Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. As I understand it then, the Army has $15 million remaining from procurement of the M149A2 water trailer. Although the Army does not need additional water trailers, it does need the M105A3 cargo trailer. Would the Senator support the Army's using this remaining $15 million to procure the M105A3 cargo trailer?

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Hawaii and the Senator from Alaska. funding for enterprise development in the nis

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, will the Senator from Hawaii be willing to engage in a short colloquy with the Senators from North Dakota?

Mr. CONRAD. According to my understanding, Congress appropriated $10 million in fiscal year 1994 and $10 million in fiscal year 1995 for the U.S. Army to upgrade and procure the M149A2 water trailer. Would the Senator from Hawaii tell me if my understanding is correct?

Mr. CONRAD. I recognize the key role the Senator has played in procurement of the water trailer, and I am grateful for his support. As the Senator from Hawaii is aware, the M149A2 is manufactured by the Turtle Mountain Manufacturing Co., located on the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation in North Dakota. Turtle Mountain Manufacturing Co. began manufacturing the water trailer when the company was part of the Small Disadvantaged Business 8(a) set-aside program, and the company continued manufacturing the trailer after it graduated from the 8(a) program. Procurement of the M149A2 provided the Army with a vital piece of equipment. The procurement also brought job opportunities to the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation. However, I have recently learned that the Army has procured enough of the water trailers to meet its new inventory objective. Due to planned force structure changes, the Army does not need as many water trailers as it previously anticipated. Would the Senator tell me if I am correct?

Mr. CONRAD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask to be able to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would give States and local governments the power to regulate and, if they choose, reject interstate shipments of municipal solid waste. This is a problem Congress has grappled with now for years and it only grows more and more serious. An estimated 18 million tons of municipal solid waste travels across State lines each year. Landfills are filling up around the country and communities are searching for new places to send their trash. Where are they searching? Mr. President, they are searching in rural areas like my home State of North Dakota and, no doubt, they are looking in the State of the distinguished occupant of the chair, the State of Idaho. Mr. President, rural States like ours, where pollution has not spoiled the land, where small communities may be willing to take large amounts of money from a waste company in exchange for landfill space, are the places they are looking. Whether they want this imported waste or not, States are almost powerless to stop the flow of garbage across their borders. Mr. President, I can remember very well being involved in a debate on this matter a number of years ago, and the trash merchants had their lobbyists lining the Halls. I have never seen so many people off the Chamber of the Senate. The trash merchants want to ship this stuff someplace, and they are looking for States that are willing to take it. Mr. President, States ought to have an ability to say ``no.'' Waste is already coming to my State of North Dakota. We take industrial waste from General Motors plants from all around the country. We take municipal solid waste incinerator ash from Minnesota. A waste company continues its efforts to open a superdump in my State that would take garbage from Minneapolis-St. Paul. This one landfill, Mr. President, would receive almost twice as much garbage as is produced in my entire State. This situation is not unique. It is happening all over the country. States should be able to do something about it. They should be able to they can implement effective waste disposal policy. The Federal Government requires the States to manage and oversee solid waste disposal programs. States are required to issue permits, monitor existing sites, and enforce landfill regulation. Why, then, should States not also be able to regulate how much waste comes in from out of State? It only makes sense that they have this power. Mr. President, imported waste not only takes up precious landfill space, but it also puts a strain on services of the importing State without properly compensating that State. Waste trucks from out of State wear down the roads of the importing State, but the exporting community pays nothing. Similarly, States must spend money to run their solid waste program, but they get no additional payments for accepting out-of-State wastes. In other words, exporting communities are passing their waste problems, and the costs associated with them, on to importing States. This is not fair, and it should be changed. The bill I am introducing today takes strong steps to address the problems of interstate waste. First, it gives States the authority to regulate interstate waste. If a State wants to reject new solid waste shipments, my bill would allow that. Second, it requires that affected local governments formally approve of any waste import. This gives the communities the ability to veto proposed shipments of out-of-State wastes. Why should not those communities that are affected by waste shipments have the ability to say no? Third, it provides the opportunity for the area surrounding the host community to be involved in the decision to accept out-of-State wastes. A decision on siting a solid waste landfill, especially one that will take large amounts of imported waste, must be a collective one, and a small community alone should not be able to make a decision that will affect a much larger surrounding area. Finally, my bill requires that waste companies publicly release all of the relevant information about their proposed landfill before a community makes a decision on it. This information should include estimated environmental impacts and mitigation, economic impacts, planned expansion, financial disclosure, and records of past violations by the owner and operator of the disposal site. Waste companies hold up the promise of jobs and economic incentives, but they do not want to reveal the potential risks involved in their plan. In many cases, they may not even reveal their overall plans until it is too late to stop them. One practice I have seen involves having a local developer purchase the site and get a permit to dispose of modest amounts of solid waste. A big waste company then buys out the local party and aggressively expands the site's permit. The local