Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. You have suggested.

Mr. DORGAN. I guess I heard the majority leader indicate the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is tied up with several other treaties, and he equated it to a stool that has a bunch of legs to it--at lease three legs. But I say this: this is not a stool and not legs that connect. There is no connection between the Kyoto treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The U.S. has already decided we are not testing nuclear weapons. We have not tested since the early 1990s. I would love to have a long debate about this. I feel strongly that the treaty is needed in order to prevent others from testing and in order to prevent others from believing they have acquired nuclear weapons that work, because you cannot believe they work unless you have tested them. If we have a regime in which the world decides, through leadership from this country and others, that it will not test nuclear weapons any longer, we will have taken a step to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We can have that debate and should have that debate. But we have not even had the first day of hearings. What I heard the Senator from Mississippi say, I think, is that he has encouraged the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations to hold hearings, to hold hearings on this treaty. The reason I ask the question is I don't want to add to your burdens--you have plenty--but I indicated earlier this week I certainly will be prepared to add to your burdens and the burdens of Senator Daschle when you try to schedule this place because this is one of those heavy issues, important issues. We ought to have the opportunity to consider this issue as a Senate. So I ask the Senator from Mississippi, will we be able to expect hearings will be held in the Foreign Relations Committee on this subject, and, if so, when?

Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, but I would like to make a couple of inquiries of the majority leader. I ask the majority leader about the issue of scheduling the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty for debate in the Senate. While I have asked that, let me make an observation. The majority leader just described the difficulties the leadership has, both the majority leader and the minority leader, in scheduling business before the Senate. I respect that. I do not think he is crying wolf. It is a difficult problem. I once saw a juggler juggle a potato chip, a bowling ball, and a chain saw that was running. It occurred to me that one was light, one was heavy, and one was dangerous. That is probably the kind of juggling act Senator Lott and Senator Daschle are required to do weekly and monthly. The distinction of understanding what is light and heavy and what is dangerous, for that matter, is a very important distinction. Let me describe something I think is very heavy in terms of a public issue and public policy. That is the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty signed by 152 countries and sent to this Senate 718 days ago without one hearing. I believe so strongly--and I know the Senator from Mississippi knows I spoke earlier this week on the floor about it --that we have a responsibility to provide leadership in the world on the issue of nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. This treaty is a baby step in that direction. So far, we have not been able to get even 1 day of hearings on this treaty. I believe very strongly that this is one of those heavy public policy issues which is important for our country and important for the world. I want very much to have some assurance that we are going to have an opportunity to debate and vote on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty at some point. I inquire of the majority leader where we are with respect to that treaty, why we have not been able to have hearings, and when we might expect some action on the floor of the Senate with respect to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Mr. DORGAN. Further reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, but I do want to respond to a couple of the comments that were made. We should not rush into this. No one would ever accuse the Senate of speeding on an issue such as this--718 days. It is very unusual that we have not had an opportunity to act on this treaty after 718 days without even 1 day of hearings. So no one will accuse the Senate of rushing to judgment on this issue. It is an uncertain and difficult world. That is precisely why it is important to address this issue. This country has no moral standing, or very little moral suasion to be going to India and Pakistan and saying to them: Do not detonate additional nuclear weapons. Sign and ratify this treaty. The fact is Russia and China, and others, wait on us. The majority leader talked about a piece in today's newspaper written by Charles Krauthammer. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record a much better piece on this same subject that appeared two days ago in the Washington Post in the form of an editorial supporting the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and reserve the right later to ask at some time to include an even better piece that will be in response to today's Krauthammer article this morning that I and some others will try to write for the Washington Post.

