Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to construct a new municipal water supply system for the city of Devils Lake, ND. This project is very important to the reliability of the water supply for the residents of Devils Lake and is needed to mitigate long-term consequences from the rising flood waters of Devils Lake. As many of my colleagues know, the Devils Lake region has been plagued by a flooding disaster since 1993. During that time, Devils Lake, a closed basin lake, has risen 25 feet, consuming land, destroying homes, and impacting vital infrastructure. As a result of this disaster, the city of Devils Lake faces a significant risk of losing its water supply. Currently, six miles or approximately one- third of the city's 40-year-old water transmission line is covered by the rising waters of Devils Lake. The submerged section of the water line includes numerous gate valves, air relief valves, and blow-off discharges. All of the water for the city's residents and businesses must flow through this single transmission line. It is also the only link between the water source and the city's water distribution system. Since the transmission line is operated under relatively low pressures and is under considerable depths of water, a minor leak could cause significant problems. If a failure in the line were to occur, it would be almost impossible to identify the leak and make necessary repairs, and the city would be left without a water supply. The city is in the process of accessing a new water source due both to the threat of a transmission line failure and the fact that its current water source exceeds the new arsenic standard that will take effect in 2006. The city has worked closely with the North Dakota State Water Commission in identifying a new water source that will not be affected by the rising flood waters and will provide the city with adequate water to meet its current and future needs. The bill I am introducing today will authorize the Corps to construct a new water supply system for the city. I believe the Federal Government has a responsibility to assist communities mitigate the adverse consequences resulting from this ongoing flooding disaster. In my view, the Corps should be responsible for addressing the unintended consequences of this flood and mitigate its long-term consequences. This bill will help the Federal Government live up to its responsibility and ensure that the residents of Devils Lake have a safe and reliable water supply. I urge my colleagues to review this legislation quickly so we can pass it this year.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to construct a new municipal water supply system for the city of Devils Lake, ND. This project is very important to the reliability of the water supply for the residents of Devils Lake and is needed to mitigate long-term consequences from the rising flood waters of Devils Lake. As many of my colleagues know, the Devils Lake region has been plagued by a flooding disaster since 1993. During that time, Devils Lake, a closed basin lake, has risen 25 feet, consuming land, destroying homes, and impacting vital infrastructure. As a result of this disaster, the city of Devils Lake faces a significant risk of losing its water supply. Currently, six miles or approximately one- third of the city's 40-year-old water transmission line is covered by the rising waters of Devils Lake. The submerged section of the water line includes numerous gate valves, air relief valves, and blow-off discharges. All of the water for the city's residents and businesses must flow through this single transmission line. It is also the only link between the water source and the city's water distribution system. Since the transmission line is operated under relatively low pressures and is under considerable depths of water, a minor leak could cause significant problems. If a failure in the line were to occur, it would be almost impossible to identify the leak and make necessary repairs, and the city would be left without a water supply. The city is in the process of accessing a new water source due both to the threat of a transmission line failure and the fact that its current water source exceeds the new arsenic standard that will take effect in 2006. The city has worked closely with the North Dakota State Water Commission in identifying a new water source that will not be affected by the rising flood waters and will provide the city with adequate water to meet its current and future needs. The bill I am introducing today will authorize the Corps to construct a new water supply system for the city. I believe the Federal Government has a responsibility to assist communities mitigate the adverse consequences resulting from this ongoing flooding disaster. In my view, the Corps should be responsible for addressing the unintended consequences of this flood and mitigate its long-term consequences. This bill will help the Federal Government live up to its responsibility and ensure that the residents of Devils Lake have a safe and reliable water supply. I urge my colleagues to review this legislation quickly so we can pass it this year.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, reading the Washington Post this morning, I came across this headline which I think is probably the most misleading headline I have seen in the Washington Post, or, for that matter, any other publication. The headline in the Washington Post business section today reads: ``Federal Deficit Likely to Narrow by $100 Billion.'' Boy, what good news, if only it were true. I think you have to ask yourself the question: Are they talking about the deficit last year? Is the deficit this year going to be $100 billion less than the deficit last year? No. That is not what this story is about. In fact, if you read this story carefully, what you find is the deficit is going to be at least $50 billion more than the deficit last year--not $100 billion less. The Washington Post has constructed a headline that is about as misleading as anything I have ever seen a major publication put out. They have basically fallen hook, line, and sinker for the line put out by the White House. Why do I say that? Last year, the deficit was about $370 billion. According to this story, the deficit this year is going to be $50 billion more--a new record deficit. The headline should be ``Record Deficit.'' Instead, they are suggesting the deficit is getting smaller. What are they talking about? They are talking about how the