community does not have a chance. This is not fair and cannot be allowed to continue. Communities must be able to make informed choices. Mr. President, how often have we seen it, where one of these trash merchants comes into a State and they spend lots of money up front, talking about the opportunities, talking about the jobs, talking about the good things, but failing to reveal the real plan, failing to tell how big the operation is really going to be? They fail to tell of past violations. We have seen companies go into States that are bad operators, that have a bad record, that have a bad reputation, but they do not reveal that. They do not talk about that before the community has a chance to vote. Mr. President, many of us believe that a local community ought to have a choice and it ought to be an informed choice. They ought to know the record, they ought to know the plan before they make a final decision. We have been working on the interstate waste problem in the Senate for many years now. During the years we have been debating this issue, the problem has not gone away. It has simply gotten bigger. The trash is still moving, and States and communities are almost powerless to stop it. It is time to enact interstate waste legislation into law. Congress came very close to passing an interstate waste bill in 1994. I hope we can build on the work that has been done and take quick action in 1995. I look forward to working with Chairman Chafee, Senator Baucus, Senator Coats, and others to move this matter forward. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Yes.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to salute the Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus, for his leadership on this subject. The Senator from Montana has been an absolute champion for our part of the country in trying to get fair treatment and equity with respect to the management of the mainstream reservoirs. He has been absolutely determined and dedicated to achieving a fair result. I can remember very well when the Senator from Montana and I teamed up to stop the appointment of a new head of the Corps of Engineers until our part of the country got fair treatment in the depths of the worst drought we had suffered since the Great Depression. The Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus, has shown nerves of steel in taking on the Corps of Engineers on this issue. Very frankly, our part of the country has gotten short shrift, gotten shortchanged, and it has to be altered. Now we know that for years the Corps of Engineers was operating on a policy that was not supported by law and was not supported by fact. And it is because of the energy and effort of the Senator from Montana, in large want to thank him publicly for everything he has done.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Montana. It has been a team effort, but I think there is no doubt the Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus, has been a key player in this effort. Mr. President, from its origins in Montana to its end near St. Louis, the mighty Missouri River is managed and controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers. Five years ago, the Army Corps of Engineers began a review of its river management plan, commonly called the master manual. This was the first major review of the manual since it was implemented in 1960. The corps started this review in response to our concerns over falling reservoir levels in the Dakotas and Montana. At that time, we were in the middle of the worst drought since the Great Depression, and the corps was draining huge amounts of water from the reservoirs for the sole purpose of keeping a small number of barges on the Missouri River afloat. I can remember very well holding a hearing in the midst of that terrible drought and learning, to my shock and my surprise, that the Army Corps of Engineers was releasing record amounts of water from our reservoirs in the midst of the worst drought in 50 years. I mean, think about it. It is absolutely extraordinary. In the worst drought in 50 years, they were releasing record amounts of water and, as a result, our reservoir levels were dropping like a stone. Mr. President, while the barges continued to float, Lake Sakakawea and other mainstream reservoirs dropped by almost 30 feet. It is hard to imagine. It is hard to visualize what that meant, Mr. President. I know the occupant of the chair, the distinguished occupant of the chair, is from a downstream State, and I know there are legitimate interests there as well. But I say to you, if you could have seen what was happening in our part of the country, I think even the downstreamers would have been stunned. To see a reservoir drop 30 feet in a very short period of time and to see the economic wreckage caused by that drop, I think, told many of us that something was badly askew. I can still remember a young couple. He had been a pro football player. He and his wife put everything they had into a resort right before the drought hit. And when the reservoir dropped, they found their marina high and dry. They found everything they had put in, all their life savings, everything they could borrow, was lost, all of it put at risk and all of it lost. Mr. President, the water has returned to our reservoirs, but the need to change the master manual remains. Five years of corps study has made it clear that the current master manual provides disproportionate benefits for downstream States at the expense of upstream States. About 70 percent of the system's economic benefits goes to downstream States, while upstream States get roughly 30 percent. This is not a fair distribution of benefits and it should change. Of special concern to me is the fact that the current plan destroys a growing recreation industry from the upper basin to keep subsidizing a shrinking Missouri River barge industry. The main problem with the current manual is that it is slanted toward navigation and based on outdated assumptions. The master manual anticipates annual river navigation traffic of 12 million tons. We have never even gotten close to that number. Commercial navigation is now around 2 million tons per year; in other words, one-sixth of what is assumed in the current master manual. Navigation supplies only 1 percent of the system's annual economic benefits--$17 million out of $1.3 billion. This compares with $76 million in annual benefits from recreation. Yet, the corps continues to manage the entire system for the benefit of navigation and to the detriment of other functions. Navigation is the only project function managed for 100 percent of its potential--potential--economic output. In economic terms, does it make any sense for the corps to favor navigation over recreation? Anyone who takes an honest look at the facts would answer ``No.'' Mr. President, the time has come to