Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from Nevada is absolutely correct about the procedures of the House.

Mr. DORGAN. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this must sound like a foreign language to people--rule XVI, legislating on appropriations bills, germane. It is not a foreign language. It is about whether folks have the right to stand at these desks and engage in debate and offer amendments. This desk I am standing at is the desk that was sat in by Robert La Follette, the great, popular Senator from Wisconsin. In fact, I am told on May 29, 1908, they tried to poison Robert La Follette at this very desk. The Senate historian sent me information about that. He had been filibustering and had been on his feet for some 8 hours or so, and he put a glass of eggnog to his lips and spat the eggnog and claimed he had been poisoned. There is a lot of mystery about that circumstance. It was at this desk in 1908 that a great, popular Senator in the middle of a filibuster suffered that indignity. Having heard that story now and seen the evidence from the Senate historian, I am probably not likely to filibuster anytime soon. At least if I do, I will not from this desk. The point is, back in the old days, the way the Senate used to work, and the not so old days even going back 10, 20, 30 years, the Senate was a deliberative body. Its ability to debate was not choked by someone filing cloture motions before anyone else had the opportunity even to offer an amendment. That is not the way the Senate should work. The change in rule XVI allowed us to offer legislative amendments on appropriations bills. That is necessary only because the Senate is now being operated in a way that, in my judgment, was not intended at all by the framers of the Constitution and certainly was not the way it was run for the first 180 years or so of its existence.

Mr. DORGAN. That is exactly what is happening in the Senate, and it causes some heartburn for many people who understand how the Senate has traditionally worked and ought to work. This is not the House. We do not have a Rules Committee which decides what amendments should be offered. I know some want to change this into a body that operates identically to the House of Representatives, but it is not the way the Framers of this Government decided how it should work. I want to go back for a moment to this issue of the FAA reauthorization bill. It describes our problems. We are not passing authorization bills. They are all hung up with big disputes here and there, and when one does come to the floor, the folks who bring it to the floor fill up the legislative tree and decide they do not want the rest of us to be able to offer amendments. That is a big problem. If the Senate were operating the way it should, I do not think there would be any concern about whether or not you could legislate on an appropriations bill. But because the Senate is not operating the way it should, the Democrats are largely prevented from offering amendments in most cases. And motions to shut off debate before debate starts, or even before the first amendment is offered, have now become routine. Think of that again. The filing of motions to shut off debate, even before the first amendment is filed, has become routine in the Senate. If you went back to that little room in Philadelphia where they wrote this Constitution, I will bet they would be aghast at that. When Mason and Madison and Franklin and George Washington, talked about what kind of a framework they wanted to describe for governance of this country, they created a Senate that was deliberately inefficient. It required things to slow down a bit and that there to be a lengthy public debate about what ought to happen and what is good and what is not good public policy. They did that deliberately. Now we have all these folks who say we do not want the Senate to be able to consider, for any length of time, these issues. We do not want amendments to be offered; we want this place to be kind of a slam-dunk, highly efficient mirror image of the U.S. House of Representatives. That is not what it ought to be. I know outside this Chamber this notion of rule changes and rule XVI sounds like a foreign language. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we now turn to another agenda in the Senate. By direction of the majority party, we turn to the subject of tax cuts. It is a corner that we have navigated before in this Congress. I was thinking that it might be useful to have had Daniel Webster in this Chamber to say to Members, as he said many years ago: ``Necessity compels me to speak the truth rather than pleasing things. I should indeed like to please you, but I prefer to save you, whatever be your attitude toward me.'' It certainly must be pleasing to say to constituents that we would like to give tax breaks as far as the eye can see, upwards of a half a trillion, three-quarters of a trillion, and some say $1 trillion. What a wonderful thing. This country is doing quite well. Its economy is moving ahead with significant health. Unemployment is way down. Inflation is way down. There are a lot of things in this country to be thankful for. Part of the reason to be thankful for that is, in 1993, some of us in Congress had the vision to steer this country to a different course. If we remember, in 1993, we were facing a $290 billion Federal deficit-- $290 billion. The economists told us that for the rest of the decade we would have anemic economic growth and deficits. We passed a piece of legislation in this Congress. I voted for it. I was proud to do so. When people said: We're going to blame you for voting for that, I said: Don't blame me. Please give me credit for it. I won't run away from that vote. It was a tough, hard vote. It increased some taxes, mostly on those in top 1 or 2 percent, and it cut some spending. It was tough economic medicine, but it signaled to the country we were going to put this country back on track with a responsible fiscal policy that would lead someday to a balanced budget. We passed that by one vote in the House and one vote in the Senate-- one vote. We did not get one vote from the majority side--not one. We provided all of the votes to pass that legislation at that point. We were widely criticized for it. In fact, we had Members on the other side predict that it would lead to a depression; it would lead to massive unemployment; it would collapse our economy; it would be awful for our country. This country has had unprecedented economic growth, declining unemployment and low inflation. There are more people working and there is more home ownership. And now we find, instead of a $290 billion budget deficit, budget surpluses ahead. What happens at the first sign of surplus from this bridge on the ship of state? At the first sign of surplus, the majority party decides it is time to abandon the bridge and go down and get the champagne, pop the corks and pass out money to everybody--well, not