latest estimate is $100 billion less than the administration's previous estimate. In other words, they are comparing estimate to estimate--not what is actually happening, but projection. When the administration put out their earlier estimate, I said at the time they were overstating the deficit to set up a story just like this one. They don't want the headlines to read across America ``Record Deficits.'' What they did was overstate the deficit in terms of their estimates so they could come back later and say we are making a big improvement. There is no improvement, except in estimates. The fact is, the deficit this year is going to be bigger than the deficit last year, and the deficit last year was a record. Unfortunately, all of these estimates understate the true seriousness of the fiscal condition of our country because they don't count in addition to this $420 billion, which they now estimate the deficit to be for this year, and that doesn't include the $160 billion they are going to take out of Social Security, every penny of which has to be paid back, and they have no plan to do so. This doesn't include the $50 billion to $75 billion of extra money the Pentagon is going to want for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan that we now know they are going to have to ask for. There are some who suggest they will wait until after the election to ask for it, but that doesn't change the fact that the money is needed, that the need is being created now. If you add all of that together, and the money they are taking out of the Medicare trust fund, which is another approximately $20 billion, what you find is they are not going to add $420 billion to the debt this year. They are going to add close to $700 billion to the debt this year, by far the biggest in our history--nothing anywhere close to it. For the Washington Post to fall for this kind of tired old trick--you know, you overinflate the deficit so that when it comes in somewhat less than your overestimation you can claim great credit, is a discredit to the Washington Post. It is a discredit to trying to inform people of the true fiscal condition of the country. This isn't it. Even if you accept the premise of this story, the deficit is going to be about $50 billion more than last year, which was a record. That is exactly the headline the administration seeks to avoid by having put out an overestimation of the deficit in order to now claim credit when the deficit, although a record, is not as large as their earlier forecast. I hope the American people are not fooled by this kind of reporting. I hope the American people are not fooled as to the true fiscal condition of the country. The truth is, the debt of the United States is being increased by a record amount. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, after 17 years of hard work on the part of many individuals, especially World War II veterans, the World War II memorial will become a reality on Saturday, May 29, 2004 with a dedication ceremony in Washington, D.C. Hundreds of thousands of World War II veterans and their families are expected to attend. In recognition of this important occasion, I am introducing a Senate Joint Resolution along with my distinguished colleague, Senator Byron Dorgan, to honor our World War II veterans, their families and this dedication next month. The idea for the National World War II Memorial was first presented to Congresswomen Marcy Kaptur during a conversation with a constituent and World War II veteran, Roger Durbin in 1987. Shortly after that conversation, Congresswoman Kaptur introduced legislation to create a memorial, and Congress passed legislation authorizing the national memorial in 1993. The National World War II Memorial will pay tribute to the more than 16,112,000 veterans of all military services--Army, Army Air Corps, Marine Corps, Navy, Coast Guard and Merchant Marine--who served in World War II between the invasion of Poland in 1939 and the surrender of Japan in 1945. Approximately 69,000 of these servicemen were from North Dakota. The memorial will acknowledge the supreme sacrifice of more than 400,000 military personnel, including 1,569 North Dakotans, who lost their lives between 1939 and 1945. As veterans and their families visit Washington over the coming weeks, many will recall the heroism and sacrifices from some of the remarkable campaigns and famous battles of World War II, including the attack on Pearl Harbor, December, 1941; the Battle of Midway, June, 1942; the Allied campaign across North Africa, November, 1942; Operation Overlord (D-Day), June 1944; the capture of Iwo Jima, February, 1945; and the Tokyo bombing raids of March, 1945. The Memorial will also have special meaning for North Dakotans as they remember the heroic efforts of the 164th Infantry Regiment of the American Division, a unit of the North Dakota Army National Guard and the first unit of the United States Army to land on Guadalcanal in October, 1942. Some of the fiercest fighting of World War II took place in the effort to recapture the island. The Memorial will also hold special meaning for Senators and Members of Congress of the 108th Congress as we recognize and honor current members including Senator Daniel K. Akaka, Senator Ernest F. Hollings, Senator Daniel K. Inouye, Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Senator Ted Stevens, Senator John W. Warner, Congressman Cass Ballenger, Congressman John D. Dingell, Congressman Ralph M. Hall, Congressman Amo Houghton, Congressman Henry J. Hyde, and Congressman Ralph Regula. As we pause during the Memorial Day weekend to remember World War II veterans who served and sacrificed so much more than 59 years ago, it is my hope that Americans will honor and remember this ``Greatest Generation'' for the contributions that have enabled millions of Americans, for more than 50 years, to enjoy unparalled prosperity and the blessings of freedom. Let us also remember the ongoing sacrifices of our active duty military personnel who are currently serving in all parts of the world, but especially in Iraq and the conflict against terrorism in Afghanistan. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, after 17 years of hard work on the part of many individuals, especially World War II veterans, the World War II memorial will become a reality on Saturday, May 29, 2004 with a dedication ceremony in Washington, D.C. Hundreds of thousands of World War II veterans and their families are expected to attend. In recognition of this important occasion, I am introducing a Senate Joint Resolution along with my distinguished colleague, Senator Byron Dorgan, to honor our World War II veterans, their families and this dedication next month. The idea for the National World War II Memorial was first presented to Congresswomen Marcy Kaptur during a conversation with a constituent and World War II veteran, Roger Durbin in 1987. Shortly after that conversation, Congresswoman Kaptur introduced legislation to create a memorial, and Congress passed legislation authorizing the national memorial in 1993. The National World War II Memorial will pay tribute to the more than 16,112,000 veterans of all military services--Army, Army Air Corps, Marine Corps, Navy, Coast Guard and Merchant Marine--who served in World War II between the invasion of Poland in 1939 and the surrender of Japan in 1945. Approximately 69,000 of these servicemen were from North Dakota. The memorial will acknowledge the supreme sacrifice of more than 400,000 military personnel, including 1,569 North Dakotans, who lost their lives between 1939 and 1945. As veterans and their families visit Washington over the coming weeks, many will recall the heroism and sacrifices from some of the remarkable campaigns and famous battles of World War II, including the attack on Pearl Harbor, December, 1941; the Battle of Midway, June, 1942; the Allied campaign across North Africa, November, 1942; Operation Overlord (D-Day), June 1944; the capture of Iwo Jima, February, 1945; and the Tokyo bombing raids of March, 1945. The Memorial will also have special meaning for North Dakotans as they remember the heroic efforts of the 164th Infantry Regiment of the American Division, a unit of the North Dakota Army National Guard and the first unit of the United States Army to land on Guadalcanal in October, 1942. Some of the fiercest fighting of World War II took place in the effort to recapture the island. The Memorial will also hold special meaning for Senators and Members of Congress of the 108th Congress as we recognize and honor current members including Senator Daniel K. Akaka, Senator Ernest F. Hollings, Senator Daniel K. Inouye, Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Senator Ted Stevens, Senator John W. Warner, Congressman Cass Ballenger, Congressman John D. Dingell, Congressman Ralph M. Hall, Congressman Amo Houghton, Congressman Henry J. Hyde, and Congressman Ralph Regula. As we pause during the Memorial Day weekend to remember World War II veterans who served and sacrificed so much more than 59 years ago, it is my hope that Americans will honor and remember this ``Greatest Generation'' for the contributions that have enabled millions of Americans, for more than 50 years, to enjoy unparalled prosperity and the blessings of freedom. Let us also remember the ongoing sacrifices of our active duty military personnel who are currently serving in all parts of the world, but especially in Iraq and the conflict against terrorism in Afghanistan. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today, I am being joined by Senator Blanche Lincoln in introducing the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement Act (MEND) of 2004, which aims to make various improvements to the recently enacted Medicare Prescription Drug, Modernization, and Improvement Act of 2003 (H.R. 1). I said when we passed H.R. 1 that we could do better for seniors and that I would keep pushing to improve the Medicare drug bill. This bill is an important first step in that effort. It provides a better, more stable prescription drug benefit and lowers the costs of drugs for seniors. It also removes the giveaways to health plans and it will reduce the deficit. In short, this bill is a win for seniors, a win for good government, and a win for taxpayers. I supported the new Medicare law, but this was not an easy decision. While this legislation takes important steps to add a drug benefit to the Medicare program and makes needed provider payment reforms, this legislation has many flaws that must be addressed. The legislation I am unveiling today takes steps in this direction. Before I describe this new effort, I'd first like to highlight why I believe supporting the Medicare bill was the right decision, particularly for Medicare beneficiaries in my home State of North Dakota. The first--and most basic--reason I supported this legislation is because it takes critical steps to add a drug benefit to the Medicare program. This benefit will provide America's seniors--for the first time--the opportunity to receive help with their medication costs. If seniors are satisfied with their current health care coverage, they do not have to sign up for this new benefit. But if they need extra help covering their prescription costs, the new Medicare drug benefit offers an important coverage option. The second major reason I supported this legislation is because it provides a very generous benefit for lower-income seniors with incomes below 150 percent of the Federal poverty. Under the legislation, about 40 percent of seniors in North Dakota will get the vast majority of their drugs covered, with minimal out-of-pocket costs. This extra assistance will make a critical difference to lower-income seniors in my State, many of whom have told me that they are often faced with the choice of paying for their medicines or paying for food, rent and other living costs. In my view, this is a choice that no senior citizen should be forced to make. The legislation we passed took important steps to address this problem. In addition, the Medicare drug benefit will provide substantial assistance to those with catastrophic drug costs. Specifically, after a beneficiary spends $3,600 out-of-pocket, Medicare will pick up 95 percent of the cost. This catastrophic coverage is an important component of the bill, which we estimate will help nearly 11 percent of North Dakota seniors better afford high-cost medications. As we move forward on implementing this new benefit, it is my strong hope that it will improve health care coverage for the millions of seniors across the Nation who are struggling to afford life-saving and life-enhancing medications. Finally, another major reason that I supported the Medicare bill is that it includes a whole host of rural provider payment reforms that I authored along with Senator Craig Thomas from Wyoming and Representative Earl Pomeroy from my State of North Dakota. These measures take important steps to address payment disparities