Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I ask my colleague, what in the State plan enables it to deal with a natural disaster like Hurricane Andrew? The State plan has the States setting out what they are going to do with the resources that they have under the block grant. When they are hit with a natural disaster and the need skyrockets, they are not given any more money. What good does the plan do that does not anticipate this disaster? Obviously, they would not be taking the option of going to the block grant if they were anticipating it, so clearly it would not be in their plan.

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the argument of the Senator from Pennsylvania with respect to a natural disaster reveals the weakness of his argument. The Senator from Pennsylvania suggests, if you have a natural disaster and you are stuck with this block grant program that provides only a set amount of money, it cannot be adjusted for the magnitude of the disaster, that, well, you have economic assistance. Economic assistance is not for food assistance, that is why we have the Food Stamp Program. Economic assistance is to meet the other disaster needs that a State meets in a circumstance of unforeseen natural disaster. Economic assistance programs are not designed to replace the Food Stamp Program. Mr. President, if that is what he is suggesting is out there for people to be counting on, if they face a natural disaster, those people are going to be in a world of hurt. I might also say, the notion that Governors are put on notice because we in the Senate have a debate at 3 o'clock in the afternoon on Friday is probably not a very reliable thing for any of us to depend upon. I doubt if any Governor is watching this debate or paying very close attention to what goes on in the Senate Chamber.

Mr. CONRAD. I welcome that. No question, they will be riveted by the comments of the two of us this afternoon. Let me just end on this note. The harsh reality is, if a State opts into this block grant--and we go back to the example of Florida, but we do not need Florida's example, we could take dozens of examples of what has happened to States in times of economic downturn or natural disaster--what we would find, without exception, is that these things are unpredictable; that if a State had opted into the block grant, taken a flat amount of money to provide for the food needs of its people and then have something unforeseen occur, whether it was an economic downturn, a drought, a hurricane, an earthquake, they only have that set amount of money, no matter what the need is. What happens to those people? What would have happened to hungry people in Florida if there was not the automatic adjustment provided by the Federal Food Stamp Program? I can tell you what would have happened. The State of Florida would have been presented with an impossible choice: meet the other disaster needs of the State in that circumstance or divert money to food which would have otherwise been provided for with the Federal Food Stamp Program. What a hellacious choice to present the State officials of Florida or the State officials of Pennsylvania. They have had natural disasters. They just had one. Or the State of North Dakota, or the State of California. We saw California beset by one disaster after another. We saw them have landslides, fires, earthquakes all in 1 year. Their caseload skyrocketed. But if they would have had a set amount of money for food stamps, some people who had legitimate needs would not have been served. Mr. President, America is better than that. America is better than that. This Senate is better than that. When there is a disaster, we have a spirit of neighborliness in this country and we go to help out. When there was a disaster in Pennsylvania, the Federal Government helped out. When there was a disaster in my State, the people of America rallied, through their Federal Government, and helped us, and it made a difference in people's lives. This bill, as it is written, is just a mistake. We should not leave a circumstance in which people who are hungry do not have the opportunity to be fed. This amendment, which is a bipartisan amendment, addresses that need. I hope my colleagues will support it.

Mr. CONRAD. I yield back the balance of our time. Amendment No. 4935 (Purpose: To deny welfare benefits to individuals convicted of illegal drug possession, use or distribution)

