Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to bid farewell to our distinguished colleague from Oregon, Senator Mark Hatfield. Senator Hatfield's career in the Senate has spanned three decades, a record of service that the State of Oregon, as well as the rest of the Nation, should be proud of. Senator Hatfield has devoted his entire adult life to serving the people of Oregon, as an educator, a statesman, a public servant of the highest caliber. Senator Hatfield's long and distinguished career began as college professor and dean at Willamette University. He has served in both the Oregon House and Senate, as Oregon's youngest secretary of state, its Governor, and, since his election in 1966, as the longest- serving U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon. Senator Hatfield's commitment to the people of Oregon is unquestionable. In announcing his retirement, Senator Hatfield explained, ``Thirty years of voluntary separation from the State I love is enough.'' As I am sure my colleagues will agree, Oregon's gain is the U.S. Senate's loss. Senator Hatfield served as the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee from 1981 to 1987, and in 1995 he returned to the helm of that committee. As chairman and in the Senate as a whole, he often helped fashion bipartisan compromises, putting the good of the country ahead of partisan politics. I had the good fortune to work with Senator Hatfield as part of the Mainstream Coalition, which tried to break the gridlock surrounding health care reform. Senator Hatfield is not afraid to stand up for what he believes is right, even when it means going toe-to-toe with his own party or disregarding popular public opinion. In 1995, during the fight over the balanced budget amendment, Senator Hatfield stood by his beliefs, in the face of enormous pressure from his own party, and voted against the amendment. In addition to his tenure in the U.S. Senate, Mark Hatfield also served his country as a Navy Lieutenant in the Pacific theater in World War II. He was at the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and served in the occupation of Hiroshima after the dropping of the atomic bomb. This experience gave him a deep and unshakable commitment to peace, leading him to vigorously oppose war and nuclear proliferation. As Governor of Oregon, he spoke out against Lyndon Johnson's policies on Vietnam. He helped author legislation passed by the Senate in 1992 calling for an end to U.S. nuclear testing, legislation that I supported. He also helped found the Oregon Peace Institute and the U.S. Institute for Peace. Mr. President, I have the deepest respect and admiration for our friend and colleague from Oregon, and I say with confidence that he will be deeply missed by every Member of this Chamber. I wish him all the best as he returns to his home State of Oregon and resumes his career in education, and I thank him for his dedicated service to this body and the Nation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Bill Cohen's decision not to seek reelection at the end of the 104th Congress deprives the U.S. Senate of one of its most respected Members. Senator Cohen leaves behind a long and impressive career of public service for the people of Maine. With his election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1973, Senator Cohen represented his constituents from Maine diligently, and continued his efforts upon his election to the U.S. Senate in 1978. Mr. President, Senator Cohen has remained a moderate and thoughtful voice in a Senate that is increasingly marked by strident and partisan debate. Senator Cohen has attempted to rise above partisan politics to accomplish what is best for the people of Maine and the Nation. In 1991, Senator Cohen voted to override a veto of an extension of unemployment benefits, at a time when America's families were beginning to feel the effects of an economic recession. In the 103d Congress, Senator Cohen participated in a bipartisan coalition that attempted to overhaul the U.S. health care system, after the administration's efforts were not successful. During the 104th Congress, I have had the distinct pleasure of working with Senator Cohen in the Centrist Coalition. A group of about 20 Senators, the Centrist Coalition worked to reach agreement on a comprehensive budget alternative to those put forward by President Clinton and the Republican leadership. The plan we developed built upon the suggestions of the National Governors' Association with respect to the Medicaid and welfare programs. It also built in needed flexibility for States, while preserving the social safety net for our Nation's most vulnerable populations. It was the only bipartisan budget alternative that received significant support in the 104th Congress, and I am proud to have been part of that effort. Mr. President, throughout his political career Senator Cohen has held government officials accountable to the high ethical standards that people expect of their elected leaders, regardless of party affiliation. This was evident during courageous votes he made during Watergate and the investigation of the Iran Contra affair. Senator Cohen also helped create the independent counsel law, which mandates the appointment of an independent counsel to probe allegations against certain high executive branch officials. Further, Senator Cohen sponsored legislation to require that contacts between lobbyists and Members of Congress are officially reported. Mr. President, we are all grateful for Senator Cohen's dedicated service and tireless efforts in the U.S. Senate. Senator Cohen's distinguished Senate career is a testament to his hard work on behalf of the people of Maine and the Nation. His insightful approach to the challenges we face as a nation will be greatly missed.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, with the adjournment of the 104th Congress, the Senate will lose one of its most respected and accomplished members, Senator Claiborne Pell. For a period that spans more than three decades, Senator Pell has served Rhode Islanders and the Nation in the finest tradition of our elected civil servants. His accomplishments since coming to the Senate in 1961 are extraordinary; particularly in the areas of the arts and humanities, environmental protection, foreign affairs, human rights, and education. He has without question touched and improved the lives of every American family. Early in his Senate career, Senator Pell was the principal architect of the 1965 law establishing the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. One year later, he authored the National Sea Grant College Act, legislation to encourage the careful use of our resources from the sea, and to establish marine sciences programs at universities across the country. Unquestionably, Senator Pell's most significant contribution in education has been his effort to ensure that every student has the opportunity to pursue education and training beyond the high school level--financial barriers should not prevent a student from continuing education. In pursuit of this goal, Senator Pell introduced legislation to establish the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant, a program later named the Pell Grant Program in 1980. Last year alone, more than 3.6 million Pell grants were awarded to students attending institutions of higher education. Since 1973, when the first Pell Grants were awarded, more than 60 million grants have enabled students to meet their educational goals through this student financial assistance program. Mr. President, Senator Pell's remarkable record in the Senate has not been limited to education and the arts. Over the years, and through his leadership in foreign affairs as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Pell has worked tirelessly on behalf of refugees, against human rights abuses, and to reduce the threats from weapons of mass destruction. As a result of these efforts, treaties have been ratified that reduce nuclear weapons, prohibit the emplacement of weapons of mass destruction on the seabed, and the use of environmental modification techniques as weapons of war. Mr. President, Senator Pell's legacy is one of hope, opportunity, and integrity. For those of us who remain in the Senate, we are challenged to continue his important work on behalf of peace, and to ensure that our children can realize their fullest potential through the widest possible educational opportunities. We have all been enriched by Senator Pell's service in the Senate, and are deeply grateful for his immeasurable contributions to the Nation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, before the end of the 104th Congress, I wanted to take a moment to pay tribute to Senator Paul Simon of Illinois, who is retiring this year. Paul Simon is quite simply one of the most respected and honorable Members of the U.S. Senate. Senator Simon has been a dedicated public servant for more than 40 years. He has served in the Illinois House and Senate, as Lieutenant Governor of the State of Illinois, and in the U.S. House and Senate. Even as he tirelessly served in public office, Paul Simon also found ways to pursue his second career--that of a distinguished and thoughtful writer. A former newspaperman, Simon has written numerous books on our political process and democratic values. He still types his manuscripts out on an old manual typewriter. Senator Simon's top legislative priority for years has been passage of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Paul Simon understands that the greatest threat to future generations is the Federal budget deficit and our enormous national debt. Eliminating our budget deficit is the most important thing we can do for our Nation and Paul Simon pursued this goal with steadfast tenacity. I have had the privilege of serving with Senator Simon on the Budget Committee since 1987. Paul Simon will be most remembered there for his efforts to restore equity between defense and nondefense spending. Senator Simon and I also joined together last year in offering an alternative budget reconciliation measure. I was proud of that effort. Paul Simon will also be remembered as a staunch supporter of education and an advocate for people with disabilities. While serving in the Illinois Legislature, he was among the first to introduce legislation to provide public education for children with disabilities. Years later he was one of the original sponsors of Public Law 94-142, the first Federal law to ensure that all children with disabilities would receive free and appropriate public education. This landmark legislation was signed in 1975. Because of Simon's devotion and perseverance, Congress passed the National Literacy Act, to create literacy centers and to authorize funding for adult education and literacy programs. Simon also championed the direct college loan program, originally passed in 1991 and expanded in 1993, which made fundamental changes in our Nation's student loan program. Although some may remember Simon for his bowties, I will always remember his simple honesty, integrity, and character. Paul Simon not only remembered the bipartisanship and comity that used to be standard operating procedure in the Senate, but he continued to serve in that tradition, even as Congress changed around him. I know Senator Simon will be happy to return to his home in southern Illinois. He'll be heading up the Simon Public Policy Institute at southern Illinois University at Carbondale. He'll have more time for his grandchildren, more time to write. But he'll be missed in the U.S. Senate, by the people he represented and by those who knew him.