Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. That is my understanding as well.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, might I just conclude by also thanking Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond for the great assistance they provided as well. We contacted them with the problem we were facing, as well as the chairman and the ranking member, and all of these Senators have really pitched in, which we deeply appreciate. I would also like to thank Senator Gorton, as chairman of the Interior subcommittee, who also was very helpful. Again, all of our colleagues have really pitched in and recognized an emergency situation. I yield the floor. Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague, Senator Dorgan. I rise today to join him in offering these amendments to cope with an emergency situation that exists in our State. In the last 2 years, Devils Lake has risen by 13 feet. It is now at a 120-year high. The National Weather Service has just informed us, on the first of this month, that they anticipate the lake will rise another 2\1/2\ or 3 feet this year. This is a tragedy and a disaster of staggering proportions. The lake has doubled in surface area in the last 2 years. It is threatening communities. It is threatening farmland. It is threatening roads. It is an economic catastrophe in this part of North Dakota. We have worked together with FEMA, with the Corps of Engineers, and other relevant Federal agencies to develop a strategy and plan to cope with this crisis. Last week we asked the Appropriations Committee to give special consideration, in light of the new forecast which was just out as to the lake level rises that we could expect this year, to respond on an emergency basis. The Appropriations Committee has responded, and I want to thank personally the chairman of the committee, Senator Hatfield, for his prompt and sensitive response. I also thank Senator Byrd for his assistance. Because, without their help, we would face $50 million of additional damages this year. It makes no sense not to take steps now to avert the tragedy that is coming. We can save a lot of money by operating on the front end rather than just waiting to clean up the mess on the back end. So, I again thank especially the chairman of this committee for his foresight and for his willingness to respond to what is clearly a crisis. I also thank the other members of the committee for recognizing the extreme nature of this emergency. I also thank my colleague for all of the hard work that has gone into putting together something that makes sense, with the Army Corps of Engineers, with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and others. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I rise to commend the work of North Dakota State University's Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute. The institute is a great asset to North Dakota and other States in the surrounding region and an invaluable resource and leader in transportation research. In early January the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council held its 75th annual meeting in Washington. This meeting brought together more than 3,000 participants from Federal and State Governments, universities, and the private sector. The participants discussed scientific, engineering, and technological questions related to highways and bridges. The 5-day conference was a success, in part because of a telecommunications system operated by North Dakota State University. Eleven conference sessions with almost 150 panelists were delivered by videoconference to the State departments of transportation in 6 States: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. The teleconference was accomplished through the use of the TEL8 Center at North Dakota State University, in cooperation with the West Virginia Teleconferencing Network. TEL8 is a digital, 2-way, interactive, satellite-based telecommunications system. It links 10 sites in 6 States, and is dedicated to meeting transportation needs in the region. The system is operated by the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute at North Dakota State University. The system was made possible as a result of the University Transportation Centers Program sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation. More than 300 people located more than 1,000 miles from Washington were able to participate in the conference through the telecommunications system. Not only were they able to hear the presentations, but they had the opportunity to make comments and engage in question-and-answer periods. Robert E. Skinner, Executive Director of the Transportation Research Board, said recently: Because of busy schedules and limited travel funds, many transportation professionals are unable to participate at TRB's annual meeting. TEL8 showed that technology can help overcome these barriers and provide a means for real-time participation at remote locations. We hear much these days about the promise of telecommunications and how technology is changing our lives. We hear discussions about the speed of transmissions, interactions, savings of time and travel costs, and convenience. North Dakota State University is doing more than talking about the promise of telecommunications, Mr. President. Through the TEL8 system, NDSU is making the promise of telecommunications a reality today. Telecommunications activities are increasingly important throughout our Nation, particularly in rural States such as mine. The TEL8 system is also used for professional training and support and for the delivery of courses relevant to transportation. NDSU is exploring additional ways to use the system for distance learning and service-related activities. I am proud of North Dakota State University's involvement and foresight in this important field. I appreciate this opportunity to bring it to the attention of my colleagues.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask for 1 additional minute.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the leader, and I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this has been a difficult and contentious debate, one that has gone on now since 1995 to 1996. We stand on a precipice. The question is: What direction will we take? I very much fear that the so- called freedom-to-farm formulation will take literally hundreds of thousands of farmers right over the cliff. I believe that to be the case because this is a radical change in farm policy. It says we are going to make fixed and declining payments to farmers over a 7-year period and no one knows what comes next. Mr. President, it does not provide the kind of price support in a low-price year that is critically important to preventing the loss of literally tens of thousands of family farmers. That is right at the heart of this question and this debate. Do we say to farmers, We make a payment to you even when prices are good, but there is no price protection when prices fall through the floor, no additional price protection? Mr. President, I think that is a profound mistake. I think we have an opportunity to take the best of the various proposals that are on the table and to have a plan that provides some fixed payments up front to help farmers with cash flow, to especially help them with the repayment of advanced deficiency payments from last year, but to also put into law another form of payment that