that were causing rural health care providers to receive significantly less reimbursement than their urban counterparts. Over the next 10 years, these payment changes will improve funding to the rural health care system by more than $20 billion. It is my hope that these important provisions will help ensure health care providers can continue offering quality and affordable health care services to rural communities in my State and across the Nation. Those are positive aspects of the recently enacted Medicare legislation. But, as I said when we passed it, the bill also had a number of significant flaws. The bill I am introducing today addresses these flaws and makes some important improvements to the new Medicare law. To be clear, my new legislation does not include every change I would like to make to the Medicare law. To do that, we would need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars. Given the Federal budget deficit we are facing, this is simply not possible. But it is possible to make some common-sense improvements to the bill. And that is what my legislation does. Let me describe it in further detail. The first area of my bill will include new measures to reduce the costs of prescription drugs. We know that drug costs have skyrocketed over the last few years. This is a real problem for seniors and others across the Nation who are having increasing trouble affording their medications. It is also a problem for the Medicare program, which will face increasing cost pressures when we add the new drug benefit. Given this situation, we must take steps to reduce and control drug costs. My legislation would do that in two ways. First, it would allow pharmacists and licensed wholesalers to reimport less expensive drugs from Canada. The Medicare bill gives the Department of Health and Human Services authority to allow this reimportation, but it put roadblocks in place that will effectively ensure reimportation never happens. My bill would remove these roadblocks and allow reimportation to begin immediately. If at any time a reimported drug is found to be unsafe, the Secretary would have authority to immediately suspend reimportation of this product. The second thing my bill would do to reduce costs is to allow the Secretary of HHS to negotiate with drug companies to lower the costs of medications in the new drug benefit. As my colleagues know, the Medicare law specifically prohibits the Secretary from directly negotiating with pharmaceutical companies to lower drug prices. We know that allowing the government to negotiate in other programs, like the VA, has significantly lowered costs. There's no reason we shouldn't also allow it in the new Medicare drug benefit. In addition to taking steps to reduce drug costs, my legislation also includes measures to improve the stability of the Medicare drug benefit. Under the new Medicare benefit, I am concerned that seniors may face different drug costs, different drug formularies, and different approved pharmacies as they switch from plan-to-plan every year. If we know anything, we know that seniors want certainty. One way to fix this is to allow seniors to stay in the drug plan of their choice for more than 1 year--even if it is a ``government fallback plan.'' My legislation includes this change. Another shortfall of the new Medicare law is that it prohibits seniors from purchasing supplemental insurance to assist with costs not covered by the new benefit. My legislation would lift this restriction and give seniors another choice for covering their medication costs. Beyond that, my legislation also includes new measures to ensure seniors retain access to the local pharmacy of their choice. In many communities, the local pharmacist is the most accessible source of health care services. Given this, my bill contains measures to protect local pharmacy services. Specifically, it would require that the Medicare program allow seniors to go to their local pharmacy to get their prescriptions filled, rather than forcing them to receive their drugs by mail-order or forcing them to go to a pharmacy in a nursing home or hospital that may not be as accessible. My hope is that this provision would ensure that seniors can continue to visit their local pharmacist. My legislation would also authorize $500 million that could be used to help pharmacists cover the costs of educating seniors about the new drug plan choices. This funding would provide pharmacists a one-time payment for providing information to seniors as they enroll in the new benefit. My bill also includes other measures to provide seniors with better information about the new drug benefit. Specifically, it would require drug plans to provide seniors with detailed information about what drugs will be covered--before the seniors signs up. It also would require that plans inform seniors of any changes to these covered drugs--either through the telephone, by mail or on the Internet. My legislation would also take other steps to protect seniors by repealing the premium support demonstration project that is set to begin in 2010. Although seniors will be able to choose whether they want to enter private plans under this demonstration, I believe it is a step in the wrong direction toward privatizing the program and could drive up premiums for those in fee-for-service. Given this, my bill will repeal this privatization demonstration. Finally, my bill includes additional measures that will help reduce spending and protect the financial integrity of the Medicare program. In particular, the legislation will include measures to expand the chronic care management demonstration project in the Medicare law. Today, roughly 5 percent of seniors account for about 50 percent of the entire Medicare budget. The Medicare law will test providing coordinated care to these beneficiaries, which many believe will help improve quality of care and reduce costs. My legislation will build on this effort by providing additional resources to expand chronic care management to more areas of the country. I believe this will save money for Medicare and improve health outcomes for these seniors. Finally, my new legislation will eliminate provisions in the Medicare law that provide unfair, extra payments to private plans. Specifically, it will repeal a new $8.9 billion taxpayer subsidy to bring more private plans into the market. It will also address inequities that currently allow HMOs to receive significantly higher payments than traditional Medicare--for serving the