Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended, requires the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to adjust the budgetary aggregates and the allocation for the Appropriations Committee by the amount provided to the Internal Revenue Service for its earned income tax credit compliance initiative. The amount of the adjustment is limited to $146 million in budget authority in 2002. Pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act, I hereby revise the 2002 allocation provided to the Senate Appropriations Committee in the concurrent budget resolution in the following amounts. Pursuant to section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act, I hereby revise the 2002 budget aggregates included in the concurrent budget resolution in the following amounts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print table 1 and 2 in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, when the Pentagon was attacked and F-16s were scrambled from Langley Air Force Base, those fighter planes were the 119th Fighter Wing of the North Dakota National Guard. I didn't know that myself when I saw those planes flying. I can tell you, they made an awful lot of us feel much more secure when we saw F-16 fighter planes in the air protecting Washington, DC. So imagine my surprise and my pride when I learned that those were North Dakota National Guard fighter planes. This is the group we affectionately call in North Dakota the Happy Hooligans. The Happy Hooligans are America's best. The Happy Hooligans have been called the best fighter unit on the planet Earth. They have been called that because the Happy Hooligans have been recognized in competition after competition as America's best. Not only have they won the competitions--the William Tell award, for example--as the best active fighting unit in the United States, but they have not only been in competition with other National Guard units but the regular Air Force. The Happy Hooligans come out No. 1. So not only are we incredibly proud in North Dakota that a key part of this Nation's defense at this time of tragedy and attack was from North Dakota but that we sent our very best and that our very best are America's very best.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today not as a Democrat or as a Republican, but as an American. The vicious, premeditated terrorist attack on our country cannot stand. We are joined in common purpose to defend our Nation and to strike back against those who have committed these crimes against humanity. Operating under the cloak of secrecy, they destroyed the lives of thousands of men, women, and children who were completely innocent. Those innocents were not combatants in any cause. They were merely traveling to rejoin their families, or going to work, or heading for a holiday. They were harming no one. But terrorists bent on destruction transformed airliners into flying bombs and attacked them, attacked us, and attacked America. Let the word go out that we will not be deterred, we will not be defeated, we will not be denied basic justice. These evil perpetrators of mindless violence will be pursued and found, and they will be held to account. Let these adversaries understand that they have aroused the awful wrath of a mighty nation. We are united, we are determined, we are committed, and we will prevail. God bless America.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the Record the budget Committee's official scoring for S. 1215, the Department of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002. The Senate bill provides $38.627 billion in discretionary budget authority, which will result in new outlays in 2002 of $26.026 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, discretionary outlays for the Senate bill total $38.747 billion in 2002. The Senate bill is within its Section 302(b) allocation for budget authority and outlays. Once again, the committee has met its target without the use of any emergency designations. I again commend Chairman Byrd and Senator Stevens, as well as Senators Hollings and Gregg, for their bipartisan effort in moving this and other appropriations bills quickly to make up for the late start in this year's appropriations process. I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the budget committees scoring of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the record the Budget Committee's official scoring for S. 1216, the Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002. Including an advance appropriation into 2002 of $4.2 billion, the Senate bill provides $84.052 billion in nonemergency discretionary budget authority, of which $138 million is for defense spending. The $84 billion in budget authority will result in new outlays in 2002 of $40.489 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, discretionary outlays for the Senate bill total $88.463 billion in 2002. The Senate bill is at its section 302(b) allocation for both budget authority and outlays. In addition, the Senate bill provides new emergency spending authority of $2 billion to the Federal emergency Management Agency for Disaster Relief, which is not estimated to result in any outlays in 2002. In accordance with standard budget practice, the budget committee will adjust the appropriations committee's allocation for emergency spending at the end of conference. The bill also provides an advance appropriation for section 8 renewals of $4.2 billion for 2003. That advance is allowed under the budget resolution adopted for 2002. I again commend Chairman Byrd and Senator Stevens, as well as Senators Mikulski and Bond, for their bipartisan effort in moving this and other appropriations bills quickly to make up for the late start in this year's appropriations process. Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that a table displaying the budget committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to address the amendment offered by the Senator from Indiana, the distinguished ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, someone for whom I have enormous respect and listen carefully when the Senator from Indiana speaks on a subject. He has always done his homework, and he has a clear view. In this circumstance, I regret to say I have a different view. As I look at the history over the last 3 years of the assistance bills we have passed in the Senate for agriculture in these situations, this is a very modest bill. In fact, it is significantly less than we have passed in each of the last 3 years. The amendment offered by the Senator from Indiana is precisely what passed in the House. It is exactly the legislation that comes to us from that body. The chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, the Republican chairman, has, in his written views on this bill, said it is inadequate, has pointed out that this bill would provide $1 billion less than what we have passed in the last 3 years--$1 billion less than what has been passed each of the last 3 years to assist farmers at a time of real economic hardship. And as the Republican chairman of the House Agriculture Committee pointed out, this is at a time when farmers face the lowest real prices since the Great Depression. The hard reality here is that prices for everything farmers buy have gone up, up, and away, especially energy prices, and yet the prices they receive are at a 70-year low in real terms. That is the situation we confront today. That is the hard reality of what we face today. The decision we have to make is, are we going to respond in a serious way, or are we going to fail to respond? I hope very much that we will just look at the record. This chart depicts it very well. The green line is the prices farmers paid for inputs. The red is the prices farmers have received from 1991 through 2000. Look at the circumstance we have faced. The prices farmers have paid for inputs have gone up, up, and up. The prices farmers have received have declined precipitously. That is the situation our farmers are facing. We can either choose to respond to that or we can fail. I hope we respond. I hope we respond quickly because the Congressional Budget Office has told us very clearly: If we fail to respond this week, the money in this bill will be scored as having been passed and effective in the year 2002. In effect, we would lose $5.5 billion available to help farmers. There has been a lot of suggestion that things have been improving lately. I don't know exactly what they are talking about in terms of improvement. We have searched the markets to try to find where these improvements are occurring. There has been modest improvement in lifestock. We do not see improvement in the program crops or the nonprogram crops, the things that are really covered by this bill. Let me go back to what the chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the House of Representatives said about this very amendment, this precise legislation, that is before us now. This is the Republican chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. He said: H.R. 2213 as reported by the Agriculture Committee is inadequate in at least two respects: First, the assistance level is not sufficient to address the needs of farmers and ranchers in the 2001 crop-year. Second, the bill's scope is too narrow, leaving many needs completely unaddressed. This is the Republican chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the House of Representatives talking about the very legislation being offered by the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee in the Senate today. This is, again from the House Agriculture chairman, at a time when real net cash income on the farm is at its lowest level since the Great Depression, and the cost of production is expected to set a record high. H.R. 2213, that has precisely the same provisions as are being offered by the Senator from Indiana, cuts supplemental help to farmers by $1 billion from last year to this year. Hardest hit will be wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, rice, soybean, and other oilseed farmers since the cuts will come at their expense. I say to my colleagues, if they are representing wheat farmers, if they are representing corn farmers, grain sorghum, barley, oats, rice, soybean, and other oilseed farmers, to vote for the amendment of the Senator from Indiana is to cut assistance to their producers at the very time they are suffering from this circumstance. The prices they pay are increasing each and every year. The prices they receive are plunging. The House Agriculture Committee chairman went on to say, H.R. 2213, the bill that was reported by the House committee, the identical language which has been offered here, also fails to address the needs of dairy farmers, sugar beet and sugar cane farmers, farmers who graze their wheat, barley and oats, as well as farmers who are denied