Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Livestock Market Revitalization Act of 1996. My colleagues, Senator Dorgan and Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, are cosponsors of this legislation. I offer this legislation at a time of tremendous challenges within the livestock sector. The occupant of the Chair knows full well what we are facing in the livestock industry. His State is a major producer, as is mine. From long, drawn-out battles over meat inspection to sudden flareups like ``mad cow disease'' in England, to the debilitating price declines we have been experiencing for the last several months, the industry is facing repeated and difficult challenges. The biggest challenge facing individual producers is the need to climb out of the downturn in the market and ensure a stable income long into the future. I know the occupant of the Chair knows full well, as other of my colleagues do, what has happened to the prices of livestock over the last year. It has been in precipitous and dramatic decline. The pressure this is putting on producers is enormous. Let me just say that according to North Dakota State University, in 1995 net farm income in my State of North Dakota was down 24 percent. That is a 24-percent reduction in farm income, its lowest level in 6 years, largely because of the steep drop in cattle prices. In fact, for some, net farm income dropped as much as 30 percent from the previous year. I was recently in my home State talking to some of my closest friends, many of them cattle producers. One after another related to me the extraordinary economic pressure they are under as a result of this steep decline in prices. These price declines are occurring at the same time concentration within the livestock industry is at record levels. The top four meatpacking firms in America controlled 82 percent of the market in 1994, the latest statistic available. When Congress last took action to address this industry in 1920, the level of concentration was only 49 percent. Mr. President, producers are deeply frustrated because they lack confidence in the livestock market and find it difficult to obtain timely, reliable market information. Mr. President, I believe that is the least that we can do to ensure that market participants are engaged in a level playing field. For this reason, I am introducing the Livestock Market Revitalization Act of 1996. This bill will restore confidence to the livestock market by achieving the following objectives: First, define captive supplies to include livestock controlled by or committed to a packer more than 7 days prior to slaughter through standing arrangements, instead of the current 2 weeks. Second, strengthen the position of the seller in the livestock market by providing them daily information on the demand for his or her livestock. Third, collect and disseminate data on national, regional, and local market activities to monitor possible anticompetitive behavior. Fourth, promote the use of a value-based pricing system that is equitable to all cattle dealers and packers. Fifth, improve collection and dissemination of data on imports and exports of cattle and meat. If there is one thing my producers have said to me, it is, ``We deserve to know what is going on in this market on a regional basis and on a local basis. We deserve to know what is happening with imports and exports. We deserve that information more readily. Sixth, recognize that the USDA may need additional resources to achieve the objectives of the bill and ask the USDA to report its needs in this area. Seventh, protect the interests of farmer-owned cooperatives by strengthening their ability to compete in the livestock market. Eighth, improve labeling of cattle and meat so producers and consumers have more information about the origins of meat and meat products in retail markets. Let me say that is not just in the interest of producers, that is in the interest of consumers as well. Where is the meat that they are buying coming from? What is the country of origin? I think that has been something that has been delayed for a little too long. Ninth, encourage the livestock industry to review its efforts on product development to improve the demand for red meat. Mr. President, now is the time to act. We must make action possible now. There should be no further delay. The current depressed cattle market is devastating producers in all cattle producing States. While Members on both sides of the aisle, and the administration, have been actively seeking ideas to solve this problem, it is time to turn those ideas into action. My bill addresses real concerns about an industry no one can argue is perfect, and many can argue has serious problems. I have specifically designed this bill to be one which Republicans and Democrats can support--one that can achieve quick passage. I would prefer to make the bill broader but I understand that in the interest of getting legislation through Congress in this shortened and busy year, lean and targeted legislation has better prospects. Some of the items in my bill will bolster the authorities currently held by the USDA, and will complement the actions the administration has already taken. Those actions include the President's and the Secretary of Agriculture's decision to open the Conservation Reserve Program for haying and grazing, to accelerate the purchase of beef for the School Lunch Program, and to continue to maintain our net-exporter status on beef with an expected 16 percent increase in total beef exports from 1995 to 1996. But while administrative actions are good, in a period as serious as this in which prices are depressed and market behaviors are troubling, it is incumbent on Congress to take action. I believe the first action we should take is to get the best possible information. That is the main focus of my bill. It is not burdensome. It is not invasive. It does not point fingers. It is focused and forward-thinking. It is an effort to help everyone understand the pressures at each level of the livestock industry, from producing to marketing to packing to retailing. I hope my colleagues will join me in this very important effort. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section description of the bill as well as the bill itself be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I have been following this issue with some interest and note the strong interest of the Senator and his colleague, Senator Bryan, with respect to this issue. Obviously, you have a very strong State interest. I have been attempting to understand the full dimensions of this controversy. I notice on my schedule that I have individuals from the utility in my region coming in to see me tomorrow or the day thereafter with respect to this question. I wanted to have the opportunity to be able to ask a few questions in preparation for that meeting, if you do not mind. The issue, as I understand it, is the question of an immediate storage capacity, and the question of whether or not you take the steps now to have that capacity located in the State of Nevada. Is that basically the question before the Senate?