Mr. DORGAN. It is.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. Schlesinger will be standing in a mighty small crowd. Most of the folks who are supporting this treaty are the folks who Senator Lott and I have the greatest respect for who have served this country as Republicans and Democrats, and military policy analysts for three or four decades, going back to President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate that. Let me say I have great respect for the chairman of the committee. We might have disagreements about the policy, but he is the chairman. I have respect for him and in no way denigrate his efforts and his beliefs on these issues. This is a very controversial matter but very important and one I believe the Senate ought to be entitled to debate. Based on the majority leader's response, I will look forward to further discussing with him next week. Let me say I appreciate the fact he has initiated an effort to ask that we have some hearings held in the Senate. I think that is movement, and that is exactly what should happen.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. May I make just one comment?

Mr. DORGAN. I observe on March 8 the Commerce Committee took action on S. 82, which is the reauthorization of the FAA. So we have had a substantial amount of time elapse. I think the Senator from Mississippi agrees with me that the number of people using the aviation system in this country has expanded dramatically. The capacity is being substantially taxed in many ways, and we really do need to pass a reauthorization bill. It is critically important that we get at this business. I respect the difficulty of time that a majority leader has to deal with, but this is a big issue, the issue of safety and protecting the system by which we have an aviation transportation system in our country, one that we are very proud of but one that desperately is waiting for and needs a reauthorization bill passed by the Senate. We ought to have the opportunity to debate that in the Senate, get to conference, and we ought to make this a priority.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall object on behalf of Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader. But before doing so, I would like to point out the Senate passed S. 1467, which is a 60-day extension of the airport grant program. We have dealt with this issue of the reauthorization act for some long while. In fact, in the Commerce Committee on which I and the majority leader both serve, we have passed S. 82. It has been waiting to be brought to the floor of the Senate for debate. The process that is described by Senator Lott would, in effect, prohibit Senators from debating this issue on the floor of the Senate. Because the House passes an omnibus bill and attaches it to the 60-day extension, the Senate does not have the opportunity to debate. It means people who have amendments they would like to offer, perhaps, to the bill that we wrote in the Commerce Committee will not have that opportunity. This will then be decided in conference. That is not appropriate and not something we could agree to. But I do want to say, and I expect the majority leader probably disagrees, this process has been abysmal. We have a system in this country with radical expansion of the number of people flying. The FAA is an organization that desperately needs some assistance and some predictability and consistency with a reauthorization they can count on. We should have done this long ago. Passing 60-day extensions doesn't serve anybody's interest. Several days on the floor of the Senate would resolve this from the standpoint of the larger reauthorization bill and move this process forward. I will be forced to object to the unanimous consent request for those reasons, the request offered by the majority leader. I do so object, and then I would like to offer a unanimous consent request on a different way to accomplish the same result. But I object to the unanimous consent request by the majority leader.

Mr. DORGAN. If I might ask the majority leader for the opportunity to offer a unanimous consent request? I ask consent the Senate disagree to the House amendments so the message on this bill can be returned to the House this afternoon. That would enable the House to recede from its amendment and send S. 1467, the short-term extension bill the Senate passed on August 2, to the President immediately for his signature. This would ensure this process would continue, local airports would be able to receive the estimated $290 million in funds due through the end of this fiscal year, and do that until the Senate has had an opportunity to consider the FAA reauthorization bill. We should do that. Senators have that right. It ought to be a priority. I hope we can accomplish that. I make this in the form of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall object on behalf of Senator Daschle. I observe that Senator Daschle and Senator Lott had conversations about the specific language in the proposal. My understanding is there are meetings, in fact, scheduled midday today to review the language. I expect there may be some opportunity to come to some common understanding on language that will be acceptable. There has been no such agreement at this point. While these discussions are ongoing, on behalf of Senator Daschle, I object.