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, with the scheduled adjournment of the 104th Congress quickly approaching, I wanted to say a few words about a very accomplished legislator who, unfortunately, will not be returning to this body next January: Senator Bennett Johnston. I was saddened to hear of his decision to retire at the conclusion of this Congress, and I know he will be missed by his colleagues as well as his constituents in Louisiana. Senator Johnston does not depart, however, without leaving a significant legacy of accomplishment. He is a skilled negotiator, and has demonstrated a tremendous ability to navigate the tumultuous legislative waters, even when faced with the most difficult obstacles. I had the privilege of working closely with Senator Johnston while I served on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee with him during my first term as a Senator. As chairman of the Energy Committee, and now ranking member, Senator Johnston has been a leading advocate of a comprehensive national energy strategy. Under his leadership, Congress passed the landmark 1992 Energy Policy Act, which promoted increased conservation, increased competition in the wholesale electricity markets, and encouraged additional development of domestic sources of energy. With this country now importing more than 50 percent of the oil we consume every year, Senator Johnston has been fully committed to developing new domestic sources of energy to help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Senator Johnston has also addressed a myriad of other energy-related issues during his distinguished Senate career. He shepherded deregulation of the natural gas industry through the Congress; he helped defeat the ill-conceived Btu tax; and he has been a leading advocate of maintaining our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, an important investment in protecting our Nation's energy supply from disruption. Senator Johnston's work in the Senate has not been limited to energy issues. I have also had the privilege of serving with the Senator on the Budget Committee, where he has served with great distinction. As the past chairman, and now ranking member, of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Johnston has demonstrated a strong commitment to developing and maintaining our Nation's water resources, an issue of great importance to Western States like North Dakota. Senator Johnston has also been a leading advocate of maintaining an adequate B-52 bomber fleet, our most cost- effective, reliable, and only battle-tested bomber. Mr. President, Senator Johnston will be long-remembered as an extremely capable and responsible public servant, who addressed issues with a zeal few can bring to this body. All in public life owe Senator Johnston a debt of gratitude for his tremendous contributions, and I wish the senior Senator from Louisiana all the best in his future endeavors, no matter what path he chooses to follow upon departing this body.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to comment briefly on the decision to exclude Mr. Perot from the upcoming Presidential debates. I want to make it clear from the outset that I support my President and I support my party, but I do believe that Mr. Perot ought to be included in these debates. After all, Mr. Perot and his party have now qualified to be on the ballot in all 50 States in this Nation. He has become eligible for Federal funding. In fact, he will receive nearly $30 million in Federal funding, based on his previous performance. Last election he received nearly 20 percent of the vote nationwide, and some exit polls indicate he would have done even better if people had not already made the judgment that he could not win. In polling that has been done this year, 76 percent of the American people have indicated they would like to see him included. I think, for all of those reasons, Mr. Perot deserves to be included. But I think there are other reasons as well. I think Mr. Perot has made a significant contribution to the national debate and discussion over deficit reduction. Frankly, if you go back to the 1992 debates and the 1992 campaign, Mr. Perot can rightfully claim that he served as a prod to both parties to discuss deficit reduction. I believe that remains one of the foremost challenges this country faces. Mr. Perot would help the debate, in terms of a focus on deficit reduction. Mr. Perot has also made a contribution in two other areas that have received very little attention during this Presidential campaign. First, with respect to the question of trade, he has a different view than either the Republican challenger, Mr. Dole, or the incumbent President, President Clinton. This country deserves a debate and discussion on trade policy as part of this Presidential campaign. Finally, I think Mr. Perot has also made a contribution with respect to the question of campaign finance reform. We have heard virtually nothing in this campaign about campaign finance reform. I hope the Presidential commission will review their decision and decide to include Mr. Perot. Again, I emphasize, I am not a Perot supporter. I do not intend to vote for him for President of the United States. I intend to support the President. I intend to support my party. I think the President has an outstanding record in terms of actually delivering on deficit reduction. I recall very well, when the President came in, in 1992, he inherited a budget deficit of $290 billion. That has now been reduced, by the best estimate for this year, to $116 billion, about a 60-percent reduction. In fact, the deficit has come down every year for 4 years in a row. Partly because of the Clinton economic plan that was passed in 1993-- that was a deficit reduction plan--I believe we have seen the resurgence of this economy. We have become the most competitive nation in the world, replacing Japan. Not only have we seen a dramatic reduction in the deficit, but we have seen a significant strengthening of economic growth. We have had the strongest private sector economic growth on this President's watch than on that of the last three Presidents. We have also seen the lowest misery index--the measure of inflation and unemployment--in 28 years. Business investment is increasing at a rate that is the highest in 30 years. We have seen the creation of more than 10 million new jobs during this President's term. I think this President has an outstanding record to take before the American people. But I think most of us also know that the job is not finished. The job is not yet completed. More needs to be done. I do believe Mr. Perot would play a positive role in putting a focus on the additional deficit reduction that needs to be made in this country. As I have stated, I also believe he would make a positive contribution to a debate on trade policy and with respect to the question of campaign finance reform. I am sure the occupant of the chair may share these views. Or perhaps not. I do think the commission's decision is fatally flawed. When they make a determination that somebody not be included because they have no realistic chance of winning, what are they going to do when one of the two major candidates has no realistic prospect of winning? We have had several Presidential campaigns where that was the case. Let's go back to the 1984 Presidential race with Ronald Reagan as the incumbent President. There was no realistic chance anybody was going to beat him. Should we have canceled the Presidential debates altogether? This year we see the challenger 17 points behind. Nobody has ever made up that kind of gap. Should the Presidential commission determine Mr. Dole has no realistic chance of winning the election, and therefore cancel the debates? The logic used by the commission--that because somebody does not have a realistic prospect of winning the election they should be excluded from the debates--is a slippery slope. We ought to include those who have met the tests that Mr. Perot has met. I understand Mr. Perot is a controversial figure. His 1992 Presidential campaign--with his entrance into the race, his withdrawal, and his reentrance--raised many questions. But we are still left with some basic facts. First, he has qualified to be on the ballot in all 50 States. He has done that. His party has qualified to be on the ballot in every State in the Nation. Second, he has become eligible for Federal matching funds. The only people who have managed to do that this year are Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, and Ross Perot. Nobody else has qualified to get Federal matching funds. Third, he received nearly 20 percent of the national vote in the last election. I think that merits inclusion in these debates. Finally, perhaps most important, the vast majority of the American people, according to the polls, want him included. They want to hear a debate that includes Mr. Perot. It does not mean they want to vote for him necessarily, but they want to see him included in the debate. As I have said before, I think he has demonstrated he has made a positive contribution on the issues of deficit reduction, trade, and campaign finance reform. So, I hope the Presidential commission will review their decision and decide to include Mr. Perot without having a court have to review this decision for them. I thank the Chair, yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

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

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, we are now about 7 weeks away from critically important decisions about our country's future. We are 7 weeks away from the Presidential election--7 weeks away from decisions on who will represent the United States in the Halls of Congress. This election is becoming a debate on the economic policy that will guide this country's future. There can be no more important debate. For a long time the conduct of economic policy in this country has been central to the question of who will guide our country in terms of political leadership. Madam President, once before we had a Presidential candidate who told the American people that we could cut taxes dramatically, we could increase defense spending while holding large parts of the Federal budget harmless, and that somehow it would all add up. We took that gamble once before. It didn't work. It didn't add up. We can just go back to 1981, and administration of Ronald Reagan, when he told the American people we could have massive tax cuts, we could increase defense spending, large parts of the Federal budget would not be touched, and it would all add up. We can see what happened. President Reagan inherited a deficit of about $80 billion, but it quickly exploded to $200 billion a year. Then we had years of some small improvement, and years when the deficit jumped back up. But the deficit was averaging over $200 billion. At the end of his term the deficit declined slightly. Then President Bush came into office. He inherited a deficit of $153 billion, and it promptly skyrocketed to $290 billion in 1992. President Clinton came into office at that point, and every year since the unified budget deficit has declined. Four years in a row the unified deficit has gone down. It has now been reduced by 60 percent since 1992. So that is the record of the last three administrations with respect to deficit reduction. Madam President, this