Mr. CONRAD. Can I ask the Senator if there are any scientific bases for that 100-millirem provision in this equation?

Mr. CONRAD. I stipulate for the Record that I would like to engage the Senator from Nevada in a series of questions and responses, and we would stipulate that they would yield a response to questions. Is that appropriate, so that we do not have any question that these are questions that are being posed by the Senator from North Dakota to the Senator from Nevada? I ask unanimous consent that we just have an understanding that these be all understood to be questions posed by the Senator from North Dakota to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. As I indicated before, I am going to have this meeting, and I want to be certain that I understand this issue very well before I have that meeting. I want to thank my colleague from Nevada for indulging the Senator from North Dakota so I can get these questions answered. Is there any scientific basis to this 100-millirem level that is provided for in this legislation?

Mr. CONRAD. Is North Dakota on that list?

Mr. CONRAD. I am relieved to find that out.

Mr. CONRAD. Do especially well in math, I might add.

Mr. CONRAD. If I could just wrap up, I appreciate very much the patience of my colleague. Tomorrow or the day thereafter when the people from the utility in my region of the country--not directly from North Dakota--come to see me, I presume that their key message will be, ``Senator, we have a problem developing because our pools are filling with this waste, and we have to move it somewhere. We have to do something with it.'' What would the Senator's answer be to those folks if they presented him with that question?

Mr. CONRAD. I thank my colleague from Nevada for this chance to get some of my questions answered. I appreciate very much the efforts that he and his colleagues have put into this thing. I must say I have rarely seen two colleagues more determined on an issue than Senator Reid and Senator Bryan. I think it speaks volumes to our colleagues. It speaks volumes to this Senator about the seriousness with which they regard this issue; the time they have taken in our caucus; the time they have taken on the floor; the time they have taken individually to alert colleagues as to the critical nature of this issue for their State. If I resided in Nevada I would be very proud to have two Senators like Senators Reid and Bryan representing me because one thing you want, whoever you send here, when there is a time to fight for your State that somebody is going to stand up and fight. I must say I have not reached a conclusion on this issue. I have more to learn. I want to hear from both sides before I reach a conclusion. But if there are ever two men who are fighting for their State, I must say it is Senators Reid and Bryan. I would like to conclude by saying that I admire and respect the effort that you are making on behalf of the citizens of Nevada.

Mr. CONRAD. So what we may have here is another lawsuit, or series of lawsuits, endless litigation no doubt with respect to the question of who pays?