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Maine is waiting to speak on the floor. Let me just take 2 or 3 minutes. I will be mercifully brief. I wanted to make a couple of comments, however, before we discontinue this session for the week, especially in light of the comments that were just made by my distinguished colleague from Texas. We have returned from an August recess in which most of us spent a great deal of time in our home States around America talking to our constituents about their hopes and their dreams and their aspirations. One of the things I found in North Dakota is that people believe very strongly that if this country is blessed with better economic times-- and we certainly have had good economic times in recent years--that produce a budget surplus, we ought to as a country decide to use a significant part of that surplus to reduce the Federal debt. If during bad economic times you increase the Federal debt, during good economic times you ought to reduce the Federal debt. We have a $5.7 trillion Federal debt. We have been very fortunate to eliminate the yearly Federal budget deficit, but we still have this debt that we have run up as a country over many years. It seems to me that one of the best thing for America's future to use some of the expected future surplus to reduce this debt. But it is important in the context of a discussion of the type we just heard about tax cuts to understand the following: There is not yet a surplus. There are only economists who estimate in the next 10 years we will have a surplus. These are economists who don't know what will happen in the future. They do not have the foggiest notion. They are giving us an educated guess. Prior to the last recession in America, 35 of the 40 leading economists said in the next year we will have sustained economic growth. In fact, almost all of the leading economists were wrong. The next year we had a recession. A friend of my mine described the field of economics as psychology pumped up with a little helium. That is probably a pretty good description. I, in fact, taught economics for a couple of years. Economists are telling us that we will have 10 years of economic good times and therefore very large budget surpluses. On that basis, we have people in this Congress who say: Well, if that is the case, let us enact a very sizable tax cut. So the Congress enacted a $792 billion tax cut over 10 years, this despite the fact that we don't yet have a budget surplus, we only have projections of budget surpluses. I voted against the $792 billion proposed tax cut. It is, in my judgment, unwise to cut taxes and therefore decrease revenues when we don't have actual surpluses, only projections. There is plenty of time in the future to deal with surpluses, if in fact they exist. And if we can't agree on how to deal with them and the best of all worlds will occur, it will mean that the Federal debt is reduced because Congress doesn't decide what else to do with the surplus. It is interesting that with all of this discussion in August back home around the country, I think most Members of the Senate discovered that their constituents believed that to rush to propose a very sizable tax cut with only an economic projection over the next 10 years was not a very thoughtful or appropriate way to deal with this country's fiscal policy. We have had good fiscal policy in this country that has given some people the confidence that we are doing the right things. Almost 7 years ago, we had an enormous annual Federal budget deficit. It was $290 billion, and it was growing. Now it is gone. Why? Because this Congress had the courage to say we are not going to put up with that anymore. We are going to change direction and strategy. And we did. We had a vote. By one vote in the Senate, we changed this country's fiscal policy. It was a tough vote and a political vote. An easy vote would have been to say: Don't count me in on that. It actually raised taxes on income for some folks. Don't count me in on that. That is unpopular. Well, count me in. I voted for it. I am proud that I did. It was the right thing. This country was on the wrong track. We changed the approach to fiscal policy and said to the American people that we were willing to do tough things. We were willing to make tough decisions. Guess what happened. The American people, I think as a result, have more confidence in the future. This entire economy rests on the mattress of confidence. If they are confident, they do certain things. If they are confident, they buy a car, they buy a home, they take a vacation, and do the kind of things that move this economy along. If they are not confident about the future, they decide not to make those decisions, they decide to withhold this purchase, or that purchase, and it affects the economy. What we did about 7 years ago dramatically changed the fiscal policy of this country. This country has had unprecedented economic expansion, and a huge and growing Federal budget deficit is now eliminated. What remains is the Federal debt that occurred from all of those years of spending. The question is, What should we do about that? The answer for many in this Senate who voted to pass a tax cut was to say what we should do about that is essentially ignore that; let's provide a very large tax cut right now just based on projections by economists who often cannot even remember their home address. That is not good policy. I am pleased that I voted against it. I think most Americans believe that the right approach for this Congress is to continue on this path we are on of good solid fiscal policy, believing that if and when we have true, good economic times and significant budget surpluses, a major part of that ought to be used to reduce the Federal debt. What greater gift can we give to America's children than to eliminate the Federal debt of $5.7 trillion? Let me thank my colleague from Maine. She has been most patient. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, on October 6, 7, and 8, there will be a meeting in Vienna, Austria. It will be among countries that have ratified something called the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. That treaty is embodied in this document I hold in my hand. Now, what is the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty? It is a treaty negotiated by a number of countries around the world; 152 countries, in fact, have signed the treaty and 44 countries have ratified the treaty. It is a treaty designed to prohibit any further explosive testing of nuclear weapons anywhere in the world, at any time, under any condition. This treaty ought to be an easy treaty for this country and this Senate to ratify. But we have not done so. At a time when India and Pakistan explode nuclear weapons literally under each other's chins-- these are two countries that don't like each other--at a time when we have evidence of more proliferation of nuclear weapons into the hands of countries that want access to nuclear weapons with which to, in some cases, defend themselves, perhaps in other cases to terrorize the rest of the world, this country ought to be exhibiting leadership. It is our moral responsibility to provide leadership in the world on these issues. This country ought to provide leadership on the issue of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. We have not ratified this treaty. At the meeting in Vienna, countries that have ratified it will participate in discussing the implementation of this treaty, and this country will not be an active participant. Great Britain, Belgium, Germany, Canada, Italy, Norway, Poland, and France will be but we will not. We are the largest nuclear superpower on Earth and we have not ratified this treaty. What about nuclear weapons and nuclear war? I was in the presence of a nuclear weapon recently at a military installation. If you stand a foot or two away from a nuclear weapon and look at it, it is a relatively small canister-looking device that, upon explosion, will devastate portions of our Earth. Going back nearly 40 years to an address by John F. Kennedy, he said something about nuclear weapons. In fact, he quoted Nikita Khrushchev: Since the beginning of history, war has been mankind's constant companion. It has been the rule, not the exception. Even a nation as young and as peace-loving as our own has fought through eight wars. A war today or tomorrow, if it led to nuclear war, would not be like any war in history. A full- scale nuclear exchange, lasting less than 60 minutes, with the weapons now in existence, could wipe out more than 300 million Americans, Europeans, and Russians, as well as untold numbers elsewhere. And the survivors, as Chairman Khrushchev warned the Communist Chinese, ``the survivors would envy the dead.'' For they would inherit a world so devastated by explosions and poison and fire that today we cannot even conceive of its horrors. This country and Russia have 30,000 nuclear weapons between them. Other countries want nuclear weapons, and they want them badly. To the extent that any other country cannot test nuclear weapons, no one will know whether they have a nuclear weapon that works. No one will have certainty that they have access to nuclear weaponry. That is why the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is so critical. Now, where is it? Well, it is here in the Senate. It has been here 716 days, with not even 1 day of hearings. Not one. Virtually every other treaty sent to the Senate has been given a hearing and has been brought to the Senate floor and debated and voted upon. The issue of the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the stopping of explosive testing of nuclear weapons is not important enough to be brought to the Senate floor for a debate. It has been over 700 days. Not 1 day of hearings. In October, this country, which ought to be the moral leader on this issue, will not be present as a ratified member at the implementing meetings for this treaty. Shame on us. We have a responsibility to do this. There are big issues and small issues in this Congress. This is a big issue and cannot be avoided. Now, I am not here to cast aspersions on any Member of the Senate. But I waited here this morning to have the majority leader come to the floor--and he was not able to come to the floor--to describe the agenda this week. When he comes to the floor, I intend to come to the floor and ask him when he intends to bring this treaty to the floor. If he and others decide it will not come to the floor, I intend to plant myself on the floor like a potted plant and object. I intend to object to other routine business of the Senate until this country decides to accept the moral leadership that is its obligation and bring this treaty to the floor for a debate and a vote. In a world as difficult as this world is, when countries such as India and Pakistan are detonating nuclear