change this policy. The corps should stop pretending that navigation is king. It is not. It never was. My colleagues may be surprised to hear that the entire Missouri River system would actually generate greater economic benefits if Missouri River navigation were deemphasized. In other words, we would give the taxpayers a better return on their investment if we would place less emphasis on barges on the Missouri. I believe that a better way to manage the river would be to deemphasize Missouri navigation and keep more water in the upstream reservoirs. Such a move would increase total economic benefits, improve the river ecosystem, and result in more equitable distribution of the benefits. Recreation and hydropower benefits would increase while flood control and water supply functions would be largely unaffected. In addition, deemphasizing Missouri river navigation would significantly improve the river ecosystem. This approach makes economic sense. It makes environmental sense. I cannot understand how any rational review of the situation could reach any other conclusion. Mr. President, the public has been fed a good deal of misinformation about the master manual review. I want to address two falsehoods that are being spread by some who are opposed to change. First, the upstream States are not trying to use up, take away, or sell all of the Missouri River water that would otherwise go downstream. There is no way that North Dakota or any other upstream State could use enough Missouri River water to affect the downstream flows. It simply cannot be done. In addition, North Dakota has, I say, no--and I repeat no--plans to divert to another State, sell, or trade away the rights to Missouri River water. Second, changes in the Missouri River master manual will not significantly impact navigation and water supply on the Mississippi River. Corps analysis concluded that ``Changes in the Missouri River operations would not''--let me repeat that--``would not affect water supply on the Mississippi River.'' Corps analysis also found there was essentially no difference in Mississippi navigation between the current plan and the corps' proposed change. Finally, my colleagues should keep in mind that there is a legitimate issue of fairness at work here. The upstream States have sacrificed 1.2 million acres of prime land to house the reservoirs that serve and protect the downstream States. In return, we get a fraction of the benefits and a fraction of the water projects that were promised as compensation some 50 years ago. Mr. President, let me emphasize, we have given up 1.2 million acres-- a permanent flood in our States--in order to save the downstream States from repetitive flooding. So we have the permanent flood to save them from annual flooding. Yet, they get the lion's share of the benefits of the management of the system. In contrast to what we have experienced upstream, the downstream States have sacrificed nothing but received the lion's share of the benefits, including navigation water supply, and to date $5 billion worth of flood control--not million--$5 billion worth of flood control. This is not what I call equity. Mr. President, what we need in the Missouri River Basin is balance in fairly meeting the competing interests along the river. By making key changes in the master manual, we can achieve this balance while at the same time increasing economic and environmental benefits.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. If I can just complete the thought? Then I got the document the next morning. I got the document the next morning. It was their draft of how they said they could protect Social Security funds. I met with legal experts from the Budget Committee, from the Congressional Research Service, and they said this is not going to protect anything because a constitutional amendment supersedes any statute. So when we hear the other side here today say they had a plan to phase out using Social Security trust funds, it was not an effective plan. It was not a plan that had legal force and effect --at least according to the constitutional experts that I talked to. They told me very clearly that what they were offering was eyewash. It made it look like they were going to do something or were willing to do something, but it would not have legal force and effect. That is, I believe, the review of what happened last week. For the other side to now say they had no intention of using Social Security funds--please, that is just not the case. It is clearly not the case. They had every intention of using $1.3 trillion of Social Security trust fund surpluses by the year 2008. It would have been about $2 trillion if we had taken their first offer to stop using the funds by 2012. And to say their final offer was to phase out the use of the funds overlooks the point that they were suggesting that a statute would provide that protection when the legal experts I consulted said in fact that would have no legal force and effect. I want to thank my colleague. I just felt the need to set the record straight here, at least with respect to my belief of what happened last week. The Balanced Budget Amendment

Mr. CONRAD. I heard, as I was having lunch downstairs, the distinguished Senator from Idaho attempt to, what I can only say is rewrite history with respect to the debate last week. Let me say, as one who was involved in those negotiations, I think the record is abundantly clear. Those who were proponents of the amendment clearly intended to raid Social Security trust funds in order to pay for other Government expenses to reduce the budget deficit. That is precisely what was going on last week. Any attempt to say that is not the case is to rewrite history. Now, as one who was involved in that negotiation, let us review what occurred. Some have said we are raiding the trust funds now. Well, that is absolutely correct. We are raiding the trust funds now. It does not make it right. And to suggest we ought to enshrine that principle and that policy in the Constitution of the United States is dead wrong. To constitutionalize a raiding of trust funds to pay for other Government expenses I believe is a wrong principle. Let me just say that when I was tax commissioner of the State of North Dakota, I opposed raiding trust funds to pay for Government expenses. I think it is a wrong principle. We should not be doing it at this level either. Mr. President, the hard reality is the trust fund surpluses that we are running now are about to explode. They are about to become much bigger surpluses, and the reason for that is to get ready for the day the baby boom generation retires, when the number of people eligible is going to double in this country. But what they are going to find is the cupboard is bare. There is no money in the trust funds. There is not a nickel in the trust funds. All the money has