takes note of reduction in prices and reduction in yield. That is what the alternative does that is before us. Mr. President, for decades we have sought to protect farmers, to buffer farmers from dramatic swings in commodity prices. Under the Republican plan, the farmers are left swinging. Farmers will no longer be protected in low price years. The safety net on which farmers have relied will be torn. I do not think that is good policy. I do not think it makes sense. I believe it will generate opposition to any future farm programs. Mr. President, our plan offers a combination of the guaranteed payment up front and price protection and protection against yields that are reduced as a result of natural disaster. Our plan is a compromise. Our plan is a compromise which I think many on both sides of the aisle could accept. It also is something that I think can stand the test of time. One of the great problems we have here is passing policies that can be sustained. The pure freedom-to-farm policy is not one, in my judgment, that will stand the test of time. According to North Dakota State University, net farm income in North Dakota under the pure freedom-to-farm will drop 50 percent from the year 1995 to 2001.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, one of the most frequently heard criticisms of Federal farm programs is that farmers are paid not to farm, not to plant anything. Mr. President, that has not been the case under recent farm law. But if the Dorgan amendment does not pass, it will become the case. In fact, we will have circumstances in which farmers will be paid not to plant, not to farm, not to produce. Mr. President, I do not think there will be much support in the United States for a program that pays people not to do something, not to do anything. So I hope my colleagues will favor this amendment and vote for it.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I will just conclude with an example. I have looked at a typical North Dakota farm with about 1,000 acres of wheat under normal production swings in the Congressional Budget Office's expected price projections for 1996 to 2002. This typical farm will receive 43 percent less under freedom-to-farm than under our plan; $22,000 under the Family Farm Protection Act, and $15,000 under freedom to farm. Our plan stands behind the farmers and beside the farmers. Their plan steps aside. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate will vote today on final passage of S. 652, the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995--one of the most important bills to be considered by the 104th Congress. While there are many issues that have been addressed in this legislation, most notably to ensure that there is competition among the telecommunications technologies of the 21st century, I have been particularly concerned about one important issue associated with telecommunications reform-- the impact of television programming on our children, and the importance of ensuring that parents have information and the technology necessary to make an informed decision about television programming for their children. In this regard, I am very pleased that conferees have agreed to accept the Parental Choice in Television Programming provisions--the V- chip--that was adopted by both the House of Representatives and Senate by overwhelming margins during consideration of S. 652 and H.R. 1555 last summer. The importance of this parental choice technology for parents was underscored by President Clinton last week in his State of the Union Message to the Nation. In that message, the President called on Congress to pass the V-chip requirement in S. 652 that would permit parents to screen out television programming inappropriate for children. The President also called on the entertainment media to create movies, CD's, and television programming that members of the entertainment community would want their children to view. He further challenged the broadcast industry to help parents protect their children by providing families with more information about TV programming through improved advisories or rating system. To accomplish this goal, the President invited leaders of the major entertainment media to the White House later this month to discuss and work on ways to improve what children view in entertainment programming. Mr. President, I commend President Clinton for strongly endorsing the V-chip in his State of the Union Message, as well as for his leadership on behalf of parental choice chip technology during consideration of telecommunications reform legislation in the Senate and House. President Clinton remarked that the V-chip represents a reasonable solution--not censorship--to the concerns of parents who have little control over the television programming that is available to their children, and want more information on the content of this programming. The President said, ``when parents control what their children see, that's not censorship. That's enabling parents to assume more responsibility for their children's upbringing''. I agree with President Clinton. Regrettably, the reaction of the broadcast media to President Clinton's support for the V-chip technology and appeal to the media to work together to make the V-chip technology effective, has not been encouraging. Despite broad public support among parents, the medical community, educators and other children advocates for this technology, and successful tests of this technology in Canada, broadcasters say the V-chip proposal is unworkable, and unconstitutional on free-speech grounds. According to press reports, the broadcasters intend to oppose the V-chip in court. I believe this decision is unfortunate--children will be the losers if this technology does not become available to parents. Unfortunately, many in the television broadcast industry continue to misrepresent the provisions adopted in the conference agreement to S. 652. As adopted in the conference report (Section 551--Parental Choice in Television Programming), manufacturers of television sets (13 inches or larger), both domestic and foreign, would be required to install technology--the V-chip--that would allow parents to block the display of programming with a common rating. The Federal Communications Commission, following consultation with the electronics industry, would determine a date for the implementation of this provision. There is also a provision under section 551 that would prohibit the shipping of television sets in interstate commerce that do not meet the requirements for the manufacture of television sets with blocking technology. These are the only mandates under section 551. To make the parental choice chip technology an effective tool for parents, section 551 calls on television broadcasters, cable operators, and other video programmers to work with concerned interest groups, including parents, over a 12-month period--before any of the provisions of section 551 become effective--to voluntarily develop rules for rating television programming with violent, sexual, or other indecent content. Broadcasters and cable operators during this same period would also be encouraged to voluntarily develop rules for the transmission of signals encoding the ratings that would block certain television programming. Effective voluntary rating systems have already been developed for television programming in Canada. In addition, as I noted