chart shows that, even though we have made significant progress on reducing the budget deficit, if we do not keep pressure on Federal spending and if we do not keep our eye on the need for deficit reduction, very quickly we are going to see the deficit rise again. In fact, if no changes are made, the deficit from 1997 to 2006 is going to start rising dramatically. This country faces a demographic time bomb. It is called the baby-boom generation. When those baby boomers start to retire in very short order they are going to double the number of people who are eligible for our basic Federal programs--Social Security, Medicare. And that is going to put enormous pressure on the Federal budget. That is why it is critically important that we continue to keep our eye on deficit reduction. That means we have to do more, even though without question much has been accomplished under the leadership of President Clinton. The deficit has come down dramatically. But even with all the progress that has been made, much more needs to be done or this problem once more will get away from us. This next chart shows in a very clear way the challenge that we face over the next 6 years. This chart shows what the spending will be under current law over the next 6 years--$11.3 trillion. That is what will happen if no changes are made. And on the revenue side, if no changes are made, over the next 6 years we will get $9.9 trillion in Federal revenue. So we can see very clearly that we are going to be adding more than $1.4 trillion to the national debt over the next 6 years if we do nothing. What does Senator Dole propose? Senator Dole suggests, looking at these numbers--$11.3 trillion of spending, $9.9 trillion of revenue-- that the first thing we ought to do is cut our revenue. He says the first thing we ought to do is, since we are going to have $9.9 trillion of revenue, let us cut that $550 billion. Let us dig the hole deeper before we start filling it in. Madam President, it does not take any great mathematician to figure out, if we are going to add more than $1.4 trillion to the debt, if we do not make any changes, and the first change Senator Dole wants to make is to cut our revenue $550 billion, that instead of adding to the debt by more than $1.4 trillion we are going to add more than $2 trillion to the debt under the Dole plan. Madam President, this is important for people to understand. Obviously, under the Dole plan we would add dramatically to the debt if we didn't do something. Senator Dole has said that his plan is to balance the budget by the year 2002. Obviously, you would be adding to the debt held by the public until the point in 2002 when you finally reach unified balance. And so the debt would be increasing during this period, all the while we are moving toward unified balance in 2002, according to his statement about his plan. So the question arises, how much do you need to cut the deficit in order to balance the unified budget by the year 2002? And we know the answers to those questions. We know that under the 1997 budget resolution, Republicans needed to cut the deficit by $584 billion to balance in the year 2002 the unified budget of the United States. The unified budget is a big word. It is very simple what it means. It means all of the revenues and all of the expenditures of the Federal Government put into the same pot. That includes all of the Social Security surpluses that we will run over the next 6 years. We need $584 billion of spending cuts in order to balance the unified budget over the next 6 years. But Senator Dole digs the hole deeper before we start filling it in. He wants $550 billion of tax cuts that reduces our revenue. So instead of needing $584 billion of spending cuts, we now need $1.1 trillion of spending cuts. Of course, as I said before, that is to balance the so-called unified budget that counts all of the Social Security surpluses. And that is not really balancing the budget. If we were going to honestly balance the budget, we could not use those Social Security surpluses. So if one does the appropriate calculation, you can see we would need the $584 billion of spending cuts necessary to balance the unified budget, then we have to cover Senator Dole's $550 billion of tax cuts, and then we would need another $525 billion to stop using the Social Security surpluses, because under the Dole plan every penny of Social Security surplus between now and the year 2002 is going into the pot and is going to be used. I call this a major problem with the Dole plan. Remember what we said here. To balance, counting his tax cuts, we would need $1.1 trillion of spending cuts, and if we were going to honestly balance the budget, not use the Social Security surpluses, we would need another $525 billion of cuts for a total of $1.6 trillion. So if we want to balance without counting Social Security surpluses, counting Senator Dole's tax cuts, you would need $1.6 trillion of cuts. What has Senator Dole offered to us? What has he put on the table? Here are the numbers that Senator Dole has offered. He said he will start with the 1997 GOP budget, that cuts discretionary spending $300 billion. By the way, that is education, that is law enforcement, that is highways, that is bridges. He is going to cut that $302 billion for starters. Medicare, $158 billion; Medicaid, $72 billion; other mandatory programs and interest, $174 billion, for a total of $706 billion. But remember, we said if you are going to balance this thing without counting Social Security surpluses, you need $1.6 trillion--$1.6 trillion. If you use the Social Security surpluses, you need $1.1 trillion. So he is not even close here. So he has suggested another $217 billion of cuts. By the way, he has not told anybody the specifics of these cuts. He has not told us where they are coming from. He has not told us what program he is going to cut to achieve this additional $200 billion. That will be, I guess, a secret plan. Maybe he will tell us after the election where that money is coming. But even with that, he has got total cuts of $923 billion. Remember, if we are going to balance and not count Social Security surpluses, we need $1.6 trillion. He is nowhere close. To balance using Social Security surpluses you need $1.1 trillion. He is not even close to that. Madam President, this is what is wrong with the Dole economic plan. It does not add up. It does not add up. The spending cuts are not enough to balance this budget, even on a unified basis. They are not enough to balance it even if he uses all $525 billion of the Social Security surplus. Now, why hasn't Senator Dole told us more specifically where the money is coming? I think the reason is that when you start getting into the specifics, it does not make much sense to the American people. Senator Dole is looking at the spending. This chart shows the Federal spending for the next 6 years. We are going to spend $2 trillion on interest on the debt. We are going to spend $2.1 trillion on Social Security; $1.6 trillion on Medicare; defense, $1.7 trillion; $800 billion on Medicaid; other entitlements, $1.4 trillion. What are those other entitlements? Well, those are veterans' benefits; those are Federal retirement benefits; those are food stamp programs. That is the kind of thing we are talking about--child nutrition--in this category of spending. Then there is what we call nondefense discretionary. Nondefense discretionary, that is education, environmental enforcement, parks, roads, bridges, law enforcement. However, Senator Dole has said we are not going to touch Social Security. So 19 percent of our spending is off the table. He has said we are not going to cut defense. That is 15 percent. In fact, he said we are going to increase defense spending. He says, of course, we cannot cut interest payments; that we legally owe. We cannot cut that. In just those three areas, he has taken half of the spending off the table, but he has not stopped there. He said, well, we are not going to cut veterans, not going to cut veterans. He said we are just going to cut Medicare by about 10 percent--$160 billion. And he says on nondefense discretionary, this is the one that is going to have to take the big hit--the big hit. Remember, he has about $900 billion of cuts. Almost $500 billion is going to have to come out of nondefense discretionary just on the cuts he has identified. Remember, the cuts he has identified do not do the job. But he is going to take $500 billion out of discretionary spending of $1.7 trillion over the next 6 years. So he is going to have to cut 30 percent. Education is going to have to be cut 30 percent; environmental enforcement is going to have to be cut 30 percent; parks, roads, airports, bridges. All of it is going to have to be cut 30 percent, and it still does not add up. It still does not balance. And you know what? Law enforcement is going to have to be cut 30 percent under the Dole plan. Those are the cuts he is going to have to make-- $500 billion out of this little chunk of Federal spending. This is the place he has targeted. This is the place he is going to take $500 billion out of the $1.7 trillion we are scheduled to spend. So, this is the place that is really getting targeted. Because for all the rest of the budget he is just going to cut a little bit, or, he has said, he is not going to cut at all, or, he has said, he is going to increase. Madam President, there is no wonder this Dole plan does not add up. No wonder it does not add up. Because this is where the money is going and he said huge chunks of it are off the table. Here is where the money is going to come from, over the next 6 years: Individual income taxes, about half of our income, 46 percent; corporate taxes, 10 percent; Social Security, 26 percent; and other revenue, 18 percent. But let me just show kind of an interesting thing. Here is the revenue from Social Security. Here is the spending for Social Security. You notice something very interesting here--very interesting. They are not the same size. These are all on the same scale but there is a difference. Here is the revenue from Social Security: $2.6 trillion over the next 6 years. And here is the spending: $2.1 trillion over the next 6 years. We have way more revenue from Social Security than we have spending on Social Security. We have a difference of $500 billion over the next 6 years, $500 billion more in revenue for Social Security than we have expense for Social Security. Where is it going? Where is it going? Because I have already showed you that we have more expenditures planned over the next 6 years than we have revenue. Madam President, I think we can see the $500 billion of Social Security surpluses that Senator Dole is going to use in his plan. Again, I remind everyone who is listening, even with using that $500 billion of Social Security surplus, every penny of it, his plan still does not balance, it still does not add up. But he is using it, $525 billion. It is interesting, that $525 billion of Social Security surpluses that are going to be used over the next 6 years is very close to the $551 billion of tax cuts that he has proposed. What earthly sense does this make? What earthly sense does this make? To take $525 billion of Social Security surpluses that we get from payroll taxes, that we ought to be saving for the time the baby boom generation retires, and turn around and give it out in tax cuts, when we are not balancing the budget in any true sense over the next 6 years with this economic plan? You talk about a plan that is