been spent. Mr. President, I want to go back to what occurred last week. I laid out on the 28th, on the morning of the 28th the criteria that were necessary to secure my vote. I was thought then to be a key swing vote. I laid out very clearly in the Congressional Record what the criteria were that I would apply in order to get my vote. During those negotiations, Republican leaders came to me, and they said we understand your concern about taking Social Security trust fund money and using it for Government expenses. We will agree to stop using Social Security trust fund surpluses by the year 2012. Let me repeat that. After saying for weeks that they had no intention of taking Social Security trust fund money, last week on Tuesday, the 28th, Republican leaders told me they would agree to stop using the trust fund surpluses by the year 2012. That is about $2 trillion of Social Security trust fund surpluses that they were saying they were going to use. When I said, no, that certainly was not something I could agree to, they came back to me and said we will stop using Social Security trust fund surpluses by the year 2008. Again, this is after saying for weeks they had no intention of using any of those moneys. But they came to me and said we will stop using the Social Security trust fund surpluses by the year 2008. What could be more clear as to what their intention was? What could be more clear? They said to me they intended to be using the money, first until 2012 and then until 2008. It was only then, after I had objected to that, that they talked about a phasing out and we discussed a formula for phasing out of the Social Security trust fund money. But even that proposal, even that suggestion was flawed because when they put in writing what they had in mind, it was a statute. I told them on that night: I am not a lawyer. I am not a constitutional expert. But if you tell me that this will protect the funds over time, I will go to legal experts and ask them for their opinions. The next day, they sent to me a draft of a formula that we had discussed the night before. But again it was in statute form, which had never been my idea. That was their idea.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Nevada. Raiding of the Social Security Trust Funds

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CONRAD. The Senator is exactly right. We met with a legal expert, a constitutional law expert from the Congressional Research Service, who told us that the statute that had been proposed by the other side to protect Social Security over time, phasing out the using of Social Security surplus funds by the year 2012, would not work. I had been advised earlier in the day by a budget expert from the Budget Committee itself, a constitutional law expert from the Budget Committee itself, that it would not work. We were advised later on that day that, in fact, that was the case. The Balanced Budget Amendment

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have heard speeches this morning that suggest because the balanced budget amendment has been defeated, we somehow have to wait to balance the budget. I simply say that there is no need to wait. There is nothing that prevents us from moving to write budgets that balance the budget. We can do that in the normal process of the Congress--and we should. Mr. President, no one should use as an excuse that the balanced budget amendment failed. Mr. President, we have an obligation--all of us, Democrats and Republicans--to now go to work to move this country toward balance. And there is no time to spare, because we face a demographic time bomb in this country; that is, when the baby boomers start to retire and the number of people who are eligible for Medicare and Social Security doubles. That requires that we go to work and write balanced budgets. Mr. President, I want to just put in some perspective why some of us felt so keenly that the balanced budget amendment that was before us was flawed. I come from a financial background. I was a tax commissioner of my State before I came to this body. In that position, I fought the looting of trust funds at the State level. We were faced with it consistently because we had large energy trust funds and, repeatedly, there were attempts by people in the legislature to raid those funds. I thought it was wrong then. I thought it was wrong when I came to this Chamber that we were doing the same thing with respect to trust funds. Mr. President, I think when people talk about a balanced budget amendment, we ought to ask: What budget was being balanced? What budget was being balanced with that amendment that we considered yesterday? I remind my colleagues of the language of section 7, which defined what budget was being balanced. It said: 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. Mr. President, this definition includes all Social Security revenue and all Social Security outlays. And the problem is, Social Security is not contributing to the deficit; it is in surplus. So, by definition, the amendment we were considering yesterday would have taken Social Security surpluses and applied them to other operating expenses of the Federal Government. That is what was wrong with the amendment we considered yesterday. In principle, that is what was wrong. Mr. President, I understand fully that when you do not use Social Security surpluses, when you do not use trust fund moneys, that makes the task more difficult. That makes the challenge greater. But I do not think we should say to the American people we are balancing the budget when we are really looting and raiding trust funds in order to balance the budget. That is a fraud. That should not be enshrined in the Constitution of the United States, because that would make it virtually impossible to fix. And if we fail to fix it, the economic implications for the future are far more severe. We will never be able to keep the promise to those who have paid the taxes on the promise that they will receive retirement benefits, if we do not treat the Social Security surpluses that are supposed to be treated as a trust fund in that way. During the discussions, a number of the leaders who were proponents of the amendment came to me in an attempt to secure my vote and said they would agree to stop using the Social Security trust fund surpluses by the year 2012. Mr. President, this chart shows what they were suggesting. This chart shows the flow of funds in the Social Security trust fund. The year 2012 is about here on the chart. So when they are saying they would use the Social Security trust fund surpluses until the year 2012, they were saying they would use most of the trust fund moneys, because you can see that is about the high-water mark of the buildup of the trust fund. Then it starts to decline as the baby boom generation starts to retire. I said, no, I would