to everybody--pass out money to all the friends from the ship's crew. Let's talk about what all this means. They rely on some vision for the next 10 and 20 years that we will have surpluses forever. Of course, this comes from economists that cannot remember their home phone number--telling us what is going to happen 3, 5, and 10 years from now. Those in the majority party say: Because we have all of this good economic news, although we didn't participate in helping make that happen--we voted against that economic plan in 1993--we are now deciding we are going to offer tax breaks of unprecedented size. This is what is proposed. The tax breaks that will come to the floor of the Senate and will be on the floor of the other body today have as their priorities that we will not provide any money to make Medicare solvent. We won't provide any money for our domestic priorities: education, health care, defense, and other key investments. We will provide no money for debt reduction. One would expect when times are good, we ought to be able to begin reducing the indebtedness we incur when times are bad, but there is no money for debt reduction and no money for Social Security solvency. We are going to have a tax cut of $792 billion. That is the GOP priority. That is not new. That has always been their priority. It is full speed ahead on our priority, and everything else can wait. If you have a pie and you show who get the tax breaks, here is how the pie gets cut. If you are in the top 1 percent of the income earners of this country, you get this large piece. If you are in the next 4 percent, between 95 and 99, you also get a large piece of the pie. But the lowest 20 percent of the income earners of this country get this little sliver, just a crumb off the corner. It is always the same, and it never changes. The big tax breaks go to the upper-income folks, and the rest are left with tiny crumbs, if any at all. This chart shows the same thing. The top 1 percent get a $23,000-a- year average tax cut. The bottom 60 percent of the wage earners in this country get a $139 a year tax cut. This chart shows what is going to happen over the next 20 years. The period of time 2000-2004, 2005-2009, the cost of the GOP tax grows substantially. In the second decade, it literally explodes. It will head us right back to the same circumstance we had before of huge Federal deficits. This chart shows the same thing in a different style. These are back loaded, exploding tax breaks that benefit the upper-income folks and will, in my judgment, lead to very significant risks for this country. I will ask this question over and over again: If this is your priority, just tax cuts above everything else, and tax cuts that go largely to the upper-income folks in this country, do you decide, then, that Head Start, for example, is not important because the domestic discretionary portion of this budget is fixing to be shrunk like a prune? You look at the kind of cuts that are necessary in all of the programs that make this a good country, the investment in our children, the investment in nutrition, the investment in health care, you will find massive cuts in all of those programs in order to pay for tax breaks that say to the folks in this country: We believe if you are in the top 1 percent, you ought to get $22,900 back in tax refunds each year because we think you contribute the most to this country. And if you happen to be in the lowest 20 percent of the income earners of this country, we have designed a plan that says you are going to get about a $1.59 a month. Is that surprising? No. It is the GOP plan from the beginning of political time. It is what they have always proposed. It is what they always fight for. It is always at the expense of every other priority. We are going to have a big debate about this and should have a big debate. I believe some tax cuts are appropriate, if they are fashioned the right way and they don't put this country's economy at risk. But I believe they ought not come at the expense of Head Start, education, health care and so many other key priorities, and especially paying down the debt during good economic times and making sure we extend the life and solvency of Medicare and Social Security. That ought to be part of the priority that comes out of this Chamber as well. That is what we will try to force in this debate on tax breaks in the coming days. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. JOHNSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. DORGAN. I wanted to ask the Senator from Illinois if it is not the case that the proposal by the Republicans for very significant tax cuts, much of which will go to the upper income folks, would mean that they have nothing for debt reduction? Isn't it the case that in tough economic times--for example, when we passed the Deficit Reduction Act in 1993, with no help from the other side and not one vote even--in tough economic times your debt increases? During good economic times, you ought to reduce the debt. Isn't it the case that this fiscal policy plan of theirs provides nothing for debt reduction during good economic times? Is that fiscal conservatism?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I'm pleased to join Senator Durbin in introducing estate tax relief legislation to boost immediately to $2.6 million the amount of family business assets that can be transferred to the next generation without loading up that family business with a large tax debt. I feel strongly that we must prevent our estate tax laws from hindering the transfer of family farms, ranches and other small businesses to the next generation of family members who would continue to operate them. We made some important changes to the estate tax laws in the last Congress to make it easier for children to take over a family business when a parent dies and keep the business going. But these changes did not go far enough. Family-owned enterprises are a source of social stability and cohesion in this country. They generate jobs and wealth. Yet in far too many cases, the estate tax laws exert pressure on the children and grandchildren who inherit a modestly-sized family business to sell it, or a large part of it, to pay off those taxes. Our tax laws should encourage enterprises to stay in family ownership, with all the benefits that brings to our communities and to the nation. Yet frequently today the estate tax laws do the opposite. Congress took some steps in a major tax bill in 1997, which I supported, to enable family farms, ranches, and other small family businesses to be passed along to the next generation without being loaded up with massive estate tax debt. The 1997 bill changes estate taxes in two basic ways. First, the legislation increased the unified estate and gift tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million over a period of years. Second, it provided a new exemption from estate taxes for qualifying family businesses, valued up to $1.3 million, that