Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a great American on the occasion of his retirement from Government service, the Hon. Warren Christopher. Anyone who has been reading the headlines for the past 4 years is well familiar with Secretary Christopher's many accomplishments. Through negotiations on ending the war in Bosnia, restoring elected government in Haiti, and advancing the peace process in the Middle East, Secretary Christopher has kept a steady, reliable hand on the ship of state. His calm demeanor, good humor, and sharp intelligence will be missed by all who knew him. America has benefitted from his able leadership, and it is my hope that he will continue to be active in the affairs of our Nation in his retirement. Less widely known than Secretary Christopher's negotiating acumen is the fact that he hails from my home State, the Great State of North Dakota. Born in Scranton, Secretary Christopher has made proud a State which prides itself on hard work, quiet strength, and doing the right thing. Secretary Christopher is one of my State's most distinguished natives sons, and will always have a home in North Dakota. In light of his many important achievements, today I am introducing a resolution which commends and thanks Secretary Christopher for his excellent service to the Nation. The resolution highlights his ``indefatigable commitment to advancing peace and justice, protecting and promoting United States interests, and preserving United States leadership in international affairs.'' I trust that all of my colleagues will agree that Secretary Christopher deserves to be so honored, and will support my resolution.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, before the 104th Congress adjourns, I want to take a moment of the Senate's time to thank someone who will be leaving my office in a few weeks. Four years ago, Kevin Price joined my staff as a legislative assistant for agriculture from Senator Kerrey's office, where he had served as a legislative correspondent. Kevin quickly established himself as one of the hardest working people on my staff. It seemed like he was almost always one of the first here in the morning and one of the last to leave at night. And that was before serious preparation for the 1995 farm bill had even begun. Kevin also was very successful at reaching out to North Dakota farmers and farm groups. Although he initially had to overcome some skepticism because he was from the northwestern Minnesota town of Steven, and not a native of North Dakota, he soon earned their trust, respect, and friendship through his work for me on the 1993 budget, disaster assistance, grazing, and many, many other issues. At the same time, Kevin developed a strong working relationship with other staff on agriculture issues that made him a persuasive actor in all of the staff work that goes on behind the scenes around here. His ties to both Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate staff, and key administration players made him very effective at protecting the interests of North Dakota farmers on myriad, small but often very important, issues that are effectively determined at the staff level. For the past 3 years, Kevin immersed himself in the details of the 1995 farm bill to ensure that my priorities were addressed. For North Dakota, the farm bill is essential legislation. Its provisions, in large part, determine my State's economic future. During consideration of the farm bill, it is essential that I have accurate, timely information and thoughtfully prepared options. I ask a lot of my staff. Kevin came through--for me, and for the people of North Dakota. He not only worked incredibly long hours himself, he did a terrific job of coordinating the many other members of my staff who also helped work on the farm bill, and, despite the enormous pressure that he must sometimes have felt, Kevin was always a pleasure to be around. Although I believe the overall approach to farm policy taken by the Republicans in the 1995 farm bill is misguided and I could not support it, it does contain numerous provisions that will make an important difference for North Dakota that would not be in the bill had Kevin not worked so hard on my behalf. In a few weeks, Kevin will be going to work for the American Crystal Sugar cooperative in Moorhead, MN. He has very big shoes to fill, because he is taking over from former Gov. George Sinner. But I have no doubt that he will fill them well, because he also leaves behind big shoes for my next agriculture legislative assistant to fill. On behalf of the people of North Dakota, I thank Kevin for a job well done and wish him well in his new endeavor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, we have now come to what may be the last day of the congressional session. Perhaps it will take another day or two for Congress to adjourn. I would just like to observe that this is what we have been handed on the final day. I do not know how many pages are here. I assume it is at least a thousand pages. We are handed this massive bill--that few of us have seen--because once again Congress has failed to do its job on time. Here we are on the eve of the next fiscal year, and six appropriations bills have to be rolled into one in order to prevent a shutdown of Government. Madam President, this is not the way to do business. I doubt there are very many Members who have any idea what is in this omnibus consolidated appropriations bill. I certainly do not. We got this stack this morning. We are going to vote, they tell us, sometime this evening. You know, I am a pretty fast reader, but I do not think I can get this job done in time to make any kind of reasoned judgment on what is included. This is not the way we ought to do our business. Madam President, it does seem to me to be an appropriate time to review the record of what has happened over the last several years. I would just like to start with the question of deficit reduction, because we hear a lot of talk about who is conservative and who is not conservative. Frankly, I do not think it matters so much who is liberal, who is conservative; I think what the American people are interested in is who gets results, because that is at the end of the day what really matters. If we look at our last three Presidents on the question of the deficits, the results are now very clear. We look back to 1981, President Reagan inherited a deficit of about $79 billion. Very quickly the deficit skyrocketed to over $200 billion, and it was stuck at that figure for most of his term. At the end of President Reagan's term we saw some slight improvement, but still the deficit was about twice as high as the deficit he had inherited. So it is not surprising that the American debt grew dramatically during those years. Then, of course, came the Bush administration. President Bush inherited a deficit of $153 billion, and it promptly went out of control. In the last year of the Bush Presidency, the deficit was up to $290 billion. Then President Clinton came in, and in each and every year of the Clinton administration, the deficit has gone down; $255 billion the first year, down to $116 billion this year. So the President has done an outstanding job of deficit reduction. Some have said, ``Well, he doesn't really deserve any credit.'' It is interesting to look at what an impartial observer says. The head of the Federal Reserve, Chairman Greenspan, says the deficit reduction in President Clinton's 1993 economic plan was ``an unquestioned factor in contributing to the improvement in economic activity that occurred thereafter.'' Certainly Mr. Greenspan is correct. We passed in 1993 an economic plan that cut spending and that raised revenue, and that in combination reduced the budget deficit. Because the deficit was coming down, interest rates came down, and economic activity increased. Mr. Greenspan says that plan was ``an unquestioned factor in contributing to the improvement in economic activity that occurred thereafter.'' Perhaps this is an appropriate time to start looking at the record. What did happen? Well, one of the things we often talk about is the misery index. The misery index is a measure of unemployment and inflation. Look what has happened to the misery index over the last 28 years. We have the lowest misery index now, after 4 years of the Clinton administration, the lowest misery index in 28 years. The good news does not stop there. We have also seen strong economic growth under the Clinton administration. Real private-sector economic growth, under the Bush administration, averaged 1.3 percent. Under the Clinton administration, real