Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to point out that while our Republican colleagues are opposing $15 billion to strengthen our defenses and to rebuild what has been destroyed in the sneak attack on this country--they argue that this will add deficits--at the very same time, they are proposing an economic stimulus package that adds $146 billion of deficits over the Democratic stimulus plan over the next 3 years, 10 times as much in deficits in their economic stimulus plan than the $15 billion that would be used to strengthen homeland security and to rebuild the devastation in New York. Something does not make sense. In their stimulus package, they have $25 billion, as the New York Times pointed out this morning, that would simply go to help the biggest corporations in America avoid taxes altogether. They argue: No, no, go slow, the President might veto. Nobody argued go slow when we counterattacked those who attacked America. Nobody argued that we ought to go slow when the President went to New York and promised to rebuild. This is not the time to go slow in protecting America and rebuilding that which has been destroyed. This is the time to act. The greatest irony is I was informed last week by sources within the administration that they themselves are working on a $20 billion supplemental appropriations bill for early next year.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet to hold a closed conference with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on H.R. 2883, on Wednesday, December 5, 2001, at 2 p.m.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, December 5, 2001, at 9 a.m., on the response of the technology sector in times of crisis.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Making America's Streets Safer: The Future of the COPS Program,'' on Wednesday, December 5, 2001, at 1:30 p.m., in SD226. Witness List Panel I: Viet D. Dinh, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice. Panel II: Thomas P. Gordon, County Executive, New Castle County, Delaware; Colonel Lonnie Westphal, Chief, Colorado State Patrol, Vice President, International Association of Chiefs of Police; Steve Young, Lieutenant, Marion City Police Department, National President, Fraternal Order of Police; Mike Brown, Sheriff, Bedford County, Virginia, National Sheriffs' Association; Dr. Jihong Zhao, Professor, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska at Omaha; and David Muhlhausen, Policy Analyst, Heritage Foundation.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a nominations hearing on Wednesday, December 5, 2001, at 10 a.m., in Dirksen Room 226. Witness List Panel I: Hon. John Warner, Hon. Phil Gramm, Hon. Harry Reid, Hon. Bob Graham, Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Hon. Wayne Allard, Hon. Max Cleland, Hon. Jeff Sessions, Hon. Zell Miller, Hon. John Ensign, Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Hon. Carrie Meek, and Hon. Silvestre Reyes. Panel II: Callie V. Granade to be U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of Alabama; Marcia S. Krieger to be U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Colorado; James C. Mahan to be U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Nevada; Philip R. Martinez to be U.S. District Court Judge for the Western District of Texas; and C. Ashley Royal to be U.S. District Court Judge for the Middle District of Georgia. Panel III: Mauricio J. Tamargo to be Chair of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 5, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. The committee will receive testimony on the nominations of Margaret S.Y. Chu to be Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Department of Energy; Beverly Cook to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Environment, Safety, and Health), Department of Energy; Jeffrey D. Jarrett to be Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Department of the Interior; and Rebecca W. Watson to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior (Lands and Minerals Management), Department of the Interior.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, farmers would have been stunned to have heard the speech of the Senator from Texas, because in his world the economics of what happens to farmers just doesn't matter. But to hundreds of thousands of farm families, the economic downturn started for them 5 years ago. They have been in a constant recession. In some cases, they have been in a depression for 5 years. The Senator from Texas says it doesn't matter, you don't need to do the bill now because the farm bill does not run out for 9 months. That is really not the case. Effectively, this farm bill expired 4 years ago because that is when we started writing disaster assistance packages for agriculture because prices were the lowest they had been in 50 years. So, effectively, the farm bill that is the underlying law was altered 4 years ago and each and every year since because of the disastrous conditions that exist for American farmers today. When the Senator from Texas says this bill is over budget, that is false. This bill is not one penny over budget. If he really believes what he says, come out here and bring a budget point of order against this bill and let's see the ruling that will flow from that. He won't do it because the fact is that this bill is not over budget by one thin dime. The reason we need to write a new farm bill, and do it now, is that American agriculture is in deep crisis. This says it very well. On this chart is the crop farm index: Prices received and prices paid by farmers from 1990 through 2002. The green line on the chart is the prices that farmers receive. The red line is what they pay to produce those commodities. Just looking at it, one can see there was a rough balance until the last farm bill was written. Then the commodity prices farmers received collapsed. The prices they paid to produce those commodities continued to increase--especially with the energy runup we experienced earlier this year. The result is an enormous gap between the prices that farmers are paid and what they pay to produce these commodities. Again, we have the lowest prices in real terms in 50 years. On