Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, at this time I would like to send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, on the previous Conrad amendment on the B- 52's, we need to move to reconsider that amendment.

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

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, this amendment is a very simple amendment. It says that our B-52 fleet ought to be retained. What it also says is that our B-52's ought to be upgraded during fiscal 1997 as though they are part of the FYDP. Madam President, the reason for this amendment is that we face a catch-22 situation. We have agreement from both the authorization committee and the Appropriations Committee that our full B-52 fleet ought to be retained. We are going to have a bomber review that will be available to us next year. We do not want to see any of these planes go to the boneyard until that review is complete. The B-52's, we have some 94 of them in the inventory. These planes are, according to Gen. Michael Loh, the former head of the Air Combat Command, good until the year 2035. That is, these airframes have been updated repeatedly in a way that makes them useful to us until the year 2035. They are our only dual-capability bomber. These planes are critically important to us, given the Bottom-Up Review that revealed we are somewhat short of bombers at this point. It makes absolutely no sense to be sending some of these planes off to the boneyard under these circumstances. Madam President, the authorizing committee has said it is critical that we keep these planes. The Appropriations Committee has said it is critically important that we keep these planes. This amendment will allow us to do just that. I want to thank the Members on both sides who have helped us with this amendment, have drafted it in a way that wins the approval of both the majority and the minority. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] as well for his statement. I read the statement that was attributed to General Lebed this morning in the paper, and I must say I was surprised by it. It is an obnoxious statement. It should not be allowed to stand without a reaction from those of us in this country who feel strongly about that kind of statement from wherever it emanates. I salute the Senator from Utah for his strong statement on the floor today. Mr. President, when I was in high school, I played on a Mormon softball team. I do not know how they let somebody raised in the Presbyterian Church, later a Unitarian, play on the Mormon team, but I had a great association with Mormons. We do not have many in North Dakota, but we had a close association built up through that activity. We had a pretty good softball team as well. They were some of the finest people with whom I have ever been associated. I think the statement by General Lebed is one that requires condemnation, and I am pleased to join my voice to those that have already been raised in objection to the really outrageous language that was used at least in the statement attributed to General Lebed. If those are not his words, he ought to quickly correct the record. If those are his words, he ought to apologize. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise today to express my support for an amendment to be offered by Senator Simon to S. 1745, the Department of Defense fiscal year 1997 authorization bill. This amendment directs the Secretary to place greater emphasis on making funds available for research and development into efficient and economical processes and methods for converting saline water into fresh water. Madam President, access to scarce fresh water is important both nationally and internationally. As my colleague from Illinois has often pointed out, improved access to fresh water could be an important factor in the prevention of future conflicts in the Middle East. Further, the benefits derived from research into economical methods of desalination have applications in the United States and throughout the world. Converting the brackish water found in many watersheds into water that could be utilized for potable, agricultural, or industrial purposes would enhance our world's beleaguered water supply and would assist in the development of long-term water management plans. It is my hope the Secretary will direct the funding authorized for research and development by this amendment toward several desalination technologies in an attempt to find a versatile, economical, and effective method for converting saline water to fresh water. For example, the Energy and Environmental Research Center [EERC], located at the University of North Dakota, has been conducting research into the freeze-thaw evaporation method of separating salts and other contaminants from water. In fact, EERC successfully demonstrated this technology on oil production water in New Mexico and is attempting to demonstrate the effectiveness of this technology on a larger scale in a brackish watershed in North Dakota. Technologies that appear to hold much promise for converting brackish water into water that can be utilized for potable and other purposes, such as freeze/thaw evaporation, merit further research and development. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise today to express my deep condolences to the families of the 19 Americans who the Air Force reports were killed in Tuesday's blast in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. I know that the thoughts and prayers of all Senators are also with the more than 300 people who were injured and their families, but I would like to make my colleagues aware that 3 of those who were wounded serve in my State, North Dakota. Madam President, approximately 60 Air Force personnel from air bases in Minot and Grand Forks in my home State are currently in the Persian Gulf theater. Many of them have been serving on a temporary basis in Dhahran with the 4404th Composite Wing, which is helping to enforce the no fly zone over Iraq. In light of reports that reverberations from the blast were felt nearly a hundred miles away in Bahrain, we must be thankful that more people were not killed, and that the three individuals from Grand Forks AFB who were hurt suffered only very minor injuries. It is my understanding that they have had an opportunity to speak with their families, and have been given necessary medical care. Although the names of the injured are being withheld for the time being, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the fine work that these injured servicemembers and all North Dakota personnel in the Gulf have done for our country. Duty in the Persian Gulf is, by all accounts, an extremely challenging assignment. The desert environment is unyielding, and the culture is vastly different from what servicemembers are used to in the United States. Tuesday's blast also reminds us of the area's political instability, and the fact that the gulf is one of the few places in the post-cold war world where American forces daily face the real threat of attack. In the face of these challenges, personnel from the Grand Forks and Minot bases have performed extremely well. They have been a tribute to their fine installations, our State, the U.S. Air Force, and our country. I am proud of every member of the Air Force assigned to North Dakota, and offer my special thanks to the men and women from Minot and Grand Forks who are in the gulf today. It is because of your vigilance and hard work that all of us back home can sleep well at night. President Clinton and Saudi authorities have vowed that those responsible for this shameful attack will be brought to justice, and I echo their sentiments that this cowardly act will not sway our resolve in the gulf. I have no doubt that North Dakota's personnel in the region will play an outstanding role in dealing with the aftermath of the blast, and on behalf of my colleagues in the Senate, wish to extend my sincere wishes for a quick recovery to the 3 servicemembers from Grand Forks AFB who were injured.