during the telecommunications debate last summer, the Recreational Software Advisory Council and the Interactive Digital Software Association on behalf of video game manufacturers have voluntarily adopted a rating system that is included with most video games sold in the United States. A voluntary rating system is workable. Mr. President, following the 12-month period from the date of enactment of S. 652, if the television broadcasters, cable operators have not taken the opportunity to voluntarily develop a rating system to guide parents, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would be authorized to establish an advisory committee to develop recommendations and guidelines for the identification and rating of television programming. The advisory committee would include industry representatives, parents, and public interest groups. Any guidelines or recommendations established by the advisory committee could serve as a model for the television broadcast industry in the development of a rating system. Section 551 does not mandate a government rating system, or that a program be rated if a broadcaster refuses to rate programming. Nor does this legislation establish a government entity to rate television programming. There is also no authority or suggestion to rate or identify in any way religious or political programming. No penalties are established by this provision if a television broadcaster's cable operator refuses to develop ratings, or apply whatever ratings or identification system is established voluntarily, or by the advisory committee under the FCC. The development of any rating or other television program identification is entirely voluntary--the effectiveness of the V-chip technology as an aid for parents rests with television broadcasters and cable operators, not the Federal Government. Mr. President, 90 percent of the public supports the installation of the V-chip on television sets--parents want more information on the contents of television programming, and to be able to block that programming if they consider it inappropriate for children. They should have that right. In Canada, recent trials of V-chip technology that were conducted in Toronto and other communities have shown that the V- chip is popular, and workable. More than 80 percent of the families that participated in the demonstration felt positively toward the V- chip, and more than 70 percent thought the system effective and should be maintained. I urge television broadcasters, cable operators, and other video programmers to take advantage of the 12-month period provided under section 551 to voluntarily develop an identification or rating system that will help parents to make informed decisions about television programming that is appropriate for children. I hope that media executives will view the upcoming White House meeting on violence and children's programming as an opportunity for constructive dialog on this important issue for children, and to make this new parental choice technology an effective tool for parents and families. The time has come to work together. I applaud House and Senate conferees on S. 652 for including the V- chip provisions in the final conference agreement. I also want to express my appreciation to Senator Hollings for his leadership on behalf of children's television programming, and for his strong support of the V-chip provision in conference. I urge my colleagues to lend their strong support for passage of this important telecommunications reform conference report.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from Kentucky. Mr. President, the Senator from Kansas indicated that the President had vetoed the farm bill. I ask the Senator from Kentucky, is not it a more accurate description that the President vetoed what we call reconciliation which contained the farm bill and which contained a lot more than the farm bill? It had $270 billion of cuts to Medicare, $182 billion of cuts to Medicaid, and a $245 billion tax reduction aimed disproportionately to the wealthiest among us. Is it not the case that that bill had lots of things in it other than the farm bill?

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Kentucky. Is it not also the case that the farm bill part of it was a farm bill that many in farm country did not want? It cut farm programs $12 billion; it meant a reduction in farm income of about 40 percent. And so I remember being at a meeting at the White House with people from across my State urging the President to veto the whole reconciliation bill just because of the farm bill provision.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. CONRAD. I will conclude. I know my colleague, the Senator from Iowa, is waiting patiently.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I conclude by saying I hope very much that we can finish the farm bill matter by Tuesday of next week. I would have hoped we could have gotten it done today. It was not possible. But it is better to wait a few days and get it right than pass a farm bill that greased the skids from under farm producers and eliminate a program for the future. That is precisely what this Chamber was faced with today, a plan to eliminate a farm program over time, a plan that would have guaranteed the elimination of farm programs because I believe there would have been a scandal when people discovered farmers were getting large Government payments even when they were having high income as a result of high prices that we are experiencing currently. The key is to have protection for farmers in low price years. That is when they need protection. I think it is critically important we reach an agreement that provides a safety net in low price years and that also recognizes many farmers are hard-pressed by cash-flow this year because of the requirement to pay back advance deficiencies from last year. I am hopeful we can achieve an agreement between the two sides that bridges those differences and achieves a settlement that is fair for American farmers, fair for the American taxpayers and that achieves a result that ensures we can pass farm legislation for the future. I likened earlier today the proposal we had to the Reverend Jim Jones when he handed out the Kool-Aid that was laced with poison. It tasted good going down. When people drank it, they were dead. Mr. President, there is no reason for us to take that kind of action. It is worth it to take a few extra days to get it right. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from the State of Iowa. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to defeat cloture so that we can come together in a bipartisan way to write a farm program that makes sense for the future. Mr. President, this could be a very dark day for farmers, for their families, and the future of American agriculture, because--make no mistake--if the so-called freedom-to-farm legislation is passed, it will be the death knell for farm programs in this country. I have just come from my office and talked to a farmer who was urging me to vote for freedom to farm. He told me, ``Senator, we need the money and we know that the design of this program is to phase out farm program payments and kill the underlying law that allows us to have a farm program for the future.'' He said, ``Senator, we know you will not let us down in the future.'' Mr. President, I am just saying to that farmer that that is not what this plan is all about. They are making transition payments. You are getting that money for a reason. The reason is that they then ratchet them down and eliminate them and kill the permanent authority to have a farm program. I am saying to them, despite the best efforts we might make in the future, this will be the end, make no mistake about it. This will be the end. I told him that it is a little like the Rev. Jim Jones, who had all of his followers drink the Kool-Aid that was laced with poison, and then they died. I said it is a little like Reverend Jones and that Kool-Aid. It tastes good going down--just like those couple of years of initial payments look good--but it will kill you. There is not a farmer I know that does not realize that sometimes prices are high and sometimes they are low. The purpose of a farm program is to be there as a safety net when prices are low. This program provides a payment, regardless of what the price is. Mr. President, it is a scandal waiting to happen. Wait until ``60 Minutes'' gets a hold of this one. In the high-priced years, farmers are making good money, and, in addition, they get a payment from the Government. I do not think so, Mr. President. I think it would be a profound mistake, and it would kill farm programs and reduce, according to the State university in North Dakota, farm income by 30 percent. Mr. President, I yield the floor so that my colleague might have a chance to speak as well.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise in support of a bill that would authorize the conveyance of the William Langer Jewel Bearing Plant from the General Services Administration to the Job Development Authority of the city of Rolla, ND. The facility provides substantial employment for an economically disadvantaged part of my State. Of the plant's 110 employees, about 60 percent are Native American. The Turtle Mountain Reservation, local businesses, and State officials are all working together to ensure the success of the Plant and its growth as a viable enterprise. Residents of Rolla have fully embraced the plan to transfer the plant over to the local Job Development Authority. Moreover, 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. 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. The General Services Administration, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Department of Defense all report that no federal agency has expressed interest in obtaining the plant. Since local interests cannot afford the original cost of $4.2 million, the provisions of this bill allow the transfer to occur without consideration to help establish a private sector firm that will remain a viable part of the defense industrial base. The future of the plant depends on its ability to compete as a commercial manufacturer. This bill will enable the plant to remain a viable economic enterprise as it makes this transition to the private sector. I ask my colleagues to support this bill. It relieves the Federal Government of the burden of a facility it no longer needs, while aiding a community that needs the economic activity created by the facility.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue of extreme important to my State of North Dakota and to this Nation's energy security. The issue is one currently before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC], and involves the fate of a unique energy project in North Dakota--the Great Plains Coal Gasification Plant located near Beulah, ND. The gasification plant converts abundant lignite coal into clean-burning synthetic natural gas. It is the only commercial-scale plant of its kind that produces synthetic natural gas from coal in the world. FERC must decide whether to approve certain negotiated settlement agreements between Dakota Gasification Company [DGC], owner of the synfuels plant, and three interstate pipeline companies which purchase the synthetic natural gas produced by the plant. Additionally, DGC reached an agreement with the Department of Energy [DOE] which is contingent on FERC approval of the agreements between DGC and the pipelines. Late last month, an administrative law judge at FERC issued a decision which could have the impact of closing the project. The judge invalidated three of the four settlements between DGC and the pipelines. Ironically, the fourth was approved by FERC in January 1995--1 year ago. Mr. President, I hope the FERC commissioners weigh very carefully the impact this judge's decision will have on the State of North Dakota, the DOE, and our national energy goals. Closing the synfuels plant would not serve our national energy interests, and would create a serious setback in this country's search for energy independence. The $2 billion Great Plains Gasification Plant was constructed in the early 1980's after DOE guaranteed a $1.5 billion loan for construction of the plant. The DOE loan was made pursuant to the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974. Great Plains is the only project operating today developed pursuant to the act. Additionally, Great Plains is the only project built as a result of the Government's attempts in the late 1970's and early 1980's to demonstrate our ability to achieve energy independence. The synfuels plant was only made possible as a result of the issuance by FERC of its opinion 119 which approved the gas purchase agreements between Great Plains and the four pipeline purchasers. As approved by opinion 119, these gas purchase agreements provide for the sale of synthetic natural gas at prices established by a formula set out in the agreements. In issuing the $1.5 billion loan guarantee, DOE relied on FERC's opinion 119 and the reasonable assumption FERC would stand behind its commitment. Unfortunately, the original project sponsors abandoned the project after it was completed in 1985 in response to sudden changes in global energy prices. DOE assumed operation of the plant, and eventually secured ownership through foreclosure. In 1988, DOE sold the facility to DGC, a subsidiary of Basin Electric Power Cooperative in my State. DOE selected Basin over other bidders because of its commitment to the long-term operation of the project. When Congress authorized DOE to sell the synfuels plant, Congress indicated to the Department that a commitment to the long-term operation of the plant was an important criteria in evaluating bids for the project. In fact, the conference report accompanying Public Law 100-202 states: The managers agree that the Department of Energy should place higher priority on the continued long-term operation of the Great Plains Coal Gasification Plant as part of its divestiture activity. Continued long-term operation is needed to avoid disruptions to the local economy, capture the benefits associates with extended Plant operations and collect emission reduction technology data. That sale also continued the Department's interest in the long-term operation of the plant by including a profit-sharing arrangement between DGC and DOE for the profits from the sale of synthetic natural gas. DGC and DOE reasonably assumed FERC would continue to stand behind opinion 119 when they negotiated the sale of the plant. Following DGC's acquisition of the project, disputes arose regarding the pricing, output, and transportation provisions of the gas purchase agreements. As a result, DGC and DOE filed suit against the pipelines in 1990. Before the dispute went to