private-sector GDP growth has averaged 3.2 percent; a very good record and a dramatic improvement over what we have seen previously. Real business fixed investment. I think one of the best measures of whether an economic plan is successful is what happens to real business fixed investment. We can see that under President Clinton, we have the best rate of increase in real business fixed investment of any President since World War II. If we look at the last 4 years--since the Clinton administration took control, since we passed the 1993 economic plan--we see a dramatic increase in business fixed investment, in fact, the best record that we have seen in decades. President Clinton delivered on his promise to reduce the deficit--we can all recall he said he would cut it in half. It was $290 billion in the year before he took office. He has more than met that promise. He has reduced the deficit to $116 billion, a 60-percent reduction. That is not the only promise he has delivered on with his economic plan. He said his plan would deliver 8 million new jobs. But instead, we now have over 10 million new jobs created during the Clinton administration. Let me just turn to one other matter because unemployment is also a very significant measuring point as to how well an economic plan is doing. Back in December 1992, before Bill Clinton came into office, the unemployment rate in this country was 7.3 percent--7.3 percent. In June of this year it was down to 5.3 percent, a dramatic reduction in unemployment. In fact, we now know the unemployment rate fell to 5.1 percent in August 1996. That is the lowest level of unemployment that we have had in 7 years. Last week we got more good news with respect to what was happening in the economy. The Census Bureau issued its analysis of what has been occurring. What we found is that incomes have been going up and poverty has been coming down, another good measure of whether or not an economic plan is working. In fact, what we saw was that median household income is up the largest increase in a decade. We saw the largest decline in income inequality in 27 years. We saw 1.6 million fewer people in poverty, the largest drop in 27 years. We saw the poverty rate for elderly Americans at 10.5 percent, its lowest level ever, lowest level ever in terms of the number of elderly living in poverty; again, I think a good measure of how well this Clinton economic plan has worked. I might say, I was proud to have voted for that plan. We had a tie vote here in the U.S. Senate, broken by a vote of the Vice President of the United States. Our friends on the other side of the aisle said this economic plan, the results of which I have just reported on, would crater the economy. That was their commentary at the time. They said it would increase the deficit. They said it would increase interest rates. They said it would increase unemployment. They were wrong on every count. They were wrong on every single count. Madam President, we have seen the results of the Clinton economic plan. I think that raises the question of what would the Dole economic plan do? Senator Dole, running for President, has said that he has a plan, and the cornerstone of that plan is a $550 billion tax cut. I thought, in order to put in perspective what the Dole plan is likely to do, that we ought to look ahead to the next 6 years, because his plan covers the next 6 years. It is very interesting. If one looks at what we are facing in the next 6 years, from 1997 to 2002, this is the projected spending of the United States under current law. We would spend $11.3 trillion. But this is our income. Our income is only $9.9 trillion. So we are going to be adding $1.4 trillion to the national debt--debt held by the public. The first thing Senator Dole says we ought to do is cut the revenue another $550 billion, reducing it to $9.4 trillion. So, now the gap between income and outgo is bigger. He is digging the hole deeper before he starts filling it in. He is adding to the debt. That is going in precisely the wrong direction. If one looks at what is necessary for an economic plan to add up, one finds the following: We would need $584 billion of spending cuts necessary to balance the unified budget. That includes all spending and all revenues--that is the unified budget. That includes the Social Security surpluses that we are scheduled to run over the next 6 years. So we would need $584 billion of spending cuts in order to balance the unified budget. But Senator Dole says he wants a $551 billion tax cut. So now we would need $1.1 trillion of cuts in order to balance the unified budget and prevent adding to the debt held by the public over this next 6-year period. It does not stop there. Senator Dole's plan assumes that he is going to count all of the Social Security surpluses over the next 6 years to help balance the budget. That is $525 billion of Social Security surpluses. Now, if we were really going to honestly balance this budget, we would need the $584 billion of spending cuts just to balance the unified budget, then we need the $551 billion to cover his tax cut so we do not add to the debt, then we need another $525 billion so that we are not raiding the Social Security trust funds. So now we need $1.6 trillion in spending cuts. Madam President, we will look at what Senator Dole is proposing and see if he meets those tests. Does he come up with $1.1 trillion of cuts to prevent adding to the debt with his tax cut? Or does he honestly balance with $1.6 trillion of cuts necessary to prevent raiding the Social Security trust fund? What are the cuts he has come up with? Has he come up with anything close to $1.1 trillion to prevent adding to the debt to cover his tax cut, or to really do the job and have $1.6 trillion of cuts to prevent raiding the Social Security trust fund? Here is the spending that is outlined over the next 6 years under current law. Social Security, $2.1 trillion, about 20 percent of projected spending over the next 6 years. Interest on the debt, nearly as much, $2 trillion. Defense, $1.7 trillion. Of course, Senator Dole says defense is off the table. He will not cut defense, he will not cut Social Security. Medicare is $1.6 trillion projected over the next 6 years. Medicaid, almost $1 trillion over the next 6 years. Other entitlements--student loans, food stamps, child nutrition--those are other entitlements. Then we have nondefense discretionary, which is $1.7 trillion over the next 6 years. Nondefense discretionary is roads, bridges, law enforcement, jails, parks--all of that is in nondefense discretionary. Now, we will look for a moment at whether or not Senator Dole's plan adds up. Taking the savings he has talked about, he said he will take a sliver out of the $1.6 trillion of Medicare, and he has that savings of $158 billion. So that is in the cookie jar. We will see when we are done if he has $1.1 trillion of cuts or the $1.6 trillion necessary to prevent raiding the Social Security trust fund. We have so far in the cookie jar $158 billion of Medicare cuts. He says on Medicaid, he will take a sliver out of that, which is the equivalent to $72 billion, and we will put that down and it is in the cookie jar. That is $72 billion of Medicaid cuts. He also says he will take a chunk out of other entitlements, which is right here. He will take a chunk out of this spending category. And, again, he is talking about $124 billion of other entitlements--again, that is child nutrition and a number of other areas we have talked about, including food stamps, Federal retirement, student loans. He has $124 billion there. We will put that in the cookie jar. Then he says he will cut nondefense discretionary. That is one of his biggest cuts, nondefense discretionary. He has $300 billion that we can put in the cookie jar out of nondefense discretionary spending. What is nondefense discretionary spending? That is an area in which we are projected to spend $1.7 trillion over the next 6 years. He has $300 billion in cuts out of that category. That is roads, bridges, airports, education, law enforcement. That is the biggest place he is cutting. Does that make sense? Is that where we want to cut in this country-- education, roads, bridges, airports, law enforcement? Well, Senator Dole says cut that $300 billion. He is not done yet because he also has some interest savings, a little sliver of interest savings. That is $50 billion of interest savings. Then Senator Dole sees he is nowhere close to adding up so he goes back to the spending pie and he says, ``I have to take some more out of `other entitlements.' I have to take some more out of