are passed down to the children and grandchildren who will operate the farm or business. This new exclusion is the result of a bipartisan effort in Congress to encourage business enterprise that is based on the family unit. However, Senator Durbin and I believe that the $1.3 million family business exclusion needs to be substantially increased, and we suspect that a number of our colleagues in the Senate share this view. We are proposing such an increase today. Our legislation is simple and straightforward. It doubles the dollar value from $1.3 million to $2.6 million of a family business that may be transferred to inheriting family members without an estate tax obligation. This will be a great help to families that want to pass along a small business, which might have been the family's major asset for decades, to the kids to operate following the death of a parent. Estate tax relief for family businesses is not a partisan issue. It is important for the survival of our nation's family businesses, and it should be a priority for any tax cuts that Congress enacts. This is not however a proposal to reduce estate taxes for every rich person in America. We see no need to enact a big new benefit for the nation's trust fund babies. It should go to where the need is greatest, and where the economic and social benefits will be greatest as well. That means small family businesses. In the end, we hope that some additional estate tax relief will be enacted to sustain family-owned businesses and farms, which make up the backbone of our economy. We believe that our approach takes a large step in that direction. We urge our colleagues to cosponsor this much- needed legislation.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I yield myself such time as I consume under the 30 minutes allocated to this side.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I'm pleased to join Senator Durbin in introducing estate tax relief legislation to boost immediately to $2.6 million the amount of family business assets that can be transferred to the next generation without loading up that family business with a large tax debt. I feel strongly that we must prevent our estate tax laws from hindering the transfer of family farms, ranches and other small businesses to the next generation of family members who would continue to operate them. We made some important changes to the estate tax laws in the last Congress to make it easier for children to take over a family business when a parent dies and keep the business going. But these changes did not go far enough. Family-owned enterprises are a source of social stability and cohesion in this country. They generate jobs and wealth. Yet in far too many cases, the estate tax laws exert pressure on the children and grandchildren who inherit a modestly-sized family business to sell it, or a large part of it, to pay off those taxes. Our tax laws should encourage enterprises to stay in family ownership, with all the benefits that brings to our communities and to the nation. Yet frequently today the estate tax laws do the opposite. Congress took some steps in a major tax bill in 1997, which I supported, to enable family farms, ranches, and other small family businesses to be passed along to the next generation without being loaded up with massive estate tax debt. The 1997 bill changes estate taxes in two basic ways. First, the legislation increased the unified estate and gift tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million over a period of years. Second, it provided a new exemption from estate taxes for qualifying family businesses, valued up to $1.3 million, that are passed down to the children and grandchildren who will operate the farm or business. This new exclusion is the result of a bipartisan effort in Congress to encourage business enterprise that is based on the family unit. However, Senator Durbin and I believe that the $1.3 million family business exclusion needs to be substantially increased, and we suspect that a number of our colleagues in the Senate share this view. We are proposing such an increase today. Our legislation is simple and straightforward. It doubles the dollar value from $1.3 million to $2.6 million of a family business that may be transferred to inheriting family members without an estate tax obligation. This will be a great help to families that want to pass along a small business, which might have been the family's major asset for decades, to the kids to operate following the death of a parent. Estate tax relief for family businesses is not a partisan issue. It is important for the survival of our nation's family businesses, and it should be a priority for any tax cuts that Congress enacts. This is not however a proposal to reduce estate taxes for every rich person in America. We see no need to enact a big new benefit for the nation's trust fund babies. It should go to where the need is greatest, and where the economic and social benefits will be greatest as well. That means small family businesses. In the end, we hope that some additional estate tax relief will be enacted to sustain family-owned businesses and farms, which make up the backbone of our economy. We believe that our approach takes a large step in that direction. We urge our colleagues to cosponsor this much- needed legislation.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Ray Zink, North Dakota Department of Transportation Deputy Director for Engineering, retired June 30. In his 40 years with NDDOT, Ray has had a long-standing dedication to providing the best possible transportation system for the people of North Dakota at the lowest possible cost. Ray Zink joined NDDOT in 1959 as a draftsman, and after subsequent promotions, he became chief engineer in 1982. Ray worked successfully with four NDDOT directors, three governors, and both political parties. Governors, legislators, and others in political positions have trusted Ray throughout the years and respected his integrity and judgement. Ray has held several key positions in AASHTO (the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials), and because of his expertise and the respect accorded him, he has been invited to represent AASHTO and the FHA (Federal Highway Administration) at highway symposiums in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and Johannesburg and Durban, South Africa. As North Dakota's chief highway engineer for 17 years, Ray Zink can claim the following accomplishments: Helping to build one of the finest highway systems in the nation: Because the state is so large and people live so far from each other, North Dakota requires an extensive highway system to move people and commodities. However, it lacks the population base to support the system it needs. In spite of this, Ray Zink has led NDDOT to create an excellent highway system, by listening to the public, relying on sound engineering practices, and industriously using every penny of funding in the most effective way. Using Federal