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support an amendment offered on behalf of my esteemed colleague from North Dakota and myself by the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Nunn. This amendment to the fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization bill would authorize the conveyance of the William Langer Jewel Bearing Plant from the General Services Administration [GSA] to the Job Development Authority of the city of Rolla, ND. As my colleagues may be aware, for over 40 years the Langer plant has been serving the national defense stockpile, manufacturing jewel bearings. Its work has been outstanding. Last year, however, the plant was transferred to the GSA after having been declared surplus by the Department of Defense. Since that time the Rolla community has worked tirelessly to ensure that the plant will remain open and continue to play a vital role in the economic health of the region. Conveyance of this property to the Rolla Job Development Authority is necessary to ensure that this privatization initiative has a chance. Mr. President, congressional support for this privatization effort is especially worthwhile in light of the very positive impact the plant has on an economically disadvantaged part of my State. Of the plant's 110 employees, about 60 percent are Native American. Unemployment is high on the Turtle Mountain Reservation, and loss of these jobs would be devastating. Keeping this facility open makes good sense. The Langer plant utilizes unique micromanufacturing technology that helped form a critical part of our defense industrial base and can be reapplied to the private sector. Furthermore, the plant's existing production of dosimeters, used in measuring exposure to nuclear radiation, as well as its hopes to develop a large-scale production of fiber optic cable connectors, known as ferrules, will increase its potential to compete in commercial markets and meet possible future Federal needs. Legislation introduced by Senator Dorgan and myself which passed the Senate in January would provide for conveyance, as would a provision in the version of the fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization bill passed by the House. Local businesses, community leaders from Turtle Mountain, and State officials are all working together to ensure the success of the plant and its growth as a viable enterprise, but now the Senate needs to act again to ensure that the Congress has done its part. The Defense Logistics Agency has been very helpful in keeping the plant open until conveyance occurs, but action from Congress is essential if the plant is to continue to play a key role in the future of the Rolla community. This amendment will enable the plant to transition to the private sector, and I would urge all of my colleagues to support it. I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for his assistance in this important matter, and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have noted with interest over the last several weeks that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have repeatedly spoken of the need for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. They have talked repeatedly about the need for deficit reduction. I believe we do need to balance the budget. I believe we do need significant deficit reduction, because we face a demographic time bomb in this country. That demographic time bomb is the baby boom generation. When they begin to retire, they will double, in very short order, the number of people eligible for Social Security and Medicare, and that is going to put severe pressure on the finances of the United States. So it is critically important that we get our fiscal house in order. Mr. President, given all the rhetoric that has come from the Republican side of the aisle about the need to balance the budget, about the need for deficit reduction, I looked with anticipation at their budget proposal that is, after all, the work that they now control. They control the House of Representatives. They control the U.S. Senate. As everyone in this Chamber knows, and everyone knows in the other House, the President is not involved with the budget resolution. He cannot veto it. He plays no role in it. This is completely a creature of the two Chambers, the House and the Senate, controlled by the Republican Party. So I think, given the rhetoric, one would anticipate that if you look at the budget proposal, the Republicans would be reducing the deficit. What a shock it is to look at the budget proposal before us and find out that our Republican friends, instead of reducing the deficit, are increasing the deficit. Let me repeat that, because I am certain a lot of people will find that hard to believe. After all of the rhetoric, after all of the discussion that said we are going to reduce the deficit, that that is the priority, if you look at the plan before us, it does not reduce the deficit, it increases the deficit. Mr. President, this year the deficit is going to come in at $130 to $140 billion. Next year under this plan, the deficit will not go down, will not be decreased, will not be cut, the deficit will go up. The deficit will go up to $153 billion. The next year it will be $147 billion, both higher than the deficit we have now. Sometimes I think the popular image is the Democrats are less in favor of deficit reduction than our friends on the other side of the aisle, but if one looks at the record, one finds quite a different result. When President Clinton came into office, he inherited a deficit of $290 billion. That was the deficit in 1992. In 1993, we passed a plan that not a single Republican supported, and that plan led to a reduction in the deficit the next year of $255 billion. The next year it was further reduced to $203 billion. The next year it was reduced to $164 billion, and now this year, $130 to $140 billion--4 years of deficit reduction, the first time since the administration of Benjamin Harrison. I think in fairness, one has to say the Democratic record of deficit reduction in the Clinton administration has been a good one. And I must say, I am disappointed our friends on the other side of the aisle, when they have a chance to exercise control over the budget, come in with a proposal that, instead of reducing the deficit, raises the deficit. That is not the direction we ought to be going. I am still hopeful that we will go back to an approach of a bipartisan attempt to do what we all know must be done, which is to put this country on a path to fiscal responsibility. Not just rhetoric, but the reality. I must say, I read in the paper this morning that some House Republicans were in revolt, because they did not come here to raise the deficit, but that is precisely what their plan does. Mr. President, I intend to vote against that plan. I hope other of my colleagues will vote against that plan as well, because not only does it raise the deficit, but it contains a set of priorities that are virtually the same set of priorities that we were confronted with last year which the American people soundly rejected--soundly rejected. We should not go on that path again this year, and we certainly should not be voting for a plan that raises the deficit. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. CONRAD. In answer, Mr. President, I might just say it is perhaps one of the most perplexing stories in this town, because this is not a balanced budget plan. I mean, honestly stated, to take the retirement funds of the people of the United States and throw those into the pot and call it a balanced budget, frankly, borders on laughable. There is a $103 billion deficit by the year 2002 under this plan. Sometimes I think the media just do not get it. They are reporting on what we call the unified budget. The unified budget is when you put everything into the same pot and then you see whether you have balance or not. The problem with that, of course, is that includes Social Security, all of the receipts and all of the expenditures. Social Security is not contributing to the deficit, as the Senator from North Dakota knows, Social Security is in surplus, substantial surplus. And that is going to continue. In fact, those surpluses are going to grow, and the reason we put a plan in place to have Social Security surpluses grow is because we are getting ready for when the baby boom generation retires. But, of course, we are not getting ready; we are spending every dime. As a result, to call these balanced budgets is not accurate. It is misleading.