exact same patient. These policies are simply a waste of money. According to unofficial estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, eliminating these private plan overpayments could result in significant cost savings. Under my plan, these cost savings would be used to reduce the Federal budget deficit, which has reached record levels this year. This is a basic overview of the provisions that will be included in my new legislation--the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement Act (the MEND Act). I believe this legislation will take significant steps toward improving the new Medicare law. I would like to thank Senator Lincoln for joining me in this effort and I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important legislation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Brownback in introducing important legislation aimed at ensuring that our medically underserved communities have access to the doctors they need. This bill reauthorizes the popular Conrad State 30 program for 5 years, satisfies the initial intent of the program to let states decide for themselves about how best to fulfill their health care shortage needs, and clarifies existing law to ensure that Conrad State 30 waivers are exempt from the H-1B visa cap. The Conrad State 30 J-1 visa waiver program has been a great asset over the last decade, bringing crucially-needed doctors to serve medically underserved areas throughout our country. Forty-nine states now participate in the program, accounting for 1027 doctors in 2003. Each of these doctors is serving patients that might otherwise not be served, providing valuable medical services to communities that otherwise might have to go without. Unfortunately, today's reality is that many areas of the country, especially rural communities, have a very difficult time recruiting American doctors. These health facilities have had no other choice but to turn to foreign medical graduates. J-1 visa waivers allow foreign physicians to practice in medically-underserved communities after their J-1 status has expired without first returning to their home countries. These waivers allow foreign physicians to receive nonimmigrant, H-1B status for three years. In order to receive the waiver, the physician undergoes numerous background and security checks, and must agree to serve a medically-underserved community for three years. If he or she fails to fulfill that commitment, the physician is subject to immediate deportation. Prior to the creation of the State 30 program, J-1 visa waivers exclusively involved finding an ``interested federal agency'' to coordinate the request. This was found to be a long, cumbersome, and bureaucratic process. By allowing states to directly participate in the process of obtaining waivers, the program relieves some of the burdens on participating Federal agencies and allows decisions regarding a state's health care needs to be made at the state level by the people who know best. Since 1994, the program has been reauthorized a number of times; the most recent reauthorization expires in June 2004. The bill Senator Brownback and I introduce today contains 3 parts. First and foremost, it contains a 5-year reauthorization. Five years is a reasonable amount of time for Congress to be able to reassess the physician needs of the country and to take appropriate steps in the course of an additional reauthorization. Second, consistent with the original intent of the Conrad State 30 program to provide states flexibility, the bill would allow states to decide for themselves where their health care shortages are and how best to use their 30 spots. Currently, states can only place these doctors in shortage areas as designated by the Federal government. States, however, can and should be able to make these decisions for themselves. Instead of Washington, DC, telling a state where there is a physician shortage, a state under this bill could do so for itself. Third, the bill erases any ambiguity about whether Conrad State 30 doctors are exempt from the H-1B visa cap. Through legislation in the 106th Congress, Conrad State 30 waivers were specifically exempted from the H-1B visa cap. Unfortunately, there is now ambiguity about whether this provision still applies. Our current bill clarifies the original intent of this previous legislation, clearly making Conrad State 30 doctors exempt. In concluding, I want to thank Senator Brownback for his help and support in developing this bill. Our bill is a modest one; it is limited and it is targeted. However, this does not diminish the importance of retaining and improving the Conrad State 30 program. The vitality of hundreds of communities and, most importantly, the health of thousands of patients across our country depend on it. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Perhaps nothing reveals more clearly than this next slide where this is all leading. This chart shows--and this is not my projection; this is not a Congressional Budget Office projection--this is the President's own projection of where his budget policies are taking it. This is from his budget, and the assumption is his tax policies and his spending policies are adopted. Look what it shows. These are record deficits, the biggest we have ever had. But they are dwarfed by what is to come, under the President's own analysis of where his policy is leading. This shows as the baby boomers retire and the full cost of the President's tax cuts are realized, the President's plan takes us right over the cliff into deficits that dwarf the ones we are having now, which are of record size. What could be more clear than we are on a course that is utterly unsustainable?

Mr. CONRAD. I think it is very clear that the Secretary of the Treasury was fired because he resisted additional tax cuts. I think in the short term, all of us supported tax cuts to give lift to the economy. We supported a much different package of tax cuts than the President did because we thought it ought to go more toward middle- income people and less to the high-end people to give more lift to the economy. If you put it in the hands of middle-income people, they are more likely to spend it and give lift to the economy. In the short term, we proposed tax cuts that are actually larger than the President's to give lift to the economy. For the long term, we proposed about half as much in tax cuts because we were worried about sending this country into a tailspin created by exploding deficits and debt.