Mr. CONRAD. The transportation would be in addition. So it would cost $1.3 billion, and the alternative, as you have outlined, would be $6 million per site, plus $1 million a year.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Livestock Market Revitalization Act of 1996. My colleagues, Senator Dorgan and Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, are cosponsors of this legislation. I offer this legislation at a time of tremendous challenges within the livestock sector. The occupant of the Chair knows full well what we are facing in the livestock industry. His State is a major producer, as is mine. From long, drawn-out battles over meat inspection to sudden flareups like ``mad cow disease'' in England, to the debilitating price declines we have been experiencing for the last several months, the industry is facing repeated and difficult challenges. The biggest challenge facing individual producers is the need to climb out of the downturn in the market and ensure a stable income long into the future. I know the occupant of the Chair knows full well, as other of my colleagues do, what has happened to the prices of livestock over the last year. It has been in precipitous and dramatic decline. The pressure this is putting on producers is enormous. Let me just say that according to North Dakota State University, in 1995 net farm income in my State of North Dakota was down 24 percent. That is a 24-percent reduction in farm income, its lowest level in 6 years, largely because of the steep drop in cattle prices. In fact, for some, net farm income dropped as much as 30 percent from the previous year. I was recently in my home State talking to some of my closest friends, many of them cattle producers. One after another related to me the extraordinary economic pressure they are under as a result of this steep decline in prices. These price declines are occurring at the same time concentration within the livestock industry is at record levels. The top four meatpacking firms in America controlled 82 percent of the market in 1994, the latest statistic available. When Congress last took action to address this industry in 1920, the level of concentration was only 49 percent. Mr. President, producers are deeply frustrated because they lack confidence in the livestock market and find it difficult to obtain timely, reliable market information. Mr. President, I believe that is the least that we can do to ensure that market participants are engaged in a level playing field. For this reason, I am introducing the Livestock Market Revitalization Act of 1996. This bill will restore confidence to the livestock market by achieving the following objectives: First, define captive supplies to include livestock controlled by or committed to a packer more than 7 days prior to slaughter through standing arrangements, instead of the current 2 weeks. Second, strengthen the position of the seller in the livestock market by providing them daily information on the demand for his or her livestock. Third, collect and disseminate data on national, regional, and local market activities to monitor possible anticompetitive behavior. Fourth, promote the use of a value-based pricing system that is equitable to all cattle dealers and packers. Fifth, improve collection and dissemination of data on imports and exports of cattle and meat. If there is one thing my producers have said to me, it is, ``We deserve to know what is going on in this market on a regional basis and on a local basis. We deserve to know what is happening with imports and exports. We deserve that information more readily. Sixth, recognize that the USDA may need additional resources to achieve the objectives of the bill and ask the USDA to report its needs in this area. Seventh, protect the interests of farmer-owned cooperatives by strengthening their ability to compete in the livestock market. Eighth, improve labeling of cattle and meat so producers and consumers have more information about the origins of meat and meat products in retail markets. Let me say that is not just in the interest of producers, that is in the interest of consumers as well. Where is the meat that they are buying coming from? What is the country of origin? I think that has been something that has been delayed for a little too long. Ninth, encourage the livestock industry to review its efforts on product development to improve the demand for red meat. Mr. President, now is the time to act. We must make action possible now. There should be no further delay. The current depressed cattle market is devastating producers in all cattle producing States. While Members on both sides of the aisle, and the administration, have been actively seeking ideas to solve this problem, it is time to turn those ideas into action. My bill addresses real concerns about an industry no one can argue is perfect, and many can argue has serious problems. I have specifically designed this bill to be one which Republicans and Democrats can support--one that can achieve quick passage. I would prefer to make the bill broader but I understand that in the interest of getting legislation through Congress in this shortened and busy year, lean and targeted legislation has better prospects. Some of the items in my bill will bolster the authorities currently held by the USDA, and will complement the actions the administration has already taken. Those actions include the President's and the Secretary of Agriculture's decision to open the Conservation Reserve Program for haying and grazing, to accelerate the purchase of beef for the School Lunch Program, and to continue to maintain our net-exporter status on beef with an expected 16 percent increase in total beef exports from 1995 to 1996. But while administrative actions are good, in a period as serious as this in which prices are depressed and market behaviors are troubling, it is incumbent on Congress to take action. I believe the first action we should take is to get the best possible information. That is the main focus of my bill. It is not burdensome. It is not invasive. It does not point fingers. It is focused and forward-thinking. It is an effort to help everyone understand the pressures at each level of the livestock industry, from producing to marketing to packing to retailing. I hope my colleagues will join me in this very important effort. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section description of the bill as well as the bill itself be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I support the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. The Senate Finance Committee made a series of bipartisan changes in the bill as it came from the House, led by our chairman and ranking member, the Senator from New York. I want to publicly commend them for the outstanding job they did in improving this legislation. I especially want to single out the ranking member who has, as always, made enormous contributions to this finished product. I think this is a significant improvement over what was sent to the committee. The bill raises the minimum wage by 90 cents over the next 2 years. I think everybody who has been following this debate understands that. The current minimum wage is at a 40-year low in purchasing power. Maybe I need to repeat that, because I think it is a stunning fact. We are not talking about a 4-year low, we are talking about a 40-year low in terms of its purchasing power. I brought this chart that shows what the minimum wage has been from 1960 to the end of 1995 in purchasing power. As we can see, the minimum wage has been all over the map over this period of time. Without exception, it has been higher than it is today. It is time to act. It is the right thing to do. It is the fair thing to do. Over the past 2 years, I and many others have supported welfare reform that encourages adult, able-bodied welfare recipients to work. However, any welfare to workfare reform, to be effective, must be accompanied by a living wage for those who do work. I do not know how anybody can seriously advocate welfare reform as it has been talked about in this Chamber and fail to support a living wage for those who do work. That is fair. That is what we ought to do. The legislation before us also contains numerous provisions to help small businesses. I come from a State of shopkeepers, farmers, and small manufacturers. My State has many very small businesses. I was just telling a colleague that a cousin of mine ran a small gift shop in my hometown of Bismarck, ND. I know something about that business. I know that it provided a modest income. I am not going to use those figures here because back home people would know exactly who I am talking about and I would be breaking faith with a treasured relative. But I can tell you, I know what happens to small businesses. I used to be the tax commissioner of my State. I have looked at the books and records of literally hundreds of businesses in my State, and I think I understand very, very clearly the pressure that an increase in the minimum wage puts on small business owners. I have evaluated it very carefully, and think I fully appreciate its effects. Mr. President, I say to those small business owners in my State who have been strong supporters of mine, it is time now to increase this minimum wage. It is the right thing to do. It is the fair thing to do. I know it is going to mean difficulty for some. I regret that. But I also know there are literally thousands of people in my State who are dependent on this minimum wage to provide for their families' incomes. Today, that family income, for those who are on the minimum wage, is $8,800 a year. I defy anyone to explain to me how you live on $8,800 a year, even with a very small family, even if it is a single person-- $8,800 a year. To offset the effect on small businesses, we have included many provisions to help small businesses. I am strongly supportive of those provisions. The key provision increases the amount of investment small businesses can expense from the current $17,500 per year to $25,000 per year. That is a tax savings of up to $2,900 a year when it is fully phased in. Mr. President, these sound like modest amounts. They are modest amounts, but when you talk about the very small businesses in my State, they make a difference. It will be a tremendous help to thousands of small businesses and farmers in North Dakota. In addition, the legislation contains a series of provisions reforming subchapter S corporations. Again, my State has hundreds and hundreds of subchapter S corporations. My wife, when she was in the private sector, had a subchapter S corporation. I am very familiar with the operations of those businesses. These changes are long overdue. I think the business community is going to welcome a key provision that increases the number of allowable stockholders from 35 to 75 and allows S corporations to have subsidiaries. These and other changes will allow S corporations to grow and invest, creating jobs and a better future for literally millions of Americans. For working families, the most important changes in the bill provide for simplified pension plans for small businesses. Again, not only will the employees be the beneficiaries, the owners of these businesses will be the beneficiaries. Anybody who has gone through the paperwork required of pension plans for small businesses knows what I am talking about. The rules as currently constituted are a nightmare for small business owners. These provisions are going to improve that circumstance dramatically. Mr. President, I again salute the ranking member of the Finance Committee, the senior Senator from New York, for the outstanding effort that was made in the Finance Committee to improve these provisions. The savings incentive match plan for employees [SIMPLE] reduces compliance and reporting requirements for small businesses with 100 