top of that, in the month of October, when the new price index came out, we saw the biggest 1-month decline in the prices that farmers receive in 91 years. The records have only been kept for 91 years. So what we have seen is the biggest monthly decline of the prices going to farmers in the entire history of the commodity index. The harsh reality is that American agriculture is in deep trouble. When I talked to the farm group leader and I asked him what would happen if this farm bill did not pass with the additional resources that have been provided for in the budget, he said it would be a race to the auctioneer. He was right because that is what we confront in rural America today. One key reason for that is our major competitors, the Europeans, are supporting their producers at levels much higher than ours. The most recent numbers show this. This is the European Union and the amount of support they provide per acre to their producers: $313 an acre of support. We provide $38 an acre of support. In other words, they are outgunning us nearly 10 to 1 in support for their producers. It is no wonder American agriculture is in crisis. It is no wonder that if they don't get a safety rope, if they don't get something to assist them through these difficult times, we will see literally tens of thousands of farm families forced off the land. That is the economic reality. It doesn't stop there. When we look at the world agricultural export subsidies, this is what we find. This bar chart shows who accounts for world agricultural export subsidies. The blue part of this pie is Europe. They account for 84 percent of all the world's agricultural export subsidies. This little piece of the pie, this red chunk, is the United States, which is 3 percent. We are being outgunned here 28 to 1. The deck is stacked against our producers. The playing field is not level. It is no wonder, therefore, that our producers are in deep financial trouble. They are saying to us: We need to know now what the rules are going to be before we plant the next crop. We need you to tell us of what the farm program is going to consist. That is why there is urgency today. It has nothing to do with political one-upsmanship, as claimed by the Senator from Texas. It has to do with urgent economic necessity. The fact is, despite the budget increase, farm support funding is projected to decline under this bill. You will hear a lot of talk on the floor that there has been this big increase, there has been an increase over the so-called baseline. That is the red line on this chart. The baseline is the funding that would flow from current farm law. You can see that this bill provides more funding than that baseline. That is true. What is missing is not what Congress has been providing to American farmers the last 4 years. It hasn't been the baseline. No. We responded to the crisis by every year passing an economic disaster package to help our producers. And this farm bill will provide less assistance than farmers have been getting the last 4 years. That is a fact. Over the life of this bill, you can see--that is the green line--the support will be in decline. As I said, it is less support than farmers have actually been getting in each of the last 4 years because of the economic disaster packages Congress has passed in response to the economic emergency that exists all across rural America. When we look at the Senate bill versus the House bill on commodity program funding for the first 5 years of this bill, we see on this chart that the Senate bill is somewhat more than the House bill, about $2 billion more--$27.1 billion versus $25.1 billion. If we compare the Senate and House bill on conservation program funding, we see on this chart that the Senate bill is $8.4 billion versus $6.8 billion in the House bill. So there is more for conservation, which I think the overwhelming majority of the American people support. On this chart, on nutrition programs, over the 10-year life of the legislation, again, the Senate bill has somewhat more--$5.6 billion over 10 years versus $3.6 billion in the House bill--money for the basic feeding programs of the Federal Government because we know in an economic downturn more people need food assistance. America is a compassionate nation and one that responds to the needs of its people. I urge my colleagues to vote to allow us to proceed to this bill so the Senate can work its will on farm policy, so we have a chance for people to vote. There will be amendments, no doubt, to improve this bill. We will have a chance to fix the dairy policy that the Senator from Texas criticized. I don't think any of us wants the results he described. We are going to have a chance to fix that, and negotiations are underway to fix that, and it will be fixed. But it won't happen unless we get to the bill. It won't happen unless we have a chance to debate, discuss, and amend. That is what the cloture motion is all about--to give the Senate a chance to act. Rural America needs it. Our farmers need it. They are in a desperate struggle for economic survival. They are up against the European Union, our major competitors, who are spending $90 billion a year to support their producers--far more than the United States. It is no wonder we are in economic trouble. I urge our colleagues to vote to proceed to this bill. I recognize the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, who has done an absolutely superb job in getting this bill to the floor. There is no more difficult challenge than writing a farm bill. The Senator from Iowa has done a brilliant job. Let me also recognize the ranking member who, while we disagree on farm policy, is one of the most thoughtful Members of this body and somebody we all respect. My hat is off to the chairman of this committee for what is I think one of the most productive performances of any member this year in getting this bill to the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I note the chairman of the Agriculture Committee is here. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. When will that begin?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, is the time running on the one-hour provided for debate on the agriculture bill?

