Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I come to the floor to respond to comments that were made by the chairman of the Budget Committee moments go, that I don't think, if he were to have a chance to review what he said, would be what he intends to convey. The chairman of the Budget Committee moments ago said that our side did not offer alternatives to the proposal that he was making to get our deficit and debt under control. The Senator knows that is not true. That is not accurate. That is not even close to being accurate. Let me indicate that I have great respect for the chairman of the Budget Committee. He and I have a very good working relationship, although we disagree on some issues. We have, I have always felt, a respect between us. But for him to say we did not offer an alternative is not true. I think, on reflection, he would acknowledge that is not the case. In fact, the record of the committee shows very clearly that we offered a comprehensive alternative to the one he was offering. In fact, he said publicly he appreciated the fact that I offered a comprehensive alternative. Let's get straight, on a factual basis, what occurred in the Budget Committee. Here is the alternative I offered. It is an 11-point plan that involves a fully comprehensive approach to the explosion of deficits and debt. What was our alternative? No. 1, we restored a strong Senate pay-go rule and statutory pay-go enforced with sequestration. That is a lot of big words. The basic notion is pay-go. What is pay- go? Pay-go simply says, if you want to have more spending, you have to pay for it. If you want to have more tax cuts, you have to pay for them. This is a discipline we had in the 1990s that worked extremely well. Virtually every budget observer of either side said pay-go was an essential part of restoring budget discipline. The second part of our proposal was to allow reconciliation--a special fast-track procedure in the Senate--for deficit reduction only. That was the intention of reconciliation when it was put in place. Unfortunately, in the last 5 years, reconciliation has been used not to reduce the deficit but to increase it. That was never the intent of reconciliation, to provide special fast-track procedures, limited debate, limited amendments. That was approved for one reason only, to reduce the deficit. We ought to go back to that plan. Third, we suggest the budget ought to budget for the war instead of coming forward with these supplemental appropriations bills with tens of billions of dollars not part of the budget. We are over 3 years into this war. The President needs to be budgeting for the war. Fourth, we reaffirmed the protections for Social Security--they exist in current law--ensuring its off-budget status so Social Security funds aren't pooled with all the other funds to disguise from the American people the seriousness of our fiscal condition. And to prohibit fast- track changes to Social Security--again, special rules that are outside the normal rules of the Senate that could lead to a shredding of Social Security and Medicare with very little debate and with virtually no amendments. I will get into that in a moment. We also have a ``save Social Security first'' provision in our plan, a 60-vote point of order against any new spending or new tax cuts that increase the deficit until the 75-year Social Security solvency is restored. We also restore for 2006 the 60-vote point of order against considering tax cuts or new spending or debt limit legislation without a new budget resolution. It is amazing, but our colleagues on the other side last year put in place new spending caps as part of the plan that the chairman of the committee presented moments ago. Last year they put in place spending caps for 2006, 2007, 2008. Two weeks ago, when we passed the supplemental, they wiped them out. So when the Senator suggests that is the answer to our problems--no, it is not the answer to our problems. No process is the answer to our problems, unless there is the will to actually do the job of reducing deficits and debt. No process is going to solve the problem. That is made clear by what happened two weeks ago. Again, I say to my colleagues, the Senator comes forward with a whole new package of spending caps--fine. Good. I am for spending caps--but spending caps that are enforceable and real, that aren't waived the next year when they start to pinch. That is what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle did week before last. Now they come with a new package of spending caps and say that's the answer? Wait a minute. Two weeks ago they undid the spending caps they put in place last year. Last year they put in spending caps for 2006, 2007, 2008. Then they come week before last in the supplemental appropriations bill and eliminate them. Last year they put in place a budget point of order that says you can't have more tax cuts or more spending or more debt if you don't have a budget. Guess what they did two weeks ago--they waived it. They said: Well, we weren't really serious about what we did last year. Forget it. Forget it. Forget the spending caps we put in place last year. Forget the budget point of order we put in place last year. Forget it. Now what is their answer? Now they are under pressure in an election year. They come out with this ``stop overspending'' plan that rehashes a bunch of the tired old things that haven't worked in the past and that they paid no attention to when they did put them in place. We restore that 60-vote point of order they just waived. We also allow Congress to strip earmarks in other items inserted in the conference reports. There is abuse going on in the Congress, and everybody knows it. Matters that are never considered in the Senate or the House are inserted in the conference committee in the dead of night, behind closed doors, and come out here with a straight up-or-down vote. That shouldn't be permitted. We require a 48-hour layoff period and a Congressional Budget Office score of conference reports because all too often that has been abused. We are presented with a 600- or 700- or 800-page bill nobody has ever read, and nobody has any idea what is in it. And we are told to vote in a matter of hours. No. We ought to have 48 hours to study what is out here, and we ought to have a CBO score of any legislation that is considered so we know what it costs and so we know what is in it. In addition, we require the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Tax to score longer term revenue and outlays for us to enforce the Byrd Rule for reconciliation and to show fully phased-in 10-year cost of legislation. Once again, what is happening is colleagues are coming and they are presenting the 5-year cost of something, when they know that right behind the 5-year window the cost explodes. That is true of tax cut proposals and spending proposals. And we need to put a stop to it. Also, in my proposal we enforce the discretionary spending limits. We enforce spending caps that in conjunction with pay-go have been effective in the past. And we initiate a real bipartisan effort to reduce the deficit with the President and with lawmakers. Here is the reality. This budget situation has gone totally red. These are the biggest deficits in the history of the country in the last 4 years. Even more serious than the deficit is the growth of the debt. Here is what has happened to the debt. After the first year of this President, the debt of the country was $5.8 trillion. The chairman of the Budget Committee told us in committee we wouldn't have a budget this year. There won't be a budget at all. But if either the budget proposal that cleared the Senate and the separate one that cleared the House were adopted, here is what would happen to the debt by 2011. It would be up to almost $12 trillion. The consequences of all of this are that our debt is exploding and our debt held by foreigners is exploding. This chart shows that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up $1 trillion of our debt held abroad; that is, debt held by foreigners. It took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up more than $1 trillion in U.S. debt held by foreigners. This President has more than doubled that amount in just 5 years. This is an utterly unsustainable course. It is why I agreed with part of the chairman's message that we are on an unsustainable course, and we need to address this. But we need to do it in a bipartisan way. That is the great flaw in what the Senator has proposed. Here is what has happened, a consequence of these massive deficits-- both the trade and budget deficits. We now owe Japan over $600 billion. We owe the Chinese over $300 billion. We even owe Mexico now over $40 billion. Who would have believed it? What is perhaps most stunning is if you look at the world's biggest borrowers, we are in the No. 1 position by far. In the 1980s, we were the largest creditor nation in the world. More countries owed us money than any other country in the world. We now owe more money than any other country in the world and by a large margin. If you look at all the money that is available to borrow in the world, we are borrowing about two-thirds of it. We are borrowing 65 percent of the money that is being borrowed by countries around the world. Our country alone is borrowing 65 percent of the money that is available to borrow. The chairman came out. He has a program he calls SOS, ``stop the overspending.'' Who is overspending? His party is in control. His party has