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I call up my amendment that is at the desk.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CONRAD. If the Senator will yield, I would like to correct the Record. The Senator from North Dakota did not vote for the block grant. The Senator from North Dakota voted against the block grant. But when a Senator is presented with the question of supporting the overall bill, that is a different question.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to thank the able floor leader on the Democratic side on this legislation, Senator Exon, for giving me this time. Mr. President, as a member of the Finance Committee I have been deeply involved in the formulation of this legislation, including the work first alternative that has been presented by Leader Daschle. Mr. President, Senator Lieberman has made the point well with respect to teen pregnancy. One of the epidemics we are facing in this country is an epidemic of teen pregnancy, children having children. One has to ask what chance does a child have who is born into a circumstance when the mother is 14 years old or 15 years old? We know the chances are limited. We know the results--dramatically increased chance of living in poverty, dramatically increased chance of living a life that is blighted by crime. Mr. President, we also know what can help prevent that circumstance. We know that requiring the child to live at home and to stay in school is critically important. I remember very well the testimony before the Finance Committee by Sister Mary Rose, who works with Catholic Charities in Covenant House. She has dealt with literally thousands of young women in this circumstance. How do you prevent that young woman from having another child? She has found that if you can bring that young woman into a circumstance where there is warmth, love, discipline, and structure, almost without exception, those young women do not have another child. Now, this legislation, work first, has $150 million for second-chance homes for those young women who cannot be at home, who face abusive situations at home. Some people can go home and that is appropriate and right, and that is what should happen. But in other circumstances, these girls who have had children really have no place to go. They have been in an abusive setting at home. The last thing to do is to send them back there. Yet, if we can structure a circumstance or an environment in which there is discipline, structure, and warmth, and there is a vision of a better future, these young people can have a chance. Sister Mary Rose told us very clearly that if we can structure a circumstance in which those elements were present, we could avoid the tragedy of increased teen pregnancy. I hope my colleagues will support the bill before us.

Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object, I would like 2\1/2\ or 3 minutes, if I might be part of the queue.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. That is also our thinking, and Senator Dorgan and I, with our friend from the other body, Congressman Earl Pomeroy, wrote to the Secretary of Defense on May 31, asking that the assignments given to this year's graduates be reexamined. We are hopeful that it is not too late for the members of class of 1996 to receive the assignments they had every right to expect when they enrolled in the program over 3 year ago. Every member of this year's ABC class made time-consuming, costly commitments to this excellent program. In addition, the funds spent by the Army over the past 3 years on their training is in danger of going to waste if current orders are not reviewed. All 15 students are uniquely qualified to be Army helicopter pilots, and we believe it is only right to give these young people the opportunity to serve their country in this capacity, especially now that significant tax dollars have been invested in their training. It is our hope that any procedural error which may have hindered UND's graduates during this year's selection process can be corrected for this year's class. We are also concerned, however, about future classes. We hope that UND students will be able to benefit from this excellent program for many years to come.

Mr. CONRAD. Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their help on this extremely important matter, and would like to clarify a last point for the Record. As my friends on the Defense Subcommittee are aware, the Air Force's estimates of the additional funding required to maintain these aircraft have fluctuated over the past several months. Would the subcommittee be willing to reallocate B-52 funds between appropriations accounts in conference, or to describe in the conference managers' statement, the subcommittee's understanding of how the additional $69,500,000 is to be spent, should clarification be necessary?

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the chairman for this strong statement of support. Might I ask the distinguished ranking member whether he shares this understanding?

Mr. CONRAD. Would the chairman also agree that all the B-52's should receive standard maintenance and upgrades?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I note that the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee are on the floor, and I would like to engage in a colloquy for the purposes of discussing the subcommittee's intentions regarding B-52H bombers. As my colleagues are aware, during floor consideration of the fiscal year 1997 Defense Authorization bill, I offered an amendment with my distinguished colleague from North Dakota which clarified the Senate's intent regarding B-52's by instructing the Secretary of the Air Force to retain the entire inventory of these battle tested, dual-capable bombers in active status, and to ensure that aircraft in attrition reserve would receive the standard maintenance and upgrades just like other B-52's. Our amendment was unanimously approved by the Senate with the full support of the Armed Services Committee, which again this year has clearly instructed the Air Force not to retire, or to prepare to retire, any B-52's during the fiscal year. With passage of an amendment offered by Senator Stevens to the defense appropriations bill, a total of $69,500,000 will have been added to the fiscal year 1997 defense budget request to maintain the entire fleet of 94 B-52H aircraft. In light of this additional funding, is my understanding correct that the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee agrees that the Defense Department should not retire, or prepare to retire, any B-52's during fiscal year 1997?