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

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Let me say it as simply as I can state it. The reason it costs the U.S. Treasury $16 billion is because the money moves out of U.S. Government Treasurys and moves over to the control of a board that is run by private sector representatives to be invested in non- governmental assets. That is about as easy as I can make it. The fact is that the Federal Government is going to have to borrow, as a result of that transaction, not $250 million more, but $16 billion more in 2002. For us to have our colleagues say ``but it really doesn't mean that'' is not accurate and it is not factual. To say to our colleagues, by direct scorekeeping, by legislative fiat, that it won't cost $16 billion, that it won't mean the Federal Government has to borrow $16 billion more in 2002, that it is only going to cost $250 million more, is just not the truth. I don't know how more direct I can be.

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico, the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to his amendment.

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to respond. First of all, we use a cash method of accounting for the Federal budget. We do not use an accrual system. You can't mix the two or you start misleading people. That is No. 1. No. 2, the Senator's question sounds as though it is prospective in nature; as though simply going forward, Tier II revenues would not be invested in Treasurys. That is not the case in this bill. In this bill, CBO estimates that approximately $16 billion currently invested in Treasurys by the Federal Government would be sold and instead invested through an investment trust in private-sector assets. Again, the amount is $16 billion and they would be free to invest it in other ways. I support that. But we have to be straight with people. It costs $16 billion to the Federal Government in the fiscal year 2002 under the accounting rules that apply to every program of the Federal Government. It doesn't cost $250 million; it costs $16 billion. The money moves out of Government Treasuries and moves into a railroad investment trust, with the ability under a board, to invest those moneys in higher rate of return assets. I support that basic notion. But the hard fact is that it costs the Federal Government $16 billion. It means the fact is the Federal Government will have to borrow $16 billion more in fiscal year 2002 than it was otherwise going to borrow.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator. My great-grandfather was a foreman on the railroad. My great-grandparents, when they went on their honeymoon, went on a pushcart for 100 miles on the railroad. I do strongly favor this bill. I have to answer to my responsibility as chairman of the Budget Committee and as a Member of this body to be accurate with our colleagues as to the scoring of this legislation. Directed scoring, if we are to be blunt about it, is to say something doesn't cost when we know that it does. I have an obligation to my colleagues to report accurately to them this legislation. I have been a staunch supporter of this bill the entire time it has been before the Senate. It represents an extraordinary effort by the rail companies and their employees and labor to work together to improve the lives of thousands and thousands of rail workers and their families. I agree this legislation provides an important opportunity to modernize the rail pension program. I have received countless e-mails, phone calls, faxes, and letters from North Dakota rail workers and their spouses who have told me how important this legislation is to them and their families. Some of my dearest friends and strongest supporters are in favor of this legislation. I am in favor of the legislation. But I have a special responsibility as chairman of the Budget Committee to give an accurate assessment to our colleagues of the cost of legislation that moves through this Chamber. That is an obligation I take seriously. The directed scorekeeping provision creates the impression that the cost of this legislation in fiscal year 2002 has dropped from $16 billion to $250 million. In reality, with or without directed scorekeeping, the impact on the budget in 2002 is precisely the same. It is not $250 million; it is $16 billion. That is the reality. That is the fact. With this amendment, the Senator from New Mexico has provided us with a second chance to review the directed scorekeeping provision of this bill. He is right to do so. That is why I have joined him in this effort. Traditionally, those of us with special responsibility for the budget have vigorously opposed directed scorekeeping because it fundamentally undercuts the entire system of budget controls and budget discipline that is so important to the United States being fiscally prudent and wise. We cannot do our job of being stewards of the finances of this country if we don't report accurately and honestly to our colleagues the cost of legislation. That is the most fundamental responsibility of any Budget Committee chairman and ranking member. Senator Domenici and I are meeting our responsibility