child nutrition, student loans. I have to take some more out of Federal retirement.'' So he comes up with another $66 billion of other entitlements. But still he is nowhere close to adding up. He is at about $750 billion so far, so he is way short of adding up to the $1.1 trillion necessary to keep from adding to the debt to finance his tax cuts. So he is way short. What he does is go back to nondefense discretionary spending again, hits that again. Education, roads, bridges, airports, law enforcement, environmental protection. He says take another $150 billion out of that category and put it in the cookie jar. Now, one can see he is drastically cutting this category of spending. Senator Dole started with $302 billion in nondefense discretionary cuts, and then he took another $150 billion out of this category. So he is up to $450 billion out of nondefense discretionary spending, which is $1.7 trillion to begin with. We are talking about cutting education, roads, bridges, airports, law enforcement, and jails by 30 percent in the Dole economic plan. But still it does not add up. Still it does not add up. If you add up all of what he has talked about cutting, he is just over $900 billion. And we showed on the previous chart that you need $1.1 trillion in cuts in order to prevent adding to the debt because of his tax cut. And you need $1.6 trillion of cuts if you are going to avoid raiding the Social Security trust fund. So if $1.1 trillion is the test, Senator Dole has a $200 billion gap here in terms of spending cuts. Even with that, he has taken huge chunks out of education, roads, bridges, airports, law enforcement. He says he is going to be tough on law enforcement, but he takes 30 percent of the money that we are projected to spend over the next 6 years out of the category that law enforcement spending comes from. If he is not going to cut law enforcement as much, he is going to have to cut education more. He is going to have to cut roads more or airports or bridges more. Still he is nowhere close to adding up. Madam President, it just seems to me that the Dole plan is at least $200 billion short of adding up, and that even assumes that Senator Dole is going to use all $525 billion of Social Security surpluses. Well, it doesn't take an awful lot of mathematical calculation to figure out the problem. We remember the last budget that was offered by his party had $245 billion of tax cuts, and in order to help finance that, they had $163 billion in reductions to Medicaid. All you have to do to reality test here is ask what would be the Medicaid cuts necessary to finance the bigger Dole tax cut? Because instead of a $245 billion tax cut, he is now talking about a $550 billion tax cut. How big would the Medicaid cuts have to be? They were $163 billion to accommodate a $245 billion tax cut. How big would they have to be to accommodate a $550 billion tax cut? Domestic discretionary spending. The same way. Under the previous Republican budget, they had $245 billion of tax cuts. They had domestic discretionary cuts of $440 billion. In order to accommodate the tax cut and move toward a balanced budget, how big would those domestic discretionary cuts have to be to accommodate a $550 billion tax cut? The same question can be raised about Medicare. Medicare, they proposed reducing $270 billion. I know some say, well, it is not a cut. Well, how did they save $270 billion if it is not a cut? How did they save $270 billion if they didn't cut anything? Of course, they cut something. They cut from what current law provides. Why? Because they needed to accommodate their $245 billion tax cut and move toward a balanced budget. How big would the Medicare cuts have to be if you are going to have a $550 billion tax cut instead of a $245 billion tax cut? Obviously, something has to give here. Either the cuts have to be much deeper, or the Dole plan is actually going to add to the deficit, add to the debt. That would be a profound mistake, in my judgment. Senator Dole has said Social Security is off the table. Is it really? Is it really off the table? I showed the chart that indicated in his plan he is counting on using $525 billion of Social Security surpluses in the next 6 years in order to help move toward balance. Very interesting. Madam President, $525 billion out of Social Security surpluses and a $550 billion tax cut. Does that make any sense? Does it make sense to take every penny of Social Security surplus and turn right around and give it out in terms of a tax cut--a tax cut that disproportionately goes to the wealthiest among us? You know, we hear that claim made. What is the evidence? So I had this chart prepared. The Dole tax cuts--who benefits? Who are the big winners? This looks at all of his tax cut plans put together. If you are in the under $10,000 a year category of income, and 19 percent of American families are in that category, you get $5 on average. If you are in the $10,000 to $20,000 a year category, that is 21 percent of the American people, you get $120 a year, $10 a month, on average. If you are in the $20,000 to $30,000 category, about 16 percent of the American people, you get $400 a year, about $30 a month, on average. Look at the top end here. The top 1 percent of the American people. Those earning over $200,000 a year. What do they get? Well, they get the cake. They get, on average, $25,000 a year of tax reduction. Madam President, $25,000 a year of tax reduction. So if you are in the 50 percent of the American people that have less than $30,000 a year of income, you are going to get anywhere from $5 a year to $30 a month, on average, at the top end of that scale. But if you are up here and you earn over $200,000 a year, you are going to get a $25,000 reduction, on average. Is that fair? Does that make any sense? Does it make any sense to add to the debt, add to the deficits, so we can give a $25,000 a year tax break to the top 1 percent, who earn over $200,000 a year? Is that what we ought to do in this country? Does that make sense? Does it make sense to take $525 billion of Social Security surpluses--money we are going to need to get ready for when the baby boom generation retires, and give it all out in a tax cut, the vast majority of which goes to people earning over $200,000 a year? Does that make any sense? Does it make any sense to propose a plan that has $900 billion in spending cuts, when you need at least $1.1 trillion of spending cuts to accommodate Senator Dole's tax cut and not add to the debt? And you would need $1.6 trillion of spending cuts not to raid the Social Security trust fund. And he only comes up with $900 billion of cuts. The cuts he has come up with come out of nondefense discretionary spending. He is cutting that category 30 percent, even though his plan doesn't add up. The part that he is really hammering is education, roads, bridges, airports, law enforcement, jail construction. Does that make any sense for America's future? Madam President, when one looks at where the money is going over the next 6 years, it is very interesting. Defense spending $1.7 trillion. Social Security $2.1 trillion. Interest on the debt $2 trillion. Medicare $1.6 trillion. Medicaid just under $1 trillion. This is where the money is going. Other entitlements--that is child nutrition, student loans, that is food stamps, and nondefense discretionary, $1.7 trillion, as I have said. That is education, roads, bridges, airports, law enforcement. I just think we have to ask ourselves: What works? What do we know works? We know, based on the evidence I provided earlier, that the Clinton economic plan that we passed in 1993 has worked. It is undeniable. Four years in a row of deficit reduction. Let us go back to the chart that we began with. I think it is a good place to end. We know what works. The plan that we passed in 1993 reduced the deficit every year for 4 years in a row. More than a 60 percent reduction. We need to stay on that course, because we face the demographic time bomb of the baby boom generation. When they retire, the demands on Federal programs are going to explode. That is why we need to stay on this course of deficit reduction. It is one reason that this course of deficit reduction that is paid off so handsomely. Not only have we reduced the deficit but unemployment got reduced. All of the things that you would like to see going up are going up. Jobs are going up. Income is going up. Business investment is going up. The things you would like to see going down are going down. Poverty is going down. Unemployment is going down. The deficit is going down. This is a plan that has worked. And I