Mr. CONRAD. I also thank the distinguished ranking member for his time and support. I thank the Chair, and yield the floor. last center

Mr. CONRAD. Unfortunately, we have not yet received a substantive response.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I see that my esteemed colleague, Senator Inouye, the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, is on the floor. I wonder if the Senator from Hawaii would be willing to engage in a colloquy with my friend from North Dakota and me over a matter of importance to our State and the U.S. Army.

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

Mr. CONRAD. Once again I thank the Defense Subcommittee's distinguished leadership for their strong support. I greatly appreciate their cooperation throughout this process and the hard work of their able staff members, and am pleased that we have been able to work together to maintain our entire fleet of B-52's. telemedicine

Mr. CONRAD. Yes, it has. In fact, it costs approximately 40 percent less to train helicopter pilots at UND than at the Army's usual facility at Fort Rucker.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator. As my friend from Hawaii may recall, the internationally recognized Center for Aerospace Sciences [CAS] at the University of North Dakota [UND] has been conducting intensive helicopter flight training for U.S. Army Reserve Officer Training Corps [ROTC] scholarship recipients for the past decade and a half. The 1995- 96 school year was the last year of a 5-year test program designed to produce 15 second lieutenants every year for the Army Aviation branch who are ready for tactical aircraft training and further assignment as combat-ready aviators upon graduation from UND. Because of the unique flight training students receive at CAS, the entire UND class has almost always received active duty helicopter assignments upon graduation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, whatever else one can say, this President has delivered on his promise to cut the budget deficit in half. In fact, he has more than delivered on his promise. I listened with great interest to my colleague, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. I respect and admire Senator Domenici, but I must say, facts are facts, the record is the record. The record of this administration and this President with respect to deficit reduction is clear and unassailable. This President said he would cut the budget deficit in half. He has cut the budget deficit in half. If we compare his record to the record of his immediate predecessors, he can be especially proud of what he has accomplished. The fact is, as this chart demonstrates, this is what has happened under the previous three Presidents. President Reagan came in and inherited a deficit of about $60 billion. Under his leadership, those deficits skyrocketed. In fact, they were tripled until they were up in a range of $220 billion. At the end of his term, we saw some reduction, back to the range of $150 billion. Then, under the new administration, the administration of President Bush, the deficits again took off. They took off like a scalded cat. What we saw was record deficits. In fact, in the last year of the Bush administration, the budget deficit reached an all-time high of $290 billion. President Clinton took office and in each year--in each succeeding year for now 4 years in a row--we have seen a reduction in the budget deficits, a substantial reduction. As I indicated, the head of the Congressional Budget Office, June O'Neill, has said in a letter dated today that she anticipates the deficit will be $115 to $130 billion this year. That is even better than this chart shows, because this chart indicates the last estimates we had. That indicated the deficit would come in at about $145 billion this year. That, too, would have kept the President's promise of cutting the deficit in half. The news today is even better, suggesting the deficit will be about down here with respect to this chart, a very steep decline. Four years in a row of deficit reduction under this President, for the first time in any administration since the 1840's. Let me repeat that. Not the 1940's; this is the first administration since the 1840's that has delivered 4 years in a row of deficit reduction. Not only did the President deliver on his promise of deficit reduction, he also delivered on his promise of creating jobs in this country. He promised 8 million jobs. We have now had more than 10 million created in the 3\1/2\ years of this administration. The President did not stop there. He also promised to reduce the Federal payroll by 100,000. The most recent numbers indicate that he has reduced the Federal work force by 230,000. So, in each of these areas where this President made a direct promise to the American people of what he would achieve, that is what has happened. Deficit reduction; he said he would cut it by 50 percent. He has cut the deficit by 60 percent. The President said he would be part of an administration that would have a strategy that would create 8 million new jobs. They have created over 10 million new jobs in the 3\1/2\ years of this administration. The President said he would reduce the Federal payroll by 100,000. He has reduced the Federal payroll by