had control for 6 years. They control the White House. They control the House, and they control the Senate. There is not one dime of this spending they are not responsible for. What has happened to spending? Spending has gone up 40 percent while they have had control--a 40-percent increase in spending. The chairman comes out with this plan. He says stop overspending. But look at it. A big part of this is these spending caps. As I have indicated, they put in spending caps last year, which they threw in the ditch two weeks ago. They have more budget points of order in their plan. They waived the budget point of orders they put in place last year. They did it week before last. If you look at that specifics of the proposal the chairman has made, he goes back to the old Gramm-Rudman approach of setting targets. The problem was it didn't work then, and it is unlikely to work now because all of these targets can be gamed. That is what happened under Gramm- Rudman. They gamed them. So they meant nothing. Here is the dotted red line that shows the first Gramm-Rudman targets. Then they changed them to this dotted red line. But the black line shows what actually happened to the deficit. These deficit targets didn't come within hailing distance of meeting these targets. Why? Because they were gamed just like they have gamed the spending caps that they themselves put in place last year when they started to pinch. They eliminated them. That is exactly what happened under Gramm-Rudman. It was gamed, and it meant nothing; the great press releases, the sound and the fury, signifying nothing. This shows that the 1986 deficit, when they started Gramm-Rudman, was $221 billion. In 1990, the last year of Gramm-Rudman, the deficit was $221 billion. It was supposed to be zero. They made no progress. It didn't work. The chairman comes out with a package that has Gramm-Rudman all over it again. It doesn't have pay-go; wouldn't want to do that. That worked. So let us go back to something that didn't work and act as though we are doing something when we are doing nothing. The GAO has concluded that Gramm-Rudman was ineffective. Here is what they said: GAO has criticized Gramm-Rudman procedures for leading not to meaningful deficit reduction but rather to a whole generation of off-budget and other misleading practices that hid the true magnitude of the deficit problem. When even these practices failed to avoid sequestration, the deficit targets were simply revised and the date for achieving a balanced budget was postponed. Thus, instead of the government reaching a balanced budget in FY 1991, the original Gramm-Rudman target, the deficit reached record levels. I appreciate the chairman's good intentions. I do believe he wants to do something about these deficits and debt. But the package he has come up with is not going to do the job. That is why we objected. That is why we offered an entire alternative. Former Senator Hollings, was one of the original architects of Gramm- Rudman, said this: Instead of using Gramm-Rudman-Hollings to cut back some $35 billion in spending each year, we were using it as a cover to increase spending $35 billion each and every year. So I said, Give me a divorce from that. I don't want my name connected with it. The chairman's package also includes a biennial budget. Instead of budgeting every year, budget every 2 years. I guess we are not going to even have a budget this year. So maybe we are on a biennial budget without it even being in the law. Can you think of any single major organization that just budgets every other year? What a bizarre idea. We are paying little attention to the budget. So the idea from the other side is let us pay even less attention. That is a good idea. It takes words away from me. To have the idea that because we are not being successful in managing our fiscal affairs, the answer is we only budget every 2 years. That would simply lead to more supplemental spending. While the President is calling for a biennial budget, and his budget for 2006-2007 failed to provide a discretionary spending policy beyond the first year. For the first time since 1989, this President, when he put out his budget, only gave 1 year of detail. Always before they had given 5 years. Why it makes any sense to go to 2-year budgeting is beyond me. In addition, they have proposed a line-item veto, even though the Supreme Court said it is unconstitutional. In this package, they come with line-item veto again. But they have done it in a way that requires our colleagues' attention. They have done it with no opportunity to amend or to have extended debate on the proposed line-item veto target. They also allow the President to cancel new mandatory spending proposals, such as those dealing with Social Security, Medicare, veterans, and agriculture. That is an extraordinary grant of power. What if we had a bipartisan agreement to deal with the long-term challenges of Medicare and Social Security, and then the President would be given the power, under this act, to go undo it based on what he wanted to do, forget about the bipartisan negotiations? No, that can't be the way we do business around here. We truly need, on a bipartisan basis, to get together and deal with our massive deficits and debt. We can't engage in a negotiation, a detailed, difficult negotiation and then have the President, on his own authority, be able to undo the very agreements we have reached. What earthly sense does that make? How could we possibly have a negotiation under those terms? The CBO Director believes the line-item veto was unlikely to greatly affect the bottom line. He said: Such tools cannot establish fiscal discipline unless there is a political consensus to do so. In the absence of that consensus, proposed changes are unlikely to greatly affect the budget's bottom line. He is right. No President needs the line-item veto. This is from the Roanoke Times in Virginia. They said: The President already has the only tool he needs, the veto. That Bush has declined to challenge Congress in 5-plus years is his choice. The White House no doubt sees reviving this debate as means of distracting people from the missteps, miscalculations, mistruths and mistakes that have dogged Bush and sent his approval rating south. The current problems are not systemic. They are ideological. A line-item veto will not magically grant lawmakers and the President fiscal discipline. They are not alone in that view. Here is a conservative columnist, George Will, who believes the line- item veto will shift too much power to the executive branch. He said: It would aggravate the imbalance in our constitutional system that has been growing for seven decades. The expansion of executive power at the expense of the legislature. An American Enterprise Institute scholar calls the line- item veto proposal ``shameful.'' Shameful. The larger reality is this line-item veto proposal gives the President a great additional mischief- making capability, to pluck out items to punish lawmakers he doesn't like, or to threaten individual lawmakers to get votes on other things without having any noticeable impact on budget growth or restraint. He went on to say this: More broadly, it simply shows the lack of institutional integrity and patriotism by the majority in Congress. They have lots of ways to put the responsibility on budget restraint where it belongs, on themselves. Instead, they willingly--even eagerly--try to turn their most basic power over to the President. Shameful. Just shameful. The chairman of the Budget Committee indicated he has changed his proposal so the Commission on Social Security and Medicare would require a 60-vote majority in the Senate. That is true. His original proposal did not do that. His original proposal had a simple majority being able to pass whatever a commission sent back. What is wrong with the commission proposal he has left us with? What is wrong is, this proposal comes to us on a fast-track basis. In fact, the way it is designed, you could have a circumstance in which no amendments are permitted. I hope my colleagues are listening. They want to adopt a commission process that would permit the following: The commission, which has a majority of Republicans, says we want to cut Social Security 50 percent, comes up here to the Senate, the majority leader gets recognition, which he has the right to do under Senate rules, puts in an amendment, offers a quorum call, goes into a quorum call for 50 hours, with no amendments, no debate, and at the end of the 50 hours, we vote on the commission proposal. That is at the heart of what is wrong with what the chairman proposed. That is a completely unacceptable procedure. We are not going to have a circumstance in which the future of Social Security and Medicare could be determined in the Senate under fast- track procedures that deny Senators a chance to amend or debate what comes from an unelected, unaccountable commission. Is that what we have come to in this country? I don't think so. This is not some dictatorship where things come up here and Senators could be precluded from their right to amend or debate. That is the genius of the Senate. Under the chairman's proposal, that is exactly what could happen. He says no majority leader would ever do that. Maybe not. Maybe what they would do, using that power, is say: There can only be five amendments, or I will use my power to preclude all amendments. Have we ever seen a majority leader do that? Yes, I have been here. I have seen it. I say, as one Member, I will