spending the money today and borrowing from the future; that is the Dole economic plan. It does not add up. It does not make sense. It digs a very deep hole for the economic future of our country. Madam President, I think one reason Senator Dole has been reluctant to be more specific is because, when you start being specific, you see how clearly the Dole plan does not add up. Let us just look at the education cuts that would be necessary to finance the Dole tax cut. Remember, the GOP budget last year that was vetoed by the President and rejected by the American people had tax cuts of $245 billion. On education, they cut $42 billion. I think that begs the question: What happens when you have the Dole plan that has, instead of $245 billion of tax cuts, $550 billion of tax cuts? How much are you going to have to cut education then? How much is education going to have to be cut to accommodate a $550 billion tax cut? The same can be asked of Medicare. Medicare--remember, the GOP budget last year had tax cuts of $245 billion; the Medicare cuts were $270 billion. Now Dole says he is going to have a $550 billion tax cut. How much would he have to cut Medicare in order to accommodate this plan? This is where Dole has not been specific. Because, when you get into the specifics, very quickly anybody who has been involved in these budgets knows it does not add up. Medicaid cuts necessary to finance the Dole tax cut? Last year, again, GOP budget vetoed by the President, rejected by the American people: $245 billion in tax cuts, Medicaid cuts were $163 billion. Now he says we are going to have a $550 billion tax cut. How big would the Medicaid cuts be? How big would they have to be in order to finance this plan? Domestic discretionary spending: education, law enforcement, roads, highways, bridges. Last year, the GOP plan, $245 billion of tax cuts, domestic discretionary cuts $440 billion. With a $550 billion tax cut, how big would the domestic discretionary cuts have to be in order to finance the Dole plan? It does not add up. Madam President, I hope I have been able to communicate that the Dole plan does not add up. There is no way there are enough spending cuts in order to balance the budget, even on a unified basis counting the Social Security surpluses, and certainly nowhere near enough to balance it without using every penny of the Social Security surplus. In addition to that, we have to look at the Dole tax cut and who benefits. This chart shows the various income categories, who the big beneficiaries are. For example, for those who earn less than $10,000 a year, they get a $5 tax cut, on average; for those who are in the $10,000 to $20,000 category, they get $120, on average. For those who are in the $20,000 to $30,000 category, they get $400, on average. If you start adding these up, zero to $10,000, that is 18 percent of the American people; $10,000 to $20,000 is 21 percent; $20,000 to $30,000 is another 16 percent of the American people. If you add that up, it is 55 percent of the American people get less than $400 a year, on average, from this plan. Look at what happens to those earning over $200,000 a year, the top 1 percent of people in this country. They would get an average benefit of $25,000. Does this strike you as fair? Does that strike you as a balanced plan? I do not think so. I do not think it is fair when the top 1 percent get a $25,000 reduction on average and the 55 percent of the American people who are below $30,000 a year in income get from $5 to $400 a year. That is not a fair plan. One of the things that is perhaps most shocking, as you start to really look into the details of this Dole plan that has $500 tax credit for children, what you find out is 40 percent of the children in America do not qualify, they do not get anything. They do not get a $500 credit, they do not get a $400 credit, they do not get anything. The reason is that their families do not have enough income to be eligible. Because of other parts of the Dole plan, his reductions in the earned-income tax credit, many families with child-care costs are not going to get a cut; they are going to get an increase in their taxes. Thousands, millions of people in this country are not going to get a tax reduction under the Dole plan, they are going to get a tax increase under the Dole plan, because a child care credit doesn't work for you unless you reached a certain income level, and he is cutting the earned income tax credit. Let's look at two examples. A two-parent family, four people in the family with an income of $21,500 and $400 a month in child care costs, under current law they pay $172 in taxes. Under the Dole plan, they get a whopping increase. They pay $609 in taxes. No tax cut under the Dole plan for these folks. They are getting a big tax increase. Interesting, isn't it? If you are at the top, you are going to get the gravy under the Dole plan. If you are one of the fortunate few in America, the top 1 percent that earns over $200,000 a year, you are going to get a $25,000 reduction on average. But if you are one of these folks earning $21,000 a year, have children, have child care costs, under the Dole plan you are not going to get a tax cut, you are going to get a tax increase. Under another example, a two-parent family with two children with income of $25,000 and $400 a month in child care costs, under current law, they pay $1,176. Under the Dole plan, they would pay $1,734. Not a reduction, not a cut, but a big tax increase. Madam President, this Dole plan doesn't add up any way you cut it. It doesn't balance the budget. It doesn't have enough cuts to balance, even if he uses all the Social Security surpluses, and goodness knows, we ought not to use Social Security surpluses to balance the budget. That is just mortgaging the future. Interestingly enough, Bob Dole has always himself rejected the so- called supply-side economic theory. The supply-side theory is the one that was in vogue in the 1980's. It is the one that led us into this swamp of debt and deficits in the first place. Senator Dole, just last year, said this about supply-side economics. This is Senator Dole. He said: What I could never understand is why, if you just cut taxes, you'd have this big, big revenue increase. You know, more jobs, more opportunity. And you didn't have to make hard choices about spending. That was the philosophy back in the eighties, particularly with Newt and the House Republicans. Don't make any painful decisions. Just cut taxes. In the eighties, we said, ``Everything's going to be fine.'' Well, it wasn't. That is Senator Bob Dole 1 year ago. Bob Dole was right a year ago when he said this. Bob Dole was exactly right. And I return to where I started. This demonstrates how right he was last year and how wrong he is this year. Because now Bob Dole, finding himself 20 points behind in the polls, all of a sudden is a born-again supply-side economist, believing in the tooth fairy, that somehow, somewhere the money will emerge. Madam President, we tried that once before. We tried it back in 1981, and we know what the results were: the deficit skyrocketed-- skyrocketed. It wasn't until President Clinton put in place an economic plan in 1993--an economic plan, by the way, that Senator Dole said would crater the economy--that we saw 4 years in a row of declining deficits, that we saw the country headed in the direction of a stronger economy, that we finally saw America getting back on the right course with dramatic deficit reduction, renewed economic growth, the creation of over 10 million jobs. Madam President, we ought not to take the riverboat gamble of supply- side economics. That way lies a future of debt, deficits and decline. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD

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

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I think this is a fundamental issue and that we ought to address it now. Mr. President, I come from a long medical tradition on my mother's side of the family. My grandfather and virtually all of his relatives were doctors. My grandfather was a pioneer surgeon in North Dakota and was the chief of staff of our local hospital. In many ways, I grew up in a medical family. The notion that we would have a gag rule on doctors and what they can tell their patients is anathema to those who are medical professionals. It is not limited to medical professionals. I think it is anathema to any American. The notion that a doctor, by contract, is precluded from sharing certain information with a patient about that patient's illness is unconscionable--unconscionable. What kind of system do we have when a doctor can be precluded from telling a patient about treatment options, about referral options in America? Mr. President, I met yesterday with medical professionals from my State. I do not use the English language lightly. I said that I believe these gag rules are immoral, and I do believe it is immoral, Mr. President, to say to a doctor, ``You are restricted and limited in what you can say about what you know about a patient's options.'' You know, it sounds to me like another country and another time. Maybe that would go over in the Soviet Union. Maybe that would have gone over in Germany in the thirties. This is America in the nineties. No doctor should be precluded from discussing with a patient the treatment options of that patient. That is outrageous. Mr. President, we may not be able to solve this matter completely in the days that remain in this session, but we can start, and we should start, and we have the opportunity in this amendment. This amendment has been carefully crafted. The House has gone over it, the medical community has gone over it, some of the best minds of the U.S. Senate have gone over it, and they have crafted an amendment that is a rifle shot. It says very clearly what cannot be gagged, what communications ought to be able to freely flow between a patient and the person who is responsible for that patient's care. Mr. President, we ought to pass this amendment. We ought to pass this amendment. I can't think of a single good reason why this amendment ought to be stopped. I can just say that I have discussed this with people in my home State on my most recent trip home. They are just mystified how, in America, you can have a circumstance in which a doctor is precluded and prevented from talking to their patients about treatment options that are available to them. Well, that is just beyond description in terms of the morality of the circumstance. Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Wyden for coming forward with this amendment at this time. I would commend anybody on the other side of the aisle--and I would do it publicly--if they came forward with this amendment, because I feel that strongly about it. This is something we ought to pass. It ought to be bipartisan. There ought not to be a whiff of partisanship about it. I thank my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, for doing, I think, a superb job in bringing this amendment to the attention of the body. This ought to pass 100-0. I don't care about points of order and all the rest. I don't know whether people are hiding behind it or not. Frankly, I just think it is inappropriate in this circumstance to be talking about a point of order with respect to an amendment that is so totally and fully justified. Again, I want to thank my colleague, Senator Wyden, for authoring this amendment and bringing it to our attention. I hope this amendment passes 100-0 on the floor of the U.S. Senate. That would send a very good message across this country about what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. I will just add this final point. If this is the direction that we are going to go in with health care in America, there is going to be an enormous reaction in this country. I predict that today. If this is the direction we are going to go in, in which patients are denied information about their coverage options, then we have big trouble in this country. We can address it right here today and pass this amendment, and we should. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this amendment would disallow funds for the Internal Revenue Service to execute their field office reorganization plan until the National Commission on Restructuring the IRS has had an opportunity to issue its final report. The amendment addresses the recent proposal by the IRS to downsize the offices of its headquarters and those in the field. Recently, the IRS announced that it will cut back 3,300 employees at sites around the country and hire 1,400 new employees to do the same work at another location. While this Congress has routinely supported initiatives to eliminate unnecessary positions at Federal agencies, I worry that this recent decision at the IRS will do nothing to aid taxpayers in America and may reduce the level of customer service taxpayers deserve. The IRS formulated this plan, without regard to final decisions on fiscal year 1997 spending levels, in order to consolidate the administrative operations of their field offices. Because these offices are to remain open, there does not seem to be a reason for rehiring 1,400 people to perform the jobs that are capably being done in the field. In my own State of North Dakota, our taxpayers will lose many people who provide front-line services such as a public affairs officer, a taxpayer education coordinator, and several others who provide the critical liaison between the taxpayer and the IRS. I fail to see how shifting these positions to larger metropolitan areas will increase the efficiency of work already being done. Mr. President, I receive many letters every year from concerned North Dakotans who have exhausted several hours and days attempting to reach representatives of the IRS. Their complaints have only intensified over the years. This recent decision by the IRS will only worsen an already tenuous relation between taxpayers and the IRS. This amendment prevents the IRS from taking these actions in their field offices until the National Commission to Restructure the Internal Revenue Service has had a chance to report back to Congress on the troubles facing the IRS and their possible solutions. Until the Congress has had a chance to evaluate and propose solutions to many of the predicaments at the IRS, it does not make sense to frustrate taxpayers with a pointless restructuring plan which does nothing to better serve their needs. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Defense authorization bill we have before us. I think it is an important step as we consider the appropriations bills that are left before us. I want to specifically commend the leadership of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond, the chairman, Senator Nunn, the ranking member, for bringing this bill to us. I also want to specifically thank Senator McCain who worked on the floor during Senate consideration of the authorization bill on both my amendment on B-52's and on my national missile defense amendment. I also want to commend those retiring members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator Bill Cohen, the chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, announced he was not running for reelection. Senator Cohen will be missed here in the U.S. Senate. He has always been somebody who is respected on both sides of the aisle, someone who many of us look to for leadership not only on defense issues but others as well. Senator Exon of Nebraska, who is the ranking member on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, and the former chairman of that subcommittee, has announced that he is retiring. And he, too, will be sorely missed in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle. And, of course, Senator Nunn, the ranking member and former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who has achieved respect not only in this Chamber but across the country as well as a defense expert. I think we should also recognize the outstanding staffs that have worked on this legislation. I want to single out Les Brownlee, the majority staff director, Eric Thoemmes, also on the majority side who was very important in working with us on the amendments that I have talked about, minority staff director Arnold Punaro, and minority strategic forces expert Bill Hoehn. All of them we worked closely with in the development of this legislation. We appreciate their outstanding service to the committee, to the Senate, and to the country. Mr. President, I cannot help but respond to some of what I heard from my colleague from Oklahoma. I am supporting this Defense authorization bill. I think it is the right course to take. But I must say, we ought to put some of this in perspective. I mean, we have to remember here the cold war is over. We do not have any force on the face of the globe that in any way rivals the military strength of the United States. Thank goodness that is the case, but it is the case. We also have to remember that we are still running budget deficits in this country, $116 billion in the current fiscal year. Mr. President, we have to keep our eye on the ball. We just cannot spend money on everything everyone would like. And that includes our armed services. We have to make tough decisions. We have to stay on this course of deficit reduction if we are to prevent fiscal calamity in the future. It is true we have made enormous progress on the budget deficit. In 1992 it was $290 billion. This year it is projected to be $116 billion, a dramatic improvement, without question. But we also know that we face the time bomb of the baby boom generation, and that requires us to continue to put spending under the microscope. We have to look at every part of the Federal budget, and that includes our defense budget. Let me just say that I think everybody in this Chamber understands that the pressure will continue on every part of Federal spending, and that is as it should be. Mr. President, there are some parts of this bill that I want to discuss specifically because I think they are critically important in light of what has just happened with respect to the action in Iraq. Section 1302 of the conference report wisely prohibits the retirement of any strategic systems pending Russian ratification of START II. But we go even further with respect to our B-52's. Those bombers must be retained under these provisions whether or not START II is ratified in recognition of their conventional capabilities. Mr. President, the amendment that I offered, that has been retained, stipulates that none of the 28 B-52's that were not funded in the Department of Defense request can be sent to the boneyard and that all must be kept fleet standard in a fully maintained attrition reserve. I believe the recent cruise missile strikes in Iraq bring into sharp focus why retention of these provisions in conference was wise. Mr. President, if I could turn to the charts that I have brought with me, I would like to just point out for a moment the B-52 advantage-- global reach, global power. Mr. President, in the recent action against Iraq, the B-52's responded immediately from the United States. Naval vessels could only participate in cruise missile strikes because they had completed a deployment process that can take days or even weeks. Other land and sea forces can take weeks or even months to arrive. The B-52 is able to be there in a matter of hours. No. 2, B-52's did not require in-theater basing. The United States could not use land-based forces in-theater because of political considerations. The B-52's can operate from the continental United States and from bases in Guam and Diego Garcia, thousands of miles from combat operations. No. 3, the B-52's placed few lives at risk. Air, land, and sea forces in forward deployments involve hundreds of thousands of personnel in combat operations. But more than one-quarter of the cruise missiles we fired in the first round were launched by only 14 Americans on two B- 52's. No. 4, B-52's were the least expensive system involved. Naval vessels and in-theater forces have large personnel complements and costly support requirements. No. 5, the B-52 was the only bomber for the mission. The B-52 is the only bomber that at this point carries cruise missiles. Mr. President, the Department of Defense suggested that we not fund 28 of our 94 B-52's. We believe that would have been a serious mistake. Retirement is clearly unnecessary. These B-52's have been comprehensively upgraded. I have been told by the former head of Air Combat Command that these planes are good until the year 2035. Often we hear people say B-52's are older than the pilots flying them. Mr. President, that is with respect to the name plate on the B-52's. Many of these airframes were, it is true, constructed in the 1960's, but what people forget, there have been billions of dollars of upgrades to these planes, including new skins, new everything. Mr. President, General Loh, head of the Air Combat Command, told me these planes are good until the year 2035 because, if you look at the landings, you look at the flying hours, there are far fewer landings and flying hours on these airframes than on commercial planes. As a result, these planes, with all of the upgrades that have been done, are good until the year 2035. We should not be sending a single one of them to the bone yard. Mr. President, in addition, reengining, the proposal by Boeing, could produce $6 billion in savings, enough to finance retention of the 28 that were unfunded in the DOD budget. This makes great sense to reengine these planes, put on commercial engines that will experience some 40 percent in fuel savings, make these planes even more responsive and even longer lasting in our force inventory. I believe that retirement of any of our B-52's would be ill-advised. I want to salute the committee for taking this position, as well. I believe it is unwise to retire B-52's for the following reasons: No. 1, it endangers arms control. A B-52 retirement reduces Russia's incentive to ratify START II. We ought not to be taking down strategic systems before there is a Russian ratification of START II. That makes no sense. I am very pleased that under the leadership of Senator Thurmond and Senator Nunn, the committee has taken that position. That is a wise and prudent position. The committee ought to be saluted for taking it. No. 2, retirement of these strategic systems now preempts the 1997 defense studies. We have major studies underway, Mr. President, to determine the appropriate force structure for the future. We ought not to preempt those studies now. No. 3, to retire B-52's would sacrifice a superior global bomber. B- 52's have a longer range than the B-1 or the B-2. They have the greatest versatility because they are fully dual capable and the only bomber with cruise missiles allowing standoff operations, as we saw in the Iraqi confrontation. No. 4, they have the largest total payload of any bomber. No. 5, they are the least costly to maintain and