nearly a quarter of a million, 230,000. I think it is important, when we have these political debates, that we be direct and clear with the American people as to what has happened. The fact is, the Clinton record on deficits is an admirable one. The Senator from New Mexico may quibble about how he has achieved it, but there can be no question about the results. The deficit this year, the Congressional Budget Office says, will be between $115 and $130 billion. That is a dramatic improvement for this country. In fact, measured against the size of our economy, these are the smallest deficits in over 20 years, as measured by the share of our economy. We now anticipate that the deficit this year will be 1.6 percent of the size of our economy, lower than any year since 1974. In fact, we now have the smallest deficits of any major economy in the world as a share of our gross domestic product. In 1992, the last year of the Bush administration, the United States had a larger budget deficit as a share of the economy than Japan, Germany and France. In fact, we can all remember that we were embarrassed when we went to the international meetings on the economy and were on the defensive because of the size of our budget deficits. This year, when our President went to the international meetings of the economic leaders of the major industrialized countries, the United States was in the best position of any of the major economies in the world. This President was able to proudly say that we had not only cut our deficit in half in dollar terms, but we had reduced the deficit even more significantly when measured against the size of the economy. This chart demonstrates what I am talking about with respect to the deficit as measured as a percentage of the gross domestic product, or, put perhaps more understandably, as measured against the size of our economy. President Reagan came in and inherited a budget deficit that was just below 3 percent, in terms measured against the size of our entire economy. During the Reagan years the deficits absolutely skyrocketed up to over 6 percent of the size of our economy. They saw a reduction back down to over 3 percent when President Bush took over and then, once again, they took off. They took off to a level of about 5 percent, deficits that were running 5 percent of our gross domestic product. Under President Clinton, the deficit, as measured against the size of our economy, has gone down each and every year. This chart shows it at under 2 percent. The news today is even better than that. It indicates that the deficit this year, as measured against the size of our economy, will be about 1.6 percent, somewhere right in here on the chart. Those are the facts. I do not mind criticism of this President or any other President with respect to their record. But this is the Clinton record, and this is the record of the previous Presidents--President Reagan and President Bush. They were the kings of deficits. We had the larger deficits, historically, under those Republican administrations. I might add, Republicans also controlled the Senate from 1980 to 1986. Those are the years when the deficits absolutely skyrocketed out of control. Interestingly enough, it is when we had President Clinton and Democratic control of the Senate and Democratic control of the House of Representatives that we saw the sharpest reduction in the budget deficit in this period. This chart follows three Presidents, two Republicans, one Democrat. This is a period in which the Republicans controlled the U.S. Senate for 6 years. This is a time when Democrats, for 2 years, controlled the Presidency, the Senate of the United States and the House of Representatives. During that period we finally got on a course of dramatic reduction of the budget deficits, whether we measure it in dollar terms or measure it against the size of the economy. In either case, we saw dramatic progress. Those are the facts. No chart that shows how the deficits were reduced, how they were produced, can change the hard reality and the hard fact that this President delivered on his promise, that this President has produced 4 years in a row of deficit reduction, the best record of any administration for over 150 years. That is the reality, and this President deserves the credit. I might also add this President is the first one in 17 years to submit a Congressional Budget Office- certified balanced budget. My friends on the other side of the aisle are quick to claim credit for the deficit reduction which has occurred. I remind them that none of their plans would balance without the plan that passed in 1993 with only Democratic votes in this Chamber and in the other Chamber and with the support of this President. Not a single Republican voted for that deficit reduction plan that put us on this path. Talk is cheap. It is tough to actually cast the votes that lead to this result. This result is clear, and this result is important to the economic future of this country. The other point I think needs to be made is the suggestion by the Senator from New Mexico that this has only occurred because of tax increases. I say to my colleague, he may have forgotten that the 1993 budget plan that passed here not only had tax increases, tax increases that were aimed at the wealthiest 