never, ever, go along with something that would be so consequential, determine the future of Social Security, the future of Medicare, and set up a circumstance in which no Senator could offer an amendment except the majority leader of the Senate. That looks like not just a fast-track process, that looks like a bum's rush. The Senator gets a big push back from our side, you bet. He will get a real big push back because we are not going to agree to that. That is radical. That is reckless. We are not going to go along with that. The Senator can say it can never happen, but we all know it could happen. I respect the chairman of the Committee on the Budget. I like him. We work together well. When he came out here and said we offered no alternatives, that is flatly untrue. We gave a detailed, comprehensive alternative which he praised publicly in the committee. To come to the Senate and say we offered no alternative is just not true. He knows it; I know it. The record shows it. I am quite certain the Senator was exercised and upset and probably mis-spoke. I hope he corrects the record on this question. It cannot stand. It does not enhance this discussion or debate for either side to say things that are not accurate. He is upset that some of our side apparently said the commission proposal would come up here on a simple majority. That was his initial proposal. Under my criticism of that approach, he did alter that. But he still left us with a fast-track process that could preclude amendments and debate on something as fundamental as the future of Social Security and Medicare. That is just not acceptable.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I will support the Durbin amendment to pass a statute to protect the flag and address the very real problem of protests at military funerals. I was recently at a funeral for a North Dakota soldier, and I was disgusted--absolutely disgusted--by the behavior of protesters who used the funeral to convey their twisted message of hatred for our soldiers and their families. The Durbin amendment would restrict these protests from the immediate area of the funeral, and it would protect the flag without amending the Constitution of the United States for that purpose. Anybody who advances an amendment to the Constitution has to clear a very high threshold. The Constitution of the United States is one of the greatest documents in human history. It is not to be amended lightly. And it should certainly not be amended when there are other ways of addressing a problem. In our history, more than 10,000 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed. Only 27 have been approved. Since I have been in the Senate, more than 850 constitutional amendments have been offered. Thank goodness we have not adopted them. Many of them would have made that document worse. Many of them would have done things that ought to be done by statute. The Constitution is a framework. It does not deal with specifics. It deals with the larger framework of how this Government should operate. Individual laws, individual statutes are meant to deal with the specific problems that we encounter as a society within the framework provided by the Constitution. Some would have us change that basic organic document to deal with this problem. I believe that would be a mistake that we would come to regret. Flag burning and flag desecration are unacceptable to me and unacceptable to a majority of Americans. They are certainly unacceptable to the people of the State that I represent. But the first answer cannot and should not be to amend the Constitution of the United States. Of course, it is unacceptable to engage in flag desecration. Of course, it is abhorrent to desecrate the flag. We do not need to amend the Constitution to address these few instances of deplorable conduct. We have an alternative. The alternative is to pass a statute. The proponents of the constitutional amendment will say that the statutory alternative will be ruled unconstitutional, as has the previous attempt to pass a statute. But this statute has not been ruled unconstitutional, and a range of constitutional experts believe it would pass constitutional muster. They are saying to us this statute would be upheld. It is my view that we ought to see if they are right before we conclude that the only alternative is to amend our Constitution. We ought to give the Supreme Court a chance to look at this statute, and see if we can find a way to protect the flag by statute before we amend the Constitution. I am not alone in taking this position. I have heard from distinguished veterans all across my state and all across the country who agree that the Constitution does not need to be amended to protect the flag. For example, Rick Olek, a 22-year member of the American Legion, a combat veteran, and a Purple Heart recipient, has written: As a combat veteran, I fought for this country and I respect our flag, but I also respect the rights of freedom of speech. The position of Senators Conrad and Dorgan on the flag amendment is consistent with protecting first amendment rights as well as protecting our flag. Similarly, Mike Dobmeier, former National Commander of the Disabled American Veterans, says: I fought--and many of my comrades died--to protect the freedom and ideals the U.S flag embodies. Senator Conrad understands our sacrifice and he is working tirelessly to protect Old Glory. Last year he introduced bipartisan legislation that would criminalize the desecration of our flag, rather than changing the Constitution. Senator Conrad knows that we can protect our flag without infringing on the precious freedom it represents. And Brad Maasjo, a retired Air Force Colonel from Fargo, ND, writes: There is a poem that says in part that `. . . it is the soldier, who fights for the flag . . . whose coffin is draped by the flag . . . who wins the right to protest the flag. . . .'' Maybe if we take away that right, we also lose sight of what he fought for in the first place. These are just a few of the people I have heard from, proud North Dakota veterans who support the flag but also revere our Constitution. They tell me that they abhor flag desecration, but that the flag is a symbol for the liberties and freedoms they fought to protect. They do not want to rush to amend the Constitution when there are other options available. Finally, GEN Colin Powell, Secretary of State Powell, has written the Congress to say he does not believe that the appropriate response is to amend the Constitution of the United States. GEN Colin Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the man who led us in Desert Storm, a man for whom I have profound respect says: I understand how strongly so many of my fellow veterans and citizens feel about the flag and I understand the powerful sentiment in state legislatures for such an amendment. I feel the same sense of outrage. But I step back from amending the Constitution to relieve that outrage. . . . I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away. I urge my colleagues to step back from the constitutional amendment and instead support the Durbin amendment. This is the wiser course. It is the right course. It is one that will stand the test of time.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I wish today to recognize a community in North Dakota that will be celebrating its 100th anniversary. On July 7 to 9, the residents of Ryder will gather to celebrate their community's history and founding. Ryder holds an important place in North Dakota's history. Originally, the town chose Centerville as its name, but the post office said that name was already taken. The town was eventually named ``Ryder'' because of Arthur R. Ryder, who lent his coat to the local postal official. To thank Mr. Ryder for his generosity, the postal official named the town after him. Many new businesses started to emerge in Ryder after its founding, including banks, hardware stores, general stores, livery barns, hotels, restaurants, grain elevators, a blacksmith shop, a photograph gallery, and three churches. Today, Ryder is a vibrant community. The people of Ryder are very proud of their community, and they have a strong sense of camaraderie. Ryder is actively involved in creating new ideas for preserving the town that is so dearly loved by the entire community. Ryder is planning 3 fun-filled days to celebrate its centennial, which will be enjoyed by people of all ages. Activities include dedication of a wall honoring the veterans of Ryder, a magic show, a street dance, and baseball games. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Ryder, ND, and its residents on their first 100 years and in wishing them well through the next century. By honoring Ryder and all the other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the great pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Ryder that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Ryder has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I do not believe it is a wise policy to set a specific date for withdrawal from Iraq. I do believe it makes sense to begin to redeploy our forces sometime this year. Therefore, I will support the Levin amendment. I believe that is the right policy for the following reasons: No. 1, our military commanders have made clear that is their intention. In fact, the news this morning says in a headline: ``U.S. Military to Send Equipment Home.'' The story goes on to say that the U.S. military has begun sending thousands of Humvees and other war equipment home as more Iraqi units join the fight. The move also anticipates that the number of American troops in Iraq will decline. Is anybody suggesting our military is engaged in a cut-and-run strategy? I don't think so. It is not a cut-and-run strategy. It has been the long-term plan to begin to redeploy this year. No. 2, the President has repeatedly said: We will stand down as the Iraqis stand up. Well, according to the administration, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have now stood up. It is time for us to begin to redeploy. That does not constitute a cut- and-run approach but simply common sense. No. 3, Iraq is ultimately the responsibility of the Iraqis. We cannot forever do the job for them. They must defend their own freedom. No. 4, there are other priority threats that require our attention, including the worldwide al-Qaida conspiracy, North Korea nuclear weapons and missile development, and Iranian nuclear development. For those reasons, I support a policy of beginning to redeploy our forces in Iraq this year but without a specific timetable or an arbitrary pace for reducing those troop commitments. That is the right policy. That is the policy outlined in the Levin amendment. Madam President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the ranking member. These are very important expansions to the National Guard's role and will play an important part in allowing the Air Force to achieve its objectives for total force integration. It is my belief that the provisions included in this bill will permit, for example, the North Dakota Air National Guard to provide a security forces squadron to augment the Active-Duty security forces in the ICBM field at Minot Air Force Base, assuming that the Secretary requests that they perform such a mission. Air Force Space Command is eager to begin this initiative and has secured funding for it in the Air Force Program Objective Memorandum. This unit would include both traditional guardsmen and AGRs and would augment, not replace, the Active-Duty security forces group currently assigned to the mission. I would encourage Secretary Rumsfeld to give serious consideration to requesting that the North Dakota Air National Guard augment the Active-Duty Air Force in carrying out this important operational mission, and I thank my colleagues for their time and their support. Killing of U.s. Soldiers by Iraqi Security Forces

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank Mr. Levin for agreeing to join me in this discussion of the legislative intent of the Senate in approving several provisions related to the integration between the Active-Duty military and the Reserve component. This bill will enhance the authority of the Department of Defense to achieve future total force integration between the Active-Duty and Reserve components. I would be grateful in the ranking member could explain in more detail the intent of section 531 of S. 2766, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I wish to honor a community in North Dakota that is celebrating its 100th anniversary. On July 20 to 23, the residents of Plaza, ND, will gather to celebrate their community's history and founding. Plaza is a small town in northwest North Dakota. Despite its small size, Plaza holds an important place in North Dakota's history. Plaza was founded on July 20, 1906, on the Soo Line Railroad and was named to note the central plaza within the business district. The first train arrived in Plaza on December 6, 1906. Plaza was incorporated as a village in 1910 and as a city in 1951, with Roy Sandstrom elected as its first mayor. Among the town's residents were Walter J. Maddock, who served as Governor of North Dakota from 1928 to 1929. Today, Plaza remains a small, pleasant agricultural town. Residents of the town gather at the hardware store and cafe, watch their children play at the baseball field, or work together at the local farmer's union chapter. The community has many activities planned for its 4-day celebration. On Thursday, the celebration kicks off with train shuttle rides, a raffle, and several activities in the townhall. Friday highlights including a children's rodeo, a volleyball tournament, and a school alumni social. A parade, softball tournament, and fireworks display are among several of weekend activities. Historical tours of the town will also take place throughout the 4 days of celebration. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Plaza, ND, and its residents on their first 100 years and in wishing them well through the next century. By honoring Plaza and all the other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the pioneering tradition spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Plaza that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why Plaza is deserving of our recognition. Plaza has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize a community in North Dakota that will be celebrating its 100th anniversary. On July 7 to 9, the residents of Columbus will gather to celebrate their community's history and founding. Columbus is a small but welcoming community located in the northwest corner of North Dakota. It was originally founded in 1903 but moved 6 miles in 1906 to its current location along the Soo Line Railroad. Columbus was named for its second postmaster, Columbus Larson, and it is thought to be the only place named Columbus in the United States that is not named for the famous explorer, Christopher Columbus. Today, Columbus is a great place for hunting, fishing, and other outdoor activities. Its location near Short Creek Dam adds to the beauty of its landscape and attracts all types of visitors, from the serious outdoorsmen to recreational golfers. Short Creek Dam is a sportsman's dream, with its abundant fish population and quiet seclusion. Columbus is also home to the Oilmen's Golf Tournament, which draws players from around the area. Columbus is a close-knit community that values togetherness and cooperation. Community members work together to ensure Columbus remains a wonderful place to live and work. The residents of Columbus have many wonderful activities planned to celebrate their 100th anniversary, including parades, a talent show, open golf, games, a street dance, and much more. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Columbus, ND, and its residents on their first 100 years and in wishing them well through the next century. By honoring Columbus and all the other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the great pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Columbus that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Columbus has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize a community in North Dakota that will be celebrating its 100th anniversary. On July 1 to 4, and again on Labor Day, the residents of Almont will gather to celebrate their community's history and founding. Almont is a vibrant community in south-central North Dakota. The town was founded in 1883 when the Northern Pacific Railroad established a station in the town. Major real estate settlement began in the area with the help of Eber W. Hyde, a settler from South Dakota who was seeking to establish a lumber yard in the area. The name of the town, Almont, came from a nearby landmark, Altamont Moraine, which translated from French as moraine, high hill. In order to preserve the history of the city, Almont has a historical society and a museum. Along with holding the rich history of Almont, the museum is the location for the town's yearly celebration that takes place during the weekend of Labor Day. The town also hosts an annual ``Lutefisk a Lefsa'' dinner that many claim to be the best around. The citizens of Almont are proud of all of their accomplishments over the past 100 years and have planned a celebration that will include street dances, city and school tours, water slides, local entertainment, children's activities, a paint ball war, a car show, and a parade. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Almont, ND and its residents on the first 100 years and in wishing them well through the next century. By honoring Almont and all the other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the great pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Almont that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Almont has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize a community in North Dakota that will be celebrating its 100th anniversary. On July 3, the residents of Benedict will gather to celebrate their community's history and founding. Benedict was founded in 1906 as a stop on the Soo Line Railroad. The name of the town was derived from the Order of St. Benedict, the order to which most of the Catholic priests in the area belonged. Today, Benedict remains a small, pleasant agricultural town. The farmers in the area farm mostly wheat, canola, and sunflowers, and the town contains the prosperous McLean Elevator, which draws customers from the surrounding area. The Concordia Lutheran Church continues to be the center of town life. To celebrate their centennial, the people of Benedict have planned a number of events, including a lawnmower pull, children's games, and a parade. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Benedict, ND, and its residents on their first 100 years and in wishing them well through the next century. By honoring Benedict and all the other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the great pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Benedict that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Benedict has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize a community in North Dakota that will be celebrating its 100th anniversary. On July 6 to 8, the residents of Tolna will gather to celebrate their community's history and founding. Tolna's history began in May 1906, when D.B. Tallman founded the town as a stopping point for trains on the Great Northern Railroad. Tallman's daughter could not pronounce the name ``Tallman,'' so they named the town ``Tolna'' after the way she pronounced it. The town grew quickly and was settled mostly by German and Norwegian immigrants, many of whose descendants live in Tolna today. Tolna remains an active and involved community. The Tolna Summer Rec Program sponsors a large number of sports teams for area youth and sports events involving the entire town. The Senior Citizens Center organizes a variety of events, including a series of bingo games. The Tolna Alumni Association is also an active organization for all residents of Tolna, past and present. The community has organized a wide variety of events to celebrate the centennial, including a parade, fireworks, a bull riding event, and children's activities. Tolna expects over 4,000 visitors for its centennial, which is quite an accomplishment for a town of 200. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Tolna, ND, and its residents on their first 100 years and in wishing them well through the next century. By honoring Tolna and all the other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the great pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Tolna that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Tolna has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I recognize a community in North Dakota that will be celebrating its 125th anniversary. On June 30-July 2, the residents of Steele will gather to celebrate their community's history and founding. Steele is a thriving community in North Dakota. The city was founded by Wilbur F. Steele in 1878. He purchased the land from the railroad and had hopes that the city would house the State capitol. Mr. Steele constructed a building in the city to serve as a place for the legislature to meet. Since Steele was not chosen as the State's capital, the building became the Kidder County Courthouse, which is still in use today. Steele is best known for its 38\1/2\ foot high Sandhill Crane. This piece of art was inspired by the numerous birds and ducks that migrate through Steele each year. Steele has plenty to offer to its residents and visitors, from the golf course and parks to fishing, hunting, and crosscountry skiing. The community has planned a wonderful weekend celebration to commemorate its 125th anniversary. The celebration includes an all school reunion, parade, fireworks, auction, outdoor concert, a street dance, and much more. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Steele, ND, and its residents on their first 125 years and in wishing them well through the next century. By honoring Steele and all the other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the great pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Steele that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Steele has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Thomas in introducing the Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act, or R-HoPE. This proposal will help shore up health care in rural areas and give rural Americans hope that health care will be available when they need it. R-HoPE is the next step in addressing the inequities that exist in Medicare reimbursement and ensuring access to health services, like ambulance, mental health and home health care, in rural communities. The proposal has strong bipartisan support. In fact we're pleased to have over 12 cosponsors today from both sides of the aisle. Our proposal also has broad support among provider groups including the National Rural Health Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Ambulance Association, Federation of American Hospitals, the National Association of Rural Health Clinics, National Association for Home Care and Hospice, and the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners. As my colleagues know, prior to the Medicare Modernization Act, Medicare was shortchanging rural providers. Our reimbursement was significantly less than our urban counterparts. For example, Mercy Hospital in Devil's Lake North Dakota received half as much reimbursement for treating pneumonia as Mercy Hospital in New York City did. While I will be the first to admit that health care can be more expensive in urban areas, it certainly isn't twice the cost. And for that matter, rural hospitals don't get a ``rural discount'' when they go to buy supplies or new technology. It costs rural hospitals even more to purchase technology and supplies because they can't achieve the economies of scale that larger, more urban hospitals can. The MMA recognized this disparity in reimbursement and took steps to close the gap. We secured over $25 billion for rural health care, but most of the changes were only temporary. Even with the MMA funding, many rural hospitals and providers continue to experience negative margins. In 2003, before the MMA passed, rural hospitals had overall Medicare margins of negative 5.4 percent--compared to negative 0.9 percent for urban providers. In its March 2006 report, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission projected that rural hospitals would experience negative 4.5-percent margins this year. Facilities cannot continue to provide high quality services if they lose over 4 percent on every Medicare patient. R-HoPE will help continue the progress made by the MMA and add new provisions that will protect access to rural health care. First, it will help ensure that everyone who chooses to live in a rural community has a hospital nearby. For example, the proposal recognizes that rural facilities can't achieve the same economies of scale as large hospitals by giving extra payments to hospitals with fewer than 2,000 patients a year. R-HoPE also reinstates provisions that protect rural hospitals against losses under the current outpatient payment system. Next, the bill extends an MMA provision that has helped rural hospitals to better meet their labor costs by improving their ``wage index'' calculation. In addition, the proposal would close the gap in payments hospitals receive for serving low- income patients by giving the same level of special ``disproportionate share payments'' that urban areas enjoy. Lastly, the bill establishes a new loan program to help rural hospitals repair crumbling buildings. Second, R-HoPE would guarantee that rural Americans can see a doctor when they are sick. As is the case with most rural States, much of North Dakota is designated as a health professional shortage area, HPSA. Recruiting doctors to these areas is very difficult, and the Medicare program recognized that extra payments are needed when it established the 10-percent physician scarcity payment for doctors who serve Medicare patients in HPSAs. R-HoPE would extend these vital bonus payments. Our proposal also extends a provision from the MMA that erases geographic inequities in physician payments. Third, our bill would guarantee that when there is an emergency in a rural area, an ambulance is there to respond. Many rural ambulance services are closing because of low Medicare reimbursement. These services are often staffed by volunteers; few first responders are paid. R-HoPE would protect rural ambulance services by improving how Medicare pays EMS providers in rural areas. The bill also extends a 2- percent bonus payment for rural ambulance services and takes steps to reduce the number of wrongful denials of payment by Medicare contractors. Fourth, R-HoPE helps to bolster a vital rural health care safety net provider, rural health clinics. Our bill would help preserve this important source of health care by increasing the all-inclusive payment from $63 to $82. In addition, our bill encourages rural health clinics to collaborate with community health centers to provide care in rural areas. Fifth, R-HoPE takes a number of steps to protect the availability of home and mental health in rural areas by increasing the number of providers who are allowed to order and provide these vital services. It also extends the rural add-on payment for home health services provided in rural areas and creates a pilot project to use home monitoring technology to provide home health services. This bill also removes barriers to telehealth. Specifically, the bill would address problems that arise when telehealth services are provided across State lines and payment is denied because the practitioner isn't licensed in the State where the patient resides. Finally, the bill we are introducing includes two small changes to the critical access hospital, CAH, program that will put these facilities on a much sounder financial footing. These provisions would ensure CAHs could afford to provide quality ambulance care and receive fair reimbursement for lab services provided outside the hospital. Rural America is the backbone of this country. We must not turn our backs on rural Americans and their health care needs. They have a right to the same quality health care enjoyed by other Americans. And that right is being threatened by low Medicare reimbursement and limited access to providers. R-HoPE truly gives hope to those living in rural communities by erasing the inequities in current law that impede access to care. I want to thank my Senate colleagues who have joined in this effort, as well as the organizations who worked with us, for their cooperation in developing this important health care proposal. It is my hope that this legislation will help strengthen our rural health care system and preserve it for generations to come.