Mr. CONRAD. I don't think the American people have yet had a chance to fully focus on where this is all headed. That is the thing that is most alarming. I am less concerned about the current deficits even though they are a record and they are appalling. I am much more concerned about where the President's plan takes us. Even when he sees economic growth reviving, his plan runs massive deficits and runs up the debt in a dramatic way--meaning more borrowing and more borrowing and more borrowing. Let me conclude. The result is we are seeing the effect on the value of our own dollar. The dollar has declined in value almost 30 percent against the euro in just the last 2 years. Let me conclude with this: Economists are worried about the long-term effects of this weakening dollar and this heavy U.S. borrowing because not only are we borrowing to finance the budget deficit, we are also borrowing because we are running massive trade deficits. This was in the Washington Post on January 26 of this year: Currency traders fretting over that dependency have been selling dollars fast and buying euros furiously. The fear is that foreigners will tire of financing America's appetites. Foreign investors will be dumping U.S. assets, especially stocks and bonds, sending financial markets plummeting. Interest rates will shoot up to entice them back. Heavily indebted Americans will not be able to keep up with rising interest payments. Inflation, bankruptcies, and economic malaise will follow. This is a warning that is being sent to us about the recklessness of the course that we are on. If we need to have a reality check, 3 weeks ago, in the Wall Street Journal, they indicated Asian central banks have made a decision to diversify out of dollar-denominated securities. Warren Buffett, the second wealthiest man in this country, is reported, 2 weeks ago, as having made a $12 billion bet against the value of U.S. currency. In article after article, we are seeing the danger and the warning signs of the reckless course the President is taking us on.

Mr. CONRAD. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. It is actually over 12 percent of GDP. Economists say it is utterly unsustainable. This is the course the President is taking us on. The President's plan is not conservative. This is a reckless plan. It is a radical plan. It is a plan that cannot be allowed to continue. This plan will jeopardize not only Social Security and Medicare, but most of the rest of what the U.S. Government does, including our ability to defend ourselves. One does not need to take my word for it. We have been alerted by the head of the Federal Reserve, who has told us we ought to now consider cutting Social Security benefits because we are, in his words, ``overcommitted.'' And it is not just him. We can go to group after group that are responsible on budget issues that are saying: Look, you are on a course that is utterly reckless. The President told us on the issue of Social Security: None of the Social Security surplus will be used to fund other spending initiatives or tax relief. That is what he told us in his 2002 budget. But what we see is something quite different. In fact, he is taking every penny of Social Security surplus--again, it is really not surplus; it is surplus for the moment because when the baby boomers retire, all that money is going to be needed--he is taking every penny, $2.4 trillion over the next decade, and using it to fund primarily tax cuts. It is very interesting, when you do the analysis, the cost of his tax cut proposals over the same period is almost the identical amount--$2.5 trillion of income tax cuts, being funded by $2.4 trillion of Social Security money. So you have the specter of taking money from payroll taxes and using it to fund income tax cuts that overwhelmingly go to the wealthiest 1 percent in this country.

Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. It is one of the most startling things, if you examine the President's proposals. The President, who has represented himself to the American people as conservative, has the most radical budget plan ever put before this country. That is because he is absolutely exploding the debt right before the baby boomers retire. When he says he is going to cut the deficit in half, what he has done is he has left out things that we all know are going to be expenses. For example, he has left out funding for the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the war on terror. He says there is no cost past September 30 of this year--none. The Congressional Budget Office says the cost is $280 billion over this next period of time. The House and the Senate have put in these much smaller amounts, $50 billion in the House, $30 billion in the Senate. But the Congressional Budget Office says that is not what this is going to cost. It is going to cost $280 billion. We see that same pattern with other elements in the President's plan. Here is the cost in the 10 years of the President's tax cuts. Do you notice a pattern? This dotted line is the end of the 5-year budget proposal of the President. In previous years he did 10-year budgets. Now he is down to 5 years because I am afraid he wants to hide from the American people the full effect of his budget plan. Just looking at the tax side of it, you can see the cost of his proposed tax cuts absolutely explode outside the 5-year budget window. In effect, he is hiding from the American people the true fiscal condition of the country.

Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. Million. Now the Social Security surplus is $160 billion, and under the President's plan, under the Republicans' plan, they are taking every dime of Social Security money and using it to pay for tax cuts and using it to pay for other expenditures.

Mr. CONRAD. Yes, I am happy to.

Mr. CONRAD. By $100 billion.

Mr. CONRAD. It exceeded last year's deficit, which was the previous record, by $100 billion.