Mr. CONRAD. In fact, if you take the amount of money over the 6 years, it is $525 billion of Social Security surpluses that are going to be used to say that the budget has been balanced. So $525 billion of Social Security surpluses are going to be looted or raided, or whatever terminology one wants to apply in order to claim a balanced budget. This is not a balanced budget. In fairness, I think one ought to say the President's plan is also not a balanced budget. Even the plan that I was part of, part of the centrist coalition, was not truly a balanced budget. None of these plans are truly balanced budgets. In fact, the only plan that we have had a chance to vote on in the last 2 years that was truly a balanced budget was the one I offered last year, and the Senator from North Dakota supported it, the fair share balanced budget plan. That did balance without counting Social Security surpluses. It is the only budget that has been voted on on the floor on the Senate that was a true balanced budget plan. That got 39 votes here in the U.S. Senate. Obviously, 39 votes does not prevail. I just say, the media, when they report, ought to tell the people accurately and honestly what has happened. Because to take retirement funds and throw those into the pot and call it a balanced budget, if we were doing that in the private sector, if in any company you took the retirement funds of employees, threw those into the pot, and said you were balancing the budget, you would be headed for a Federal institution. It would not be the U.S. Congress. It would be a Federal facility, a law enforcement facility. You would be headed for Federal prison because that is a violation of Federal law.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to emphasize that it is critically important that we succeed in this endeavor. Make no mistake about it, we are on a fiscal course that cannot be sustained. As I have said repeatedly to my colleagues on the Budget Committee and on the floor of this Chamber, it is true that we have seen a substantial reduction in the budget deficit, and that is certainly good news. Without question, this chart shows what happened to the unified Federal budget deficit as a percentage of the economy from 1980 to 1996. Back in 1980, the deficit was about 3 percent of our economy, about 3 percent of gross domestic product. It then shot up to 6.3 percent in the early 1980's, worked its way back down in 1990, when it was back down to around 3 percent, and then it jumped up again to nearly 5 percent. During the tenure of Bill Clinton as President of the United States, the deficit has come down 4 years in a row. We are now down to a deficit that is less than 2 percent of our gross domestic product. That is the lowest deficit as measured against the size of the economy of any industrialized country in the world. So we have made great progress. But no one should be under any illusion. While we have made significant progress, if we do not keep working, if we do not keep putting on the pressure of deficit reduction, all of these gains are going to be lost as we start to move toward the time that the baby boom generation retires. Mr. President, we face a demographic time bomb in this country. It is the baby boom generation, because when they start to retire, the number of people who are eligible for programs like Medicare and Social Security is going to double. We are going to go from 24 million people eligible for Social Security and Medicare to 48 million people eligible. None of us can put our heads in the sand and say it is not going to happen. It is going to happen. And the consequences are going to be enormous, and they are going to be severe. We have been told by the Entitlements Commission that if we fail to change course, by the year 2012 every dime of Federal revenue will go for entitlements and interest on the debt. There will be no money for any of the other functions of the Federal Government. There will be no money for roads. There will be no money for parks. There will be no money for education. There will be no money for research. Mr. President, that is not an acceptable result. We were also told last year that if we stay on the current course, future generations will face either an 82-percent lifetime net tax rate or a one-third cut in all benefits. Let me repeat that because I think it is so jarring that most people almost cannot hear it when you say it. We were told last year that if we stay on the current course, future generations will face either an 82-percent lifetime net tax rate or a one-third cut in all benefits. Does anyone believe we are going to have an 82-percent tax rate in this country? I do not believe it. That is never going to happen. So the alternative is a one-third cut in all benefits. What a disaster that would be for those who are anticipating and counting on those programs to be present when they retire. Mr. President, it is not only for those reasons that we must move to reduce the budget deficit further, it is also because balancing the budget will provide an enormous boost to our economy. Economists have told us repeatedly that if we reduce the deficit, that will expand the pool of national savings that are available for investment. It is only through investment that we are able to improve future economic growth. We have to have investment to grow. Where do you get money to invest? You have to have savings in order for there to be investment. Where do those savings come from? Well, they come from the private sector. But they also come by eliminating the budget deficit because the budget deficit eats into the pool of savings that are available for investment--that investment that is necessary to improve the economic performance of our economy. Mr. President, all we have to do is look back and see what we accomplished by the 1993 budget plan that cut spending and, yes, raised income taxes on the wealthiest 1 percent in this country. That plan significantly reduced the deficit. There were certainly other factors, as well, that contributed to that deficit reduction. But because we reduced the deficit, the pool of societal savings was increased, interest rates came down, business investment went to a 30-year high, 9 million jobs have been created, and the American economy has been on a path of sustained growth. Mr. President, we should not let this opportunity pass us by again this year. We should seize this opportunity and, on a bipartisan basis, form an agreement to reach a budget accord that would get this job done, that would move us toward fiscal responsibility, that would move us toward balancing this Federal budget. Let me just say that, very often, people talk about balancing the budget in moralistic terms. Unfortunately, I think that turns off a certain segment of the American people who think, all that is in deficit reduction is pain, all that is in it is cutting programs we like, or raising our taxes, or some combination of both. None of it is good news. Mr. President, there is enormous good news in deficit reduction. The good news comes when you lower interest rates and save the American people money. A 1-percent drop in interest rates, as a result of deficit reduction, means individual savings of almost $5,000 over 5 years on a conventional mortgage. Just think of what that means to the average American family. A 1-percent reduction in interest rates on their home mortgage means, to the average American family, nearly $1,000 a year, or $400 a year on a 5-year car loan. And to people in my State--my State is a farm State, North Dakota--it means nearly $1,000 a year of savings to a North Dakota farmer. So not only is balancing the budget better for the average American now, it is also of the utmost importance for economic growth and our children's future. We were told last year by a GAO study that if we would balance the unified budget by the year 2002, this economy, by the year 2029, would be 25 percent larger than if we failed to change course. Think of what that means in terms of jobs and opportunity and economic growth. Think of what that means in the quality of our