not accept a proposal that would use trust fund moneys until the year 2012. That is about $2 trillion that would have been used. They came back to me several moments later and said, ``How about if we stopped using the Social Security trust fund money by the year 2008?'' Mr. President, I said no to 2008 because after consulting on the flow of funds that moved through the trust funds or the projections of the flow of funds, my staff reported to me that it would be $1.3 trillion. Mr. President, I think those exchanges confirm that those who were proponents of the amendment fully intended to use Social Security trust fund moneys to offset other Government operating expenses. I think that is wrong as a principle, just wrong. I do not think we should do that. I think it would be a mistake to do that. I understand that it makes the job tougher. Mr. President, if we are going to tell the American people we are balancing the budget, then I think we ought to do it honestly. We ought to be really balancing the budget, not taking trust fund moneys to help balance the budget. If that means we have to stretch out the time period so that we set an honest goal, then we should do that. And the reason I feel this so acutely is when we look at what the flow of funds will be, or are projected to be, if we do not save that money, when we reach out here in 2025 and when we reach 2029, all of the money is gone. It is all gone by 2029. And that assumes that we allow the trust funds to be built up. So I think it is imperative that we treat the trust funds separately from the other operating accounts of the Government. Mr. President, let me just go back to this final chart because it speaks to the need for all of us to come together. We have had high levels of partisanship in the last days, and perhaps that was inevitable. I think some of the things that have been said that question each other's motives are unfortunate. I think when Members of Congress start name calling, that is uncalled for. None of us should engage in that. That demeans this institution. Mr. President, we now do have an obligation to try to address what is a serious crisis facing this country. This chart shows why current trends are not sustainable. The green line here shows the revenues anticipated for the United States. It shows the history from 1970 to today and a projection out to the year 2030. Revenue is pretty constant. The colored bars here show the expenses. And we can all see what is going to happen because of this demographic time bomb, the tremendous number of baby boomers who are going to retire and what that does to Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security. It explodes the costs. That has to be addressed. And nothing precludes us from doing that. Mr. President, it is time for us to work together, to put aside partisanship to get the job done. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair and I thank the minority leader. Mr. President, today is an important day in the life of our Nation. Today we consider a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. We do not lightly consider amendments to the Constitution because that document has served as the framework that has made this the greatest Nation in human history. Mr. President, we are here because this Nation faces a debt threat. I have brought with me several charts to try to illustrate the challenge that we face. This first chart shows what has happened to the gross debt in our country from 1940 to 1999. One can see that back in 1940 the debt of the country exploded during World War II, and then debt of the country came down steadily, until 1979. At that time, gross debt, once again, exploded. We saw the gross debt of the country down about 30 percent, and it has gone up 70 percent, not as high as it was during the Second World War, nonetheless a real concern because the growth of the debt puts enormous pressure on the financial markets, puts pressure on interest rates, and has an adverse effect on our total economy. Mr. President, I think this chart tells a very important story. This is the work of the entitlements commission that just concluded their work. On this chart, the green line shows the revenue of the United States back from 1970, forecasted up through 2030. One can see that the revenue has consistently run at just under 20 percent of our gross domestic product. We are right in this change today. One can see that the difference between the green line and these bars is the deficit, and we have worked the deficit down in this period to about 2.5 percent of gross domestic product. Mr. President, look at what happens if we do not change course. Let me just say the entitlements commission did not take the worst case scenario. They assumed no recessions, no wars, no catastrophes, no natural disasters. Look at how the deficit explodes by the year 2030. By the year 2012 alone, we will use every penny of Federal revenue just on entitlements and interest on the debt. Mr. President, we must address the debt threat without question. That takes us to the next chart. Some have said, ``Well, Senator Conrad, if you feel so strongly about the need to attack the deficits, why have you not signed up to the constitutional amendment'' that is before us today? Very simply, Mr. President, I have several concerns. As I indicated earlier, we do not amend the Constitution of the United States lightly. That is the organic law of our country. It is the document that has stood the test of time, and we must take that measure against any proposed constitutional amendment. Mr. President, there are three items that especially concern me. First is the possibility of looting the Social Security trust fund in order to balance the operating budget. That really raises the question that I have on this chart: What budget is being balanced? I think it is very important to know what budget is being balanced. To answer that question, we need to go to the language of the amendment itself. In section 7, it says: Total receipts shall include all receipts of the U.S. Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the U.S. Government except for those for repayment of debt principal. Mr. President, what that means, very simply, is that everything is going in the pot. This is a little teapot that shows the pot of Federal spending that we have created. It shows what goes in on the revenue side--individual income taxes, social insurance taxes, corporate income taxes, and other taxes. It shows the spending that comes out the spigot of Federal spending, the spigot of the pot of Federal spending. You can see Social Security comes out of the spending spigot--interest on the debt, defense, Medicare, and Medicaid. They are the big items. In fact, Social Security, interest, defense, and Medicare make up 78 percent of Federal spending. Mr. President, the problem with that part of this constitutional amendment is that it assumes Social Security is in the pot, and Social Security is not contributing to the deficit; Social Security is in surplus. Social Security, in fact, is going to run a surplus over the 7 years necessary to balance the budget, under this provision, by $636 billion. So the amendment that is before us today assumes that we will be looting the Social Security trust fund surpluses of the $636 billion in order to balance the operating budget. Mr. President, I do not consider that balancing the budget. That is, frankly, Washington talk for balancing a budget. If a head of any company in this country told the investors that he was balancing the budget and that a central part of balancing was to take the employees' trust funds, that person would be on the way to a Federal facility--and it would not be the U.S. Congress; that person would be on their way to jail. So this is a concern that I think must be addressed. The second concern that I have--and it is a concern shared by others--is the role of the courts, because once you put in the Constitution of the United States an amendment, you have constitutionalized the issue. I brought with me a quote from Walter Dellinger who testified last year at the hearings on the question of a balanced budget, and he said: If we have an amendment that for the first time constitutionalizes the taxing and spending process and creates a constitutional mandate which the courts are sworn on oath to uphold, there is simply no way that we can rule out the possibility that tax increases or spending cuts would be ordered by the judiciary. And I think we would all agree that that is a profound change in our constitutional system. Mr. President, I hope people focus on this question. Would we really want unelected judges to be able to order tax increases in this country? I think not. That would be taxation without representation. Judges are not elected. Judges are not chosen to make these decisions. That is part of the genius of our Constitution: a separation of powers, with Congress, the elected representatives, making the financial decisions for the people of America. Mr. President, it is not just Mr. Dellinger's view. Former Senator Danforth, who was among our most respected colleagues, a Republican Senator from Missouri, said last year when he offered an amendment--an amendment, by the way, which was accepted--to deal with the issue of clarifying the role of the courts said: The implications of this judicial encroachment are staggering when applied to the proposed balanced budget amendment. As Professor Tribe testified before the Committee on the Budget: ``What remedy could a federal court then decree? [if the budget is not balanced under this amendment] The court in the United States in Missouri vs. Jenkins a couple of years ago held that judges may have the power to mandate higher taxes if needed to force the government to comply with the Constitution.'' Senator Danforth went on to say: I find it troublesome, but it is the law. Talk about taxation without representation, unelected judges mandating higher taxes. Mr. President, we ought to listen to the wisdom of former Senator Danforth. He was one of the most respected Members of this Chamber. He was dead right on this question. Mr. President, there is a third issue that I want to raise today that is of concern and I think must be addressed if we are to pass a balanced budget amendment. Mr. President, the third issue that I raise is the question of an economic emergency. Mr. President, we know that today the right policy is to cut spending and reduce the deficits and balance the budget. Sixty years ago that was precisely the wrong policy. In the Depression, raising taxes and cutting spending only made the Depression deeper and longer lasting. Mr. President, Robert Solow, of MIT, a Nobel laureate in economics, said: The balanced budget amendment would force perverse actions by Congress, easily turning a small recession into a big one and a big one into a disaster. Monetary policy can solve the small problems, but not the big ones. Mr. President, if we are to have a constitutional amendment, I believe we must have special provision for an economic emergency. I end on this note, a quote from Henry Aaron, the director of economic studies at the Brookings Institution. Dr. Aaron, in testimony last year said: One does not need to be a primitive Keynesian to believe that a requirement forcing tax increases or spending cuts during an economic slowdown could be catastrophic. Catastrophic, Mr. President-- Yet the need to mobilize a three-fifths majority, not just in the Senate but in the House of Representatives as well, heightens the possibility that such policies would result because of incapacity to mobilize the necessary supermajority in both Houses. Mr. President, some have assured Members ``Don't worry. If we are in an economic emergency, you will be able to get 60 votes.'' Mr. President, I went back to the time leading into World War II when the economy of this country was in deep trouble, when we faced an enormous external threat. I found an interesting thing. When we needed $1 billion to start to rebuild the Navy of this country, that passed by only 58 votes. When we needed to start to have a draft to prepare for war, that passed by only 56 votes. take the assurance that in an emergency we would be able to muster the 60 votes. Mr. President, let me just conclude by saying I believe deeply that we must address the debt threat hanging over this country. We must cut spending. We must reduce the deficit. We must balance the budget in preparation for the time when the baby boom generation starts to retire, the Social Security expenses and Medicare and all the rest start to explode. Mr. President, we are talking about amending the Constitution of the United States. We should only do it if we are absolutely convinced we are properly crafting such an amendment. The three concerns that I have raised must be addressed if this amendment is to secure my vote. We should not loot the Social Security trust fund because that is not balancing the budget. That is a paper sham. That is wrong. We should not leave the role of the courts vague and ambiguous. No unelected judges should be writing the budget for the United States, raising taxes, cutting spending. That would subvert the genius of the Constitution. Third, I believe we must have provision for an economic emergency so that we do not put our great Nation at risk at a time of economic weakness and vulnerability. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. I look very much forward to what the day will bring. I hope that we are able to come together and craft an amendment that will stand the test of time.