operate. Finally, Mr. President, and perhaps most important, to reduce any of our bombers would only add to the existing bomber gap. Some have asked me, what do I mean by bomber gap? Mr. President, let me make clear, the Bottom Up Review said we need at least 100 deployable bombers--100 deployable bombers--in order to prevail in two MRC's simultaneously. Mr. President, today we only have 92 deployable bombers, 92 deployable; the Bottom Up Review said we need 100. Mr. President, to send any bombers to the bone yard in this circumstance makes very little sense. I might add that I believe the new efforts that are underway to evaluate our strategic systems will disclose that 100 deployable bombers are not sufficient. In fact, I believe 100 deployable bombers is sadly insufficient to meet the requirements of two MRC's. We will have a chance at a later time to go into the assumptions that have been made to establish the 100 deployable bombers as the appropriate target. Mr. President, it certainly makes no sense to be adding to the bomber gap at a time when, I think, it is in great question whether or not 100 deployable bombers is sufficient to meet the contingency of two MRC's. Let me just close, Mr. President, by again thanking the committee leadership and the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee for working with us to put together the Conrad amendment that calls for retaining our B-52 force and also for the national missile defense provisions that are included in this conference report. I want to thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Thurmond. I want to thank the ranking member, Senator Nunn, and I want to thank their very able and professional staffs for the assistance they have provided to us. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to join my colleague, Senator Kennedy, in commending Senator Domenici and Senator Wellstone for offering this amendment. The Senate has concerned itself with this issue several times in the past. Previously, when Senator Domenici and Senator Wellstone offered this amendment--a much broader amendment than this one--we got 68 votes on the floor of the U.S. Senate. In the reconciliation bill, I had this passed in the Finance Committee, and it passed on the floor of the Senate on reconciliation. So the Senate has considered a much broader version of mental health parity than we are considering tonight. This only relates to parity on lifetime and annual caps for mental illness. It is a small part of the parity provision that previously passed with an overwhelming vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Now, Mr. President, this is a beginning. It is an important beginning, and we ought to make the start. It is the right thing to do. We ought to treat a mental illness in the same way that we treat a physical illness. Mr. President, the last time I spoke on this matter before my colleagues, I talked about an experience I had when I was the assistant tax commissioner in the State of North Dakota. We had a receptionist who was struck by a mental illness. I recounted her case. I don't want to take the time of my colleagues tonight to repeat the specifics of that matter, but I will simply say that she was a young, vibrant woman, who one day was healthy--perfectly healthy, radiantly healthy--and the next day she thought the pictures on the walls were talking to her. Her life was badly damaged. In fact, she ultimately tried to take her own life. Mr. President, it was in dealing with that case that I learned that, in this country, insurance policies frequently discriminate against those with mental illness. And it is a very serious matter, this matter of discrimination, because if you are so unfortunate as to have a loved one or a family member or, God forbid, you yourself are stricken, you will quickly find out that the coverage in most policies is dramatically different for a mental illness than a physical illness. For example, annual caps, typically, for mental illness are $10,000 a year. For physical illness they are $100,000 or $250,000 a year, which is a dramatic difference. Believe me, if you are part of a family that has this awful thing happen to you, and you are up against those kinds of limits, you will find out very quickly that this can drain your family's finances. This can be devastating, not only in terms of the personal tragedy, but in terms of the financial tragedy that follows, as well. Mr. President, this is a modest proposal. According to CBO, on average, this would increase health insurance premiums by .16 percent, not 16 percent, not 1.6 percent, but .16 percent. Mr. President, this is the right thing to do. We ought to take this step. I hope my colleagues will join in on a bipartisan basis in passing the Domenici-Wellstone amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise as an original cosponsor of legislation to correct the provisions of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 which unfairly penalizes barley producers. In one of the most egregious examples of misinformation I've ever seen, actual payments to barley producers under the act are dramatically lower than the original promises made by proponents of the bill. The bill we are introducing today corrects that error and gives barley producers the equal treatment they deserve. On November 21, 1995, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts released a press statement announcing the estimated market transition payments under freedom to farm. The announcement clearly stated that barley payments for 1996 would be 46 cents per bushel. While the press release does state the figures were estimates, it is undeniable that the figures became the basis on which farm group after farm group made farm policy decisions. Producers were told they would receive this level of payment, or something very close to it, and that the payment would be guaranteed. I know this is true in North Dakota because in meeting after meeting I heard producers tell me it was their belief they would receive 46 cents in 1996 if freedom to farm became law. Later we find out this is not the case, that the payments to barley producers would not be 46 cents, they would be only 32 cents. I understand other commodities received some reductions--approximately 5- 10 percent--but none received the 30 percent reduction barley producers have little choice but to accept. Opponents of this bill will argue all producers were treated the same and that barley producers should have been aware the initial figures were subject to change. Well, barley producers did know there might be some change, maybe 1 or 2 cents, but did not know there might be a 30 percent change. It's time we set the record straight and admit that barley producers were not treated fairly by the 1996 farm bill. I hope my colleagues will join me in correcting this extremely unfair situation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise as an original cosponsor of legislation to correct the provisions of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 which unfairly penalizes barley producers. In one of the most egregious examples of misinformation I've ever seen, actual payments to barley producers under the act are dramatically lower than the original promises made by proponents of the bill. The bill we are introducing today corrects that error and gives barley producers the equal treatment they deserve. On November 21, 1995, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts released a press statement announcing the estimated market transition payments under freedom to farm. The announcement clearly stated that barley payments for 1996 would be 46 cents per bushel. While the press release does state the figures were estimates, it is undeniable that the figures became the basis on which farm group after farm group made farm policy decisions. Producers were told they would receive this level of payment, or something very close to it, and that the payment would be guaranteed. I know this is true in North Dakota because in meeting after meeting I heard producers tell me it was their belief they would receive 46 cents in 1996 if freedom to farm became law. Later we find out this is not the case, that the payments to barley producers would not be 46 cents, they would be only 32 cents. I understand other commodities received some reductions--approximately 5- 10 percent--but none received the 30 percent reduction barley producers have little choice but to accept. Opponents of this bill will argue all producers were treated the same and that barley producers should have been aware the initial figures were subject to change. Well, barley producers did know there might be some change, maybe 1 or 2 cents, but did not know there might be a 30 percent change. It's time we set the record straight and admit that barley producers were not treated fairly by the 1996 farm bill. I hope my colleagues will join me in correcting this extremely unfair situation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I strongly support the legislation before us today. I am pleased that Members from both sides of the aisle rolled up their sleeves and got the job done in a bipartisan way. In particular, the ranking member, Patrick Moynihan, has done a fine job. The positives of this legislation are many: It benefits working families by raising the minimum wage which now hovers near a 40-year low. It benefits orphaned and abandoned children seeking adoption by providing a tax credit to families for adoption expenses. This bill provides many tax benefits to small businesses encouraging investment and growth. And, finally, it simplifies dozens of pension provisions for small businesses and working families, thereby, increasing pension savings. Tens of millions of American workers will benefit from the increase in the minimum wage and from the tax incentives for small businesses, and we have helped them by working out our differences and allowing this measure to move forward. The current minimum wage is near a 40-year low in purchasing power, and amounts to an annual income of only $8,800. Clearly, a family is not going to make it on $8,800 a year. Workers deserve a living wage for their labor, and this raise in the minimum wage is well earned by those workers. In 1995, 42,000 workers in my State of North Dakota received under $5.15 per hour for their work. This bill is an important and timely raise for them. The minimum wage increase will also help families move off welfare and into jobs. Welfare reform will not work until jobs that pay a decent, living wage are available. This raise increases the chances of the poorest Americans staying off welfare. It goes hand-in-hand with our efforts to reform the welfare system. I appreciate the recognition the conference committee gave to orphaned children who are older, handicapped, or have other special needs. Families which adopt these children will be allowed a $6,000 tax credit for adoption expenses. Families adopting nonspecial needs children will be allowed a $5,000 credit. We have an obligation to not only protect abused, neglected, and abandoned children, but we have a responsibility to help these vulnerable children find nurturing and stable families to adopt them. The adoption tax credit is a good first step to help place children waiting to be adopted. Many stable and nurturing families may not have the resources to pay adoption expenses and other expenses such as building ramps and modifying a home to make it accessible for an adoptive child with special needs. This