children's lives. Mr. President, I know the occupant of the chair is somebody who has been dedicated to deficit reduction. I must say of my colleagues here in this Chamber, I think few match the occupant of the chair for his dedication and seriousness and commitment to deficit reduction. I applaud him for it, because I think all of us can see that it is clearly in the interest of our country. Somehow we ought to find a way to work together to achieve that result. Let me say that the budget before us troubles me in many respects. First of all, the first reconciliation package that the budget resolution conference report provides for--that first reconciliation bill provides for $124 billion in mandatory savings for Medicaid and welfare, but up to $122 billion in tax reductions. That is a fine way to begin a deficit reduction effort--to start by spending every penny that we save. Mr. President, that is not my idea of a path toward deficit reduction. Let me say that the Republicans in this latest proposal have made some improvements in their Medicaid package, but the proposal remains fatally flawed. It does not provide a guarantee of a meaningful benefits package, and it gives away Federal dollars to the States through changes in the Federal matching formula and the repeal of a restriction against State scams to tap into the Federal Treasury. Well, I can understand why some of the Governors of this country are lined up behind this proposal. I can understand why those Governors support it. It is great for them. They are able to tap into the Federal Treasury to replace some of the money that they are currently spending. Mr. President, we have seen the scams that have gone on in the past by way of provider taxes in which the States would engage in what is really an accounting sham to shift their spending onto the Federal Government in order to relieve State budgets and make it a Federal budget obligation and responsibility. Mr. President, that is the last kind of high jinks we need if we are serious about reducing the Federal budget deficit. The Federal budget is out of balance. The last thing we need to do is shift responsibility and obligations from State governments to the Federal Government, when the Federal Government cannot meet the obligations it currently has. In sum, might I say that the assumptions contained in this budget resolution with regard to Medicaid are designed as a poison pill to ensure that the President does not sign a welfare reform package. They have linked Medicaid changes that are totally unacceptable to the President with welfare reform knowing that he cannot accept the Medicaid part of the package. So they know he cannot accept the package as a whole. What we have here is a political game. It does not serve either side well. It does not serve the American people well. And it does not lead us to resolution of anything. With respect to welfare reform, let me say that I am a strong advocate of welfare reform. I think it is intolerable that we have a system that abuses everyone in the system, abuses the taxpayers that pay for it, abuses the recipients who receive it, and abuses all the rest of us who must witness the results of a system that clearly is failing. Last year Congress debated welfare reform, and one of the most important lessons we have learned is that in order to have successful welfare reform, we must work together. We had a package that passed the Senate overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis. I wish the same could be said of the budget proposal that is before us. But I cannot. It was not done in a bipartisan way. As a result, we have a package that is not going to work. Last year, I introduced my own sweeping welfare reform package that emphasized work, that protected children, that safeguarded taxpayers. Those are the principles that we ought to, on a bipartisan basis, apply to writing a budget resolution as well. A few weeks ago, Republicans introduced their new welfare reform package. I must say I have concern about many of the provisions contained in this proposal, including decreasing the maintenance of effort to 75 percent. This proposal has the potential to allow States to supplant, rather than supplement, State spending on low-income families with Federal dollars. That is not what we ought to do as we go about the important task of reforming the welfare system. The proposal also lacks provisions to promote Government accountability and to ensure the integrity of Federal funds. Another major deficiency, in my judgment, in the Republican proposal is the State option to block grant the Food Stamp Program. The Food Stamp Program is the anchor for the Nation's nutritional safety net. The program has an impressive history of responding to economic fluctuations in our country and changes in child poverty levels. Senator Dole stood at the majority leader's desk yesterday and said one of his proudest accomplishments here in the Senate was the Food Stamp Program. Mr. President, Senator Dole was right. That is a proud accomplishment. The program can be improved, and it must be. But we should not take steps that might undermine and destroy that program that has made such a difference in the lives of millions of Americans. No American ought to go to bed at night hungry. That is what the Food Stamp Program has changed. I remember very well coming here as a teenage boy and listening to testimony before the Senate Agriculture Committee--Senator Dole was a member--about hunger in America, and the very real circumstances that families faced up and down the east coast of the United States, and in the central part of America where hunger was prevalent before we had a Food Stamp Program. Senator Dole spoke movingly yesterday about what he himself saw in a hearing that was held in South Carolina--hungry people that were helped by a program that was passed on a bipartisan basis. The conference report of the budget resolution also provides for a reconciliation bill to consider Medicare reform in July and a tax cut bill coupled with other mandatory savings in September. I am disappointed that a reconciliation bill to provide tax cuts, which may not be fully offset, is provided for in this conference report. When the Senate considered the budget resolution, much was made of the fact that the first two reconciliation bills would have to be enacted first in order for the Senate to consider the third reconciliation bill which would have the tax cuts in it. Now, all of a sudden, that is all out the window. It shows, I believe, the real priority of some in this Congress to cut taxes regardless of whether they are accompanied by tough budgetary decisions to make certain that the deficit is not increased as a result. This approach really makes me wonder if we have learned anything from the disastrous fiscal policies of the 1980's. Are we really going to embark on that course once again of cutting taxes and not having the spending cuts to go with them and seeing the deficit mushroom and seeing the economic security of this country once again threatened? Is that really the course we are going to embark on? I hope not. Mr. President, I also want to comment briefly on the discretionary spending proposals that are contained in this budget resolution. This proposal contains huge and completely unrealistic cuts in discretionary spending. Behind the scenes it is kind of laughed at by everybody who has really spent time on these budget proposals. Whether it is the President's proposal or this Republican proposal, these domestic cuts are totally unrealistic. Everyone knows they are not going to happen. It is kind of the dirty little secret of these budget plans. They are back-end loaded, both of them. I have another chart that shows what we are faced with by both of these budget plans--how truly unrealistic they are. This shows the distribution of the total savings in the budget plans, both the President's plan and the Republican plan before us. It shows by 2002 what the savings are. But look at what happens under both of these plans. The Republican plan has 64 percent of its savings