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Thomas in introducing the Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act, or R-HoPE. This proposal will help shore up health care in rural areas and give rural Americans hope that health care will be available when they need it. R-HoPE is the next step in addressing the inequities that exist in Medicare reimbursement and ensuring access to health services, like ambulance, mental health and home health care, in rural communities. The proposal has strong bipartisan support. In fact we're pleased to have over 12 cosponsors today from both sides of the aisle. Our proposal also has broad support among provider groups including the National Rural Health Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Ambulance Association, Federation of American Hospitals, the National Association of Rural Health Clinics, National Association for Home Care and Hospice, and the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners. As my colleagues know, prior to the Medicare Modernization Act, Medicare was shortchanging rural providers. Our reimbursement was significantly less than our urban counterparts. For example, Mercy Hospital in Devil's Lake North Dakota received half as much reimbursement for treating pneumonia as Mercy Hospital in New York City did. While I will be the first to admit that health care can be more expensive in urban areas, it certainly isn't twice the cost. And for that matter, rural hospitals don't get a ``rural discount'' when they go to buy supplies or new technology. It costs rural hospitals even more to purchase technology and supplies because they can't achieve the economies of scale that larger, more urban hospitals can. The MMA recognized this disparity in reimbursement and took steps to close the gap. We secured over $25 billion for rural health care, but most of the changes were only temporary. Even with the MMA funding, many rural hospitals and providers continue to experience negative margins. In 2003, before the MMA passed, rural hospitals had overall Medicare margins of negative 5.4 percent--compared to negative 0.9 percent for urban providers. In its March 2006 report, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission projected that rural hospitals would experience negative 4.5-percent margins this year. Facilities cannot continue to provide high quality services if they lose over 4 percent on every Medicare patient. R-HoPE will help continue the progress made by the MMA and add new provisions that will protect access to rural health care. First, it will help ensure that everyone who chooses to live in a rural community has a hospital nearby. For example, the proposal recognizes that rural facilities can't achieve the same economies of scale as large hospitals by giving extra payments to hospitals with fewer than 2,000 patients a year. R-HoPE also reinstates provisions that protect rural hospitals against losses under the current outpatient payment system. Next, the bill extends an MMA provision that has helped rural hospitals to better meet their labor costs by improving their ``wage index'' calculation. In addition, the proposal would close the gap in payments hospitals receive for serving low- income patients by giving the same level of special ``disproportionate share payments'' that urban areas enjoy. Lastly, the bill establishes a new loan program to help rural hospitals repair crumbling buildings. Second, R-HoPE would guarantee that rural Americans can see a doctor when they are sick. As is the case with most rural States, much of North Dakota is designated as a health professional shortage area, HPSA. Recruiting doctors to these areas is very difficult, and the Medicare program recognized that extra payments are needed when it established the 10-percent physician scarcity payment for doctors who serve Medicare patients in HPSAs. R-HoPE would extend these vital bonus payments. Our proposal also extends a provision from the MMA that erases geographic inequities in physician payments. Third, our bill would guarantee that when there is an emergency in a rural area, an ambulance is there to respond. Many rural ambulance services are closing because of low Medicare reimbursement. These services are often staffed by volunteers; few first responders are paid. R-HoPE would protect rural ambulance services by improving how Medicare pays EMS providers in rural areas. The bill also extends a 2- percent bonus payment for rural ambulance services and takes steps to reduce the number of wrongful denials of payment by Medicare contractors. Fourth, R-HoPE helps to bolster a vital rural health care safety net provider, rural health clinics. Our bill would help preserve this important source of health care by increasing the all-inclusive payment from $63 to $82. In addition, our bill encourages rural health clinics to collaborate with community health centers to provide care in rural areas. Fifth, R-HoPE takes a number of steps to protect the availability of home and mental health in rural areas by increasing the number of providers who are allowed to order and provide these vital services. It also extends the rural add-on payment for home health services provided in rural areas and creates a pilot project to use home monitoring technology to provide home health services. This bill also removes barriers to telehealth. Specifically, the bill would address problems that arise when telehealth services are provided across State lines and payment is denied because the practitioner isn't licensed in the State where the patient resides. Finally, the bill we are introducing includes two small changes to the critical access hospital, CAH, program that will put these facilities on a much sounder financial footing. These provisions would ensure CAHs could afford to provide quality ambulance care and receive fair reimbursement for lab services provided outside the hospital. Rural America is the backbone of this country. We must not turn our backs on rural Americans and their health care needs. They have a right to the same quality health care enjoyed by other Americans. And that right is being threatened by low Medicare reimbursement and limited access to providers. R-HoPE truly gives hope to those living in rural communities by erasing the inequities in current law that impede access to care. I want to thank my Senate colleagues who have joined in this effort, as well as the organizations who worked with us, for their cooperation in developing this important health care proposal. It is my hope that this legislation will help strengthen our rural health care system and preserve it for generations to come.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a community in North Dakota that will be celebrating its 100th anniversary. On June 30-July 2, the residents of Max will gather to celebrate their community's history and founding. The community of Max began its century in the heartland on August 8, 1906, when it was platted by J.G. Sheldrick. The town gained its unusual name because when people would come to the post office, a shaver named Max would jokingly ask if they were coming to his post office. The name Max's Post Office stuck and was later transferred to the town. Max prides itself on community involvement. The Community Enterprises, a group that invests in and sustains local businesses, has helped keep this small town vibrant. The annual ``Great Plunge'' is an example of the lively, fun-loving spirit in Max. In this event, the community places a large Dr. Pepper can on an ice-covered pond. Tickets are sold with the day and time the ice will melt, causing the can to fall into the pond. The community has planned a wonderful weekend celebration to commemorate its 100th anniversary. Events include a street dance, children's activities, skits, presentations and fireworks. I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Max, ND, and its residents on their first 100 years and in wishing them well through the next century. By honoring Max and all the other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the great pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Max that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Max has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a community in North Dakota that will be celebrating its 100th anniversary. On June 30-July 1, the residents of Hannaford will gather to celebrate their community's history and founding. Hannaford is a Community of Progress and Proud Heritage, located in the heart of east-central North Dakota. Since the day of its founding by Jules M. Hannaford the community has been small but very active. Hannaford has plenty to offer its residents and visitors. There is always something to do, from visiting the park, to bowling, hunting, and playing around at the baseball complex. The community has planned a wonderful weekend celebration to commemorate its 100th anniversary. The celebration preparation includes a bingo fundraiser, a 2002 Centennial Historical Book sale, and a cookbook sale. The money