weapons, it is inexcusable, when so many other countries are trying to gain access to nuclear weapons for themselves, that this Senate, for over 2 years, has not been willing or able to allow a debate on a treaty as important as is this treaty. The banning of nuclear explosive testing all around the world at any time, anyplace, anywhere is critically important for our future, for our children, and for their children. Now, my colleagues know--at least I hope some know--that I am fairly easy to work with. I enjoy the Senate. I enjoy working with my colleagues. I think some of the best men and women I have had the privilege of working with in my life are here on both sides of the aisle. I have great respect for this body. But this body, in some ways, is very frustrating as well because often one or two people can hold up something very important. In this circumstance, I must ask the majority leader--and I will today when given the opportunity when he is on the floor--when will we have the opportunity to debate this Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. That meeting in October should not proceed without this country providing a leadership role. The only way that can happen is for us to have ratified the treaty. China and Russia have not ratified the treaty; that is true. They are waiting on this country. India and Pakistan are now talking about detonating more nuclear weapons; that is true. They are asking others to implore one or the other to ratify this treaty. Both countries are waiting for this country's leadership. What kind of credibility does this country have to go to India and Pakistan and say to them, ``You must ratify this treaty,'' and when they turn to us to say, ``Have you?'' we would say no? Somehow, the Senate could not, in 700 days, even hold 1 day of hearings on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. We have to do better than that. I am sorry if I am going to cause some problems around here with the schedule. But frankly, as I said, there are big issues and there are small issues. This is a big issue. And I am flat tired of seeing small issues around this Chamber every day in every way, when the big issues are bottled up in some committee and the key is held by one or two people. Then we are told: If you do not like it, tough luck; you don't run this place. It is true, I don't run this place, but those who do should know this is going to be a tough place to run if you do not decide to bring this issue to the floor of the Senate and give us the opportunity to debate a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. This will not be an easy road ahead for the Senate if you decide that this country shall not exercise the moral leadership that is our responsibility on these matters. If I might with the remaining minute or so mention an editorial in the Washington Post from yesterday, I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wanted to come and visit on the proposal on the floor briefly. I was trying to think of a word to describe all of this, and I was thinking of a story I had heard about Daniel Boone, who was a great Kentucky backwoodsman. He was most at home in the backwoods and known for his long hunts, traipsing through the backwoods of Kentucky without a compass. He was asked once if he had ever been lost. Daniel Boone said: No, I can't say I was ever lost, but I was bewildered once for 3 days. I thought of that term ``bewildered.'' I cannot think of anything that better describes my reaction to conservatives bringing a plan to the floor of the Senate that is so unconservative and so risky for this country. It is enough to bewilder the entire country, to see people who say they are conservatives decide that it is not their intent to help pay down the national debt during good economic times, it is not their intent to try to conduct the business we need to conduct to deal with the big challenges of Social Security and Medicare and the demographic time bombs that exist in those programs, it is not their intent to do that. Their intent is to package up a nearly $800 billion tax cut before we have had the first dollar of surplus and say for the next 10 years they are going to have this sort of riverboat gamble with this fiscal policy. Let's talk just for a bit about where we are and then where we have been. What is happening in this country? First of all, the country has an economy that is the envy of the world. Unemployment is down, inflation is down, home ownership is up, personal income is up, the welfare rolls are down, crime is down, economic growth is up, and the budget deficit is about gone. Go back about 8 years. What was happening in this country then? A $290 billion annual deficit that was continuing to rise and economists predicted they would see these deficits rise forever into the future. We had a Dow Jones Industrial Average that had barely reached 3,000. We had a sluggish, anemic economy; job growth, 1988 to 1992 was one of the worst 4-year periods in history; unemployment rates, 7.1 percent annually from 1981 to 1992; median family income fell by $1,800 in a 4- year period; real wages were falling; welfare rolls were increasing. Have things improved in this country? You bet they have improved in this country. They have improved because we passed a new fiscal policy, passed a plan in the form of legislation in 1993. Some of our colleagues predicted it would throw this country