trial, DOE, DGC, and the pipelines reached settlement agreements in 1994 that are expressly subject to FERC approval. Again, it is worth mentioning that FERC has already approved one of the four settlement agreements. The administrative law judge's decision disapproved the remaining settlements negotiated between DGC and three of the four pipelines, and ruled that the pricing formula in the gas purchase agreements--as approved by opinion 119--should no longer be honored. Additionally, the judge's decision put on hold the agreement reached between DGC and DOE, which is contingent on FERC approval of the agreements between DGC and the pipelines. Finally, the decision retroactively imposed a new pricing scheme and ordered refunds that would total approximately $280 million. If unchanged, this decision would close the Great Plains Gasification Plant. Mr. President, I believe that result would not serve our national energy interests. I urge the FERC commissioners to give this matter their most careful consideration, and give great attention to Congress' public policy objective of continued long-term operation of the synfuels project.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the President. I thank my colleague from North Dakota for his excellent presentation on why it is critically important that we have a farm bill and that we have a set of rules that our farmers know will be in place as they enter into the next crop year. Let me say that I believe the Senator from North Dakota has introduced something, that while not perfect, is something we are going to have to do in terms of extending the current farm bill so that farmers at least know what the rules of the road are going to be for this next crop year. There has been an absolute failure by this Congress to pass farm legislation that could become law. Mr. President, the legislation that my colleague has introduced would dramatically increase the flexibility that farmers have and dramatically improve the competitive position of American farmers. I think that is in everyone's interest. I think the Senator from Iowa is correct when he says that we need to know what farmers can expect. Farmers are right now sitting around their kitchen tables trying to figure out what their strategy for this next year should be, and much is at stake. Their families' livelihoods are at stake. What money the family is going to have for the next year is at stake. Whether or not that farm family is going to be able to meet their bills is at stake. The health of rural economies is at stake. What happens on the Main Streets of every city and town in the heartland of America is at stake. The economic health of an industry that, along with airplanes, is the biggest producer of a trade surplus for America is at stake. An industry that is one of America's very biggest is at stake. Our competitive position in the world is at stake. There is a lot riding on this debate and this discussion. The Senator from Iowa is right: We need a plan. Let me say what we do not need is the plan that the Republican Party has advanced in both the House and the Senate. The Republican proposal was for deep and Draconian cuts in farm programs that would dramatically reduce farm income. That has been their plan. Repeatedly Republicans have called for phasing out farm programs, for eliminating that support mechanism that has been the genius of American farm policy. Mr. President, I believe that represents unilateral disarmament when we are in the midst of a fierce trade fight with other countries who recognize the importance of maintaining their competitive position in agriculture. The last thing we would do in a military confrontation is to engage in unilateral disarmament. Why we would ever do it in a trade fight is beyond me. Make no mistake, we are in a trade fight in agriculture. Europe, which is our biggest competition, is spending three to four times as much as we are spending to support their agricultural producers. Let me repeat that. Europe, our chief competitors, are spending three to four times as much as we are spending supporting their producers. Why? Because they understand the critical importance of agriculture to the economic health of their countries, and they do not intend to lose this trade battle. They intend to fight it. They intend to win it, and they think the United States is going to cave in. They think the United States is ready to roll over. They think the United States is ready to throw in the towel. I have spent hours and hours with the chief trade negotiators for the Europeans, and they have done everything but draw me a picture of what their long-term strategy is. They believe the United States is losing its resolve to fight for agricultural markets, and they are going to win them the old-fashioned way. They are going to go out and buy them, and that is precisely what is happening. We would be fools to allow them to win this battle and see tens of thousands of jobs leave this country because we are not willing to fight. Mr. President, let us recall what has happened with respect to farm policy this year. On the House side, they had a proposal they called ``Freedom to Farm.'' Most of us would consider it ``Freedom from Farming,'' because if that thing was ever put in place, there would be a whole lot of farmers forced off the land in very short order. It is not ``Freedom to Farm,'' it is ``Freedom from Farming.'' Others have called it ``Welcome to Welfare,'' because what it did was to say that no matter what prices are, farmers would get a payment from the Federal Government for the next 7 years, and then we would wash our hands of farm producers in this country. That proposal was so radical, it suggested we eliminate the underlying authority passed in 1938 and 1949 to even have farm legislation. That is how radical and how extreme the proposal was on the House side. They could not even get that proposal through the House Agriculture Committee, although it was authored by and offered by the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. They could not even get it through the relevant committee on the House side. Mr. President, that is how flawed that proposal was. On the Senate side, they authored legislation that went through the Senate Agriculture Committee on a straight party-line vote after very little debate and very little discussion. Frankly, our colleagues on the other side did not want much debate, did not want much discussion, because they knew that policy was an invitation to liquidation. It would have cut farm support 60 percent in real terms in the seventh year of that proposal. I can just say, for my State, that would have represented an unmitigated disaster. Interestingly enough, in the Senate, they did not even offer the House ``Freedom to Farm'' proposal for a vote. They did not even offer it for a vote, because they knew it would not enjoy much in the way of support, even in the Senate Agriculture Committee. So, then what happened, they came out on the floor and they stuck the farm legislation in the reconciliation bill. What does that mean, ``reconciliation''? It is confusing to people. That is where all of the programs are put together in order to meet the budget resolution requirements, and you do not have a separate discussion and debate on the bill itself. It is wrapped into a piece of legislation that contains many other issues. They did that because they knew they