will help. I am also very pleased with the provisions benefiting small and startup businesses. First, the increase in expensing of investment for small businesses by nearly 45 percent--from $17,500 to $25,000--will help thousands of small businesses in my State and around the Nation. I am pleased that this bill permanently extends that benefit to horse ranchers as well. Second, the modifications of the law relating to subchapter S corporations will stimulate investment and growth of thousands of small businesses. The legislation expands the number of owners allowed from 35 to 75 and provides other benefits to S corporations. Third, the pension simplification provisions will help millions of Americans working for small businesses provide for their retirement. Anyone who has ever waded through the morass that we call pension law will understand how important these simplifications are to small business owners. Owners of small businesses are too busy running their businesses and providing jobs to have to deal with the virtually incomprehensible language of the Tax Code and of the Internal Revenue Service's rules and regulations. This pension simplification is a significant step forward. We need to make more. One of the most important pension reforms will allow a family to provide for the retirement of a spouse who chooses to stay home. Spousal individual retirement accounts of up to $2,000 per year for qualifying families for the spouse that chooses to stay at home to take care of children ends the discrimination against families in which one parent works at home. The work of raising children is the most important job in our society. Fourth, the extension of certain expiring tax provisions will provide incentives for investment in technology, for hiring hard-to-place workers, for producing clean fuels from low-rank coals and lignite, and for developing orphan drugs. The rapid development and commercialization of new technologies is particularly important to the incomes of working people. High- technology provides better jobs at better pay for millions of Americans and helps keep this Nation competitive in the international marketplace. Additionally, the incentives to develop new technologies to turn our abundant coal resources into environmentally friendly fuels is critical if we are ever to make progress toward energy independence. With regard to technology development, I am particularly disappointed that we did not continue the R&E tax credit uninterrupted. Our high- technology companies deserve a consistent and supportive tax policy from their government. It is my hope we can revisit this issue next year. The revenue offsets have been greatly improved from the initial House package, although I continue to have serious reservations about some of them. Dropping the tax on court awarded damages for pain and suffering is a major improvement. Court-awarded damages for pain and suffering are meant to make the plaintiff whole and should not be considered income. Concerning employee stock ownership plans, I believe that it may be a mistake to take away a portion of the tax benefits used by ESOP's. Employee stock ownership plans are a way for working families to buy a piece of America and to provide for their retirement needs. I am also concerned that we are extending the airport and airway trust fund excise tax without a serious review of all the issues. While the extension is only for 6 months--until December 1996--it keeps in place a system designed prior to airline deregulation. That leftover tax clearly discriminates against smaller communities which tend to have high airline ticket prices. In addition, it makes little sense that one passenger will pay two to three times more taxes on the same flight as his or her seat-mate. The burden each passenger places on the FAA is the same. While some argue that the excise tax discourages wasteful airline spending since costs plus the tax must be passed on, this current tax also raises by ten percent the cost of every safety measure the airline undertakes. Finally, I again want to compliment those who worked in a bipartisan fashion to achieve a result. Frankly, there are probably few Members on either side of the aisle that support every provision in this bill, but together, this package advances the Nation's interests. If enacted into law, it will have a positive effect on working families, small businesses, and adoptive families and their children. I recommend that it pass.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. Kennedy-Kassebaum--what a team. What an achievement--25 million people protected because, working together in a bipartisan way, they have broken the gridlock here in Washington. Nancy Kassebaum, who always exhibits grace, civility, and decency, and Ted Kennedy, an absolute lion in this Chamber on whatever issue he decides to weigh in on, thank goodness they weighed in on these issues of portability, so the people, when they change jobs, can take their health insurance policy with them. And preexisting conditions--millions of Americans will no longer be precluded from coverage because of a preexisting condition. This Senate should thank you both. America should thank you both. I would be remiss if I did not register disappointment, as well, because we did pass on the floor of the U.S. Senate by a vote of 68 to 30, a sweeping change, to say that those who suffer from mental illness will not be discriminated against. A mental illness should be treated the same way as a physical illness. Mr. President, 68 to 30, this Senate spoke with their votes and said, ``No more discrimination.'' Yet, when we look at what came back from conference, through no fault of the Senator from Massachusetts and through no fault of the Senator from Kansas, what came back from the conference committee on mental health is the square root of zero--nothing, not even the most modest achievement, not even the most modest advancement. I am very pleased to join Senator Domenici and Senator Wellstone in cosponsoring a bill that seeks to address this question when we return in the fall. Let me just say again, Senator Kennedy and Senator Kassebaum, I am confident, will be lions in that effort, as well. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of legislation to modify the application of pension nondiscrimination rules to governmental pension plans. This legislation will provide relief to State and local governments from unnecessary and overly burdensome Federal regulations. Pension nondiscrimination laws enacted by the Federal Government ensure that workers at all levels of employment are given access to the benefits of tax-exempt pension plans. As employers, State and local governments employ a wide range of workers, from judges to firefighters to teachers. Each occupation requires that its unique circumstances be considered when determining pension benefits. Laws that were created by the Federal Government do not adequately address the needs of the diverse work force of State and local governments. Public pension plans are negotiated by popularly elected governments and subject to public scrutiny. They do not require a high degree of Federal review. The process of enacting these plans promotes fair benefits for governmental employees. Public pension plans have been given temporary exemption from nondiscrimination laws for almost 20 years, and the result is that full-time public employees enjoy almost twice the pension coverage rate of their counterparts in the private sector. It is time to make this temporary exemption permanent. This bill enjoys a wide range of support from State and local governments, as well as public employee representatives. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Hatch and myself, along with a bipartisan group of Senators, to ease the burden of Federal regulation on State and local governments. I look forward to this bill's consideration in committee and on the Senate floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to indicate that I will support this welfare reform legislation. I do it with some reservations. I think anybody who has been deeply involved in this process understands that there are weaknesses in this legislation and that there are risks. But, make no mistake, there are risks in sticking with the status quo. The status quo cannot be defended. The current system does not work and is unlikely to work in the future. I have visited with literally dozens of welfare recipients and with people who work in the current welfare system. I cannot find anyone who believes the current system is a good one. I cannot find taxpayers who support it, who believe in it. I cannot find welfare recipients who believe in it. I cannot find the people who work to deliver the services who believe in it. Without exception they say to me, ``There has to be a better way.'' I do not know if we found the best way in this welfare reform legislation, but I do know it is time to try something different. I have concluded from my conversations with welfare recipients that there is very little question that the current system is encouraging children to have children. I do not know how one can conclude otherwise. When we set up a system in which we say to a young woman, in many cases a child, that if you leave home, we will see that you have an apartment, that you get assistance, the precondition is that you have a child, what kind of system have we set up here? I talked to one of my colleagues who met with a number of welfare mothers in the last several weeks. He asked them the direct question, ``Did the fact that there is a welfare system that you knew would support you and provide an apartment to you encourage you to have a child?'' About half of them denied that it contributed to their decision, but about half of them said, ``Yes, Senator, it did contribute to my making the decision to have a child, because I knew I could get an apartment, I could get assistance, and that I could move away from a family situation.'' In many cases that family situation is not a very pleasant one. That does not make sense for our society, to have structured a system that encourages children to have children. That is a disaster. I say to my colleagues who have talked about their concern for children, and in every case I believe they are well motivated and feel deeply that we need to protect children, I share in that belief. The question is, how we do it? It is not in children's interests to be born to children. That is a disaster. We know what happens in those circumstances. In case after case it leads to more poverty, more crime, more abuse. Children are not prepared to have children. We need to take away the incentive that is in the current system for that to occur. There are many parts of this bill that concern me. I believe the percentage that is allowed for hardship cases, and therefore exempt from the time limits, is unrealistic. I think that is going to have to be revisited in the future. I personally believe there are marginal people in our society, people who, either because of mental disability or physical disability, simply are unable to hold full-time employment. A 20-percent hardship exemption is not sufficient to cope with the percentage of our population that simply will never be fully employable. I think we are going to have to revisit that issue. But there has been much done to improve this legislation from where it started. I was very pleased my amendment to maintain a Federal safety net in the food assistance programs was adopted here