by saying to our colleagues the simple fact is, this bill is going to cost $16 billion in fiscal year 2002 no matter what the directed scorekeeping provision says. You can make it up, but it is not true. The fact is, the impact on the federal budget will be $16 billion. That is a cost for which I am willing to vote and support, but I am not willing to say it is something it is not. That is not, in my view, the appropriate role for any Budget Committee chairman. It is not just a matter of $16 billion in fiscal year 2002; it has much greater significance than that. If we establish the precedent that through directed scorekeeping we can say a $16 billion expense is really a $250 million expense, what is next? I predict what is next is: When we get to the reform of Social Security, some will say we can simply take a trillion dollars of the Social Security trust fund and move it over into private accounts and say there has been no expenditure. That is the implication of this vote and why it matters. If we say on this bill you can take something that cost $16 billion and, by legislative language, direct the scorekeeping and say it doesn't cost $16 billion, it costs $250 million, then others may try to take a $1 trillion transfer of Social Security money and say it is cost free. If we start down that path, we will rue the day, if we go down the path of creating fiscal fictions in this Chamber in order to accomplish even the best of intentions. This is a good bill. It is worthy of support. But the price cannot be, should not be, must not be that we say to the American people that a bill that costs $16 billion only costs $250 million. That cannot be the way we do business in the Senate. If that is the direction we take, I repeat to my colleagues the implication because I believe the next step will be in the Social Security reform debate, that others will try to say: A trillion dollars taken out of the Social Security trust fund and moved into private accounts doesn't cost anything. It is cost free. That would not be true. That would be totally misleading. The money that is in the Social Security trust fund that has been credited to the Social Security trust fund, to be more accurate, has been credited to that fund to meet current promises, promises already made. We can't take that money and make a new set of promises and use the money that was raised to keep the previous promises. It won't work. We can't use the same money twice. You can't use the same money twice. That is what will lead us into the swamp of deficits and debt and disastrous economic decline. Make no mistake, what is at stake here is a big deal. This matters. This is not a free vote. I remain committed to this legislation, but I also remain committed to being straight with our colleagues and our countrymen as to the cost of the legislation that is before us. Our friends in the House included this directed scorekeeping back in July. It was a mistake then; it would be a mistake for us to repeat it here. Those who say, well, this kills the bill --I don't accept that. This legislation has to go back for further action in the House in any event because of the way it has come before us. It has to go back to the House for action in any event. Let's pass this legislation, but let's do it right and let's do it by being straight with our colleagues and our countrymen as to its cost.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I favor the railroad retirement legislation. I strongly favor it. But I just as strongly support this amendment to knock out directed scorekeeping because I think it misleads our colleagues and our countrymen. Directed scorekeeping would suggest this legislation costs $250 million this year to implement. That simply is not correct. The cost is $15.6 billion. The hard reality is, that is what the Federal Government is going to have to borrow to fund this legislation, $15.6 billion, not $250 million. We should not say otherwise. We can support this legislation but be direct and clear with respect to its cost.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the Record the Budget Committee's official scoring for the conference report to H.R. 2299, the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002. The conference report provides $15.3 billion in discretionary budget authority, including $440 million for defense spending. That budget authority, when coupled with the report's new limitations on obligational authorities, will result in new outlays in 2002 of $20.076 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority and obligation limitations are taken into account, discretionary outlays for the conference report total $52.744 billion in 2002. Of that total, $28.489 billion in outlays counts against the allocation for highway spending and $5.275 billion counts against the allocation for mass transit spending. The remaining $18.980 billion in outlays, including those for defense spending, counts against the allocation for general purpose spending. By comparison, the Senate-passed version of the bill provided $15.575 billion in discretionary budget authority, which, when combined with the bill's obligation limitations, would