could not pass their farm legislation on its own. Typically, the way we have handled farm legislation is to have a separate bill and a debate and a discussion on that bill and a vote on that bill. They did not want to do it that way. They wanted to wrap it in another package and vote on an entire package, with agriculture being just a small part of it, because they did not want people to be paying very much attention to what that farm policy represented, that was contained in that legislation. Mr. President, that reconciliation bill was vetoed by the President of the United States. There were many reasons for his veto. There were many elements of that legislation, apart from farm legislation, that called for a veto. But part of the reason he vetoed it was the farm proposals, which the President saw as radical and extreme and as going too far and of putting the United States at risk of losing the significant advantages it has had in competing for world agriculture markets. The President of the United States was called on by farmers all across this country to veto that reconciliation bill, and veto it he did. I am proud the President did veto that bill, for reasons other than the farm legislation, but the farm legislation alone would have been enough for me. I joined those farmers in asking the President to veto that bill. It was terrible policy. It represented unilateral disarmament in this world trade battle, a battle for markets that are critically important to the economic future of this country. It is not just the economic future of America that was at stake, not just our trade situation that was at stake. It was the lives of literally thousands of American farmers at stake. Very often when I go home to North Dakota, I go to farm families and sit around the kitchen table and talk about the future of agriculture policy and what it means to that family. Over and over this year, farm families have told me, if the policy that is being voted on in Washington, that which was offered by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, ever became law, they would be finished, they would be out, they would be forced off the land. I think the best estimate in my State is that we would lose a third of the farmers if that bill ever became law. That is not in the interest of family farmers. That is not in the interest of the economic health of my State. More broadly, I do not think it is in the economic interest of the country. So I urge my colleagues to closely consider the course my colleague from North Dakota has proposed. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the President. I thank my colleague from North Dakota for his excellent presentation on why it is critically important that we have a farm bill and that we have a set of rules that our farmers know will be in place as they enter into the next crop year. Let me say that I believe the Senator from North Dakota has introduced something, that while not perfect, is something we are going to have to do in terms of extending the current farm bill so that farmers at least know what the rules of the road are going to be for this next crop year. There has been an absolute failure by this Congress to pass farm legislation that could become law. Mr. President, the legislation that my colleague has introduced would dramatically increase the flexibility that farmers have and dramatically improve the competitive position of American farmers. I think that is in everyone's interest. I think the Senator from Iowa is correct when he says that we need to know what farmers can expect. Farmers are right now sitting around their kitchen tables trying to figure out what their strategy for this next year should be, and much is at stake. Their families' livelihoods are at stake. What money the family is going to have for the next year is at stake. Whether or not that farm family is going to be able to meet their bills is at stake. The health of rural economies is at stake. What happens on the Main Streets of every city and town in the heartland of America is at stake. The economic health of an industry that, along with airplanes, is the biggest producer of a trade surplus for America is at stake. An industry that is one of America's very biggest is at stake. Our competitive position in the world is at stake. There is a lot riding on this debate and this discussion. The Senator from Iowa is right: We need a plan. Let me say what we do not need is the plan that the Republican Party has advanced in both the House and the Senate. The Republican proposal was for deep and Draconian cuts in farm programs that would dramatically reduce farm income. That has been their plan. Repeatedly Republicans have called for phasing out farm programs, for eliminating that support mechanism that has been the genius of American farm policy. Mr. President, I believe that represents unilateral disarmament when we are in the midst of a fierce trade fight with other countries who recognize the importance of maintaining their competitive position in agriculture. The last thing we would do in a military confrontation is to engage in unilateral disarmament. Why we would ever do it in a trade fight is beyond me. Make no mistake, we are in a trade fight in agriculture. Europe, which is our biggest competition, is spending three to four times as much as we are spending to support their agricultural producers. Let me repeat that. Europe, our chief competitors, are spending three to four times as much as we are spending supporting their producers. Why? Because they understand the critical importance of agriculture to the economic health of their countries, and they do not intend to lose this trade battle. They intend to fight it. They intend to win it, and they think the United States is going to cave in. They think the United States is ready to roll over. They think the United States is ready to throw in the towel. I have spent hours and hours with the chief trade negotiators for the Europeans, and they have done everything but draw me a picture of what their long-term strategy is. They believe the United States is losing its resolve to fight for agricultural markets, and they are going to win them the old-fashioned way. They are going to go out and buy them, and that is precisely what is happening. We would be fools to allow them to win this battle and see tens of thousands of jobs leave this country because we are not willing to fight. Mr. President, let us recall what has happened with respect to farm policy this year. On the House side, they had a proposal they called ``Freedom to Farm.'' Most of us would consider it ``Freedom from Farming,'' because if that thing was ever put in place, there would be a whole lot of farmers forced off the land in very short order. It is not ``Freedom to Farm,'' it is ``Freedom from Farming.'' Others have called it ``Welcome to Welfare,'' because what it did was to say that no matter what prices are, farmers would get a payment from the Federal Government for the next 7 years, and then we would wash our hands of farm producers in this country. That proposal was so radical, it suggested we eliminate the underlying authority passed in 1938 and 1949 to even have farm legislation. That is how radical and how extreme the proposal was on the House side. They could not even get that proposal through the House Agriculture Committee, although it was authored by and offered by