Mr. CONRAD. Yes. If we look ahead, look over just the next few years, what we see, under the President's own calculations, the deficit as a share of our Nation's income is even going to get larger. These are record deficits. As we can see, even as a share of the national income, this deficit is the second highest it has been since World War II, only exceeded by 1983. Interestingly enough, I would say to my colleague, in 1983 the Social Security surplus was only several hundred million dollars.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the chairman for his courtesies as we have gone through the process. I think because we both worked together productively yesterday, we came to a reasonable conclusion about how to proceed today. I want to thank the chairman for his patience yesterday as we worked through a number of issues with a lot of colleagues to avoid many more votes that, in my judgment, would have been unnecessary and not advanced the ball in any constructive way. So I thank the chairman for his patience yesterday. I was somewhat surprised to read in the New York Times this morning comments of certain House Republican leaders, specifically the majority leader, yesterday about where we are headed in this country with these massive deficits. We have the largest deficits in the history of the country by almost any measure, and we see going forward deficits even much larger than these as the baby boomers retire, which is of much greater concern to this Senator. That is the course the President is taking us on. In my judgment, it is a reckless course and a course that will threaten the economic security of this country for a long period of time. So this morning when I read the New York Times and I saw that Republican Congressman DeLay of Texas, the majority leader in the House, `` . . . restated a view that has been cited by other Republican House leaders: tax cuts pay for themselves by generating economic growth that more than makes up for lost revenue.'' Mr. DeLay went on to say: We, as a matter of philosophy, understand that when you cut taxes, the economy grows, and revenues to the government grow. The whole notion that you have to cut spending in order to cut taxes negates that philosophy, so I'm not interested in something that would negate our philosophy. I am a lot less interested in philosophy than I am in what works in the real world. The philosophy that Mr. DeLay has espoused, and others have as well, that somehow taxes are cut and that produces more revenue, the problem is it has not worked. Let's be direct. Let's go back to what the Congressional Budget Office told us back in 2001. Looking forward, they said there was a range of possible outcomes with respect to the budget surpluses. Remember then they were telling us we were going to have these massive budget surpluses, but they said there was a range of possible outcomes expressed. By this chart, I call it the fan chart, the forecast that was adopted was right in the middle of this range of possible outcomes. Now, this is how this is relevant to what Mr. DeLay is telling us. I was told by a Republican colleague, a Senator: You are being much too conservative. Do you not understand that these surpluses are going to be bigger than CBO is forecasting because of the tax cuts? I was told repeatedly by my Republican colleagues when I warned them that betting on a 10-year forecast of these surpluses was risky, that it was dangerous, that it was unlikely that it was going to be such a rosy scenario, and over and over again my Republican colleagues told me: Senator, you are too conservative. Do you not understand that when taxes are cut, there is more revenue? Do you not understand these surpluses, after we pass the tax cut, will be even bigger than the Congressional Budget Office has forecast, even bigger than the President's Office of Management and Budget has forecast? I said: Well, that is a nice theory but I do not believe it. I do not think we are going to wind up with bigger surpluses because of these tax cuts. In fact, I think we are going to find the surpluses evaporate, and I said so dozens of times on the Senate floor. I said so dozens of times in the Budget Committee. Now we can go back and check the record. Let's see what happened in the real world, not based on some philosophy, not based on some ideology. Here are the range of projected surpluses the Congressional Budget Office told us about. The midline is their official forecast. We passed the tax cuts. In fact, we have passed three rounds of tax cuts. Did we get more revenue and, as a result, did we get even bigger surpluses, which is what our Republican friends told us was going to happen? No. Here is what has happened in reality. This is the red line. With all the tax cuts, we have wound up with not surpluses but deficits. So the philosophy that apparently was the guiding hand, that said cut taxes and there will be more revenue, and as a result even bigger surpluses, did not work in the real world. In the real world, what we got was not surpluses but massive deficits. What we got in the real world was not a tax-cut-driven surge in surpluses, what we got is massive record deficits. So everybody is entitled to their own philosophy, everybody is entitled to their own ideology, but all of that gets measured against what happens in the real world. What has happened in the real world is the surpluses have evaporated and now we have record deficits. All of these claims by our friends, that if we had just had this massive package of tax cuts we would get more revenue, we would get more surpluses, did not work out. It did not work out. So now I say to my friends, we better get serious about getting this train back on the track because we are headed for very big trouble. If we look at the record on deficits over a very long period of time going back to 1969, here is what we see: Under the President's plan, we have now seen the deficits absolutely skyrocket. This theory that we were going to get more revenue and bigger surpluses did not work out. Instead, we got a massive increase in deficits and a massive increase in debt. Some of our friends on the other side say not to worry, that as a share of the gross domestic product the deficits are not as big as they have been in the past. I say to my colleagues, if one does a fair analysis of the operating deficits of the country--that is, take out Social Security instead of using Social Security funds to float this boat; do as the law requires when calculating the deficits and not include the Social Security funds and look at this budget on an operating basis--what we find is that as a share of GDP, the deficit this year has been only exceeded once since 1947. That was back in 1983, when it was 6 percent of gross domestic product. Now it is 5.5 percent. Those who seek to minimize the size of these deficits by this claim are misleading the American people as to the true fiscal condition of the United States.