have resulted in $52.925 billion in total outlays, or $181 million more than the conference report. H.R. 2299 is within the subcommittee's Section 302(b) allocations for budget authority and outlays for general purpose, defense, highways, and mass transit spending. It does not include any emergency designations. I would like to commend Chairwoman Murray and Senator Shelby for their bipartisan efforts in completing this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the budget committee scoring of the conference report to H.R. 2299 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, section 213 of H. Con. Res. 83, the fiscal year 2002 Budget Resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to make adjustments to the allocation of budget authority and outlays to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, provided certain conditions are met. Pursuant to section 213, I hereby submit the following revisions to H. Con. Res. 83: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dollars in millions ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Current Allocation to Senate Agriculture Committee: FY 2002 Budget Authority.................................. $21,175 FY 2002 Outlays........................................... 17,856 FY 2002-06 Budget Authority............................... 69,640 FY 2002-06 Outlays........................................ 52,349 FY 2002-11 Budget Authority............................... 114,692 FY 2002-11 Outlays........................................ 80,210 Adjustments: FY 2002 Budget Authority.................................. 0 FY 2002 Outlays........................................... 0 FY 2002-06 Budget Authority............................... 33,514 FY 2002-06 Outlays........................................ 32,141 FY 2002-11 Budget Authority............................... 66,089 FY 2002-11 Outlays........................................ 65,363 Revised Allocation to Senate Agriculture Committee: FY 2002 Budget Authority.................................. 21,175 FY 2002 Outlays........................................... 17,856 FY 2002-06 Budget Authority............................... 103,154 FY 2002-06 Outlays........................................ 84,490 FY 2002-11 Budget Authority............................... 180,781 FY 2002-11 Outlays........................................ 145,573 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the record the Budget Committee's official scoring of the conference report to H.R. 2330, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002. The conference report provides $16.018 billion in discretionary budget authority, which will result in new outlays in 2002 of $12.038 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, discretionary outlays for the report total $16.282 billion in 2002. By comparison, the Senate-passed version of the bill provided $16.137 billion in discretionary budget authority, which would have resulted in $16.118 billion in total outlays. The conference report is at its revised Section 302(b) allocation for budget authority and outlays. The conferees have met their target without the use of any emergency designations. I commend Senators Kohl and Cochran for working together in a bipartisan manner with their House counterparts to complete in an expedited manner the conference to this very important piece of legislation, which provides funding for agriculture, conservation, rural development, and domestic food programs. I also commend Chairman Byrd and Senator Stevens, as well as House Chairman Young and Ranking Member Obey on the significant progress made by the two appropriations committees over the last couple of weeks in completing the 2002 appropriations bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the budget committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise to offer for the record the Budget Committee's official scoring of the conference report to H.R. 2500, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002. The conference report provides $38.656 billion in discretionary budget authority, of which $567 million is for defense and $438 million is for conservation activities. That budget authority will result in new outlays in 2002 of $26.126 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, discretionary outlays for the report total $38.847 billion in 2002. By comparison, the Senate-passed version of the bill provided $38.641 billion in discretionary budget authority, which would have resulted in $38.744 billion in total outlays. The conference report does not include any emergency designations. Because the conference report exceeds the outlay allocation provided to the subcommittee for conservation activities, the report is in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. I ask for unanimous consent that a table displaying the budget committee scoring of this bill be inserted in the Record at this point.