into kind of a train wreck and ruin the economy. The economy was in big trouble back then. It is much improved now. We all understand that. In fact, today's newspaper is really interesting. A tiny little article on page 5 says: Treasury plans to buy back debt. My Lord, that ought to be on the front page with 3-inch headlines: Treasury plans to buy back debt. This country has $5.7 trillion in debt, and when we started with this plan we had a $290 billion deficit in that year alone, and it was expected to continue to grow. Now we have a balanced budget, and the Treasury is beginning to buy back debt. If we have surpluses that economists say they can see well into the future, what do we do? During tough economic times, it seems to me, a country always borrows money. How about during good economic times? Does a country pay it back? Does this country say, in giving that rare gift to the young people in this country: We will reduce the Federal debt; we ran it up during tough times, but in good times when we have a surplus, we will reduce the Federal debt? No, that is not what the majority party says. The majority party says: Here are our choices. Big tax cuts, most of it going to the upper-income folks; nothing for Medicare extension; nothing for education and other key investments; nothing for Social Security solvency; nothing for debt reduction. They say big tax cuts. How big are the tax cuts? Here are the pie charts. The top 1 percent of income earners in this country get a $46,000 tax cut, and the bottom 20 percent get $24. Is that surprising? No. It is the same tired, chronic problem that always is brought to us in the Senate when the majority party writes a tax bill. This is a bar graph. You can barely see the bottom 60 percent. They only get $138; the top 1 percent, $46,000. How about this Social Security issue? This plan also raids the Social Security program after the first 5 years. That is a plain fact. What are our choices? The enduring truth of this country's existence for a number of decades has been two things: One, a cold war with the Soviet Union; and, two, a budget deficit that seemed always to grow worse. For four or five decades, that was the enduring truth that was overhanging all of our choices. Now the Soviet Union does not exist, the cold war is over, the budget deficits are gone, and everything has changed. Economists predict surpluses well into the future, and I said before these are economists who cannot remember their home phone numbers or addresses and they are telling us what is going to happen 3 years, 5 years, 10 years into the future. God bless them, maybe they are right, maybe not. Forty of the forty-five leading economists the year prior to the last recession predicted it would be a year of economic growth. So economists do not always hit the mark. Economics, as you know, is psychology pumped with a little helium, an advanced degree, and then they give us projections. Our friends on the other side say just projections, that is enough, just projections alone will compel us to pass a bill that will take $800 billion and put it in the form of tax cuts, the substantial majority of which will go to the wealthiest Americans, and they will decide to take that gamble with the American economy. It is their right. They have the votes. We do not weigh them here, we count them. And when you count up the votes, they win. But it is a risky riverboat gamble for this country's economy. Those who have been giving us the most advice about this plan of theirs and how wonderful it is for our country are the very same people who were so fundamentally wrong 8 years ago. Now they say: We have a new plan. I say: What about your old one? It seems to me what we ought to do is make rational, thoughtful choices. Yes, there is room for a tax cut if we get the surpluses that the economists predict. The first choice, it seems to me, ought to be, during good economic times you pay down part of the Federal debt. That is the best gift we could give the children of this country, and that would also stimulate lower interest rates and more economic growth. The second choice for us to decide as a country is, we are going to confront a demographic time bomb in Medicare and Social Security, and we must confront it; let's use some of these surpluses to do that. Third, let's also make sure our investments that make this a better country and better place in which to live are provided for. Yes, education, health care. Does anybody really believe it is going to help this country to have massive cuts in a program such as WIC, the investment we make in low-income pregnant women and children? Does anybody think massive cuts in those kinds of programs or massive cuts in Pell grants for poor students to go to college are going to help this country? I don't think so. That is where this plan leads us. Our choices, in my judgment, are use this projected surplus when it exists to make a real dent in this country's debt and, second, let's have some targeted tax cuts, but after we have committed ourselves to extend the solvency of Social Security and extend the solvency of Medicare. Then let's make sure those programs that invest in human potential really do work; those programs in education and health care that make this a better country, let's make sure those programs are provided for as well. To develop a plan that implicitly assumes--and, yes, it does, no matter how much they decry that is not part of what they are doing-- that implicitly assumes you are going to have 20-, 30-, and up to 40- percent cuts in programs that we know in this country work, that strengthen this country and improve this country and invest in the lives of people in this country in a very positive way, makes no sense at all. My colleagues have used charts to describe this tax proposal. There is, it seems to me, no chart that is better than this chart, which is where we were and where we are going. I hope we will decide to vote against this tax cut and have a more sensible fiscal policy as we go forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am happy to allow the Senator from Connecticut to go first.