raised will be used for the celebration festivities. I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Hannaford, ND, and its residents on their first 100 years and in wishing them well through the next century. By honoring Hannaford and all the other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the great pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Hannaford that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Hannaford has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. Let me indicate as a member of the Finance Committee that we had hearings on the Schwab nomination. Let me stipulate that she is well qualified for the position. She is a lovely person, well educated and well trained. With all that said, after her testimony before the Finance Committee, I decided reluctantly that I would oppose her nomination. I want to share very briefly with the Members why I made that judgment. When Ms. Schwab came before the Finance Committee, I put up a chart showing what has happened to the trade deficit of the United States. The trade deficit soared to over $700 billion last year. I had another chart that showed what has happened to the trade deficit with Mexico since the NAFTA agreement. Before the NAFTA agreement, we had a trade surplus with Mexico of several billion dollars. Now we have a massive trade deficit with Mexico. I asked Ms. Schwab: Is this a successful trade policy? Her answer was: Yes. I told her: If this is a success, I would hate to see a failure. Because this trade policy is proving to be a disaster for the financial health of the United States. We are spending $700 billion a year more in purchases than we are in sales. A country cannot do that for very long. Then I asked her about agricultural trade policy. I asked her about the strategy of our trade ambassador going into the trade talks and making unilateral concessions, offering to cut support for our producers by 60 percent on the notion that then the other side would make concessions to us. I told her this is the strangest way to negotiate that I have ever seen. Unilateral concessions on the hope that the other side will follow suit--who has ever seen that in a negotiation? That is like going to the car dealership and agreeing to pay the sticker price. Why would you ever do that? Ms. Schwab told me this is actually a smart trade tactic, a negotiating tactic, that you make big concessions on the front end and then you get tougher at the end. I don't think that is smart. I think it is a disaster. We are in a circumstance in which the Europeans provide five times as much support for their producers as we provide for ours. They account for more than 90 percent of the export subsidy in the world. We are about 1 or 2 percent. So they have us outgunned there 70 or 80 to 1. Our idea of a negotiation is to make major unilateral concessions and then hope the other side gives in. What happened with this strategy? Did Europe then follow and make major concessions in response to ours? No. They made none. I fear we are pursuing a trade agenda that is simply not working. I would present as exhibit No. 1 record trade deficits, the biggest in our history and growing dramatically. Exhibit No. 2, NAFTA: We signed on to the NAFTA agreement. Our leadership told us this was going to be a great success. At the time we had a positive trade balance with Mexico. Now our trade deficit is measured in the tens of billions of dollars a year. This is a trade policy that is not working. I cannot support as our trade ambassador somebody who clearly believes that is a success. How could anyone define this as a success? I have reluctantly concluded that if we were to have a vote, and apparently this will be on a voice vote, I want it clearly recorded that I would vote ``no.'' I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, what now is the business before the body?

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, we are debating the question of whether the estate tax ought to be eliminated. It has been fashionable to call this tax the death tax. That is a name conjured up by some PR people for a handful of wealthy families whom the New York Times revealed this morning have spent $200 million over the last several years trying to convince people there is a death tax. There is no death tax. None. We do have a tax on the wealthiest estates in the country. Currently, the exemption levels of $2 million per person or $4 million a couple mean that only one-half of 1 percent of estates are taxed. To eliminate the estate tax would cost the Treasury $776 billion from 2012 to 2021. That is the time it would be first fully in effect. That doesn't count the interest lost. The interest lost would be another $213 billion. So the total cost to the Treasury would be nearly $1 trillion in the time 2012 to 2021. Let's look at our current budget condition because that should inform what we do here. Do we have this money? And the answer is clearly no, we don't have the money. We already can't pay our bills. This is what has happened in the last 5 years. These are the deficits that have been run up. They are the biggest deficits in the history of our country. This year they are anticipating a deficit of $325 billion. That doesn't accurately describe our fiscal condition because what is going to get added to the debt this year is not $325 billion. What is going to get added to the debt this year is over $600 billion. In the midst of this sea of red ink, what our colleagues are talking about doing is eliminating another trillion dollars. Let's just stack it on the debt. They are not proposing cutting spending to offset this amount. They are not proposing other taxes to offset this amount. They are proposing borrowing the money. This is our pattern of borrowing since this President took over. In the last part of his first year, the debt of the country stood at $5.8 trillion. We don't hold him responsible for the first year because that was a budget determined in the previous administration. But here is what is happening to the debt under this President in 10 years--the first 5 years we have already seen and the 5-year budget that is before us now. If the 5-year budget that has been passed in the House and the Senate goes forward pursuant to the President's proposal, this will be the debt at the end of that period--almost $12 trillion. This President will be responsible for doubling the debt of the country. Already he has more than doubled the amount of American debt held by foreign entities. It took all these Presidents--42 Presidents--224 years to run up $1 trillion of external debt. This President has more than doubled that amount in just 5 years. This is an utterly unsustainable course, debt on top of debt. The result is, we now owe Japan over $600 billion. We owe China over $300 billion. We owe the United Kingdom almost $200 billion. We owe the oil exporters almost $100 billion. And now Mexico has gotten on to our list of top 10. We owe Mexico $40 billion. Most of the added borrowing we have done to float this boat, most of the money has not come from our own country. We have borrowed more from abroad in the last 5 years than we borrowed from America to finance these deficits. Our colleagues are saying: Let's go out and borrow another trillion dollars, primarily from Japan and China, in order to give a tax reduction to one-half of 1 percent of the estates. This makes no earthly sense. Under current law--here we are in 2006--a couple can shield $4 million. In fact, with any kind of estate planning, they can shield far more than that. In 2009, that will go up to $7 million. That is under current law. Under current law, in 2009, 99.8 percent of estates will pay zero. There is no death tax. There is no death tax. There is a tax on wealthy estates, and if we don't get some help from the very wealthiest among us, guess what. We are either going to have to ask middle-class people to pay more, or we are just going to keep running up the debt. The proposal of our friends on the other side is just stack it on the debt, stack it on top of the debt that has already doubled under this administration's watch. Already under current law, the number of taxable estates has dramatically fallen. In 2000, we had 50,000 estates that were taxable. That was down to 13,000 this year. By 2009, it will be further cut to just 7,000. What is this really about? This is really about a handful of wealthy families who, according to the New York Times in this morning's paper, have spent more than $200 million over the last several years to convince people there is a death tax. I just had a colleague tell me a baggage handler stopped him and urged him to end this death tax because he was deathly afraid he was going to get taxed. That baggage handler doesn't have to worry. One has to have $4 million in their family before they pay a penny of tax. With any kind of estate planning, you can shield far more than that. I recently spoke with a North Dakota estate lawyer. He does more estates than any lawyer in my state. I said: Is this estate tax with a $4 million exemption per family a problem? He said: Kent, it is a nonissue. Not only do you have $4 million, but in addition, you have a whole series of things you can do to further reduce your tax liability, and on top of that, if you do have any liability, you have 14 years to pay if you have a closely held business or a farm. You have 14 years to pay. People say there is a liquidity problem. There is no liquidity problem. The only people who