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, last Thursday, the Budget Committee reported this joint resolution which would suspend several budget enforcement mechanisms. We reported unfavorably in the Budget Committee by a unanimous vote of 22-to-0. I am certain people wonder why we have a resolution that the budget committee rejected unanimously; how that can happen. It happens because it is required by law to bring this matter to the floor, even though the Budget Committee has unanimously rejected its elements. The reason for that is, whenever economic growth is below 1 percent for two consecutive quarters, the balanced budget amendment requires that the Congressional Budget Office should issue a low-growth report. They did that on October 31. The Senate is now required to consider this joint resolution which would suspend five budget enforcement mechanisms. Those mechanisms have elements as follows: points of order against tax cuts or spending that violate the budget resolution; the discretionary spending cap point of order; the point of order enforcing 302(a) and 302(b) spending allocations; the point of order against amendments to reconciliation bills, unless the amendments are deficit-neutral; and sequestration of discretionary and mandatory spending. All of those things would be tossed out and would not apply if we accepted this resolution. Senator Domenici, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, and I, and our Budget Committee colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, are united in opposing the resolution and urge all Senators to vote to defeat it. As I indicated, the Senate is required to take up this resolution. It is required by the Budget Act. However, it would be a mistake to adopt it because that would take away all protections to maintain fiscal discipline. The economic rationale for suspending budget enforcement procedures during periods of low economic growth is that such procedures might make it more difficult to enact stimulative measures quickly. We have already seen that Congress has responded quickly to enact $40 billion in supplemental emergency spending. It is important to weigh the real risk that long-term budget discipline will be undermined against the question of putting in place this resolution. I believe in current circumstances that the risk is too great and it does not make sense to suspend these elements of budget discipline to provide for the easier passage of tax cuts or additional spending. Again, we have seen Congress act quickly to put in place stimulative spending. We have seen Congress act quickly this session to put in place tax cuts. When the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Budget Committees issued their principles for economic stimulus a month ago, we recognized that we were facing extraordinary circumstances and that Congress and the President would provide the resources necessary to respond to the events of September 11. I am certain our budget enforcement procedures will not prevent that from happening. I think every Member of this Chamber understands that our top priority is to defend this Nation. In addition, we must work to rebuild that which has been destroyed and we must be prepared to counterattack those who, in such a vicious way, have engaged in a sneak attack on our country. We also recognize that an economic stimulus package should not undermine long-term fiscal discipline, which is essential to sustained economic growth. I believe preserving our budget enforcement tools will be very important in helping us to adhere to this critical overall principle. Policies that adhere to the principles laid down by the joint House and Senate Budget Committee leadership are not likely to be held up by our budget enforcement procedures. In contrast, proposals that violate the principles, especially those that worsen the long-term budget outlook by imposing substantial outyear budget costs, should be subject to normal budget procedures. The suspension resolution would have us decide now, in one fell swoop, whether to suspend budget enforcement for the next 2 years. I think it is very important that everybody understand what would happen if we went against the recommendation of the Budget Committee and threw out these budget procedures. There would be no protections, no special protections for fiscal discipline for the next 2 years. I think such a blanket waiver would be most unwise. We will be much better off if we continue to look at each bill and amendment individually and retain the ability to invoke budget enforcement procedures against those that threaten our long-term fiscal discipline. This is a fundamental way we protect the integrity of the trust funds of Social Security and Medicare for the long term. I might add that passing this joint resolution would be unprecedented. We have only gone through this once before, in 1991, the last time the economy was in recession. At that time, the Congressional Budget Office issued three successive low-growth reports leading to the introduction of three resolutions to suspend budget enforcement procedures. Each time, the Budget Committee reported out unfavorably and the resolution was defeated overwhelmingly on the Senate floor in bipartisan votes. The Senate made the right decision then, and we should make the same decision now. We have the will to enact a stimulus proposal. In fact, one will be on the floor this