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from North Dakota be granted 2 additional minutes from the minority time so he might be able to respond to a question.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I think Senator Conrad makes the most compelling presentation in the Senate on these budget matters. The charts he has used today have been extraordinary in their description of the folly here with respect to this plan. I want to ask the Senator to go back to a couple charts with respect to those who made predictions some years ago because I thought that was very telling. The practice of augury in old Roman times was that the high priest would read the flights of birds and the entrails of cattle in order to evaluate the future. We have some folks who are practicing augury in the Senate. They are the prophets who have described to us how wonderful this plan is. I know the Senator used, a bit ago, the same kind of descriptions from these same prophets 7, 8 years ago. Could the Senator refer to that again, because I think that is most telling who brings this plan to the Senate, and what were their predictions previously?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to take note of the superb performances given yesterday by the Emter family of Glen Ullin, North Dakota, on the Capitol lawn and later at the Kennedy Center. The Emters were here in Washington as part of the Millennium Series being sponsored by the Kennedy Center. When the Kennedy Center asked me to make a recommendation of a group from North Dakota that might exhibit some of the cultural heritage of my state, the Emter family was a natural and immediate choice. One obvious reason was their outstanding musical accomplishment. The Emters are button accordionists. Mr. President, the button accordion is a unique instrument, brought to America by settlers from Austria at the turn of the 20th century. Button accordions have been in this country for nearly 100 years, and have helped make polka one of America's most loved traditional dances. In North Dakota even today you'd be hard pressed to find a wedding reception or barn dance where a polka wasn't played and the entire room doesn't pour onto the dance floor. Accordion music may not have the popular following that it did before the advent of rock and roll, but its lyrical and nostalgic flavor still tugs at the heartstrings of this Senator and many other folks of my generation who grew up watching our parents polka the night away across the American Legion Hall dance floor, at Ted Strand's barn or at Hardmeyer Hall. The Emter Family--parents Renae and Roger (who met at a polka dance), 18 year old son Adam, and three daughters Angelina, 16; Alida, 15; and Abigail, 13--has performed all over North America, from county fairs, church functions and Oktoberfests to national television and radio appearances. They have taken top honors at a number of international button accordion competitions. They are truly accomplished. I have to tell you though, Mr. President, that it isn't just for their musical achievement that the Emter Family deserves our recognition and honor today. That's because this is a great family. Their presence on stage tells you this, the way they interact with one another and everyone around them tells you this, the message in their music tell you this. They are good people that exemplify the steadfast, positive attitude of the vast majority of rural America's families. They live in Glen Ullin, in southwestern North Dakota, a part of the state that has seen one of the most significant decrease in population. Times are desperate for many families in this region of my state, along with rural areas in most of our farm states. These people have every reason in the world to lose faith, to have negative attitudes, to let frustration get the best of them and give up. None of us could fault them for that. But, Mr. President, most of these families don't despair. They look forward, they continue to work incredibly hard, they still pack the American Legion Hall to dance the polka once and awhile. The Emters are a symbol of hope in these areas of our country, Mr. President, and I want to thank them for sharing that hope with us yesterday through their music and their presence in Washington.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I am waiting for Senator Harkin. He should be here in a moment. We intend to offer an amendment per the previous agreement. Amendment No. 1514 To Amendment No. 1499 (Purpose: To provide emergency and income loss assistance to agricultural producers)

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. DORGAN. My understanding is we have a time agreement of 15 minutes on each side.