believe it would be a profound mistake to go in this direction--this radical direction--that Senator Dole has prescribed that clearly doesn't add up. Either he is going to have much bigger cuts in things like education, Medicare, Medicaid, roads, or bridges that he has already outlined--and he has already outlined massive cuts in those areas--or he is going to absolutely explode this deficit. And that would be a profound mistake for this country's future. I hope over the coming weeks that we in this country will have a serious national debate about these issues because this is critical to America's future. We have a chance to stay on course. We have an opportunity to keep moving this country in the right direction. I very much hope that, as we go through these last 5 weeks of the political campaign, that the American people will keep in mind the progress that has been made. We have made important progress--strengthening our national economy. We cannot go back to a failed policy that put this country in the ditch once before, that exploded the deficits, that exploded the debt, and that weakened America; that put us in a condition of economic decline against our competitors. That would be a tragedy. Hopefully, we have learned from our failures of the past and the more recent successes that we have enjoyed since the Clinton economic plan was passed. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me add to what the Senator from West Virginia said. Of UNDEERC's funding for the jointly sponsored research program, 61 percent came from private sources in 1995. When individual businesses are willing to contribute real dollars to this effort, that demonstrates strong private sector support for the work of the center and its significantly enhances the Federal investment. Since UNDEERC was defederalized in 1983, the center has developed more than 400 private and public sector clients, some of whom have 20 or more individual contracts. In 1995 alone, UNDEERC developed 175 contracts with clients in 34 States and 8 foreign countries.

Mr. CONRAD. I would also like to express my appreciation to the chairman and ranking member for working with us to see what can be done to secure full funding for this outstanding cooperative research program.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, to introduce legislation that would implement an exchange of subsurface mineral rights between the U.S. Forest Service and Burlington Resources in the Little Missouri National Grasslands. Mr. President, this exchange and consolidation of mineral rights makes sense. The current pattern of ownership resembles a checkerboard, and this consolidation will help protect sensitive lands in the North Dakota Badlands and also facilitate additional oil and gas exploration in other areas of the grasslands. The legislation being introduced today would transfer Burlington's subsurface mineral rights of 9,582 acres to the Forest Service, and transfer 8,796 acres of Forest Service subsurface mineral rights to Burlington Resources. The parties have agreed that the value of the mineral rights being exchanged are of equal value. The legislation would also authorize the exchange of other private mineral rights for federal mineral rights within 6 months of enactment. Finally, this bill contains a very important provision that assures that nothing in the legislation can be interpreted to limit, restrict, or otherwise affect the application of the principle of multiple use. It is also important to acknowledge what this legislation does not do. This legislation does not increase the surface area controlled by the Forest Service. This bill only deals with subsurface mineral rights. This bill does not decrease revenue to the county, State, or Federal government, nor does it provide Burlington Resources with mineral rights of greater value than they currently hold. Finally, this legislation is silent on the issue of wilderness designation. Mr. President, I believe this is a good, balanced piece of legislation that deserves the support of every Member of the Senate.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, to introduce legislation that would implement an exchange of subsurface mineral rights between the U.S. Forest Service and Burlington Resources in the Little Missouri National Grasslands. Mr. President, this exchange and consolidation of mineral rights makes sense. The current pattern of ownership resembles a checkerboard, and this consolidation will help protect sensitive lands in the North Dakota Badlands and also facilitate additional oil and gas exploration in other areas of the grasslands. The legislation being introduced today would transfer Burlington's subsurface mineral rights of 9,582 acres to the Forest Service, and transfer 8,796 acres of Forest Service subsurface mineral rights to Burlington Resources. The parties have agreed that the value of the mineral rights being exchanged are of equal value. The legislation would also authorize the exchange of other private mineral rights for federal mineral rights within 6 months of enactment. Finally, this bill contains a very important provision that assures that nothing in the legislation can be interpreted to limit, restrict, or otherwise affect the application of the principle of multiple use. It is also important to acknowledge what this legislation does not do. This legislation does not increase the surface area controlled by the Forest Service. This bill only deals with subsurface mineral rights. This bill does not decrease revenue to the county, State, or Federal government, nor does it provide Burlington Resources with mineral rights of greater value than they currently hold. Finally, this legislation is silent on the issue of wilderness designation. Mr. President, I believe this is a good, balanced piece of legislation that deserves the support of every Member of the Senate.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to help improve health care delivery in rural and underserved communities throughout America through the use of telecommunications and telehealth technology. Telehealth encompasses a wide variety of technologies, ranging from the telephone to high-tech equipment that enables a surgeon to perform surgery from thousands of miles away. It includes interactive video equipment, fax machines and computers along with satellites and fiber optics. These technologies can be used to diagnose patients, deliver care, transfer health data, read x rays, provide consultation, and educate health professionals. Telehealth also includes the electronic storage and transmission of personally identifiable health information, such as medical records, test results, and insurance claims. The promise of telehealth is becoming increasingly apparent. Throughout the country, providers are experimenting with a variety of telehealth approaches in an effort to improve access to quality medical and other health-related services. Those programs are demonstrating that telecommunications technology can alleviate the constraints of time and distance, as well as the cost and inconvenience of transporting patients to medical providers. Many approaches show promising results in reducing health care costs and bringing adequate care to all Americans. Technological advances and the development of a national information infrastructure for the first time give telehealth the potential to overcome barriers to health care services for rural Americans and give them the access that most Americans take for granted. But it is clear that our Nation must do more to integrate telehealth into our overall health care delivery infrastructure. Because I believe telehealth holds incredible promise for rural America, I formed the ad hoc steering committee on telemedicine and health care informatics to explore telehealth and related issues in 1994. The purpose of the steering committee, which includes telehealth experts from Government, private industry, and the health care professions, is to evaluate federal policies on telehealth and how to use telecommunications technology more effectively to increase access to health care throughout America. Throughout the last few years, as the steering committee held meetings and policy forums, it became increasingly apparent that there is enormous energy and financial effort being devoted to telehealth today, both by Government and private industry. Because so many rural and underserved communities lack the ability to attract and support a wide variety of health care professionals and services, it is important to find a way to bring the most important medical services into those