or fewer employees. Businesses will be able to offer either IRA's or 401(k) plans. Mr. President, for families in which one spouse decides to stay at home to care for children, this bill allows for a full IRA contribution of up to $2,000. This will remove the penalty that is in the current code with respect to spouses who are at home. In this legislation, the Congress recognizes the work of raising children to be productive members of society is just as important--many of us believe more important--than paid work. In fact, it is the most important job of any in our society. These are dramatic improvements to current law that will allow millions of Americans to provide for their retirement. In doing so, the savings generated will help provide for the investment needed for economic growth and prosperity. The Senate Finance Committee also provided for the extension of a number of important tax incentives. Specifically, the targeted jobs tax credit is extended and renamed the ``work opportunity tax credit.'' This tax credit provides incentives for businesses to hire difficult- to-place workers. Second, the research and experimentation tax credit and the orphan drug tax credit are extended. These assure that the private sector is encouraged to develop new technologies and new drugs. For my State and many others with lignite and low-rank coals, this legislation extends a tax credit incentive to produce and market alternative, environmentally friendly energy products. It will help high-technology energy businesses find investors who are willing to build multimillion dollar plants using new technologies to bring these alternative fuels to market. In closing, I wish to raise two issues. First, these tax benefits must be paid for. Unfortunately, one of the major sources of the funding is the extension of the airline ticket tax. This tax made sense when airline ticket prices were regulated. Under regulation, prices in small markets served by one or two airlines were basically the same as prices in large, heavily traveled, highly competitive markets. That is no longer true. Deregulation brought higher ticket prices to many rural states and smaller cities. Compounding that inequity, the 10-percent tax places a larger burden for supporting the Federal Aviation Administration on small markets. That is simply unfair. The airline ticket tax needs a major overhaul. The burden of paying for the FAA should not fall disproportionately on small markets. While this extension of the ticket tax will undoubtedly pass because it is attached to a bill that has so many positive benefits, we need to get about the business of reform before any additional extensions are made. Rural States like North and South Dakota, Montana, and Nebraska as well as small cities in every State will benefit from reform. We must also begin to develop new approaches to help stabilize the rural economy. Senator Hatch, Senator Harkin and others have drafted legislation to encourage the development of farmer-owned food- processing cooperatives. While the prices of raw commodities fluctuate wildly from year-to-year depending on the weather, processed-food prices are far more stable. Farmers need to be able to process some of their own production for the market in order to stabilize their incomes. Farmers can do that through farmer-owned cooperatives. I applaud the efforts of Senators Hatch and Harkin and others. I hope that their legislation can be added to this bill in conference as a way to help bring some economic stability to the highly volatile farm sector. This small business legislation may be the most important piece of legislation Congress addresses this year. So far, this legislation has enjoyed bipartisan support. I recommend its passage without amendments. That would kill any chance of the legislation becoming law.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I thank the Chair, and I thank, again, both the majority Members and the minority Members for their assistance with that amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to withhold.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have had many discussions over an extended period about national missile defense, and I will be offering as soon as it is prepared, as we work through the discussions of the wording of an amendment, an amendment on the subject of national missile defense. I have reached the conclusion that national missile defense is necessary. I believe it is not a question of if, but rather a question of when missile defenses are deployed and what sort of system do we field. I have always believed that any system we deploy ought to be treaty compliant, ought to be affordable, and ought to be effective. Those ought to be the tests. Right now, we have no alternative before us that meets those tests, at least in the judgment of this Senator. I think it is clear there is a threat that exists. Today's threat is of an accidental or unauthorized launch of a Russian or Chinese missile. Clearly, that is unlikely, but we cannot afford to be wrong. The threat that we may face tomorrow is a rogue nation launch. North Korea, Libya, other countries may develop an ICBM capability before we are anticipating that they would achieve such a capability. We must be prepared before we are surprised. As I have looked at the options before us, I have been most interested in a plan that the Air Force has developed, an Air Force alternative that does meet the criteria of being effective, of being treaty compliant, and of being affordable. I had intended to offer an amendment that would require the deployment of such a system in the same timeframe as the Defend America Act. I have been persuaded by the chairman and ranking members that the best way to proceed would be to require a study of this system by the Secretary of Defense and to have a statement by the Senate that this is a serious alternative. Let me just outline, if I could, the elements of the