aid as quickly as possible: North Dakota has always matched and used every dollar of federal aid available to it. Under Ray's leadership the state has spent federal aid as quickly and efficiently as possible, because every delay reduces the effectiveness of the funding through inflation and further highway deterioration. In rural America, our roads are critical to keeping us connected to our farms, our jobs, our families, and our cities. Instituting North Dakota's low-load program: To help funnel more funds to where they were most badly needed, Ray initiated the low-load program. Highways with very low truck traffic are designated ``low-load highways.'' They receive basic maintenance and periodic seal coats but are not candidates for other improvements. This lets NDDOT direct its resources to heavily-traveled highways that need more attention, which means that the entire highway system is in better shape and will deteriorate more slowly. As NDDOT maintenance engineer and chief engineer, Ray Zink has helped create and maintain these vital links between towns and cities and farms, and we are grateful for his careful guardianship.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, the Senator from Alaska has offered, on behalf of Senator Daschle and Senator Lott, a resolution dealing with the issue of the apparent tragedy that has befallen John F. Kennedy, Jr., Carolyn Bessette Kennedy, and Lauren Bessette. I want to make a comment about that because I know that, along with most Americans, this weekend when we heard the news of the disappearance of John F. Kennedy, Jr., along with his wife and sister- in-law, most of us were quite shocked and deeply saddened by the news. This was a young man whose life had such bright promise. He was born the son of a young, new President of the United States. That President's life was cut short by assassination just 3 years into his term. I and countless thousands of other young Americans were inspired by John F. Kennedy, by his energy and by the passion and ideals of his administration. The experience of being in high school and college and watching the emergence of this new, energetic, young President on the scene in this country was something that inspired many young Americans towards public service. That includes my early interest in public service. When John F. Kennedy was assassinated, I think most of us who were called to public service, or at least were called to an interest in public service back in that period, believed there was kind of an unfinished nature to the legacy of his administration and his Presidency. I think many thought over the years that this young man, John F. Kennedy, Jr., was in some way destined to complete that legacy of public service. Now another tragedy has visited this family, that has already given so much to this country, and has taken from us this wonderful, unique young man. I want to join with all of my colleagues in extending our sympathies to our colleague, Senator Kennedy, to the entire Kennedy family, and to the Bessette family. This is a very difficult time for all of them. I know all Members of the Senate probably already have individually sent those messages to that family. I have said on other occasions in the Senate, that there is a lot of public debate that goes on that people see between Members of the Senate and they tend to think there is a lack of personal relationships that exists in the Senate. Nothing could be further from the truth. When something happens to the family of a Member of the Senate, others here whose life's work brings us all together, care deeply. When I lost a daughter a few years ago, I recall Senator Hatch sending me a white Bible and coming to visit with me. Senator Byrd sent me one of the most beautiful pieces of prose I have ever received, and so many other Senators expressed their sympathies. That is the way it is in the Senate. I know Senator Kennedy and his family are going through a very difficult time, and our entire country reaches out to them now to express our deepest and most profound regrets and sympathies.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I want to discuss an item of very significant importance that has brought me to the floor of the Senate several times and brings me here again today. That is the issue of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. I earlier mentioned President John F. Kennedy. President John F. Kennedy was very interested in a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. I want to describe why that is the case and relate it to the comments made by my colleague dealing with China in which he talked about accountability and responsibility. I agree with those terms and in most cases with the use of those terms on the floor of the Senate. It was 54 years ago last Friday that the first nuclear explosion took place on this Earth; the first nuclear bomb was detonated 54 years ago last Friday. Virtually everything changed because of it. Following the detonation of a nuclear device it was used to end the Second World War. Eventually nuclear weapons led to a cold war with the Soviet Union in which both sides began to stockpile thousands and thousands of nuclear bombs and nuclear weapons of various types. Presidents of the United States started talking about the need to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, to keep them in as few hands as possible among the countries of the world. Many countries aspired to have nuclear bombs, nuclear weapons. However, it was obviously in the interests of the safety of humankind to try to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of those who aspired to have them. President Eisenhower, in May of 1961, spoke about a ban on testing nuclear devices. If you can't test a nuclear device, you don't know whether you have one that works. A test ban effectively means that anyone who claims to have a nuclear weapon cannot claim to have a nuclear weapon that works because they will never know. That is the value of a ban on testing, a ban that was aspired to as long ago as President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who said the following: Not achieving a test ban would have to be classed as the greatest disappointment of any administration, of any decade, of any time and of any party. He left office deeply disappointed that even in those early days long before the buildup of nuclear weapons existed so aggressively across the world, he was profoundly disappointed at not getting the test ban. President John F. Kennedy got a test ban in place in 1963 dealing with atmospheric tests. The ban on atmospheric tests in 1963 was partially successful. He desired a total ban. He said: A test ban would place the nuclear powers in a position to deal more effectively with one of the greatest hazards man faces. . . . It would increase our security, it would decrease the prospects of war. Surely this goal is sufficiently important to require our steady pursuit, yielding neither to the