afternoon. We have the ability to do that under normal budget procedures, and it is critically important to maintain our long-term fiscal discipline. If there is one thing every economist has told us who has come before the Finance Committee, of which I am a member, and the Budget Committee, of which I am a member, it is that we need to couple short- term stimulus with long-term fiscal discipline. It is that combination of policies that is most likely to allow us to emerge from this economic slowdown. I refer back to what happened in 1991 because I think it is important for our colleagues to know this. In that year, on three occasions these resolutions came before the Budget Committee and then came to the floor. These resolutions were the same as the one we consider today. They would have suspended all of the budget enforcement procedures. Here is what happened in the Budget Committee. On January 24, 1991, they reported unfavorably, in a vote of 21-to-0 on that resolution. Then the full Senate voted on January 31, and they defeated it 97-to-2. I think the record with respect to what occurred is very clear. The same thing happened on May 7, when the resolution was taken up again. A second low-growth report was issued by the Congressional Budget Office, and on May 7 the Senate considered it and defeated it 21-to-0, reporting it unfavorably on a unanimous vote. The Senate took it up on May 9, again under special procedures, and rejected it 92-to-5. Again, on September 12, another low-growth resolution came before the Senate Budget Committee and it was rejected on a vote of 19-to-2. That one came to the floor of the Senate and was rejected 88-to-8. I think it is clear that the Senate has determined these procedures ought not to be abandoned, even at a time of sharp economic slowdown, certainly not in the circumstances we face today. So we are here to vote on this joint resolution because the Balanced Budget Act requires us to do so. But Senator Domenici and I are united in our strong opposition to the joint resolution. We are joined in that position by every member of the Senate Budget Committee. On a unanimous vote we reported this resolution unfavorably and urge our colleagues to reject it. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Texas for his support of the position on the low-growth suspension of the budget points of order. He is a respected member of the Senate Budget Committee, and he joined us in our recommendation to our colleagues that we disapprove the resolution that would abandon the provisions that help us maintain fiscal discipline. I thank him very much for that. When the Senator says we have been on a spending binge--if we have, he has been part of it. I have gone back and looked at the votes. On the emergency supplemental appropriations bill that provided $40 billion to respond to the attacks on this country, that vote was unanimous. The Senator from Texas joined on that vote to support $40 billion to respond to the attacks and help rebuild and repair those things destroyed. On the air transportation safety and system stabilization to rescue the airline industry that was faced with imminent collapse, the Senator from Texas voted for that, too. Those are the only two things we have passed that are over and above what was agreed to by Republicans and Democrats with respect to the spending provisions for this year. So when he says we are on a spending binge, let's get this straight. Every Member, with the exception of one in this entire body, voted for the spending we have done in response to the sneak attack on the United States--every single Member, with the exception of one. That one was not the Senator from Texas. Let me also indicate, in the Senate provision, the stimulus package the Senate has put forward that we will be considering this afternoon, $5.5 billion of that $67 billion package is for agricultural economic emergencies. The Senator from Texas ridiculed some of them. They are easy to ridicule. The Washington Post over the weekend, on Sunday, in a column of theirs, ridiculed one of the provisions of which I am a prime mover and a prime supporter. I take this moment to explain what that provision is about and let people judge for themselves: Does it have merit or doesn't it? I believe it does. Out of a $67 billion package, there are some $200 million for commodity purchases, the purchase of commodities for school lunch programs and for other feeding programs. This is typically what we do in a stimulus package. At a time of economic downturn, more people can't feed themselves, they can't feed their families, so we typically buy commodities to strengthen the feeding programs we have in this country. That is a compassionate thing to do. That is the right thing to do. It should not be ridiculed by a Senator or the Washington Post or anybody else. It is the right thing to do. Let's talk about this provision for the purchase of bison, buffalo-- whatever people are calling them. In this commodity program, to buy $200 million of commodities, there is $10 million to buy bison. Why? No. 1, it is probably the most nutritious meat anybody can eat because it is low in fat, high in protein, and it