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. I just say in conclusion, perhaps this person is fair. I do not know that. But I do know the process we have gone through is not an appropriate process, certainly not in the eyes of this Senator. I hope very much that we revisit this issue before it is concluded and have a chance to do it in a way that will engender respect and support on both sides of the aisle. I thank the President 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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I will be very brief so that colleagues will know that we can end the day, especially the desk staff will know that they can get home to their loved ones. I did want to bring to the attention of my colleagues that yesterday in the Budget Committee, when Secretary Christopher was there, inadvertently a Republican staff document was attached to part of his testimony and was handed out. I might say that it is a very interesting document. The document that has been prepared by the majority on the Budget Committee shows function 150, International Affairs. It is headlined, ``Fiscal Year 1996 Balanced Budget Resolution.'' Down in the corner it says, ``For Internal Purposes Only.'' But it was handed out inadvertently. What I think is interesting about this document is it suggests that the majority has a plan to move towards a balanced budget, and I commend them for that. I hope they do have a plan. But I would say to my colleagues that if they have a plan, then we should revisit the question of the right to know provision that we sought to add to the balanced budget amendment. We sought to add a provision that called on the Republican majority to produce their plan on how they intended to balance the budget so that the States could be advised of that before they had to vote to ratify it, and so that our colleagues who are about to vote on a balanced budget amendment could know what was the outline of the plan. The Republican majority resisted that right-to-know effort by saying they could not say what a long-term plan was because there were so many things, it would be hard to determine and hard to project and hard to forecast. And yet we find in this document, which was released inadvertently, that at least with respect to one function of the budget they do have a detailed plan, very specific as to what they have in mind; terminating a set of programs, reducing other programs in order to reduce the 150 function, which, of course, is the international affairs function. This suggests at the very least that other functions for other areas have a plan, something that is in the works, something that is available, that could provide some guidance as to where the majority is going with respect to a plan to balance the budget over the next 7 years. I would just say to my colleagues that if in fact there are plans for other functional areas, as there clearly is for the international affairs section, we ought to have a chance to see it. We ought to have a chance before we vote on a balanced budget amendment. The American people ought to have a chance to see what the plan is. What does the Republican majority have in mind for how they intend to balance this budget? I think that would certainly influence some votes in this debate. Let me just say that I am one Member who is undecided on the question of how I will vote on a balanced budget at this point. I want to see what is the final provision on which we will vote. Let me just add that I am absolutely convinced we must balance the budget in the next 7 years. It is absolutely imperative that we do so. Whether we have a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution or not, this Senator believes we have to balance the budget because we have a window of opportunity here before the baby boomers retire, at which time Government spending will skyrocket. And that will put enormous pressure on the economy of this country. So we have a chance here in the next 7 years to get our fiscal house in order. That must be done. But I have reservations about the elements of this constitutional amendment in terms of the provision that would provide for looting the Social Security trust fund in order to balance the operating budget, the involvement of courts. The last thing I wish to see happening is the Supreme Court of the United States writing the budget of the United States. No judge was ever elected to do that. I am also concerned about the lack of a capital budget. The vast majority of States that have a balanced budget requirement provide for a capital budget. You can pay for big investments over a period of time. That is what State governments do. That is what we do in our own personal lives. I know very few people who buy a house for cash. Most people take out a mortgage. So those are, I think, legitimate concerns. But beyond that, I think we also have the question of how we do it. How do we balance the budget? And if our Republican colleagues, in fact, have a plan, one that they have not released and not revealed--and I think the fact that they clearly have one with respect to one function of the budget suggests they probably have it for other functions of the budget--that is something that could form the basis for an important discussion and debate about how we accomplish a balanced budget. Let me just conclude by saying I would very much like to see us structure a means to require both sides to put down a plan to balance this budget simultaneously. What is going on is we have a bit of Alphonse and Gaston, the chicken and the egg; nobody wants to go first. And I am working on legislation now that would require us, if the balanced budget amendment fails, to have the budget committees of both Houses and the President put down a plan to balance the budget over the next 7 years and to lay it down by May 1--have both sides be required to come to the table and lay down their plans to balance the budget. It is clear to me now the Republican majority is working on such a plan. Perhaps they have one completed, at least in preliminary outline. I think it would be very important for that to be shared with our colleagues and with the rest of the country as we consider this very important matter of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague, Senator Dorgan, as well. I think this is a very serious matter. The appointment of the head of the Congressional Budget Office is supposed to be nonpartisan. This is supposed to be done with both sides working together. For the first time since I have been in the U.S. Senate, that is not what is occurring. Instead, the majority has decided they are going to put in the scorekeeper, the person who makes the forecast for the Federal Government, for the Government of the United States, and they are doing so on what appears to be partisan basis. That is a break from the past; that is a break from tradition; that is a break from what the law provides. Mr. President, I