temptation to give up the whole effort nor the temptation to give up our insistence on vital and responsible safeguards. Now, since that time, we have seen more nations achieve the ability to build nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them. We have seen our country and the Soviet Union stockpile tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. It is quite remarkable, the United States and Russia, together, currently have more than 30,000 nuclear weapons. China has nuclear weapons. The number, to the extent we know, is classified. But, it is a minuscule amount as compared to 30,000. We know from recent events that India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons. Both have exploded nuclear devices literally beneath each other's chin--and these are two countries that don't like each other. Two countries with a common border, with a great deal of animosity, both testing nuclear devices in a provocative way. Other countries aspire to achieve or to obtain nuclear weapons. What are we doing about all of this? There is a treaty that has been negotiated over a long period of time--in fact, ultimately over decades--and signed by 152 countries. It is a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. That comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty is a treaty which prohibits the testing of nuclear weapons, it bans the explosive testing of nuclear weapons all across this world. We have had some experience with treaties: arms control and arms reduction treaties, the START I treaty, Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, SALT I, START II, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. A whole series of treaties have been considered and negotiated and ratified by the Senate. This treaty, the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, was negotiated and signed and sent to the Senate a long while ago--665 days ago; 665 days ago a treaty that this country negotiated and signed was sent to the Senate to be ratified. What has happened with previous treaties? The limited nuclear test ban treaty in 1963 was sent to the Senate and considered in 3 weeks; the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty in 1972 took 3 months; the ABM Treaty took 10 weeks; the ABM Treaty protocols, 14 months; Conventional Forces in Europe, 4 months; START I, 11 months. The comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty was sent here over 665 days ago and it has yet to have had a first day of hearings in the Committee on Foreign Relations in the Senate. Why? Why would a treaty that is so important to this country languish for nearly 2 years without even an hour, not a day of hearings? We are, as a world, in a much better position than we were some years ago in the middle of the cold war when the Soviet Union and the United States were headlong in an arms race, building and deploying tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union is gone. The cold war is over. The arms race has largely diminished. One thing remains constant: Many other countries around the world want to obtain nuclear weapons. Many countries around the world want to obtain delivery systems to deliver nuclear weapons. They are testing medium-range and long-range missiles. They are trying to find ways to produce or obtain the materials necessary to build a nuclear device. This country, in the middle of all of this, must provide leadership. It is our responsibility to provide that leadership. We are the remaining nuclear superpower. Russia has nuclear devices to be sure, but Russia is not a world power of the type the United States is at this point. We, as a country, must exert some leadership, and one step in the right direction towards diminishing the opportunities for other countries to achieve reliable nuclear weapons, is to quickly ratify this treaty, the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. The decision of this country to drag our feet is almost unforgivable. It sends a signal to others around the rest of the world--to China, Russia, India, Pakistan and others--that this is not all that important; it is not a priority to the United States. It ought to be. Everybody in this Chamber ought to come to the floor to demand that this be brought before the Senate. It has languished for almost 2 years in the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate. It ought to be brought to the floor, and we ought to have a debate on it. In October of this year, the countries who have ratified this treaty will be meeting to discuss implementing the treaty. They will apparently be meeting without the United States as an active participant. It is wrong, in my judgment, for this country to decide that it is not going to provide the leadership necessary on this treaty. The rest of the world looks to us, waits for us, and the Senate is dragging its feet. I understand the committees in the Senate have a great deal of authority and power. I recognize that, but it seems to me there is a compelling national interest that should require this country to lead, and require this Senate to ratify the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. I want to, with one additional chart, point out what was said by Secretary of State Albright: . . .this is the longest-sought, hardest-fought prize in arms control. And it is a price not yet fully won. For American leadership, for our future, the time has come to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty--this year, this session, now. I heard my colleague from Alaska talk about Chinese espionage at the National Labs. That is an unsettling and a very serious issue. It raises all kinds of questions about the safeguarding of nuclear secrets, about how much and what kind of secrets might have been obtained by those who were spying on behalf of another country, and did these secrets allow that country or those countries to build higher yield or smaller nuclear devices. I do not know the answer to those questions, but the words ``accountability and responsibility'' were used repeatedly in discussing that issue. Accountability and responsibility--it seems to me those two words are appropriate; in fact, those two words are exactly what we ought to talk about with respect to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Accountability and responsibility--if this country is responsible, and if this country is going to be accountable for its leadership in the world, the leadership away from the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the leadership toward a safer world, one with fewer nuclear weapons rather than more nuclear weapons, then this country will take the lead now on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It is not the case, as some have argued, that the China espionage issue actually undercuts ratification of this treaty. In fact, that issue strengthens the need for this treaty. It strengthens the need for this treaty. To suggest--and there was a recent article in