian lands, all who have an interest in the land must agree to the particular oil and gas lease. The number of people who have an undivided interest in various land allotments grows larger each year and now involves hundreds of people. Thus, for an oil and gas exploration to commence, hundreds of oil and gas leases for small allotments of land would have to be executed. If any one person with an interest--no matter how small--in the land objects, the lease agreement would fail. Present law creates a nearly insurmountable barrier to this type of oil and gas development, even in the face of overwhelming support by allotted landowners. The legislation we are introducing today--which applies only to the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation--would allow an oil and gas lease to become effective if those individual owners of 50 percent or more of the interests in a particular tract of mineral acres agree to the lease. The bill also includes safeguards to ensure that all Indian owners of the allotments are entitled to the benefits of the leases. This legislation is an important step for oil and gas development on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation; it is supported by the Tribal Business Council of the Three Affiliated Tribes. I believe the bill can also serve as a model for addressing other problems in Indian country that have arisen as a result of fractionated heirship, and a first step toward a more comprehensive solution.

Mr. CONRAD

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