amendment I intended to offer, what the elements of the system are, and then to have a chance to discuss the specific amendment I would be offering today. The Conrad alternative authorizes deployment by 2003 of a Minuteman system--20 interceptors at Grand Forks, ND, capable of defending all 50 States, according to U.S. Air Force analysis. The amendment also requires a report from the Department of Defense within 1 year on the future of the ICBM threat and a recommendation as to whether 20 or 100 interceptors were necessary. It also would express the sense of the Congress that the President can and should consult the Russian Government to clarify interpretation of the ABM Treaty as may be necessary. I want to stress that the approach I am endorsing is an approach that is treaty compliant. It is a single site. The only question would be with certain radars that would be to assist the phased array radar that is already agreed to in the treaty. I want to stress this alternative does not endanger ABM and START arms control treaties. Second, it is not a budget buster. A 20 interceptor system is deployable, according to CBO, for $4 billion--not the $40 billion or the $60 billion that we have heard associated with defend America, but about $4 billion. This system, I believe, is not only treaty compliant, is also not a budget buster, and it also uses today's proven missile, tracking and command and control technology. We are not talking here about breaking new ground. We are not talking about having to find something that has not yet been discovered. We have the components of this system available to us now. I wish to review very briefly what those components are. This is leveraged development, in the sense that we are building on what we currently have. Instead of going out and trying to recreate the wheel, instead of trying to invent something totally new, we have the components of this system today. Let me emphasize that we use an existing booster--the Minuteman booster. That is the base of this system. We use existing command, control, and computers, the NORAD and Minuteman systems. We use existing infrastructure, that is the Minuteman wing that currently exists at Grand Forks, ND, today. We only require an upgrade of existing kill vehicle technology. We use an upgrade of existing early warning radars. We do not have to go out and invent something new, we have these radars now. We would need X-band radars based on existing design. It would be four new radars, as I understand it, X-band radars, based on an existing design. So, again, we do not have to go out and create something that is new. The cost, according to the Air Force, of a 20-Minuteman system is $2 to $2.5 billion. If we have a more robust force and go up to 100 Minuteman missiles, we would have a system for $3.5 to $4.5 billion according to Air Force estimates. CBO says 20 would cost us $4 billion. This is in comparison to the defend America system that goes to a layered defense after 2000 that would cost from $40 to $60 billion. Yet this is a fully capable system. Let me give a couple of quick examples of how this would work against a rogue nation launch. If Libya, for example, determined that they were going to launch on the United States by way of a threat, by way of intimidation, this is what the system would allow us to do. If Libya launched, our first launch could occur at T plus 480 seconds. Our national command authority would have 8 minutes to make a first decision to respond. The first intercept would then occur at T plus 1,200 seconds, and 20 minutes later there would be an intercept of that Libyan launched rogue missile. That would be a Minuteman III, fired from Grand Forks Air Force Base from existing silos with existing launch vehicles using a kinetic kill vehicle that has previously been tested. That first intercept would give us a very high probability of success in defending against that missile attack. Because of the architecture of this system, in this circumstance we would have a look-fire-look-fire capability. In other words, we would be able to respond to the first launch, fire, see if our missile was effective in killing the incoming missile. We would then have a second chance to fire again, to knock down that incoming missile. That launch would have to occur at T plus 1,420 seconds. That last intercept would occur at T plus 1,720 seconds. So this would be an effective system against a rogue nation launch, such as against a launch from Libya. Let us look at a second alternative, because one of the great concerns of a single-site system is, ``Are you going to provide protection for all of the United States?'' The answer is, ``Yes.'' The Air Force-designed system, which I want to say I applaud General Fogleman for developing as an alternative that should be part of this mix, I think is a serious alternative. It has been very well thought through. People at the Air Force, I think, deserve great commendation for the work they have done. This chart shows what happens in a case of North Korea launching with Hawaii as an intended target. In this situation the first launch picked up at T plus 400 seconds. We are launching in response to that at T plus 400 seconds. We have the first intercept under this scenario at T plus 1,200 seconds. On a second launch, in this case we do not have the look-shoot-look- shoot capability because, obviously, North Korea is much closer to Hawaii than Libya is to Washington, DC, so in this case we would have to fire immediately again against that missile. We would have dual shot capability to attempt to intercept that missile. The first, as I indicated, first intercept occurring at T plus 1,200 seconds; the last intercept occurring at T plus 1,700 seconds. In other words, we would again have two chances to intercept that incoming missile. We are able to defend all 50 States from one treaty compliant site in the United States. We are talking about a cost here of $4 billion