communities. Telehealth provides an important part of the answer. It helps bring services to remote areas in a quick, cost-effective manner, and can enable patients to avoid traveling long distances in order to receive health care treatment. Telehealth is already making a difference in my State. The University of North Dakota has a fiber optic two-way audio and video interactive network that has been used to train students in areas like social work and medical technology. Recently, I had the opportunity to spend some time with two of the premier telehealth systems in the State of North Dakota. I was amazed at the capabilities of these systems. They currently supply speciality care to rural North Dakota clinics, manage chronic disease, lower administrative costs, and reduce the isolation felt by rural and frontier practitioners. Because telehealth is in many respects an emerging health care application, it is particularly important to constructively capitalize on efforts like these. My proposal attempts to facilitate this in a number of ways. The first element of my proposal builds on current demonstration projects to require the Health Care Financing Administration to put in place a reimbursement system for telehealth activities under Medicare. Medicare reimbursement policy is an essential component of helping integrate telehealth into the health care infrastructure, and must be explored. It is particularly important in rural areas, where many hospitals do as much as 80% of their business with Medicare patients. The second element of this proposal asks the Secretary of Health and Human Services to submit a report to the Congress on the status of efforts to ease licensing burdens on practioners who cross State lines in the course of supplying telehealth services. Currently, consultation by almost any licensed health professional in this situation requires that the practitioner be licensed in both States. In talking with telehealth providers in my State, and with experts on the Ad Hoc Committee, I have been told repeatedly that this is one of the most significant barriers to developing broad integrated telehealth systems. More importantly, they tell me States have actively been using licensure to close their borders to innovative telehealth practice. In the past two years, nine States have taken legislative action to ensure that out-of-state practitioners must be fully licensed in their State in order to provide telehealth services, even if they are fully licensed in the State they are practicing from. During a recent discussion with a telehealth practitioner from my home State of North Dakota, I was told about a group of telehealth specialists who, among their small group practice, were licensed in over 30 different States. That means they pay thirty different fees, are responsible for 30 different continuing education requirements, and are overseen by 30 different regulatory bodies. This is a costly and burdensome procedure for many practitioners, but the burden falls particularly heavily on rural practitioners, who face long travel times to acquire continuing education, and who frequently run on lower profit margins than urban practitioners. While I am not prepared at this time to propose that the Federal Government get involved with professional licensure, I have asked the Secretary to study the issue and report to Congress yearly on the status of efforts by states and other interested organizations to address this issue. As part of this report, I have asked to the Secretary to make recommendations to Congress, if appropriate, about possible Federal action to lower the licensure barrier. A third element of my proposal involves coordination of the Federal telehealth effort. Vice President Gore has been making outstanding contributions in the area of the information super highway. The Department of Health and Human Services, in large part at the urging of the Vice President, has created an informal interagency task force that is examining our Federal agency telehealth efforts. My bill attempts to use that task force to inventory Federal activity on telehealth and related technology, determine what applications have been found successful, and recommend an overall Federal policy approach to telehealth. Many departments and agencies of the Federal Government are engaged in telehealth activity, including the Veterans Administration, Department of Defense, Department of Agriculture, Office of Rural Health Policy, and many others. The more these agencies work together to coordinate the Federal effort and consolidate Federal resources, the more effective the Federal Government will be at contributing to telehealth in a positive way. Such coordination will also help protect the American taxpayer from unnecessary duplication of effort. The fourth part of my proposal helps communities build home-grown telehealth networks. It attempts to both build a telehealth infrastructure and foster rural economic development. Clearly, the scarcity of resources in many rural communities requires that the coordination and use of those resources be maximized. My bill encourages cooperation by various local entities in an effort to help build sustainable telehealth programs in rural communities. It plants seed money to encourage health care providers to join with other segments of the community to jointly use telecommunications resources. Using a unique loan forgiveness program, it rewards telehealth systems that supply appropriate, high-quality care while reducing overall health care costs. Most importantly, it does not create a system where various technological approaches are imposed upon communities. Rather it enables potential grantees to determine user-friendly approaches that work best for them. This home-grown approach to developing user- friendly telehealth systems, as well as the preference for coordinating resources within communities, will help ensure the long-term viability of such programs after the grant expires. Mr. President, my proposal is a sound first step in our national efforts to integrate telecommunications technology into the rapidly evolving health care delivery system. Over the past several weeks, I have attempted to reach out to different groups and incorporate their ideas into this proposal. I hope the result is a bill that will command broad support. But, as with any complex issue, I understand that some may prefer different approaches. By introducing this legislation in the waning moments of the 104th Congress, I hope to send a message to all interested parties that now is the time to come forward with creative solutions to these important issues, because I am certain that they will be revisited again in the 105th Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to help improve health care delivery in rural and underserved communities throughout America through the use of telecommunications and telehealth technology. Telehealth encompasses a wide variety of technologies, ranging from the telephone to high-tech equipment that enables a surgeon to perform surgery from thousands of miles away. It includes interactive video equipment, fax machines and computers along with satellites and fiber optics. These technologies can be used to diagnose patients, deliver care, transfer health data, read x rays, provide consultation, and educate health professionals. Telehealth also includes the electronic storage and transmission of personally identifiable health information, such as medical records, test results, and insurance claims. The promise of telehealth is becoming increasingly apparent. Throughout the country, providers are experimenting with a variety of telehealth approaches in an effort to improve access to quality medical and other health-related services. Those programs are demonstrating that telecommunications technology can alleviate the constraints of time and distance, as well as the cost and inconvenience of transporting patients to medical providers. Many approaches show promising results in reducing health care costs and bringing adequate care to all Americans. Technological advances and the development of a national information infrastructure for the first time give telehealth the potential to overcome barriers to health care services for rural Americans and give them the access that most Americans take for granted. But it is clear that our Nation must do more to integrate telehealth into our overall health care delivery infrastructure. Because I believe telehealth holds incredible promise for rural America, I formed the ad hoc steering committee on telemedicine and health care informatics to explore telehealth