the Wall Street Journal suggesting there is a linkage--Chinese espionage is why we ought not ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is nonsense. In fact, these allegations of espionage, in my judgment, underscore why this treaty ought to be ratified and ought to be ratified now. To the extent that China believes it may have acquired the opportunity for better nuclear warheads, it will never know that unless it is able to test them. And as a signatory to a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, it cannot test without violating the treaty. I will be participating in a press conference tomorrow with others in the Senate during which we will announce a recent public opinion poll that has been done on this issue which shows widespread public support to ratify this comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. I hope that perhaps with some pressure and some thoughtfulness on the part of all Members of the Senate, we will be given an opportunity to debate and vote on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty soon. Again, I understand how this system works, but it is not a system that ought to work in the regular way for something as important as this: limiting the spread of nuclear weapons. This country ought to take the lead in preventing it, and it ought to do so now. It is just plain wrong for the Senate to drag its feet on a treaty of this importance. A treaty negotiated and signed by 152 countries, waiting to be ratified for almost 2 years, and not even have 1 hour of hearings. That is wrong and everybody in this Chamber should know it is wrong. I do hope my colleagues will join me in calling for the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate to bring the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty before the Senate.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I have been talking about what I hope the agenda of the Senate will be in the next weeks as we turn from the Patients' Bill of Rights, which consumed all of last week and which was a fairly hard-fought debate. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, I hope, will be a part of that. As I indicated on Friday, I also feel very strongly that the majority leader and others in this Senate must put at the head of the list of items for consideration a piece of legislation that will deal with the emergency needs of family farming. The economy has collapsed in rural America, and we cannot wait. It requires this Congress to act and act soon. We have a farm bill that is largely bankrupt. It does not provide support during tough times. It pulls the rug out from under family farmers even as market prices have collapse. This Congress must do two things: first, pass an emergency bill; and, second, rewrite the farm program in a way that says to family farmers: You produce food the world needs, we care about that, and we are going to help you across price valleys when they occur. I will speak more about that later this week. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Kristi Schlosser be given floor privileges today.

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent Tony Blaylock, a fellow on my staff, be given floor privileges until the end of the year.

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 20 minutes.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, one only needs to open a newspaper or turn on a television set to a news program in this country, the United States, to understand we are experiencing a wonderful economy, a wonderful turn of events. This has lasted a long while. Most people are working. Inflation is down. Budget deficits have evaporated. The country is growing. The economy is doing better, and there is a lot of good news. In addition to the general economic news, the stock market is in a kind of go-go mood reaching record highs. These breathtaking heights in the stock market are coupled with stories about young people involved in the Internet who are making millions before they are old enough to shave. That is wonderful. There are a lot of people doing well in this country because of the economy. But there are some who are left behind and left out. We ought to pay attention to some of these storm clouds. I am speaking especially about family farmers. They are this country's economic all stars and have been for some long while. They are suffering silently, but they are suffering in a very significant way today. This Congress has a responsibility to do something about it. Let me read a letter that I received from a farmer in North Dakota a day or two ago. He says: As a family farmer and rancher, it doesn't seem to me there are many people who care much about us anymore. It sometimes brings tears to my eyes that maybe in a year or two I won't be around in farming anymore. This won't be easy to explain to my three daughters. I wanted to bring them up in a rural setting. If it happens I can't farm, I hope they read in the history books some day that it wasn't because their dad was a dumb man. It was caused by policy and giant concentrations of companies who want world dominance. This farmer, who worries about losing his farm and worries about how he will explain that to his three daughters, worries about not being able to raise his daughters on the family farm. He says it is not his fault. And it isn't. I want to describe what this man is going through. Another farmer wrote to me and said: I'm sitting at the kitchen table at 3:30 in the morning. It is spooky quiet out here these days, neighbors going broke, moving away, family farmers can't make it. My family is asleep and I don't know how long I will be able to hang on to this family farm. Let me describe what these farmers face. While the stock market reaches record highs, here is what happens to the price of wheat. Those family farmers see their income declining in a very significant way. No one else is experiencing declining income. CEO salaries aren't going down; they are going up, up, up--way up. The stock market is going up to record highs. Yet if you are raising wheat and you are a family farmer, you have seen your income collapse. What if you are raising corn? Exactly the same thing. Your income is collapsing. What if you are raising soybeans on the family farm? The same thing. The income is collapsing. What share are you getting as a family farmer of the retail food dollar? Collapsing. In the spring, you borrow some money, you buy some seeds, you fix up the tractor, plant the seeds, and hope they grow. You worry about insects; you worry about crop disease; you worry it will hail; you worry that it won't rain enough, or maybe too much; and then at the end you may get a crop. If you get a crop, you worry when you will get it off the ground. After you have combined it and harvested the crop, you put it on the truck and drive to the elevator, only to be told the grain trade says that the crop produced has no value. We are going to pay you $1.50 or $2 a bushel