on the Senate floor and was kept in conference. I think that is critically important. That provides the food safety net for millions of Americans, one that adjusts automatically for natural disasters or severe economic downturns. I also think the provisions that were adopted that were offered by Senator Chafee and Senator Breaux to maintain the Medicaid coverage was critically important to this legislation. I salute my colleagues, Senator Chafee and Senator Breaux, for their amendment. That was maintained largely intact in conference and was critically important. So, Mr. President, there are defects here. I think we all recognize that. I think we all understand that this is going to have to be revisited. But we have also heard from the Nation's Governors. They have told us, ``You can trust us, we are going to be responsible with this charge.'' I say to them, we will be watching, we will be watching very carefully what you do, and we urge you to step forward and shoulder this responsibility with great seriousness. They have insisted there is not the flexibility and the resources to address the problems of poverty and welfare without these changes. They have assured Congress and the American people they care as much about the well-being of children and other vulnerable populations as Federal representatives and that they are in a better situation to target these resources. We take them at their word. They have pledged to protect these populations, and Congress is going to hold them to their word. While this bill gives States flexibility they insist they need to end the problems associated with welfare, I want to be clear. Congress maintains the right and the duty to intervene in the future if States, in fact, do not live up to their word and run their programs in an arbitrary or capricious manner. We are counting on the States to live up to this responsibility. I take them at their word, and I have confidence that in each of the States, the Governor and the State legislature will step forward to shoulder these obligations in a serious and responsible way. I am confident that in my home State of North Dakota that will be the case. I conclude by saying to my colleagues, in looking at the risk associated with any change, clearly there is a cause for concern, but the status quo cannot be defended. It is time for a change. The time is now. We will have other opportunities to address shortcomings in this legislation. I intend to support this bill. I thank the Chair and yield back any time I have remaining.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. None.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. This morning the Commerce Department delivered extremely good news on the Nation's economy. The Commerce Department reports that the economy grew at a rate of 4.2 percent in the second quarter. Mr. President, these figures confirm that the economy under President Clinton is strong, it is growing, and it is creating jobs. We all recall what the economy was like before this administration came into office. In 1991 the economy was in recession. By 1992 the budget deficit had ballooned to $290 billion. America was in trouble. Then President Clinton came into office. He offered a bold plan of deficit reduction to strengthen the Nation's economy. That plan passed by the Democratic Congress has delivered superb results. And today we can report on what has happened. In August 1993, a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President enacted into law a historic deficit-reduction plan. That plan was designed to reduce the deficit by $500 billion over 5 years. Unlike any other deficit-reduction plan that we have seen since I have been here, that plan delivered on its promise. Mr. President, we recall very well what our friends on the other side of the aisle said during that historic debate. They said that the economic plan passed by the Democratic Congress and supported by the Democratic President would crater the economy. I can remember so well the Republican majority leader standing at his desk telling us that if we enacted that plan there would be economic ruination. He was wrong. But he was not alone in being wrong. Virtually every Member on the other side asserted that if we passed this bold economic plan to reduce the deficit and strengthen the economy it would do just the reverse. They said--and they said repeatedly--if we passed that plan the deficit would go up, not down, that economic growth would be reduced, not increased, that joblessness would multiply. Mr. President, they were wrong. They were dead wrong. And now we can look at the record to see precisely what has happened. Former Senator Dole said, ``President Clinton knows * * * the American people know that the plan does not tackle the deficit head- on.'' Mr. Dole was wrong. Representative Armey, now the majority leader in the House of Representatives said, ``The impact on job creation is going to be devastating.'' Mr. Armey was wrong. He was dead wrong. Senator Gramm of Texas said this: ``I want to predict here tonight if we adopt this bill, the American economy is going to get weaker, not stronger. The deficit 4 years from today will be higher than it is today, and not lower.'' Senator Gramm of Texas was wrong. He was dead wrong. Mr. President, all we have to do is look at the record. Let us start with the testimony of the head of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Greenspan, before the Senate Banking Committee about the economic plan to reduce the deficit. It was supported by the President and passed by Democrats in Congress. Mr. Greenspan said about the deficit reduction in President Clinton's 1993 economic plan--and I quote--``an unquestioned factor in contributing to the improvement in economic activity that occurred thereafter.'' That is not a spokesman for the Democratic party. That is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, talking about what the Clinton economic plan has meant to this country. Just to be certain no one forgets what has happened, with respect to the record on deficit reduction, let's look at this chart, which shows the Reagan record, the Bush record, and the Clinton record on deficit reduction. President Reagan came into office in 1981. The deficit stood at just under $80 billion. Under his economic plan that passed the Congress--we recall the Republicans controlled the Senate from 1981 to 1987--he got his economic plan passed, and what happened? The deficit skyrocketed. It just about tripled under President Reagan's economic plan. Then we saw some reduction as steps were taken to rein in the increasing budget deficit. Then President Bush took over. President Bush saw the deficit go, on his watch, from $153 billion a year to $290 billion in 1992. The deficit was out of control. President Clinton came in, in 1993. And each year of his administration the deficit has been reduced, and reduced significantly, from $290 billion in the last year of the Bush administration to $130 billion estimated this year. In fact, the deficit may come in at less than $120 billion this year. The deficit has been cut more than half during the Clinton administration. It is directly attributable to the plan that we passed, the economic plan that we passed, in 1993. The President also, when he was running for President, promised he would produce with his economic plan 8 million new jobs in the 4 years of his first term. We can now look at the record. The President has done better than he promised. Instead of 8 million new jobs, the economy under his economic plan, a plan passed by the Democratic Congress, has produced 10 million new jobs. The President has done a superb job of running this Nation's economy. Not only has the job creation record of this administration been outstanding, the economic growth we now see has also been much better than previous administrations. Mr. President, if we look at private sector economic growth in the Clinton years, we see it is averaging over 3.1 percent. In fact, with the news this morning, we now know it has averaged 3.2 percent. That is in comparison to private sector economic growth in the Bush years of 1.3 percent--a dramatic improvement in economic growth in the private sector in this country under the Clinton economic plan. It does not stop there. There is more good news. The misery index-- that is something we have talked a lot about in the past. That is a calculation of the unemployment rate and the rate of inflation. The misery index is at its lowest level since 1968. What a remarkable economic record this administration has to take to the American people. It does not stop there. There is more good news. The unemployment rate in December of 1992 was 7.3 percent. In June 1996, the unemployment rate has declined to 5.3 percent. The unemployment rate has been below 6 percent for 22 consecutive months. This chart shows what we have seen in terms of the reduction in unemployed people in America from a rate of 7.3 percent when President Clinton came into office to 5.3 percent today--about a 30-percent reduction in unemployment. Mr. President, it is clear, the economic game plan that President Clinton put before this Congress, that was passed without any help from Republican Members, has led to a superb result, a dramatic reduction in the deficit, a dramatic increase in jobs, a dramatic increase in economic growth, a significant reduction in the misery index, the lowest level since 1968. Mr. President, the good news does not stop there, either. If we look at real business fixed investment, again we see the record from 1985 to 1996, and we see the real business fixed investment, as a result of the Clinton economic plan, has taken off like a scalded cat, the largest increase in business fixed investment in over 30 years. This is truly a remarkable economic record. I have to remind our friends on the other side of the aisle, when we put this plan into place, they predicted it would be nothing but bad news. They said it would crater the economy, it would increase the deficit. They said it would reduce all of the things that we want to see increase, and increase all the things we want to see reduced. They were wrong. They were dead wrong. This economic plan, a plan that was passed without a single Republican vote, has produced remarkable results--by some measures, the strongest economy in 30 years. This is a record of economic success that should not be interrupted. Mr. President, I think the record is clear. The Clinton administration has delivered on its economic promises. In fact, it has exceeded its promises on economic performance. That is one significant reason this President ought to be continued in office. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Yes.

Mr. CONRAD. No. This Senator is suggesting that maybe we ought to revisit the question of reprocessing in this country. That is an alternative. Maybe we ought to consider various other technological alternatives that may present themselves. I am just raising the question. With what is going on in terms of terrorist threats abroad and in this country, are we doing a wise thing by setting up a circumstance in which this material starts to move from 80 sites around the country to one defined location in America? That troubles me. I really am struggling myself with the question of how to respond to that. I must say it has made me rethink the whole question of reprocessing. I wonder sometimes if we have made wise choices in this country.

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?