and related issues in 1994. The purpose of the steering committee, which includes telehealth experts from Government, private industry, and the health care professions, is to evaluate federal policies on telehealth and how to use telecommunications technology more effectively to increase access to health care throughout America. Throughout the last few years, as the steering committee held meetings and policy forums, it became increasingly apparent that there is enormous energy and financial effort being devoted to telehealth today, both by Government and private industry. Because so many rural and underserved communities lack the ability to attract and support a wide variety of health care professionals and services, it is important to find a way to bring the most important medical services into those communities. Telehealth provides an important part of the answer. It helps bring services to remote areas in a quick, cost-effective manner, and can enable patients to avoid traveling long distances in order to receive health care treatment. Telehealth is already making a difference in my State. The University of North Dakota has a fiber optic two-way audio and video interactive network that has been used to train students in areas like social work and medical technology. Recently, I had the opportunity to spend some time with two of the premier telehealth systems in the State of North Dakota. I was amazed at the capabilities of these systems. They currently supply speciality care to rural North Dakota clinics, manage chronic disease, lower administrative costs, and reduce the isolation felt by rural and frontier practitioners. Because telehealth is in many respects an emerging health care application, it is particularly important to constructively capitalize on efforts like these. My proposal attempts to facilitate this in a number of ways. The first element of my proposal builds on current demonstration projects to require the Health Care Financing Administration to put in place a reimbursement system for telehealth activities under Medicare. Medicare reimbursement policy is an essential component of helping integrate telehealth into the health care infrastructure, and must be explored. It is particularly important in rural areas, where many hospitals do as much as 80% of their business with Medicare patients. The second element of this proposal asks the Secretary of Health and Human Services to submit a report to the Congress on the status of efforts to ease licensing burdens on practioners who cross State lines in the course of supplying telehealth services. Currently, consultation by almost any licensed health professional in this situation requires that the practitioner be licensed in both States. In talking with telehealth providers in my State, and with experts on the Ad Hoc Committee, I have been told repeatedly that this is one of the most significant barriers to developing broad integrated telehealth systems. More importantly, they tell me States have actively been using licensure to close their borders to innovative telehealth practice. In the past two years, nine States have taken legislative action to ensure that out-of-state practitioners must be fully licensed in their State in order to provide telehealth services, even if they are fully licensed in the State they are practicing from. During a recent discussion with a telehealth practitioner from my home State of North Dakota, I was told about a group of telehealth specialists who, among their small group practice, were licensed in over 30 different States. That means they pay thirty different fees, are responsible for 30 different continuing education requirements, and are overseen by 30 different regulatory bodies. This is a costly and burdensome procedure for many practitioners, but the burden falls particularly heavily on rural practitioners, who face long travel times to acquire continuing education, and who frequently run on lower profit margins than urban practitioners. While I am not prepared at this time to propose that the Federal Government get involved with professional licensure, I have asked the Secretary to study the issue and report to Congress yearly on the status of efforts by states and other interested organizations to address this issue. As part of this report, I have asked to the Secretary to make recommendations to Congress, if appropriate, about possible Federal action to lower the licensure barrier. A third element of my proposal involves coordination of the Federal telehealth effort. Vice President Gore has been making outstanding contributions in the area of the information super highway. The Department of Health and Human Services, in large part at the urging of the Vice President, has created an informal interagency task force that is examining our Federal agency telehealth efforts. My bill attempts to use that task force to inventory Federal activity on telehealth and related technology, determine what applications have been found successful, and recommend an overall Federal policy approach to telehealth. Many departments and agencies of the Federal Government are engaged in telehealth activity, including the Veterans Administration, Department of Defense, Department of Agriculture, Office of Rural Health Policy, and many others. The more these agencies work together to coordinate the Federal effort and consolidate Federal resources, the more effective the Federal Government will be at contributing to telehealth in a positive way. Such coordination will also help protect the American taxpayer from unnecessary duplication of effort. The fourth part of my proposal helps communities build home-grown telehealth networks. It attempts to both build a telehealth infrastructure and foster rural economic development. Clearly, the scarcity of resources in many rural communities requires that the coordination and use of those resources be maximized. My bill encourages cooperation by various local entities in an effort to help build sustainable telehealth programs in rural communities. It plants seed money to encourage health care providers to join with other segments of the community to jointly use telecommunications resources. Using a unique loan forgiveness program, it rewards telehealth systems that supply appropriate, high-quality care while reducing overall health care costs. Most importantly, it does not create a system where various technological approaches are imposed upon communities. Rather it enables potential grantees to determine user-friendly approaches that work best for them. This home-grown approach to developing user- friendly telehealth systems, as well as the preference for coordinating resources within communities, will help ensure the long-term viability of such programs after the grant expires. Mr. President, my proposal is a sound first step in our national efforts to integrate telecommunications technology into the rapidly evolving health care delivery system. Over the past several weeks, I have attempted to reach out to different groups and incorporate their ideas into this proposal. I hope the result is a bill that will command broad support. But, as with any complex issue, I understand that some may prefer different approaches. By introducing this legislation in the waning moments of the 104th Congress, I hope to send a message to all interested parties that now is the time to come forward with creative solutions to these important issues, because I am certain that they will be revisited again in the 105th Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Cochran in sponsoring this reach-back tax relief bill, S. 2135, to alleviate some of the unintended and inequitable hardships inflicted on certain companies by the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefits Act of 1992. Our bill would provide substantial relief to numerous small companies. It would also use a small portion of the existing surplus of more than $120 million in the combined health benefit fund created by the act to allow a 2-year moratorium on the reach-back premiums. This 2-year period will give the Congress adequate time to study the current operations of the act and to remedy the inequities of the current law. In the past, I have said that the Coal Act produced several major achievements. First, it assured retired coal miners and their dependents that their health benefits were permanently secure. The act provided a statutory foundation to carry out the commitment of all of us to see that these benefits are paid. It also provided a necessary legal mechanism to transfer excess pension funds into the health funds. In