less than it cost to produce. You sit in the truck as a family farmer, knowing you took all of these risks, that your family is depending on you, and that the world is hungry. You hear the stories. You hear that in the Sudan a million people face the abyss of starvation and old women climb trees to forage for leaves because they have nothing to eat. The grain trade says the food we produce has no value. Farmers scratch their heads and say: I guess it is because the public policies in this country say that family farmers don't count. Family farmers don't matter. That is what angers family farmers the most. They produce something of enormous importance to the entire world and are told it has no value. They are told that the farm bill is fundamentally bankrupt. The Freedom to Farm Act passed by this Congress several years ago is totally bankrupt. It ought to be repealed immediately. Trade agreements, negotiated by trade negotiators who have done a terrible job and were totally incompetent, sold our farmers down the river. So family farmers have a right to ask the question: Why can't we expect from this Congress, this Administration, and this country, a decent opportunity to make a living, a decent price for the food we produce, and a decent deal from trade agreements that are negotiated with other countries? Why can't we expect this country to stand up for family farmers? A group from some farm States met this morning. We talked about how we will mobilize efforts to try to begin to provide two things. One, we need some emergency help--an emergency disaster relief bill to offset the income collapse which family farmers are facing. Second, we need a change in the farm program. We decided to seek a meeting next week with President Clinton at the White House. We will try to make sure this Administration proposes a robust disaster program and joins in proposing to change the underlying farm program to provide decent income support for family farmers when prices collapse. Next week we will try to do that, meet with the President, and develop an emergency bill to provide disaster relief. Senator Harkin and I proposed such a bill in the appropriations subcommittee. Senator Conrad has proposed a number of ideas on how to provide disaster relief. I expect we will have to propose disaster relief somewhere in the $10-billion-plus range. This Congress has a responsibility to respond to this issue and to do it soon. Second, to change the farm bill so family farmers have a safety net. Others in this country have a safety net. But somehow the suggestion was made that we can just pull the safety net out from under family farmers and that would be fine. Nobody will care. Families care. Farmers care. I do not want anybody standing up in this Chamber saying they are profamily and then turn a blind eye to the needs of family farmers. That is what has been happening. If there were fires or floods or tornadoes that hit our part of the country and devastated all the buildings, the economy and the infrastructure, we would have folks rushing out there with help. We would have FEMA all set up in big buildings and tents, getting people in to give help. Everybody would be helping. In fact, you wouldn't even need a tornado. If some hogs got sick with a mysterious disease, we would have the entire Department of Agriculture trying to find out what was wrong with the hogs. Only farmers can see their incomes collapse. In our State, the incomes collapsed 98 percent in 1 year. Ask yourself, could your family stand a 98 percent loss in income? Could any Members of the Senate stand a 98 percent loss in their paycheck? Can wage earners stand a 98 percent loss in their wage? I don't think so. That is what happened to farmers in my State. The question is, who is going to respond, when are they going to respond, and when is this country going to care whether we have family farmers left in our future? The answer for me is soon. The answer for me is now. Next week, we must expect to make progress with the President; yes, with the majority party and the minority party working together to try to provide disaster relief, No. 1, and a long-term safety net, No. 2. I want to tell you about a fellow named Tom Ross who did something that I thought was unique in Minot, ND. Tom Ross is a newscaster with KMOT television. He got 48 acres just north and east of Minot, ND. He got some partners, and he planted 48 acres of durum wheat. His partners were experts in this area, seed companies, chemical companies, the Research Extension Service and so on. In 1997, they determined exactly what it cost, exactly what they planted, and exactly what they harvested, and what the outcome was. They did this on television to try to demonstrate the plight that family farmers were facing. Let me demonstrate what it was. In 1997, they planted 48 acres, and they lost $50 an acre. This is with all the experts weighing in with Mr. Ross, the newsman, saying here is how we do it. They did it, and they lost $50 an acre. Next year, they planted the same 48 acres and they lost $1,930 an acre. So in 2 years they have lost almost $2,000 an acre on 48 acres of land. If you farm 1,000 acres, which is about an average size farm, slightly smaller than an average size farm in the farm belt, you would have lost $50,000 just in that first year. This year, Mr. Ross planted 48 acres of roundup ready canola. Last week, I stood out in that field just northeast of Minot, ND. We will see what happens this year. Given the price, given the circumstances, they expect they will lose some money this year. The point is that on 48 acres with controlled circumstances and all of the experts to help, you have massive losses of income over three years. This is multiplied by every family farmer across the farm belt. Why? Because prices have collapsed, and family farmers have no safety net, at least not a safety net that is available to help them survive. This is a unique experiment, and it shows in the clearest way possible that this is not about whether family farmers are good farmers. They are the economic All-Stars in our country. The project that KMOT did in Minot, ND, demonstrates that when prices collapse, family farmers do not have a chance to make a decent living and someone has a responsibility to help. That someone is this Congress, this Senate, this President. And the time is now; not later--now. If we want to save family farmers for this country's future, we must take action now. On Monday, I am going to talk about a paper that was just released by the Economic Policy Institute written by Robb Scott, ``The Failure of Agriculture Deregulation,'' describing the failure of Freedom to Farm, the failure of our trade policies, and the selling down the river of family farm interests in this country by people who should have known better. I will describe that in more detail on Monday. We do not have time to waste. We do not have time to wait. We must act and do so with great effect to try to help family