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. A week from Thursday?

Mr. CONRAD. Might I inquire of the chairman and make sure I have heard this correctly, that the chairman has indicated the leader intends to bring the budget conference agreement up for final debate and a vote on Thursday next?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I always enjoy listening to the chairman of the Finance Committee, who is my friend, and despite our disagreement today, he will be my friend at the end of the day, just as he was when we began this day. I say to my friend, this is not a question of whether we win wars or do not win wars. All of us are committed to winning this war. We must win this war. But part of winning a war is not just leaving the cost of the war out of the budget. That is not credible. The President says it is difficult to say how much the war is going to cost. Certainly it is difficult, but the right answer is not zero. That is what the President put in his budget. He says for the next year there is no cost to the war on terror, there is no cost to the war in Iraq, there is no cost to the war in Afghanistan. That is not credible. That is not a serious budget. That is not leveling with the American people on our true fiscal condition to put out a budget that says there is no war cost past September 30 and present that as an accurate picture to the American people of our fiscal condition. That is not serious. That is not credible. People deserve better. The Senator also indicated nothing has changed with respect to Social Security financing. That is not true. In the last 3 years of the Clinton administration, we stopped the raid on Social Security. We stopped taking Social Security funds and using it for other purposes. What has changed now is we have gone right back to the bad old days of taking every dime. And under the President's plan, he is not just taking every dime of Social Security surplus this year to pay for tax cuts, he is doing it for the whole next decade--every dime, something he pledged not to do. The Senator also said we have had a policy of only spending 17 to 19 percent of GDP and having taxes of that same amount. I don't know what he is talking about. That is not the fact. The fact is, spending as a share of GDP in 1928 was 23.5 percent. During this whole period of the eighties, it was above 21.5 percent. It was only during the Clinton years that we brought spending down to 18 percent of GDP. Now we are back up to a little over 20 percent of GDP. If we want to have balanced budgets, we have to have that amount of revenue. Hello. Deficits are a function of spending and revenue, not just of spending. When we look at the revenue side of the equation, revenue has collapsed. Of course, we are talking about needing more revenue. We have the lowest revenue since 1950. We are at 15.8-percent revenue as a share of the gross domestic product, and spending is 20 percent. That is why we have a deficit. Obviously, we need more revenue. I would say the first place to look is not a tax increase, but going after the tax gap, the difference between what is owed and what is being paid because we know for 2001, that difference was over $250 billion. Now we ought to go to those who are not paying what they owe, that small share of the American people, that small share of companies, and say, look, you ought to pay what you owe. The Senator from New Hampshire said, where is our budget? We offered amendment after amendment in the committee and on the floor to alter this budget plan. That was our strategy, to try to alter the outcome, and we were defeated. When the Senator from Iowa says we did nothing to reduce the deficit in our amendments, please, that is not true. Go back and look. Virtually every amendment we offered was to reduce the deficit, and that is a fact. I challenge the Senator to come up with a list of the amendments we offered and show we did not repeatedly offer amendments to reduce the deficit. The Senator from New Hampshire attacked Senator Kerry, said Senator Kerry had a trillion-dollar hole in his budget over 10 years. First, Senator Kerry, as the Senator knows, has not presented a budget. They have fabricated a budget in his name. It is not Senator Kerry's budget. We all know it is not Senator Kerry's budget. They have double-counted Senator Kerry's proposals. They have included things he did not include. So claiming that is Senator Kerry's budget is a fiction. It is a fabrication. Senator Kerry has not yet presented his budget proposal. In the analysis the Senator from New Hampshire provided, he included programs Senator Kerry has never proposed, including a multibillion- dollar, high-speed rail network. He excluded savings Senator Kerry has specifically proposed, like hundreds of billions of dollars in health care savings, closing corporate loopholes, and eliminating corporate welfare. They double-counted some of his proposals, for example, double-counting energy proposals Senator Kerry has made. Interestingly enough, he says there is a trillion-dollar hole in a Kerry budget Senator Kerry has not even presented. We know the budget this President has presented in 5 years adds $3 trillion to the debt. They are talking about a $1 trillion hole in a nonexistent Kerry budget over 10 years. They ought to be up here explaining the $3 trillion this President adds to the national debt in just 5 years. If we applied the same rationale to the President's proposals he applied to Senator Kerry's proposals, we would see there is a $4.5 trillion hole in the President's plan compared to their alleged $1 trillion difference in Senator Kerry's plan. Is the Senator from Delaware seeking time?