marketing loan assistance either because they do not have an AMTA contract or because they lost beneficial interest in their crops. The House Agriculture chairman went on to say, earlier this year, 20 farm groups pegged the need in farm country for the 2001 crop-year at $9 billion. We do not have $9 billion available to us. We have, under the budget resolution, $5.5 billion available to us, and that is what the bill from the Agriculture Committee provides, $5.5 billion this year, $1.9 billion out of what is available to us next year in 2002. What the amendment from the Senator from Indiana would provide is $5.5 billion this year, period. It is not enough. It represents, according to the Republican chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the House, a billion dollar cut from what we did last year. That is not what we should do. The House Agriculture Committee chairman went on in his report to say, those who championed this legislation, as reported in the committee, argued in part a cut in help to farmers this year is necessary to save money for a rewrite of the farm bill, but the fly in the ointment is many farmers are deeply worried about whether they can make it through this year, let alone next year. That is what we are down to in farm country across America. We are down to a question of survival. In my State, I have never seen such a loss of hope as has occurred in the agricultural sector, and it is the biggest industry in my State. If one were out there and they were paying for everything they buy, all of the inputs they use, every input going up, up, and up --if this chart extended to 2001, it would be more dramatic--we would see the prices going up even further. On the other hand, if we looked at the prices for everything one sold going almost straight down, they would be hopeless, too. This chart does not show just the last 6 months. This pattern of prices is since 1996. These are not Kent Conrad's numbers. These are the numbers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The pattern of the prices which farmers receive is virtually straight down, and the prices they pay have been going up, up, up. I do not know what could be more clear. We have an obligation to help. We have an obligation to move this legislation. We have a requirement to move this legislation this week, not just through this Chamber but through the whole process. It has to be conferenced with the House, and the conference report has to be voted on before we go on break or we are going to lose $5.5 billion. The money will be gone because the Congressional Budget Office has told us very clearly if this bill is not passed before we leave on break, they will score this legislation, even though it is being passed in fiscal year 2001, as affecting 2002 because they say the money cannot get out to farmers before the end of the fiscal year. It is all at stake in this debate we are having, and I urge my colleagues to think very carefully about what they do in these coming votes. I will close the way I started, by referring to the report of the chairman from the House Agriculture Committee, who said very clearly the identical legislation, which is contained in the amendment from the Senator from Indiana, is inadequate. This is the Republican chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, and he calls the amendment being offered inadequate in at least two respects: First, the assistance level is not sufficient to address the needs of farmers and ranchers in the 2001 crop-year. Second, the bill's scope is too narrow, leaving many needs completely unaddressed. Finally, he said, clearly this legislation, precisely what we are going to be voting on in the Senate, cuts supplemental help to farmers by $1 billion from last year to this year. We are cutting at the time we see a desperate situation in farm country all across America. It does not make sense. It is not what we should do. We ought to reject the amendment by the Senator from Indiana. I thank the Chair, and I suggest we move forward.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Presiding Officer and my colleague, and I thank the chairman of the Agriculture Committee for this time as well. Mr. President, I want to address, just briefly, the statements that were made by the Senator from Texas about whether or not this bill--the underlying bill; not the amendment by the Senator from Indiana but the underlying bill--violates the budget, whether it busts the budget. I think it is very clear that the bill brought out of the Agriculture Committee by the chairman, Senator Harkin, does not violate the budget in any way. The budget provided $5.5 billion in fiscal year 2001 to the Agriculture Committee for this legislation and provided an additional $7.35 billion in fiscal year 2002 for additional legislation to assist farmers at this time of need. The bill that is in the assistance package provides $5.5 billion in 2001 and provides $1.9 billion in fiscal year 2002. It clearly does not violate the budget in any way. It does not bust the budget. It is entirely in keeping with the budget. I just challenge the Senator from Texas, if he really believes this violates the budget, to come out here and bring a budget point of order. That is what you do if you believe that a bill violates the budget, that it busts the budget. Let's see what the Parliamentarian has to say. We know full well what the Parliamentarian would say. They would rule