have an issue are very wealthy people. I would love to be able to say to them that we can dramatically reduce your tax burden, but the problem is we can't pay our bills now. People say it is the people's money. Absolutely it is. It is also the people's debt, and this debt that is going to be added to is in all of our names. This is in all of our names. Are we really going to take on $1 trillion of additional debt in order to help a handful of very wealthy people who really don't need the help? We have already heard many of them say: Please, don't do this. Warren Buffett, the second wealthiest man in the world, said this makes no sense at all. Mr. Gates, the father of the richest man in the world, has come before us and said: We don't need this kind of help. We have been blessed by being in America. We have had the opportunities of being here. We expect to make an additional contribution. There is something else that should be mentioned, and that is, we have other tax relief we need to consider, and this should be the priority over estate tax repeal. Repeal costs $369 billion from 2007 to 2016. During that same period it would cost $286 billion to extend the 10-percent bracket. That really does affect people, middle-class people. It would cost $183 billion to extend the child tax credit. That really does affect middle-class people. And it would cost $46 billion to extend the marriage penalty relief. I submit these are priorities. These are the issues--extending the 10-percent bracket, extending child tax credit, extending marriage penalty relief--to which we ought to pay attention. Finally, this is a quote from the chairman of the Finance Committee last year: It's a little unseemly to be talking about eliminating the estate tax at a time when people are suffering. The chairman of the Finance Committee had it right last year. It is unseemly. It is unseemly to be eliminating the estate tax when our country is in deep debt, when our country is at war, when our country is running up record deficits, and when there are so many other needs that are the real priority for the people of this country. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a community in North Dakota that will be celebrating its 125th anniversary. On June 17, the residents of Hunter will gather to celebrate their community's history and founding. Hunter has an interesting past that began with the founding of the city by John C. Hunter. It was also home to David H. Houston, the inventor of the roll-type film process later to be named Kodak. David subsequently sold the rights to this process to George Eastman from New York. The Hunter community prides itself on civic involvement. There are numerous clubs to join and activities to partake in. The American Legion Auxiliary and the Albert Wallner Legion Post #44 are just two examples of the many active community clubs in Hunter. The community has planned a wonderful weekend celebration to commemorate its 125th anniversary. The celebration includes the dedication of the Veterans Memorial, a community parade, an all school reception, a kid's carnival, a dance, local entertainment, and much more. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Hunter, ND, and its residents on their first 125 years and in wishing them well through the next century. By honoring Hunter and all the other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the great pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Hunter that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Hunter has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a community in North Dakota that is celebrating its 125th anniversary. On June 17, the residents of Clifford, ND, will celebrate their community's history and founding. Clifford is a small town in the eastern part of North Dakota. Despite its small size, Clifford holds an important place in North Dakota's history. It began in 1881 when the North Pacific Railroad was built in Traill County. Some say it was named for Clifford F. Jacobs of Hillsboro, a promoter of the townsite. Others say it was named for a pioneer settler in the area. The post office was established February 15, 1883, and George A. Swaren was the first postmaster. Today, Clifford remains a small but vibrant community. The town organizes a senior citizens league and a 4-H club, and has a very profitable farmers' cooperative. The Traill Rural Water Company, housed in Clifford, helps to provide water for irrigation for all of Traill County. The community has come together in recent years to fix up the town spaces, making it a destination to be proud of. To celebrate its 125th anniversary, the town of Clifford is organizing a celebration, which will include a parade and a dance with a live band. An all-faith worship service and dinner will also be held. It promises to be a wonderful event. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Clifford, North Dakota, and its residents on their first 125 years and in wishing them well through the next century. By honoring Clifford and all the other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the pioneering tradition spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Clifford that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Clifford has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a community in North Dakota that will be celebrating its 100th anniversary. On June 16-18, the residents of Binford will gather to celebrate their community's history and founding. Binford is a vibrant community in eastern North Dakota. Settlers arrived in this area around 1877 and a few years later they named the area Blooming Prairie. Binford became the name of the town after the Northern Pacific built a railroad station in the town and named the station after Ray Binford, an Iowa attorney who had great interest in this area. Today, the citizens of Binford have the following slogan for their town: ``The Biggest little town in North Dakota.'' Binford is also located within the Griggs-Steele Empowerment Zone. This designation provides incentives for existing businesses to expand and other businesses to relocate to the area. Citizens of Binford have organized numerous activities to celebrate their centennial. Some of the activities include class reunions, street dances, a carnival and parade, a mini-marathon, a memorabilia auction, all-faith services, a Bull-a-Rama, and a demolition derby. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Binford, ND, and its residents on the first 100 years and in wishing them well through the next century. By honoring Binford and all the other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the great pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Binford that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Binford has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a community in North Dakota that will be celebrating its 125th anniversary. On June 23, the residents of Englevale will gather to celebrate their community's history and founding. The town of Englevale was founded in 1881 as Marshall, ND, but changed its name to Englevale in 1883. The town was named for Mathias Engle, an avid promoter of the township from New York. Although the town was hit by major fires in the 1930s, Englevale has remained a wonderful community. Englevale is a small but vibrant town. Most of the farmers in the area grow corn, dry beans and wheat. The Good Shepard Lutheran Church has remained an important anchor in the town for decades. To celebrate their 125th anniversary, the people of Englevale have planned a number of events, including a tractor pull, rodeo, parade, and an all-town potluck. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Englevale, ND, and its residents on their first 125 years and in wishing them well through the next century. By honoring Englevale and all the other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the great pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Englevale that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Englevale has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a community in North Dakota that will be celebrating its 100th anniversary. On June 29 to July 2, the residents of Harvey will gather to celebrate their community's history and founding. Harvey holds an important place in North Dakota's history. Harvey was founded in 1892 and named for COL James S. Harvey, a stockholder from Wisconsin. It became a city in 1906, with Aloys Wartner serving as its first mayor. Today, Harvey is a vibrant community in central North Dakota. Situated at the head waters of the beautiful Sheyenne River and in close proximity to the Lonetree Wildlife Management Area and the North Country National Scenic Trail, Harvey has great appeal for recreation and wildlife enthusiasts alike. The people of Harvey are enthusiastic about their community and the quality of life it offers. The community has a wonderful centennial planned that includes a street dance, golf tournament, demolition derby, lumberjack show, centennial games, parade, and many other activities for all ages. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Harvey, ND, and its residents on their first 100 years and in wishing them well through the next century. By honoring Harvey and all the other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the great pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Harvey that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Harvey has a proud past and a bright future.