in the last 2 years. The President's plan is no better. He has 66 percent of his savings in the last 2 years. Over the last 3 years, they are identical. Both of them have 82 percent of their savings in the last 3 years. A big chunk of this is domestic spending cuts in both the President's plan and the Republican plan. They are not going to happen. They are unrealistic. We would be much better off to be honest with each other and have a spending plan that might really be sustained by future Congresses so that we can be on a path that really gives the result all of us seek--getting the Federal budget deficit under control. That is in our common interest. It is in our country's interest. It is what we ought to do. I will just close by saying I will oppose the conference report on the budget resolution. I think it sets in motion another partisan political war over budget priorities and contains misguided priorities. As I indicated earlier, I think it is the same song, second verse, of what we saw last year--very little difference if you compare it on a 7- year basis to what was offered by the majority last year and what is being offered this year. I close by saying, there is another way. There is another way different from what the President has proposed and different from what the Republican majority has given us in this budget resolution; that is, the centrist plan that got 46 votes here on the floor of the Senate just a few weeks ago. Twenty-four Democrats voted for that plan and 22 Republicans voted for it, even though the leadership on both sides were opposed to it. I think that sends a signal that we were on the right path. I would be the first to assert that it is not a perfect plan. It was the product of compromise. But it was the product of bipartisan work-- the only place where there has been a successful effort to reach across the aisle to try to bring agreement and closure to a plan that would really put us on the path to serious deficit reduction, and not just deficit reduction until 2002, but deficit reduction beyond that time. As I said earlier, that plan is not a balanced budget plan either because, as I have indicated, of the use of Social Security surpluses. Mr. President, I hope that before this year is over we can go back to a process of bipartisanship, of reaching out and working together to achieve a result that is important for our country. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague from North Dakota, who has spoken clearly and well on the basic point that none of these plans is a truly balanced budget. One of the most frustrating things I have felt during our discussions--about what is a balanced budget and what is not a balanced budget--is that somehow when we get inside this Chamber, our financial common sense goes right out the window. I say that because I come from a financial background. My colleague who just spoke from North Dakota has a financial background. Frankly, Mr. President, if we were in any financial institution and said we were balancing the budget, when in part what we were doing was taking the retirement funds of our employees and throwing those into the pot, we would be laughed out of the room. Mr. President, that is not a balanced budget. The Chair knows that. I think every Senator in this room knows that. That is not a balanced budget. In fact, this budget shows a $103 billion deficit in the year 2002 if we are to exclude Social Security surpluses. Of course, we have to exclude them if we are going to be basing our determinations on honest accounting and on the law. That is not a balanced budget. I would point out that last year I offered the only plan that did balance the budget without counting Social Security surpluses. That was the fair share plan, and it got 39 votes here in the U.S. Senate. I think in the interest of honest disclosure, we have to acknowledge the President's plan is not truly a balanced budget plan. The Republican plan is not truly a balanced budget plan. In fact, the centrist coalition, which I was a part of, did not produce a truly balanced budget plan. All of them were significant deficit reduction plans, but none of them achieve a truly balanced budget. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to talk about the budget before the Senate. I believe the most important work that any Congress does is its determinations on the budget, because that determines where the nation's resources are going to go for the next year, and beyond. Mr. President, yesterday was a remarkable moment in this Chamber. Senator Dole, who has been here in the U.S. Senate for 27 years, retired and left this Chamber to pursue his candidacy for the Presidency of the United States. Yesterday, when he stood in the well and at the majority leader's desk and gave his final farewell address to the Members, I was struck when he talked about the things that he was most proud of, the things that he had done here that he will remember and be proud of. What did he talk about? He talked about a series of legislative accomplishments that were all bipartisan in nature. He talked about working across the gap between Republicans and Democrats, working across the aisle to accomplish things that were important for our country. Mr. President, I think all of us know, in our heart of hearts, when this institution works best, it works in a bipartisan way to achieve legislative advances for the American people that we are all sent here to represent. Mr. President, it was that sense of bipartisanship that was palpable in this Chamber yesterday, but that is so lacking in this budget proposal before the Senate today. This is the same song, second verse, of a Republican budget plan that was offered last year and was vetoed by the President. There is very little difference. It is rewrapped with new packaging, but if you open up the package and look at what is inside, you find there is very little difference between what the Republican majority offered last year and what they are offering to us this year. The press has reported, and reported widely, this is a kinder, gentler Republican budget. Frankly, they have been fooled, because this has gone from being a 7-year budget plan to a 6-year plan. They are comparing last year's 7-year plan to this year's 6-year plan, so all of a sudden the numbers look better. Mr. President, that is not a fair comparison. You have to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, a 7-year plan to a 7-year plan, not a 6-year plan to a 7-year plan. If one does that, you find there is almost no change. Yogi Berra said, ``Deja vu all over again.'' Mr. President, let's look at a real comparison, a 7-year comparison, to what the majority offered just last year and what they are offering us this year. On Medicare last year, they offered $226.8 billion in cuts over 7 years. This year, if you adjust their 6-year plan to a 7- year plan, it is $228 billion of cuts in Medicare. Very little difference. On Medicaid, last year it was $132.6 billion in cuts; this year it is $106 billion. On welfare last year, the Republican plan was $65.6 billion; this year, they have actually increased the cuts, if it is over a 7-year period, to $66.7 billion. Last year, on the earned-income tax credit, a provision that will increase the taxes for moderate-income Americans who work, they are actually going to increase those folks' taxes, $21.2 billion in last year's plan; they have taken $1 billion off this year, and it is a $20 billion increase. Tax breaks, last year, the plan was $246.7 billion over 7 years; this year, on a fair comparison, it is $220.4 billion. Very little change. Mr. President, I oppose this budget resolution. I do not think it is bipartisan. I do not think it represents the kind of settlement between the two sides that can be sustained. If we are serious about reducing the budget deficit and getting our fiscal house in order, we know there is only one way to accomplish that goal. We must march together, Republicans and Democrats, so we can actually enact into law what we propose here on the floor of this Chamber. (Mr. GREGG assumed the chair.)