that there is no budget point of order against this bill because it is entirely within the budget allocations that have been made to the Agriculture Committee. This notion of whether or not you can use years of funding in 1 year and in the second year is addressed very clearly in the language of the budget resolution itself. It says: It is assumed that the additional funds for 2001 and 2002 will address low income concerns in the agriculture sector today. These funds were available to be used in 2001, in 2002, in legislation today. It goes on to say: Fiscal year 2003 monies may be made available for 2002 crop year support . . . Understanding the difference between a fiscal year and a crop-year. The fact is, every disaster bill we have passed in the last 3 years has used money in two fiscal years because the Federal fiscal year ends at the end of September and yet we know that a disaster that affects a crop affects not only the time up until the end of September but also affects the harvest in October and the marketing of a crop that occurs at that time. So always two fiscal years are affected. Finally, the Senator from Texas said that this will raid the Medicare trust fund. No, it will not. We are not at a point that we are using Medicare trust fund money. We are not even close to it at this point. I believe by the end of this year we will be using Medicare trust fund money to fund other Government programs. I have said that. I warned about it at the time the budget was considered. I warned about it during the tax bill debate. It is very clear that is going to happen, not just this year; it is going to happen in 2002, 2003, and 2004. And in fact we are even going to be close to using Social Security trust fund money in 2003. This is not about that. This is about 2001. This is about 2002. In this cycle, this part of the cycle, we are nowhere close to using Medicare trust fund money. I would like the record to be clear.

Mr. CONRAD

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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to address the Agriculture supplemental assistance bill and to answer some of the critics I have heard from the other side with respect to this legislation. As chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, I follow the budget issues very closely and have the responsibility for determining if a budget point of order exists against any legislation. We have heard from a number of our colleagues that the legislation before us somehow busts the budget. That is just wrong. That is not true. This legislation does not bust the budget. It is entirely in keeping with the budget resolution. There is no budget point of order that exists against this bill. Those are all facts. Mr. President, if we look at the legislation before us, it provides $5.5 billion in fiscal year 2001. That is exactly what is provided for in the budget resolution. In fiscal year 2002, this legislation provides $1.9 billion. The committee is actually authorized $7.35 billion. So there still remains $5.45 billion available to the committee, available to the Congress, next year. Mr. President, the fact is, this legislation is entirely in keeping with the budget resolution. There is no budget point of order against it. This does not bust the budget, this is in keeping with the budget. Those are the facts. I challenge anyone who has a different view to come out here and raise a budget point of order against this legislation. If they really believe what they have been saying, come out here and raise a budget point of order against this bill because there is no budget point of order--none. This bill is entirely within the budget resolution. It is entirely within the budget, and there is no budget point of order against this bill. Mr. President, if one has any questions about the design of this bill, I suggest they go to the resolution on the budget that was passed here in the Congress. This is the conference report. This is what came out of the conference between the House and the Senate in the final budget resolution. When you go to the part of that report that deals with the issue before us, it says--and I have highlighted it--it says: It is assumed that the additional funds for 2001 and 2002 will address low-income concerns in the agriculture sector today. Not in the sweet by and by--today. That is what this bill does. It deals with the collapse of farm income that is happening today. I must say, when I hear some colleagues stand on the floor and say things are getting better in agriculture, I don't know what agriculture they are talking about. Maybe they are taking about Argentina or China. They are not talking about America because if you ask the American farmer what is happening today, they will tell you what is happening is a disaster--a disaster of collapsing incomes that threatens to force tens of thousands of farm families off of the land. That is what is happening. This idea that somehow prices are escalating dramatically and all of a sudden there are good times ahead is just plain wrong. What are they talking about? They aren't talking about agriculture in my State. Go to the grain elevator in North Dakota and see what wheat is selling for. Has it gone up a little bit? Yes, it has gone up a little bit. Is it anywhere close to the cost of production? No. I mean, it is almost farcical. Have prices gone up a little? Yes, they have. Are they still so far underwater you can't