Mr. DORGAN. I will reserve the remainder of my time in the event the manager wishes to speak at this point. Mr. President, if Senator Cochran does not have a speaker, let me then finish by saying that while I think the proposal that was offered today is improved by Senator Cochran--adding the $400 million for crop insurance improves it--as we indicated yesterday, it is not sufficient. It does not provide help for disaster. It provides payments directly to farmers using AMTA. AMTA might sound like a foreign language to some people, but AMTA is a mechanism by which payments are made to people based on a 1991-1995 crop history, and we will have payments going to people who aren't producing anything. All of a sudden, they will open their mailbox and get a check. We will have payments made to people who aren't in trouble at all because AMTA is disconnected from any relationship to production. We have proposed that the payments go with respect to a loan deficiency payment that relates to production, relates to people who are not able to receive the adequate price they need for their commodity. It tries to say let us use scarce public money here, Federal tax dollars, where they might be invested and do the most good. It doesn't make much sense to throw a 5-foot rope to somebody drowning in 30 feet of water. One can say thanks for the rope, but it didn't save anybody. What we need to do at the end of today is to have said: Well, we have done something to try to address the farm crisis, collapsed commodity prices, collapsed livestock prices, devastating crop disease in some parts of the country, devastating drought in others, and flooding in yet other parts of the country. We need at the end of the day to say we have put together a package of help that says to those family farmers trying to do business under those circumstances: You have a chance here to survive. You can make it across these price valleys. Putting together an inadequate package and then just going home is not solving problems. It is just prolonging the day, probably by a month or 2 or 6 months, by which farmers might have a chance to make a decision later that they are going to have to be out of business. That is not what we want to do for farmers. Family farmers are important to this country. I come here with a real passion for family farming. It is because I grew up in a rural area of this country and I know what it takes to raise livestock. I know what kinds of efforts and passions people put into trying to operate a family farm. I see now the tears in the eyes of family farmers who stands up at meetings with me and say: I am losing the farm. This is a farm my grand-dad operated and my dad operated, and I am losing it. I am not a bad farmer, I am a good farmer, but I can't make it with Depression-era prices for wheat and corn. I just can't make a living that way. Members of the Senate couldn't make a living that way. People on minimum wage couldn't make a living that way. Nobody can make a living when their prices collapse. Is there anybody you know of who has half the income they used to have a couple years ago and are doing well? I don't think so. That is what this is about. Are we going to invest in family farming? Are we going to extend a helping hand to say, you matter, we want to help you, or are we going to pass a bill that is inadequate and say, we passed it, so credit us for passing a bill? I hope my colleagues will take a close look at this compromise, $9.837 billion, nearly $1 billion less than that which we offered yesterday. My colleagues, Senators Harkin and Conrad and others, sincerely hope we will be able to accept this as a compromise and then understand that we have done something significant and real, something helpful to America's family farmers and for America's family farmers. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Chairman for his longstanding support of agricultural research and, more specifically, of the human nutrition research programs of the Agricultural Research Service. Emphasis in human nutrition research at the USDA is designed to maintain a healthy populace and avoid the problems and substantial costs of diseases linked to poor dietary choices. Many diseases such as diabetes, cancer, osteoporosis, cataracts, and others, could be nearly eliminated with improved nutrition research and education. The President's budget requested $20.25 million for the Human Nutrition Initiative, but because of significant constraints resulting from the allocation, the bill provides only $1.5 million. Of the $53 million originally requested for the program, $48.5 million is still needed. These funds would reconcile production agriculture, which provides America the most abundant and safest food supply in the world, with consumer demands for a wholesome diet to enhance health, reduce illness, and improve the quality of life. Does the Chairman agree that because of the critical nature of funding for the program the Human Nutrition Initiative is a subject that should be evaluated in greater detail during conference on this bill?