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. CONRAD. Yes.

Mr. CONRAD. I think there is not only virtue in it, but it is required that we do it because the hard reality in this town is that while it is true we have been talking Social Security surpluses--about $500 billion so far--this is the tip of the iceberg. We are about to run, over the next 15 years, $2 trillion in Social Security surpluses, and we need every dime of it to be ready for when the baby boomers retire. If we spent it all, squandered every penny, if we deluded ourselves by passing a phony balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and the baby boomers retire and they go to the cupboard and the cupboard is bare, we are going to have some mighty angry folks in this country, and they are going to ask some pretty tough questions. They are going to ask, ``Where did the money go? I thought you balanced the budget and secured the solvency of the Social Security System.'' Mr. President, the hard reality is that we have been doing something wrong and we have to stop it to prepare for the future. We have to get ready for when the baby boom generation retires. The only way we can do that is to balance the budget and do it honestly, without counting Social Security surpluses. To put it into the Constitution of the United States, to put a definition in the Constitution of the United States that a balanced budget includes raiding and looting the Social Security trust funds is just profoundly wrong. There is no principle in that.

Mr. CONRAD. I always hesitate to characterize the statements or motivations of others. But I will simply say this. It matters a lot what we do here. You know, sometimes the actions in this Chamber do not matter and the actions in the other Chamber do not matter much. This action matters a lot. Here is why it matters. For those who say, ``Well, we have been doing that; we have been taking Social Security surpluses, so what does it matter that we keep on doing it?'' The reason it matters is because, back in 1983, we saw we were headed for a cliff, for a circumstance in which the Social Security system would be broke. So Congress took action. Congress put into place a system that would assure Social Security surpluses so we would be prepared for when the baby boom generation started to retire. We know now that we have a short period of time to prepare for when those baby boomers start to retire. The idea is to run surpluses to get ready for when those baby boomers have retired and have 48 million people on the system instead of 24 million, because if we do not have surpluses, we will have to have either an 82-percent tax rate in this country, or a one-third cut in all benefits. Does anybody believe we are going to have an 82-percent tax rate? I do not. That means we are going to have some dramatic cuts in benefits which people have paid into to secure for themselves. So the money is not available.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for talking about the balanced budget amendment that will be offered this week and opening the discussion about what are we really doing here. I think this is one of the most misunderstood discussions in the United States. When we hear people talking about a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the first question we ought to ask is, what budget is being balanced? It is very easy to talk around this town about balancing the budget. What one finds is there are not many folks who are willing to actually sit down and put their name next to a budget that does, in fact, balance. What we have over the time I have been in Congress and for the time before I came to Congress, a series of folks who are willing to stand up and say, ``I am for Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. That is a formula that will balance the budget.'' Or, ``I am for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution,'' without a plan attached to it and without talking very clearly about what budget they are balancing. I hope people are paying attention because I will give them precisely what this balanced budget talks about. It says in section 7: ``Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.'' That is what is included in this amendment. Do you know what this means, colleagues and people who are listening around the country? This means you are including all of the receipts and all of the expenditures of the Social Security system. Social Security is not contributing to the deficit. It is not contributing to the debt. Social Security is in surplus. In 1997, for fiscal year 1997, the most recent estimate is that Social Security will contribute $72 billion of surplus--of surplus. Yet this definition would have us include in the determination of a balanced budget all of the Social Security surplus used between now and the year 2002. Mr. President, that is $525 billion being thrown into the pot to call it a balanced budget. What a fraud. That is not a balanced budget. There is not a company in America that would take the retirement funds of its employees and throw those into the pot and call it balancing their company's budget. In fact, if anybody attempted to do that they would be on their way to a Federal institution and it would not be the U.S. Congress. They would be on their way to a Federal penitentiary because that is a violation of Federal law. It is a violation of Federal law to loot the trust funds of employees who are going to retire in order to balance a company's budget. Mr. President, that is precisely what is being proposed as a constitutional amendment. Mr. President, let me say it as clearly as I can. We are talking about enshrining a principle and a policy in the Constitution of the United States that defines a balanced budget as one that uses Social Security trust fund surpluses to achieve balance. What could be more wrong? What could be more fraudulent? What could be a greater violation of the trust of the people that sent us here than to put into the Constitution of the United States, the organic law of this country, a definition of a balanced budget that assumes you raid and loot trust funds in order to achieve balance? Mr. President, I would not vote for that proposition under any circumstances, under any circumstances. I would not vote for that if my life were threatened because that is a fundamental violation of any precept of honesty. Mr. President, some will say ``Senator, we are engaged in that process now. We loot the Social Security trust funds every year and call it part of the unified budget.'' Mr. President, that is exactly right. That is what we are doing. That does not make it right. We are taking Social Security surpluses and counting them when we report on the deficit of the United States because even though the law says that is not to be done, people put all the funds into one pot. As this chart shows--which I call the budget teakettle of America--it shows the revenues that go into that teakettle. The individual income taxes make up 45 percent of the revenue, Social Security taxes make up 37 percent, corporate income taxes, 10 percent, other taxes 8 percent. That is the money that goes in. The spending that comes out, Social Security is 22 percent, interest on the debt is 16 percent, defense