possibly make a farm operation add up? Absolutely. We all know it is true, any of us who represents agricultural America; and I must say the distinguished occupant of the chair, the Senator from Minnesota, knows exactly what I am talking about. The Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Dayton, has had a chance to go town to town, community to community, farm to farm, and he knows what I am saying is true because farmers all across the Dakotas, across Minnesota, tell us the same thing: These are as tough a times as they have ever faced. They tell us weekend after weekend, break period after break period: If you guys don't do something in Washington, we are all going to go bust. We are going to be broke. We are going to be forced off the land because this doesn't add up. When you look at the cost of the things that they buy versus the prices they get when they sell, there is no way of making it add up. That is what this bill is about. This bill is to provide emergency assistance for farmers who are struggling. It does it just in line with what the budget resolution called for. It is assumed that the additional funds for 2001 and 2002 will address low-income concerns in the agricultural sector today. That is the wording of the budget resolution. It goes on to say: Fiscal year 2003 monies may be made available for 2002 crop year support. That is a very important thing to understand. Why is it that we have a circumstance in which in this bill we pass in 2001, that we not only deal with 2001 expenditures, but we also deal with 2002 expenditures? Why do we do that? Very simply because there is a difference between the fiscal year and a crop-year. Every farmer knows it. Every member of the Agriculture Committee knows it. Others may not know it. So it is easier to confuse the circumstance. But we have always, in every disaster bill since I have been a Member of this body--and I am in my fifteenth year--when we have dealt with an agricultural disaster, some of the assistance comes from one fiscal year and some comes in the next fiscal year because that is the way crop-years work. Crop-years don't just neatly fall in the same fiscal year. That isn't the way it works. When there is a disaster, it doesn't just have an effect until September 30 of a year. That is when our Federal fiscal year ends. It affects before September 30. That is why we have some money in fiscal 2001, and some of it has an effect after September 30, as harvest is completed, and that is why we have some of the money in fiscal 2002. Lest anybody have any misunderstanding, that is exactly what the budget resolution recognizes. It says it about as clearly as it can be said: Fiscal year 2003 monies may be made available for 2002 crop year support. That is exactly what we are doing with 2002 and 2001. Some of the money is in Federal fiscal year 2001; some is in Federal fiscal year 2002, just as you would anticipate. That is exactly what this legislation provides. Mr. President, again, I want to go back to the fundamental and basic point for any of our colleagues who are listening and wondering about the critiques they have heard. Is it true that this busts the budget? Absolutely not. The budget says $5.5 billion is available to the Agriculture Committee under their allocation. And the funding that is provided in this assistance package for fiscal year 2001 is $5.5 billion--exactly what is provided for in the budget. For fiscal year 2002, the Agriculture Committee has been allocated $7.35 billion. This legislation, quite appropriately, uses $1.9 billion of that amount. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what is being done here. It does not bust the budget. It does not add $2 billion to the overall cost of the agricultural budget that has been provided for in the next 2 years. It does not add one thin dime to what was provided for in the budget resolution. It does not add a penny to what was provided for in the budget resolution. It is exactly what the budget resolution calls for: $5.5 billion in fiscal year 2001. This costs $5.5 billion. In 2002, the budget resolution provides $7.35 billion. Of that, $1.9 billion is used, leaving $5.45 billion next year. That is not going to be a problem. Why is it not going to be a problem? Very simply, because of the difference between fiscal years and crop years. We are going to have a very short period of time that has to be covered in the next fiscal year because of the difference between a fiscal year and a crop year and the fact that we are writing a new Federal farm bill. It is very clear in the budget resolution, for anybody who bothers to read it: ``Fiscal year 2003 monies may be made available for 2002 crop year support.'' By doing what we are doing, using the money allocated for 2001 as provided for in the budget resolution and using some of the money that is available in 2002 for 2002, with the anticipation we can use 2003 fiscal year money to deal with the 2002 crop year, that is exactly what is being done in this legislation. No harm, no foul. That is exactly what we have here. There is no harm. There is no foul. This is completely in keeping with the budget resolution. There is no budget point of order against this legislation. If anybody challenges that, they have an opportunity. They can come out and raise a budget point of order and see what the Parliamentarian says. The Parliamentarian will tell them there is no budget point of order against this bill--none, zero--because it is entirely in keeping with the budget resolution. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I publicly thank Colonel Ken Kasprisin, who will leave his post as District Engineer and Commander of the St. Paul District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers today, July 27. Colonel Kasprisin is one of the finest individuals I have worked with as a U.S. Senator representing North Dakota, and we will miss him after he leaves the Corps. North Dakota and the Nation owe Colonel Kasprisin a deep debt of gratitude. He has served as Commander of the St. Paul District since July, 1998, and he has served admirably. During that period, he has helped lead our communities through several flood disasters including the chronic flood at Devils Lake, ND. Throughout it all, he has always gone above and beyond the call of duty. Colonel Kasprisin is among the most capable leaders I have ever had the pleasure of working with. He is a true professional, and has a unique ability to walk into a difficult condition, assess the situation, and calmly, but decisively, take action. He listens carefully to people and has a leadership style that invites creative solutions to complex problems. Colonel Kasprisin is also a man of tremendous integrity. He cares deeply about the people of this nation, and his commitment to doing the right thing is unmatched. He has often been willing to fight for the needs of common citizens, even if it meant leading an uphill fight and challenging others within the Corps. I know that the Colonel leaves the St. Paul Corps a better organization due to his leadership. The Colonel set high standards for his team, and they delivered time and time again. Under the Colonel's leadership, we have begun the flood protection project for Grand Forks, successfully fought several spring floods throughout the Red River Valley, and have continued to provide protection to residents of Devils Lake from the rising lake water. I will not forget the incredible contributions Colonel Kasprisin has made to the people of my State and the country. But Colonel Kasprisin's departure from the Corps does not mean he is departing from public life. FEMA Director Allbaugh has tapped him to be the new FEMA Regional Director for the Pacific Northwest Region head- quartered in Seattle. The Colonel's leadership will be a valuable addition to the FEMA team, and I believe Director Allbaugh made a great choice for that important position. Colonel Kasprisin will continue to make a difference in people's lives in that position and I am pleased that he has agreed to continue his public service. I want to again express my deep appreciation and respect for Colonel Kasprisin for his service to my state and to our nation. We in North Dakota will miss you, Colonel, but wish you all the best in your new career.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today in support of H.R. 2299, the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002. The bill provides $15.575 billion in discretionary budget authority, including $695 million for defense spending. The budget authority will result in new outlays in 2002 of $20.257 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, discretionary outlays for the Senate bill total $52.926 billion in 2002. Of that total, $28.489 billion in outlays counts against the allocation for highways spending and $5.275 billion counts against the allocation for mass transit spending. The remaining $19.162 billion in outlays, including those for defense spending, counts against the allocation for general purpose spending. The bill is within its Section 302(b) allocations for budget authority and outlays for general purpose, defense, highways, and mass transit spending. In addition, the committee once again has met its target without the use of any emergency designations. Once again, I would like to commend Chairman Byrd and Senator Stevens, as well as subcommittee Chairwoman Murray and Senator Shelby, for their efforts to work cooperatively and expeditiously to move this legislation. The bill provides important new resources across all transportation modes. Not only does this bill fully meet our previous commitment to the highways, mass transit, and aviation programs, but it also provides important additional resources to improve pipeline safety and to support operations and development at the Coast Guard and the Federal Railroad Administration. I urge the adoption of the bill. I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of this bill be inserted in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer. Yesterday, Mr. Lawrence Lindsey, the President's chief economic adviser, attacked me in a speech before the Federal Reserve Bank in Philadelphia. In that speech, he repeatedly misrepresented my views, my clear positions, and my record. Mr. Lindsey, the President's chief economic adviser, for some reason feels compelled to take my positions and twist them into something that is unrecognizable. These are not my positions, not my statements. This is not my voting record. I call on Mr. Lindsey to recant these false statements. This does not improve the level of debate about serious issues and what is to be done about our economy and the management of the fiscal affairs of our country. Yesterday, Mr. Lindsey, in this speech in Philadelphia before the Federal Reserve, said at one point early in the speech, for example: The new