think this is a very serious matter. If we are going to work collegially, if we are going to cooperate, if we are going to work together, then there has to be a basis of trust. Always in the past, part of that basis of trust is the person who is made the head of the Congressional Budget Office is somebody of very high professional standards, someone who is above being considered partisan. I can say, in terms of the Democrats, since I have been here, they have had Bob Reischauer, Rudy Penner, Alice Rivlin, all of them broadly respected, all of them above partisanship. As a matter of fact, I cannot remember a concern that has been raised by the majority side while I have been in the Senate about CBO scoring on partisan basis. But now, Mr. President, the majority has decided to impose on the Congress their choice, without the kind of agreement, without the kind of consultation, without the kind of, I think, nonpartisan working together that this position requires. And so, Mr. President, what is at stake? I can say that I am on the Budget Committee and the Finance Committee, and we are very dependent on what the Congressional Budget Office says the results of policies will be. We now have before us someone, frankly, who does not have a national reputation, someone who is not of the stature that one would expect of someone appointed to be the head of CBO. And even more disturbing than that is that this is someone who has indicated they are willing to consider so-called dynamic scoring. Well, what is dynamic scoring? It is largely make-believe. It is make-believe. It says if you cut taxes, you get more money. We tried that back in the 1980's in this country, and it was an absolute unmitigated disaster for this country. We saw people saying we could cut taxes, we can increase spending, and somehow it would all add up. It did not add up. It did not come close to adding up. Instead of adding up, we got an explosion of the national debt; we got an explosion of deficits that have put this country in a deep hole that we have yet to climb out of and now it appears we are about to repeat the exercise. I understand that this is a matter that should be handled in a different way. The appointment of the head of the Congressional Budget Office ought to be done together, both sides putting someone in place who is of the highest professional reputation, of the highest professional standards, and someone who both sides recognize will not do forecasts in a partisan, political manner. Unfortunately, Mr. President, that is not the suggestion for an appointment that we have before us. I have joined my colleague from North Dakota in asking the President pro tempore that he not go forward with this appointment until and unless there is broad bipartisan agreement with respect to the appointment. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I introduce the Conservation Reserve Program Extension Act of 1995. I am pleased to be joined in offering this legislation by Senator Daschle, Senator Wellstone, and Senator Baucus. Established in the 1985 farm bill, the Conservation Reserve Program [CRP] is one of the most popular programs ever offered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Its objective, as stated in the 1985 farm bill, was ``to assist owners and operators of highly erodible cropland in conserving and improving the soil and water resources of their farms or ranches.'' Several factors led to the creation of the program: The United States had accumulated large surpluses of agricultural commodities; commodity prices were extremely low; the agricultural economy was in a precipitous downturn; the cost of agricultural programs was increasing, and soil erosion was actually increasing in some areas of the country. Thus, Congress decided to initiate a program to reduce surplus commodities by retiring cropland, increase prices, boost producer income, and just as important, sharply reduce soil erosion. Although the program's goal of maintaining higher prices was not as measurable as producers in my State would have liked--a goal which is obviously affected by other factors--the program was well-received and achieved positive results. Between 1986 and 1989, farmers were given nine opportunities to enroll land in the CRP, and they enrolled 33.9 million acres. As a result, the program returned normalcy to the agricultural sector and, along with conservation compliance requirements of the 1985 farm bill, helped reduce soil erosion substantially. Conditions were different during the debate over the 1990 farm bill, and the CRP was modified to meet those conditions. The CRP was broadened to include more environmentally sensitive lands. Bids were accepted on the basis of an environmental benefits index that measured the potential contribution to conservation and environmental program goals that land would provide if enrolled. Seven goals were set for the program. The goals included surface water quality improvement, potential ground water quality improvement, preservation of soil productivity, assistance to farmers most affected by conservation compliance, encouragement of tree planting, enrollment in hydrologic unit areas identified under the water quality initiative, and enrollment in conservation priority areas established by Congress. These changes broadened the scope of the program, helping it achieve positive, measurable results.Although initially mandated to research 40 to 45 million acres, according to USDA's Economic Research Service the CRP now includes 36.4 million acres through 375,000 contractual agreements. This represents about 8 percent of total U.S. cropland. The CRP has reduced soil erosion by 700 million tons per year, a reduction of 22 percent compared with conditions that existed prior to the program. In addition, the program has produced enormous benefits for wildlife, both game and nongame species. It is no surprise that reauthorization of the CRP is the primary legislative goal of nearly every wildlife organization. The CRP has had a significant impact on North Dakota agriculture. Consider the following statistics provided by USDA's Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service: Number of bids...................................................26,600 Number of contracts..............................................18,520 Acres contracted..............................................3,180,569 Average rental rate.................................................$38 Total annual rental........................................$121,998,974 Commodity base acres involved include: Wheat.........................................................1,138,046 Corn............................................................134,417 Oats............................................................263,683 Sorghum...........................................................1,837