is 16 percent, Medicare is 14 percent, Medicaid is 7 percent, and all other spending is 25 percent. This shows precisely that is happening. All the money goes into one pot comes out of that same pot. That is the budget they are talking about balancing under this balanced budget amendment. The problem with that is Social Security is in surplus by $70 billion. What they are saying is they will take every single penny of Social Security surplus, throw that into the pot, and call it a balanced budget. That is not a balanced budget. That is an absolute fraud. That is not a balanced budget. I have a financial background. Before I came here I was the tax commissioner of the State of North Dakota. I have a master's in business administration. Any class for anybody in business school, if you would have said you will take the retirement funds of your employees and throw those into the pot to call it a balanced budget, you would be laughed out of the class if you proposed such a thing. That is the balanced budget proposal that will be before this body. It is not, by any serious definition, a balanced budget. The only way one could claim a balanced budget would be to take out the trust funds from the calculation. In fact, that is what the law requires. The law says specifically you are not to count Social Security surpluses in making a determination, whether or not you have balanced the budget. We passed that law right here. The Senators overwhelmingly said it is not honest, it is not correct, to use Social Security surpluses to determine whether or not you have balanced the budget. Mr. President, all of us have been part of budget plans this year. We have had a Republican balanced budget plan. We have had the President's balanced budget plan. I have been part of a group called the centrist coalition, 22 Senators--11 Democrats and 11 Republicans--who have put together a plan. As I said in the Budget Committee, if we are going to be honest with each other and honest with the American people, none of those is a balanced budget plan. Each of them assumes the use of Social Security trust funds to balance by the year 2002. That is not a balanced budget. In fact, last year I offered the Fair Share Balanced Budget Plan, the only plan that has been offered here that balances without using Social Security surpluses. Mr. President, I recognize that makes it more difficult to achieve balance, but it is the only honest way to get the job done. Mr. President, I am going to oppose, with every fiber in my being, putting into the Constitution of the United States--let us think a minute about what we are talking about here. Let us think about what we are talking about. We are not talking about passing a budget plan. We are not talking about passing a statute. We are talking about changing the organic law of this country. We are talking about changing the document that has made this country the greatest one in human history. We are talking about changing the document that has provided a protection and a series of guarantees to the American people, unrivaled in world history. We are talking about putting the definition of a balanced budget in that document that says, yes, it is OK to go loot and raid trust funds to call it a balanced budget. I will tell you, I really have to think, what would Benjamin Franklin think of that? What would Thomas Jefferson think of that? What would George Washington think of that? I do not think that would be a very proud moment in America's history--to enshrine in the Constitution of the United States the definition of a balanced budget that includes raiding every trust fund in sight in order to achieve balance. Mr. President, that cannot be the outcome here.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, on a different matter, on Friday last, I learned that the Republicans on the House side have now broken the promise to farmers contained in the most recent farm bill. Mr. President, I think everyone in this Chamber remembers that America's farmers were told that if you accept this new farm bill that has sharply declining payments in it and has no safety net for when prices plunge, you will at least be assured that for the 7 years of this farm bill the payments contained in that will be guaranteed. In fact, the proponents of the so-called Freedom to Farm Act told the American farm producers that this is like a contract. In fact, they related it to the Conservation Reserve Program contracts. They said, ``Farmers, at least you will be assured you are going to get payments of these amounts.'' Mr. President, last week, the House Appropriations subcommittee broke the promise, violated the pledge, and said to the American farmers that that was all a trick. We promised you a contract, but we are breaking the contract before the ink is even dry. The farm bill has just been signed into law, and already you might as well throw it out the window because the fundamental pledge and promise has turned out to be a hoax. Not a word of truth is in it because they have cut the transition payments before farmers have even received one--the payments that were supposed to be inviolate, the payments that were supposed to be guaranteed, the payments that were supposed to be a contract. It turns out that they have no guarantee attached to them at all. There is no contract. Farmers are being asked right now to sign up, put their name on the line. But they do not know what they are signing up to because it is very clear from the action taken in the House Appropriations Committee that they can cut the funding for those transition payments any time, in any amount, in any way they want. It does not have to be 7 years of payments; it could be 3. In the first 3 years, they could cut them 50 percent, or they could cut them 80 percent. There is no contract here. There is no commitment here. There is no guarantee here. All there is is a betrayal, a betrayal of the farmers who trusted those who promoted this approach, who were told, and told repeatedly, that these are sharply declining payments, but at least you can be assured you will be getting what the formula provides over the next 7 years. Now we know none of it is true. Mr. President, I think those who promoted the Freedom to Farm Act on the basis that it was a guarantee ought to apologize to America's producers. I think they ought to stand up and admit that there are not contract payments here. There is nothing here that is assured. They have sold farmers a pig in a poke. That, I think, was one of the most disappointing betrayals that I have seen in the 10 years I have been in the U.S. Senate; if there ever was a circumstance in which it was absolutely clear what the promise was--with respect to the so-called Freedom to Farm Program. During debate on the farm bill, Republican Senator after Republican Senator stood on this floor in this Chamber and promoted the bill based on these payment guarantees. Farmers will have certainty. Payments will be guaranteed. Farmers will know how much money they will have to work with each year, they said. Now the truth is out. Freedom to Farm is a fraud. There is no contract. There is no guarantee. Mr. President, unfortunately, they did not stop. They did not stop in the House Agriculture Committee with breaking the promise on transition payments. They then, after promising a market-based farm program, announced an unprecedented move to put a cap on sugarcane prices at 21.2 cents a pound--unprecedented. This is a market-oriented bill, and farmers are told you will get the benefits of the market. Well, it is a one-way benefit. You get the benefit when prices are going down. When the prices start going up, we are going to put a cap on them. That is an interesting idea of market orientation. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to the men and women of the University of North Dakota Flying Team, who recently captured their third consecutive national championship at the National Intercollegiate Flying Association's 48th annual Safety and Flight Evaluation Conference in Daytona Beach, FL. The championship places an emphasis on safety, and is comprised of nine different events that test a variety of aviation skills, both on the ground and in the air. In addition to scoring an overall win, UND was first in combined scoring for the five ground events, and second in the Judges Trophy, which is awarded on the basis of a team's overall depth. A national championship is clearly a tremendous accomplishment, and I commend each and every member of the team. Although a significant achievement, I want my colleagues to know that this is only the most recent triumph for what has been without question the most successful NIFA team in the country. This year's national championship is the UND Flying Team's tenth in the last twelve years, and the fifth for retiring team coach John Bridewell. This victory was a team effort from start to finish, but several individuals deserve special recognition. Mike Smieja placed first in Aircraft Recognition, the fourth time he has won that event at the national tournament. Larry Freer was another repeat winner, taking first place in Simulated Comprehensive Aircraft Navigation (SCAN) for the second consecutive year. Freer also placed seventh in Simulator Flying. Robert Shaw captured second place in Computer Accuracy, and Susan Bailey took home second place in the message drop, in her very first competition. This victory and the women and men who made it possible are a credit to the university and UND's Center for Aerospace Sciences, an internationally recognized center for aerospace learning. I am proud of every member of the team, and offer special congratulations to coach Bridewell, who is ending his distinguished tenure with yet another championship. Every member of the team and coaching staff deserve recognition, and I am pleased to submit a complete list for the Record. The list follows: 1996 UND Flying Team Team Members: Bill Bailey (senior, Rogers, MN), Susan Bailey (sophomore, Sutton, ND), Shannon Bengeyfield (sophomore, Dillon, MT), Chris Farmer (co-captain, senior, Bluefield, WV), Larry Freer (junior, West Palm Beach, FL), Mike Galante (co-captain, senior, Champlin, MN), Brian Jackson (junior, Sioux Falls, SD), Joshua Kendrick (senior, Lino Lakes, MN), Aleah Longshore (sophomore, Settler, Alberta, Canada), Robert Shaw (senior, Naperville, IL), Mike Smieja (senior, Wells, MN), Juliana Stops (sophomore, Buffalo Grove, IL), and Chris VanGinkel (senior, Maurice, IA). Coach: John Bridewell. Assistant Coaches: Drew Avery, Spencer Henderson, Jim Higgins, Mark Johnson, and Al Skramstad. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair. The Senator from Missouri is recognized. (The remarks of Mr. Bond pertaining to the introduction of S. 1816 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the ranking member, the Senator from Nebraska. I must say that I was surprised to see the Senator from Texas out once again railing against the Democrats in the last package that we passed, saying that it was just a tax package. It is very interesting. The Senator from Texas is not talking much these days about deficits. He is not talking about that much anymore. He is not talking much about debt anymore because we are 6 months away from an election. The Republicans are down by double digits in the polls. And so out comes the tax bogeyman. Let us haul that one out because that one seems to work pretty well. Let us run out the tax bogeyman. Let us run him around the track a few times. Mr. President, let us read the Record. First of all, the biggest tax increase occurred on their watch. They controlled the White House. They controlled the U.S. Senate. They passed the biggest tax increase. Why did they do it? Because the deficits were skyrocketing. They were out of control. So they took action. In 1993, the Democrats, when it was on our watch--we controlled the White House, we controlled the Senate, and we controlled the House--we took action. We can be proud of the action we took because we reduced these deficits. We have reduced them sharply. Let us just look at the record. Mr. President, this compares the records of President Clinton, President Bush, and President Reagan. This is what has happened to the deficits under these three Presidents. These are the deficits in billions of dollars starting in 1980. Ronald Reagan was elected. The deficit was about $70 billion a year. Ronald Reagan took office. By the way, it was not just Republican control of the White House; the Republicans controlled this body as well. They controlled the U.S. Senate, and they had effective control of the U.S. House of Representatives. Because everyone remembers what budgets passed in 1981, in 1982, in 1983, it was boll weevil Democrats joining with the Republican minority in the House, joining with the Senate majority, the Republican majority in the Senate, and a Republican President. What happened? Here is the record on deficits. The deficits exploded. They exploded under this theory of supply-side economics. They exploded under this notion that you can just cut taxes and not cut spending, and that somehow it is all going to add up. The deficits went to over $200 billion a year. Then, we see that we had the beginning of the Bush administration, and again deficits took off. This time they reached $290 billion a year. That is what the deficit was when Bill Clinton came into office. Bill Clinton inherited a $290 billion budget deficit. Look at the performance based on a plan that we passed in 1993 without a single Republican vote. Not one. Not one. The deficit has gone down each and every year. This morning we were told the deficit for this year will probably come in at less than $130 billion, a dramatic reduction in the budget deficit, in part because of economic recovery and in part because of the plan that we passed in 1993. We had the courage to stand up and do what needed to be done. Mr. President, more needs to be done. It is not going to happen with this kind of running out and saying, well, we can just cut all the revenue of the Federal Government and somehow it will all add up. We tried that before. It failed, and it failed miserably. Debt, deficits and decline, that is the direction our friends on the other side, at least some of them, seem to be willing to take us. Mr. President, we should never ever go back to that policy of debt, deficits and decline. That way lies ruination. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 4007 Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.