in comparison to the defend America plan of $60 billion. That is $56 billion of savings. We put together kind of a lighthearted list here of ``Top 10 Things We Could Do With $56 Billion Other Than To Deploy the `Defend America' System.'' Given the fact we could have a similar capability with this plan, which I think clearly is fully capable, is treaty compliant, and highly effective, what are the things we could do with $56 billion? No. 10 on our list, we could fund the Weatherization Assistance Program for 500 years; No. 9, we could buy a computer for every school-age child in America. Other things we could do with $56 billion that would be saved by adopting this system rather than the ``Defend America'' system? We could fund all payments to farmers for the next 7 years under the Freedom To Farm Act, recently passed by Congress; No. 7, we could renovate America's crumbling infrastructure; No. 6, we could meet the entire global need for basic child health, nutrition, and education for 2 years with the $56 billion we save under this plan; No. 5, we could provide health care to all Americans under 18 for 9 months; No. 4, we could fund WIC, nutrition for women, infants, and children, for 14 years with the savings generated by adopting this approach rather than the more expensive ``Defend America'' approach; No. 3, we could fund Head Start for 16 years with this $56 billion of savings; No. 2, we could fund the destruction of ex-Soviet nuclear weapons through the Nunn-Lugar Act for 18 years. There are many things we could do, Mr. President. No. 1 on our list is we could not spend it, and avoid increasing the deficit by $56 billion. Frankly, that is my favorite option. Let us take the saving, let us apply it to the deficit. Let us have a National Missile Defense System, let us have one that is treaty compliant, let us have one that is cost effective, let us have one that is proven technology, and let us save $56 billion and apply it to the deficit. Mr. President, I sum up and look at what I call our national missile defense checklist, and apply commonsense criteria. Is the system ABM Treaty compliant? Is it affordable? Does it utilize proven technology? On ``Defend America,'' on all three of the commonsense criteria, it fails: It is not treaty compliant, it is not affordable, it does not use proven technology. The Conrad alternative does meet the commonsense criteria. It is treaty compliant, it is a single site, and uses the phased array radar that is called for in the treaty. It is affordable, $4 billion instead of $60 billion that CBO says the Defend America Act would cost. And it uses proven technology, it uses the existing Minuteman boosters, uses a kinetic kill vehicle, it uses the command, control, and computers that we already have. I hope very much that my colleagues take a serious look at this alternative to national missile defense. Clearly, there is a risk. Clearly there is a threat. I believe it is a growing risk and a growing threat; that at some point, the American people are going to want to have deployed a national missile defense system. We can do it. We can do it in a way that is treaty compliant. We can do it in a way that is affordable. We can do it in a way that is effective. Mr. President, the Air Force has come forward with a plan, unveiled several weeks ago now by General Fogleman, of a national missile defense system that builds on our existing technology, that costs, according to Air Force estimates, $2.5 billion, that gives us a capability to defend 50 States against accidental launch or rogue nation launch. Mr. President, I suggest that is a reasonable cost for an insurance policy for the American people. I hope my colleagues will take very seriously this alternative. Momentarily, I will offer an amendment that will call on the Senate to indicate that this is a serious alternative that deserves serious attention and requires the Secretary of Defense to analyze this alternative fully by the end of January. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. CONRAD. I am just awaiting an amendment I will offer. I just wanted a chance to discuss the amendment so I would not take up the time of the Senate unduly. Vote on Amendment No. 4367, As Amended

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the previous Conrad amendment on B-52's that had been agreed to on both sides was not reconsidered and laid on the table. I was just going through that formality now. I have made the motion to reconsider. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CONRAD. That is correct. Would it be appropriate to reconsider the amendment?

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I will be pleased to withhold.

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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is the amendment we discussed earlier that says the Air Force plan for national missile defense is an important option and is worthy of serious consideration, and that the Secretary of Defense should give the Air Force national missile defense proposal full consideration. It further calls on the Secretary of Defense to produce a report within 120 days on the following matters in relation to the Air Force national missile defense proposal: First, the cost and operational effectiveness of a system that could be developed pursuant to the Air Force plan; Second, the arms control implications of such a system; Third, the growth potential to meet future threats; And finally, fourth, the Secretary's recommendation for improvements to the Air Force's plan. I do not think too much more needs to be said. I outlined at some length earlier what I think are the great strengths of the Air Force plan: First, it is treaty compliant; second, it is affordable; third, it uses existing technology. I ask for support from my colleagues for this amendment and ask for its consideration at this point.

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