goes very well in our feeding programs--$10 million. But it has an added benefit because the bison industry is flat on its back. It is about to go broke. That will jeopardize thousands of families who are dependent on the bison industry to strengthen their agricultural operations. I know it is so easy to ridicule these provisions. The Washington Post regularly ridicules anything for farmers because all they can see is that in every farm program there are some who are wealthy people who benefit. I agree with them, that is wrong. I wish we had much stricter payment limitations. I introduced a bill with the most strict payment limitations anybody has ever introduced, but it did not pass. And they are focusing on the exception rather than the rule. If they would go to my State, they would find--are there some abuses? Yes. Are there some wealthy people who get farm program benefits? Yes. I wish it didn't happen. But do you know what else they would find? The vast majority of farm families in my State are struggling, they are in deep trouble. Farm prices in real terms are the lowest they have been in 50 years. More than that, in the last month the prices farmers received went down 9.5 percent, the biggest 1-month drop since they started keeping records 91 years ago. There is a crisis in agriculture. There is a crisis in rural America. Farm families are going under by the thousands. If we do not act and we do not respond, it will get much worse. They can ridicule all they want and go to their cocktail parties here in Washington and believe they really have the moral high ground because they ridiculed spending for feeding programs for people who are hungry and to support hard-working farm families who are on the brink of going under, they can feel smart and smug--go ahead. They are wrong. They are not being very thoughtful. To suggest somehow this was related to lobbyists--that was the essence of the story in the Washington Post, that lobbyists are writing this stimulus bill. I agree with them with respect to a lot of what I see in the House stimulus bill. That has been well lobbied. But $10 million to buy food for our feeding programs from farmers who are going under? I have not seen a single lobbyist in this town working for the bison industry. I have not seen one. Not one has come to me--not one. There is no bison industry pact of which I am aware. When people get smart and smug and ridicule--it is easy to ridicule, really easy. But I don't think it is very smart and I don't think it is very compassionate to ridicule putting money into an economic stimulus package to buy commodities to help hungry people and to help farm families who are going under. I don't see that as very smart, and I don't see that as very compassionate. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, today I am introducing the Medicare Beneficiary Liability Reduction Act. This legislation will help America's seniors better afford the costs of receiving needed medical services. As you may know, most seniors are required to pay a portion of the costs associated with medical care they receive under the Medicare program. In particular, Medicare Part B, which covers physician, laboratory, outpatient and other services, requires most beneficiaries to cover 20 percent of the cost of care they receive. However, there is an anomaly in the Medicare system that has required many beneficiaries to pay much more out-of-pocket for hospital outpatient department, HOPD, services. in particular, prior to 1997, many beneficiaries were required to pay more than 50 percent of the approved Medicare costs for hospital outpatient care. I am concerned that this situation made it difficult for lower income seniors to receive needed outpatient medical services. To address this problem, I am happy to say that the Congress included measures in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that sought to bring beneficiary cost sharing for HOPD care in line with the out-of-pocket requirements for other Medicare Part B services. Unfortunately, while this legislation was a step in the right direction, it will still take nearly 40 years of the cost sharing level to be reduced to the targeted level for some outpatient procedures. Clearly, this prolonged time lag is unacceptable. In subsequent years, I have supported additional measures to expedite the reduction in seniors' cost sharing liability by placing a limit on how much a senior can be charged in any given year and requiring that the coinsurance level be brought down to 40 percent by 2006. These were important achievements. The legislation I am introducing today takes the final step to bring seniors' copayment rates for HOPD services down to the desired 20 percent level. In particular, the Medicare Beneficiary Liability Reduction Act would continue to reduce HOPD cost-sharing requirements so that by 2010 and thereafter seniors would be required to pay no more than 20 percent of the allowable Medicare costs for HOPD care. I strongly believe that this legislation will help ensure our nation's seniors are not over- burdened with unfair Medicare cost sharing requirements. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.