chairman of the Senate Budget Committee has alleged the recent tax cuts are driving the country right into the fiscal ditch. He got that part of it right. I applaud him for that. He then went on to say: These views reflect one side of the political debate--one that ultimately favors allocating more of our Nation's resources to government. Mr. Lindsey, you know better. That was not the proposal of this Senator. The proposal of this Senator in the budget debate this year was to continue to reduce the role of the Federal Government. That was my clear position. That is the clear record, and no attempt by him to distort it can change the facts. Here are the facts. The spending proposal I put before my colleagues would have continued to reduce the share of our national income going to the Federal Government from 18 percent of gross domestic product to 16.4 percent of gross domestic product, which is the lowest level since 1951. Mr. Lindsey, facts are stubborn things. Mr. Lindsey then went on to say: The criticisms of the tax cut and comments on the budget made by Senator Conrad hearken back to views widely held in the 1920s and 1930s. He went on to describe those views supposedly widely held. He concluded that their solution was to raise taxes. The top income-tax rate was raised from 24 percent to 63 percent. The result, of course, was economic disaster. Mr. Lindsey ascribes those views to me. Mr. Lindsey, that is false. You know it is false, and that it is a total misrepresentation of the record of this Senator. Let's turn to what I proposed to our colleagues. These are the charts that were used on the floor of the Senate during the budget debate highlighting the Democratic alternative. No. 1, we protected the Social Security and Medicare trust funds in every year. Does Mr. Lindsey disagree with that? Let's hear an honest debate about that issue. No. 2, we paid down the maximum amount of publicly held debt. Next, we provided for an immediate fiscal stimulus of $60 billion. That was a tax cut, not a tax increase, Mr. Lindsey. That was a tax cut. I was one of the first to propose a significant tax cut--in fact, a tax cut to help stimulate the economy that was far bigger than what the administration proposed. Let's look at what the administration proposed in terms of a fiscal stimulus for the current year, at a time when we are suffering an economic slowdown. All one has to do is turn to the proposal. This is from the President. Their proposal: No tax cut in 2001. None. Zero. That was their proposal. They had no fiscal stimulus. They had no tax cut at a time of economic slowdown. It was largely Democrats who insisted on providing a bigger tax cut this year to provide a fiscal stimulus to help this struggling economy. And now, for Mr. Lindsey to twist that around and suggest that I was for a tax increase at a time of economic slowdown, Mr. Lindsey, shame on you. That is false. That is misrepresenting my clear record and my views. Shame on you. You should not engage in debate in that way. You should not take my clear positions, my clear record, and stand them on their head. I am not going to allow it to happen. Mr. President, I don't know what could be more clear. We provided not only a substantial tax cut this year, but the budget plan I put before my colleagues also provided significant tax relief for all Americans, including rate reduction, marriage penalty relief, and estate tax reform. That is my record--not proposing tax increases at a time of economic slowdown. That is not my record, that is not my position, and that is not my votes. We also reserved resources for high-priority domestic needs, including improving education, a prescription drug benefit, strengthening national defense, and funding agriculture, and we provided $750 billion to strengthen Social Security and address our long-term debt. That is my record. Those were my proposals. Those were my positions. And for Mr. Lindsey to go to the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia yesterday and suggest otherwise is flat dishonest. What has them all fussed up down at the White House? Why do they engage in these ad hominem attacks on the chairman of the Budget Committee and others of us who believe that this administration has put us right into the fiscal ditch? I think what triggered all of this was a press conference I had after Mr. Lindsey himself said that the revenue they were forecasting this year is going to come in below what they had projected. What we find, if we follow through this, what some in the media have called this amazing shrinking surplus, is that we started out with a forecast of $275 billion of surplus for this year, but after you take out the trust funds of Social Security and Medicare, the cost of the tax bill, and other related budget items, you get down to only $6 billion available this year, and that is before Mr. Lindsey said the revenue is not coming in as forecast. That puts us in a negative position. That puts us in a non-trust-fund deficit. That is, when you take out the trust funds of Social Security and Medicare, you see red ink for this year, and I pointed out it is not just this year, this time of economic slowdown, but looking ahead to next year when the administration forecasts strong economic growth that we find the situation is becoming even more serious. This is after the administration promised us a budget plan that could do everything. They said they had a budget plan