farmers. The fellow who says I may not be able to farm anymore, at least is farming now. A whole lot of folks sold out long ago, and more are selling out every month and every week. A woman called me recently and said her 17-year-old son would not come down to the auction sale when they were forced to sell. She says it is not because he is a bad kid. This young boy stayed up in his bedroom because he was brokenhearted. He wanted to farm that land so bad and take it over from his dad at some point. He knew when the auction sale was held that it was over for him. His dreams were gone. She said he was so brokenhearted he simply could not come down and participate in the auction sale of the family farm. That is happening all across the northern plains, all cross the farm belt. At the same time, the stock market shows record highs, and we hear about this robust economy. The economic all-Stars in this country, who produce so much of what the world needs, are being told what they produce has no value and their existence does not matter. Shame on this country if it does not stand up now and decide that family farmers have value. What they produce has enormous value, and family farmers are important for this country's future. I am betting the energy exists with this President and this Congress to finally turn the corner and say we need to make a change. We need trade agreements that stand up for the interests of farmers. We need a safety net that says when farmers' incomes drop 98 percent, we stand to help because we care about you and your future.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I want to inquire. I was unaware that that provision was in the package that was presented. Was the Senator from Florida aware, did he know of anyone else who was aware of that except perhaps the folks who wrote it?

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a short question?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today is an anniversary that almost no one will recognize. It was 54 years ago today that the first nuclear explosion occurred at the Trinity Test Site in New Mexico. Mr. President, 54 years ago today we saw the first nuclear explosion on the face of the Earth. At that time, of course, we developed nuclear weapons because we were locked in a life and death struggle with the Axis powers. We developed nuclear weapons to end the most destructive war the world had ever seen, the Second World War. We then got involved in a cold war with the Soviets and we saw the buildup of thousands and thousands of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons, warheads, and delivery vehicles. I want to tell you what President Dwight D. Eisenhower said towards the end of his term about the spread of nuclear weapons. He said not achieving a test ban--that is, a ban on the testing of nuclear weapons--``would have to be classified as the greatest disappointment of any administration of any decade of any time and of any party.'' That belief, expressed by President Eisenhower, was echoed by President John F. Kennedy, who stated that a comprehensive nuclear test ban would ``increase our security; it would decrease the prospects of war.'' He said, ``Surely this goal is sufficiently important to require our steady pursuit.'' That was the late 1950s and the early 1960s. We still do not have a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in force, but we are close. Almost 3 years ago, this country, the United States, along with over 100 nations, signed a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The President sent that treaty to the Senate 662 days ago. What has happened? What has been done with that treaty? Nothing. Not a hearing. Not a minute, not an hour, not a day of hearings, not one hearing on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The only way another country in this world who wants to develop nuclear weapons can have some guarantee that they have nuclear weapons that work is if they can test them. That is true of China; it is true of any other country. A test ban treaty in which this country provides leadership, signs and ratifies it, is a significant step towards removing the dangers of the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world. We ought to do this. We ought to be able to do it soon. I used a chart on the floor of the Senate recently in which I showed the number of days it took to ratify treaties. No treaty that I am aware of languished here for over 600 days except this treaty. We have a responsibility to lead in this country with respect to this treaty, and we are not leading. This treaty is before the Senate. The committee has a responsibility to hold a hearing and give the Senate the opportunity to debate the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. There is precious little discussion about it. No one seems to know it is here. It has been here almost 2 years. Next week, several of my colleagues and I are going to hold a press conference to announce the results of a recent bipartisan poll that will demonstrate, once again, overwhelming support for this treaty. This chart shows the support all across this country from last year's poll. Overwhelmingly, the American people support a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. It has been negotiated, it has been signed, but it has not been ratified. Why? Because it was sent to the Senate over 600 days ago and there has been no debate about it, no discussion of it to speak of, and there has not been 1 minute of hearings held on this treaty. This Senate ought to have the opportunity to debate and to vote on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. I reach back to President Eisenhower to make the case only because I want to demonstrate how long the desire for a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty has been around--decade after decade. Most recently, when India and Pakistan detonated nuclear weapons, virtually under each other's chins--and these are countries that do not like each other much--it should have sent a signal to all of us that we need to be concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. How do we manifest concern? By expressing leadership. How do we express leadership? By bringing a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that has been negotiated and signed before this body for ratification. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to follow the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I just wanted to observe for one moment, I listened to the presentation. That presentation works with respect to the people who are covered. But there are 120 million who are not covered. If one says those who are not covered are covered by a State, we must point out that 38 States do not have provisions that guarantee access to specialists. I want to make the point.

Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Senator from Nevada for the time and yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?