addition, the act required certain cost-containment measures that greatly increased the cost effectiveness of retirees' health benefit programs. Despite its significant accomplishments, one feature of the Coal Act--its reach-back funding mechanism--has engendered great hardship and controversy. Many companies, who long ago had withdrawn from the Bituminous Coal Operators Association [BCOA] believing that they had met all of their legal obligations to fund retiree health benefits, found themselves, in 1992, subject to a draconian reach-back premium tax that they could not have foreseen and for which they could not have planned. This retroactive tax enforced by the full power of the Internal Revenue Service and the threat of dramatically compounding penalties has produced severe hardship for many companies subject to it. Some of them are trying to pay it by depleting their assets and hence their ability to generate income. Others have tried to ignore it and are now being subjected to collection suits by the Combined Fund. The 102d Congress was persuaded that the Bituminous Coal Operators Association could no longer afford to fund retired miners' health benefits on a current basis as it had for the previous 25 years. The Congress was told that miner's health benefits faced a crisis of skyrocketing costs that would bankrupt the miners' benefits fund if the Congress did not act. The Congress was given a choice of either an industrywide tax or the reach-back tax to fund health benefits. The passage of the Coal Act saves members of the BCOA more than $100 million a year over its prior annual benefit payments. Fortunately the skyrocketing costs predicted by the BCOA have simply not occurred. The cost containment measures contained in the act and the decline in population of retirees and dependents served by the fund are largely offsetting the inflation in health care costs. Thus, the reach-back tax is simply injuring companies who cannot afford to pay it while giving members of the BCOA a windfall benefit which they do not want to give up. Mr. President, the problems being caused by the reach-back tax are just beginning. Many original supporters of the Coal Act recognize that it needs some fine tuning. The Cochran-Conrad bill would provide for a GAO study of current operations and a 2-year respite from the reach- back tax, while assuring that the overriding goal of providing health care benefits of retired miners is preserved. I hope that my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee will give this legislation the early consideration it deserves in the new Congress.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I was not aware of that. But I was aware of national figures that showed the unemployment rate declining from 7.3 percent nationally to 5.1 percent today, the lowest level of unemployment we have had in this country in 7 years. I think that is another indicator that the Clinton economic plan, which passed in this Chamber by a single vote, is a plan that is clearly working.

Mr. CONRAD. I asked my staff to find out in North Dakota what happened because we continually are told these are the big taxers and the big spenders. I have reported what happened to spending. Every year under the Clinton administration spending as a share of our national income has gone down--each and every year. Big spending? I do not think so. This President has reduced spending measured against our national income. And on the tax side, in my State of North Dakota, as a result of the 1993 plan, 29,000 people got a tax cut because of the expansion of the earned-income tax credit that was included in the Clinton plan; about 1,400 people got an income tax rate increase. And who were they? They were couples earning over $180,000 a year and individuals earning over $140,000 a year. So 20 times as many people got a tax reduction as got a tax increase.

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield just on that point?

Mr. CONRAD. Environmental cleanup, roads, bridges, airports. He wants to cut those 30 percent. In fact, by the sixth year, he would cut them 40 percent. If anybody in this country thinks the way we should build for the future is to cut, in the sixth year of Senator Dole's plan, education 40 percent, cut law enforcement 40 percent, cut the construction of roads, bridges and airports 40 percent, sign up to the Dole plan because that is precisely what he is recommending to the American people. That would be a disaster for the economic future of this country. And even with those cuts he is nowhere close to adding up. Instead, we are going to get a huge increase in the debt. That will increase interest rates. That will slow the economy. That will put our economy in the ditch. That is a policy of debt, deficits and decline, and we ought to avoid it at all cost. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Law enforcement.

Mr. CONRAD. That is the projected income under current law, that we would spend $11.3 trillion, we would have income of $9.9 trillion. And what does Senator Dole say? The first thing he wants to do is cut the income by $550 billion. Now you have a $2 trillion gap between spending and income. That is how you raise the debt. That is how you raise deficits. That is how you put this economy right back in the ditch. If we are going to go back to a policy of debts, deficit and decline, that is the path to take. I might just say Senator Dole says cut the income $550 billion. That would create a $2 trillion gap between our spending and our income. You would then think, well, he is going to propose $2 trillion of spending cuts to make up for it. Oh, no. He is not even close. He has about $700 billion of specific spending cuts that he has recommended, and if you look at the spending cuts what you find is he is saying we ought to cut just one category of Federal spending about 30 percent. And the category he has chosen is what Senator Reid from Nevada knows well-- domestic spending. He wants to cut it 30 percent, I say to the Senator.

Mr. CONRAD. That means you are going to add to the debt.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I was going to make another point. When I got up this morning I went to get the Washington Post. Right on the front page is the reporting of what we are talking about here today. The headline on the front page of the Washington Post is, ``Household Income Climbs.'' The subheadline is, ``Census Bureau Also Reports Poverty Rate Drop.'' So if anybody is watching this and wondering if this is an accurate recitation of what the Census Bureau is reporting, you can just turn to your local newspaper and you will find these news reports all across America. ``Median household income rose 2.7 percent * * * after being adjusted for inflation.'' Inflation is running about 3 percent. So incomes actually went up about 6 percent last year--biggest increase in a decade. Over the same period, the Washington Post reports the poverty rate declined from 14.5 to 13.8 percent. The number of people in poverty fell by 1.6 million. That is the statistic the Senator from Nevada was using--the largest decrease in 27 years. The largest decrease in poverty in America in 27 years. That is the statistic both the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Nevada were using. If we need evidence this plan is working, here it is right here in this morning's newspaper. Let me just conclude: The benefits of economic growth were spread widely through the economy--in nearly all occupations, all education levels and all income categories. That is the kind of economic results you would like to have, and this economic plan is delivering those results. We ought to stay the course. We ought to stick with this plan. Absolutely the worst thing we could do is take a riverboat gamble and go back to the old days of supply- side economics in which somehow, as Senator Dole said last year, you cut taxes and you are supposed to get a big, big revenue increase. As Senator Dole said last summer--he said, you know, we tried that in the eighties. That was the idea that Newt and the House Republicans had. We said everything would be all right. Well, it wasn't. That was Senator Dole speaking just last summer, and only when he found himself 20 points behind in the polls did he decide a different policy would make sense. And if anybody is wondering whether his plan adds up, I just give you two numbers. We are projected to spend $11.3 trillion over the next 6 years. Our income is projected to be $9.9 trillion. Those two do not match up. You cannot spend $11.3 trillion and have income of $9.9 trillion and add up.