1 percent in this country, but also substantial spending cuts. And, again, the record is clear. If we look at spending as a share of the gross domestic product, we saw that spending under President Bush increased from 22.1 percent of the gross domestic product to 23.3 percent. Under this administration, spending as a share of the economy has declined from that 23.3 to 21.7 percent, and that takes us to a lower level than at any time during the previous two administrations. That might come as a surprise and a shock to some who want to portray the Democrats as the spenders. The fact is, the Democrats, in the plan that they passed in 1993, not only reduced the deficit but also reduced spending as a share of our national economy to the lowest level that we have had in the last three administrations, down from 23.3 percent of our national economy to 21.7 percent of our national economy today--the lowest spending level in the last three administrations. Mr. President, we can debate a lot of things, but the record with respect to deficits is clear. In the previous administrations, headed by President Reagan and President Bush, the deficit skyrocketed, the highest deficits we have ever had in our history. Under the administration of President Clinton, the deficit has been cut by 60 percent, exceeding his stated goal of a 50-percent reduction. It has also reached the lowest level measured against the size of our economy in 20 years, and this is the first administration since the 1840's that has delivered 4 years in a row deficit reduction. There is no way, I say to my colleagues on the other side, to rewrite the history of what has occurred here. You can show all the charts, make all the caveats, try to score all the political points one wants to try to score. It is not going to change the reality and the facts. The fact is, the reality is that this administration has delivered on its promise, and the result is we have a much stronger economy than we would otherwise have. Let me just conclude by saying that there was an element to the remarks of my colleague from New Mexico, with which I strongly agree: The job is not yet finished, and it is in our collective interests and in our national interest to finish this job. What does it mean? I was proud earlier this year to be part of a centrist coalition, 20 Senators, about evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, that presented a plan to make further progress to move us toward a balanced budget to continue to reduce these deficits and to get the job done. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico said we continue to face a significant challenge, even as we have seen these deficits come down. The fact is, if we look over the horizon at what is to come, we all understand that it is critically important that we stay on this course of deficit reduction. I think every responsible Member of this Chamber knows that there is much more to be done, because we face in the future a demographic time bomb, and that is the baby boom generation. When the baby boomers start to retire, the number of people eligible for our very basic social programs is going to double in very short order, from 24 million today to 48 million by the time the baby boomers have fully retired. Mr. President, that ought to send a warning signal to all of us that while there has been significant progress, there is much more that needs to be done. I hope that can be done in a bipartisan effort, unlike 1993 when no Republicans came forward, stood up and were willing to vote to reduce the deficit. It is going to require that we work together so that we can keep this process underway and so that we can achieve the ultimate result of balancing the Federal budget to avoid leaving an enormous burden to our children and grandchildren. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I was interested to hear my colleague from New Mexico, the chairman of the Budget Committee, attempting to rewrite history with respect to what has happened to the Federal budget deficit under this President. Now, a lot can be said about the Federal budget, about deficits, and the growth of the debt, but the record of this President is really quite clear. This President came into office promising that he would cut the deficit in half during his first 4-year term, and today we did get the results of what is likely to occur in those first 4 years. We heard from the Congressional Budget Office that the deficit this year is likely to be in the range of $115 billion to $130 billion. Mr. President, when Bill Clinton came into office, he inherited a deficit of $290 billion. He pledged to cut that in half in his first 4 years. That would be a deficit of $145 billion. Today, the Congressional Budget Office--not the President's Office of Management and Budget, not the budget committees, but the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office, the head of it, June O'Neill--sent a letter to John Kasich, chairman of the House Budget Committee, saying: At this point, a preliminary analysis of actual receipts and outlays through May and our estimates for June receipts and outlays suggests the 1996 deficit will be somewhere in the range of $115 billion to $130 billion. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.