the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. They could not even get it through the relevant committee on the House side. Mr. President, that is how flawed that proposal was. On the Senate side, they authored legislation that went through the Senate Agriculture Committee on a straight party-line vote after very little debate and very little discussion. Frankly, our colleagues on the other side did not want much debate, did not want much discussion, because they knew that policy was an invitation to liquidation. It would have cut farm support 60 percent in real terms in the seventh year of that proposal. I can just say, for my State, that would have represented an unmitigated disaster. Interestingly enough, in the Senate, they did not even offer the House ``Freedom to Farm'' proposal for a vote. They did not even offer it for a vote, because they knew it would not enjoy much in the way of support, even in the Senate Agriculture Committee. So, then what happened, they came out on the floor and they stuck the farm legislation in the reconciliation bill. What does that mean, ``reconciliation''? It is confusing to people. That is where all of the programs are put together in order to meet the budget resolution requirements, and you do not have a separate discussion and debate on the bill itself. It is wrapped into a piece of legislation that contains many other issues. They did that because they knew they could not pass their farm legislation on its own. Typically, the way we have handled farm legislation is to have a separate bill and a debate and a discussion on that bill and a vote on that bill. They did not want to do it that way. They wanted to wrap it in another package and vote on an entire package, with agriculture being just a small part of it, because they did not want people to be paying very much attention to what that farm policy represented, that was contained in that legislation. Mr. President, that reconciliation bill was vetoed by the President of the United States. There were many reasons for his veto. There were many elements of that legislation, apart from farm legislation, that called for a veto. But part of the reason he vetoed it was the farm proposals, which the President saw as radical and extreme and as going too far and of putting the United States at risk of losing the significant advantages it has had in competing for world agriculture markets. The President of the United States was called on by farmers all across this country to veto that reconciliation bill, and veto it he did. I am proud the President did veto that bill, for reasons other than the farm legislation, but the farm legislation alone would have been enough for me. I joined those farmers in asking the President to veto that bill. It was terrible policy. It represented unilateral disarmament in this world trade battle, a battle for markets that are critically important to the economic future of this country. It is not just the economic future of America that was at stake, not just our trade situation that was at stake. It was the lives of literally thousands of American farmers at stake. Very often when I go home to North Dakota, I go to farm families and sit around the kitchen table and talk about the future of agriculture policy and what it means to that family. Over and over this year, farm families have told me, if the policy that is being voted on in Washington, that which was offered by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, ever became law, they would be finished, they would be out, they would be forced off the land. I think the best estimate in my State is that we would lose a third of the farmers if that bill ever became law. That is not in the interest of family farmers. That is not in the interest of the economic health of my State. More broadly, I do not think it is in the economic interest of the country. So I urge my colleagues to closely consider the course my colleague from North Dakota has proposed. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I strongly believe that we must reform our welfare system. I have devoted a great deal of time and energy to examining the broken welfare system and developing meaningful solutions to address the deficiencies. I presented a welfare reform proposal, the Work and Gainful Employment Act, and worked with my Senate colleagues to improve and strengthen the Senate version of H.R. 4. Central to each of the welfare reform proposals I've supported were the basic principles of work, responsibility, and family. The proposals were built in a framework of increased State flexibility while not placing the health and safety of our Nation's children at risk. They had tough work requirements, and promoted personal responsibility while protecting children and the disabled. Because of my sincere interest in reforming the welfare system, I look upon the welfare reform conference agreement with great disappointment. The conference agreement on H.R. 4 falls far short of upholding these core principles and meeting these goals. It is weak on work and places abused and neglected children in danger. Additionally, the conference agreement on H.R. 4 cuts too deeply into the programs that provide the lifeline for the most vulnerable in our society. Yesterday, I joined a bipartisan group of colleagues to develop a plan to reach a balanced budget by the year 2002. The conference agreement, however, proposes far greater cuts than the bipartisan group of Senators deemed reasonable. It is for these reasons that I oppose this severely flawed approach to reforming the welfare system. I firmly believe that among the most critical issues facing our Nation is the future of our children. It is of crucial importance that families and communities equip children with the skills necessary to face the increasing challenges of the 21st century. Children must be taught the value of work. The conference agreement on welfare reform is weak on work. The supporters of this legislation claim it will move welfare recipients into work without providing resources sufficient to make it happen. In fact, instead of strengthening the work and child care provisions of the Senate-passed welfare bill, the conference agreement reduces funding in these areas. Additionally, both my WAGE Act and the Senate-passed welfare reform proposal included a personal responsibility contract that welfare recipients had to sign as a condition of receiving welfare benefits. The personal responsibility contract was a binding agreement that the recipient would make meaningful steps to move off of welfare and take responsibility for his or her actions and well-being. I ask you, why would the conferees remove the contract between the welfare recipient and the Government to move the recipient off of welfare? The conference agreement is weak on work and does nothing to develop personal responsibility. Perhaps the most disturbing and mean-spirited provisions of this proposal are the ones that place the most vulnerable and helpless children in our society at risk. On top of providing inadequate resources for child care services, this legislation eliminates Federal health and safety standards for child care facilities. It slashes funding by $1.3 billion for child protection services for abused, neglected, and abandoned children and children in foster and adoptive services. Additionally, it proposes draconian reductions in the SSI program for low-income children with disabilities. HHS has estimated that by the year 2002, 750,000 low-income disabled children who are eligible for SSI benefits will have their benefits cut by 25 percent. Finally, the conference agreement eliminates the requirement for States to provide Medicaid benefits to children whose families are eligible for cash assistance. This extreme provision was not in either the Senate- or House-passed bills and threatens the health and future productivity of our poorest children. These program changes are cruel and rip the safety net from under the most vulnerable children in our society. Mr. President, I want to reemphasize my commitment to balanced and reasonable welfare reform. The welfare system should be tough on work and personal responsibility, should promote families and family values, and should maintain basic health and safety protections for our Nation's children. I say to my colleagues in the House and the Senate: Let us reform the welfare system; however, let us target the programs and not the children.