Mr. CONRAD. The Senator is absolutely right. It is very interesting. If we didn't have to pay the interest on the debt that was accumulated during the Reagan and Bush years, just those years, we would have a balanced unified budget today. That is a fact.

Mr. CONRAD. If the Senator will yield, I just want to comment on the question of who gets credit and who gets blame. The blame game is very popular, especially just before an election. Some are holding this President responsible for anything that has happened anywhere in the country during his time as President, even if it relates to things for which the President has very little influence or control. The national economy is one place where the President does have significant influence and control. I just say to my colleague, the Senator from Nevada, that facts are stubborn things. President Reagan said that: ``Facts are stubborn things.'' My colleague from North Dakota says there are others that are not partisan voices who are confirming that this President's economic plan is working. I would say that even those of us who are partisans can report facts and report them accurately. I would be prepared to debate any of my colleagues at any time and any place on the question of the facts presented here. Every single one of these facts is verifiable by anybody who cares to check. These numbers indicate clearly this President's economic plan has worked. The deficit is down each and every year of the Clinton administration, and down dramatically. The head of the Federal Reserve says to us that it is unquestioned that the President's economic plan contributed to this improvement. This improvement has radiated through this economy, improving incomes. The Senator from Nevada reports the biggest increase in personal income in a decade; the biggest reduction in poverty in 27 years. All I can say to my friends across the aisle is if they had a President with this economic record they would be running a campaign of ``It's morning in America.'' They ran that campaign when the debt and the deficits were skyrocketing. Now we have a case where not only is the economy improving, income is improving, investment is improving, unemployment is being reduced, inflation is being reduced, and the deficit is declining--but this President has done it without writing the hot checks adding to the deficit--adding to the debt. That was being done during the 1980s. So this is even a more remarkable accomplishment--to have this economy showing this resurgence and this strength even while President Clinton is bringing the deficit down each and every year--bringing the deficit down 60 percent. It took a vote that occurred here in 1993 on the Clinton economic plan, and it passed by one vote.

Mr. CONRAD. To 10.5 percent. You know, sometimes we say, well, the Government doesn't do anything that has much value. But here is a case where the portion of our elderly population that lived in poverty has been reduced from 29 percent of the elderly to 10.5 percent. That is a dramatic improvement in the lives of real people. I think that is something people can be proud of. I think Bill Clinton and his economic plan, which has led to an economic resurgence in this country, ought to get some of the credit. This President deserves some of the credit.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the chairman for clarifying the intent of Congress regarding the purchase of flowage easements for lands in and adjacent to the Buford Trenton Irrigation District. I also want to thank the chairman for his efforts in passing this important legislation during the 104th Congress.

Mr. CONRAD. I notice that the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works is on the floor. I would like to engage him in a short colloquy. As you know, section 336 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 authorizes $34 million for the Secretary of the Army to acquire, from willing sellers, permanent flowage and saturation easements for lands within and contiguous to the boundaries of the Buford Trenton Irrigation District, North Dakota. These flowage easements are to compensate landowners for land that has been affected by rising ground water and the risk of surface flooding due to the operation of the Garrison Dam on the Missouri River. The corps began operation of this dam in 1955. In acquiring these easements, this provision specifies the Secretary shall pay an amount based on the unaffected fee value of the lands, meaning the value of the lands as if unaffected by rising ground water and the risk of surface flooding. Would the chairman agree that it is the intent of Congress that the unaffected fee value of the land be based on the current fair market value of the land as if unaffected by rising ground water and the risk of surface flooding, and not the value of the land before the Garrison Dam was operational?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 640, the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 [WRDA]. Congress last passed a WRDA bill in 1992, and I am pleased that we are able to pass this legislation that authorizes spending for many important water projects. A provision in this bill authorizes the Secretary of the Army to acquire, from willing sellers, permanent flowage and saturation easements for lands within or contiguous to the boundaries of the Buford Trenton Irrigation District, ND. These flowage easements are to compensate landowners for land that has been affected by rising ground water and the risk of surface flooding due to the operation of the Garrison Dam on the Missouri River. The corps began operation of this Dam in 1955. In acquiring these easements, this provision specifies the Secretary shall pay an amount based on the unaffected fee value of the lands, meaning the value of the lands as if unaffected by rising ground water and the risk of surface flooding. The intent of Congress is for the Secretary to acquire these easements based on the current fair market value of the land, and not the value of land before Garrison Dam was operational. I would like to submit a copy of a letter I sent to the corps requesting a clarification of their intent in implementing this provision, and a copy of the corps' response stating the Secretary shall appraise these easements at their current fair market value, as if the lands are not affected by rising ground water and the risk of surface flooding. I applaud this provision that justly compensates these landowners for damage to their land from rising ground water and the risk of surface flooding due to the operation of the Garrison Dam. Mr. President, I would also like to express my position to a provision in this bill that raises the non-Federal cost-share requirement for Corps of Engineers flood control projects from 25 percent to 35 percent. it is my understanding that this provision does not apply to flood control projects that have previously been authorized, or are authorized in this bill. I am concerned that this provision will have a detrimental impact on smaller communities in North Dakota that are in need of flood control projects. I understand the motivation to save the Federal Government money by requiring local partners to contribute more to these flood control projects. However, this provision will place a significant financial burden on communities in North Dakota that are in dire need of flood control projects but do not possess the resources or the tax- base to raise this additional cost share. Also, some communities in my State, such as Grand Forks, are currently cost-sharing feasibility studies for flood control projects with the corps. These communities have committed significant funds based on the fact any flood control project that resulted from the study would be cost-shared at a 75-to-25 Federal/non-Federal ratio. This provision places a financial burden on communities like Grand Forks that are currently financing feasibility studies and budgeting for a cost share of 25 percent on flood control projects. It is my hope the Congress would recognize the negative impact this provision has on communities like Grand Forks and allow flood control projects to be constructed under the current 25 percent non-Federal cost-share, should the community demonstrate an inability to meet the 35 percent cost- share requirement. Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Chafee, and the ranking member of the committee, Senator Baucus, for their efforts in completing this important legislation during the 104th Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two letters be printed in the Record.