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator from Nevada yield to me for just 2 minutes?

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like for just a moment to single out two of my colleagues who, I think, are showing real leadership at a time of gridlock in Washington. I want to single out Senator Chafee, the Senator from Rhode Island, and Senator Breaux, the Senator from Louisiana, who have led our bipartisan effort to put together a budget plan that would merge the differences, that would find common ground, that would break the gridlock, and that demonstrates that the two sides can work together here to achieve a result that is important for the country. Mr. President, earlier today we were able to hold a news conference and indicate that last night we reached agreement between 19 Senators-- 10 Republicans and 9 Democrats--on the outlines of a plan to balance the budget on a unified basis over 7 years using CBO scoring, and that we were able to do it in a way that is fair and balanced. Mr. President, I must say I have been very proud to participate in this effort because we did it without raised voices, we did it without hurling brick bats across the barricades, we did it by sitting together, by reasoning together, and by working together to achieve a result that is important to the country. I think the leadership of Senator Chafee and Senator Breaux should serve as an example to others who are negotiating on this budget matter because I think our group has blazed the trail showing others how we could achieve a result that will get the Government back to working and break the gridlock. Mr. President, every day in this town there is a news conference that puts a spotlight on the differences between the two parties. This was the first news conference in many days in this city in which we were not talking about differences but we were talking about the ability of people of good will on both sides to get together, to reason together, and to achieve a breakthrough. Mr. President, we just had an opportunity to make a presentation on that plan to the negotiators from both sides. I was pleased by the reaction. I am just hopeful now that in the hours ahead cooler heads will prevail and that both sides will understand that to achieve an agreement neither side can get precisely what it wants but that we can have a principled compromise and one that advances the interests of this Nation. Mr. President, I want to end as I began by saluting the leadership of Senator Chafee and Senator Breaux. It takes courage to compromise. Mr. President, as in the words of the ``Liberty Song'' by John Dickenson, ``By uniting we stand, by dividing we fall.'' This is an example of Senators working together to unite, of Senators reasoning together to unite, and I hope our colleagues will begin to focus on the need for uniting. That is what has made America strong-- pulling together, working together, and uniting in order to achieve a result. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada for his very generous willingness to give me some time. First, on the matter of the majority leader, I want to join my colleagues in recognizing his service as a leader in the U.S. Senate. His period of time as leader, I understand, has extended over 10 years. That is longer than I have served in the U.S. Senate. I, too, admire the Senator from Kansas. I have found that he is somebody who commands respect. He does his homework. He leads his side of the aisle in a very vigorous and determined way. While there are many times that we disagree on a policy issue, I have never thought that he is someone who commands anything other than full respect. And I want to add my voice to the voices of others. Frankly, I think we could use a good bit more of that around here, recognizing the worth of people on both sides, because I have found that colleagues on both sides of the aisle in this Chamber are some of the finest people I have ever known. Just because we have differences and we debate vigorously does not diminish the value nor the humanity of anyone on either side. Maybe that is a word that needs to go out from this Chamber more; that people who serve here are worthy, and they are good people. In fact, I think my constituents sometimes are surprised when I tell them that I find, on both sides of the aisle, the people that I serve with are some of the finest people I have ever known, the people who are in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the decision on Bosnia is extremely difficult. But I believe our responsibility is clear. The United States is being asked to participate in a peacekeeping mission by all the parties to the dispute in Bosnia. They say that without our participation, there will be no chance for peace. It is important to remember that we are being asked to enforce an agreed upon peace. We are not being asked to wage war. It is in our interest to help prevent the spread of this conflict to the rest of Europe. And it is morally right to help stop the slaughter and atrocities that have repeatedly occurred. However, I have always thought that Bosnia was primarily the European's responsibility. This conflict is in their backyard. It most directly affects their interests. I also have serious doubts whether peace can be secured in 1 year. The history of the region is one of strife and struggle. There has been conflict in the Balkans for hundreds of years. For 45 years after World War II, the differences were suppressed by Marshal Tito. But when he passed from the scene, the old enmities resumed as violently as before. Despite these serious doubts, I am persuaded we ought to help give the parties a chance to build the peace they say they want. They have said they are tired of war, and asked us and 25 other nations to give them the opportunity they need to try to craft a lasting peace. Most importantly, I believe we must send a strong message of support for our troops, who are helping to create an opportunity for peace in Bosnia. Anything less will add to the risks that the brave men and women of our Armed Forces will face. I have therefore decided to support the Dole-McCain resolution supporting our troops and limiting the mission they are expected to fulfill. I will continue to carefully monitor our involvement to ensure that this mission does not expand beyond the limited one being authorized tonight.