that would allow for a massive tax cut. They said they could also accommodate a major defense buildup, they could protect Social Security, and they could have maximum paydown of the national debt. They said it all added up. It does not all add up. That is what is becoming more and more clear. If we look at 2002, the next fiscal year, with a projected surplus of $304 billion, if we take out Medicare and Social Security, we get down to $95 billion. Then take out their tax cut and the budget resolution that passed Congress, and we get down to $25 billion available. But that is before we see a further reduction in the economic forecast because of the economic slowdown. The economic slowdown this year will mean we have less revenue next year. We had three economists testify before the Budget Committee that we could see a reduction of anywhere from $50 billion to $75 billion next year from what was forecasted in revenue for the Federal Government. That wipes out the available surplus and puts us into a raid on the Medicare trust fund next year, and it even suggests that this administration may be using some of the Social Security trust fund. That is not at a time of economic slowdown; that is a time in which they are projecting strong economic growth, and yet we see their proposal will be using Medicare and Social Security trust funds to finance other programs of Government at a time they are forecasting-- this is the administration's projection--strong economic growth. Yet their proposal will mean we are using Social Security and Medicare trust fund money to finance the other programs of the Federal Government. This is what I have raised questions about. Does it make sense for this country to use Medicare and Social Security trust fund money to finance the other programs of the Federal Government at a time that the administration is forecasting strong economic growth? I do not think so. I do not think we should finance the other programs of Government, however meritorious, by using the trust funds of Social Security and Medicare at a time of strong economic growth. Why? Because we all know that in the next decade the baby boom generation starts to retire and these surpluses in the trust funds turn to big deficits. I should point out that we see trouble next year in terms of the trust funds of Social Security and Medicare being used to finance other programs of Government before the big increase in defense the President has requested. If we look at what that will do, and we look at 2002, we see we are already in trouble before the President has requested a substantial increase for defense. That just makes the raid on the trust funds deeper and broader. When we look ahead and put in the Bush defense request, when we put in new money for education, which just passed nearly unanimously in the Senate but is not in the budget, when we put in money for natural disasters, which is not in the budget--but we just had a natural disaster in Ohio the night before last, we just had a natural disaster in West Virginia, we just had natural disasters in Texas--when we put in money for natural disasters, when we address the tax extenders, the popular expiring provisions of the Tax Code we all know are going to be extended that are not in the budget, when we look at fixing the alternative minimum tax fiasco created by this tax bill, which is going to take us from fewer than 2 million people being caught up in the alternative minimum tax to 35 million people being caught up in the alternative minimum tax, and if we just look at the cost of fixing that problem caused by this tax bill, it costs $200 billion to fix, and if we look at additional economic revisions because of the economic slowdown we are experiencing and the associated interest costs, what we see is that every year for the next 9 years this administration's economic plan will be using Medicare trust funds and Social Security trust funds to pay for the other programs of the Federal Government unless some change is made. One can look at these and say: Gee, I don't think we are going to add any new money for education. Or one can say: I don't think we are going to pay for natural disasters. Or: I don't think we are going to pay to fix the alternative minimum tax that is going to affect 35 million American taxpayers by the end of this period, nearly 1 in 4 taxpayers in this country. Or one can say: We don't think the Bush defense request will be granted. Fine. One can use one's own assumptions. I just say to my colleagues, this reveals just as clearly as can be that their economic plan, their budget plan, does not add up, did not add up, and puts us right back into the deficit ditch. That is what I have said and that is what I meant, and I believe the record is clear. Mr. President, I think they realize they are in trouble, so their response has been: Oh, there really isn't a Medicare trust fund surplus. That has been one of their responses. We have heard it in this Chamber, and we have heard it from people in the administration. That is an interesting idea, but if one looks at the report of the Congressional Budget Office on page 19 of the budget outlook, under ``Trust Fund Surpluses''--this is a report of the Congressional Budget Office--it shows that Social Security has big surpluses every year. Medicare, hospital insurance, Part A: big surpluses every year. Part B, the administration claims, has a deficit. That is not what the records show. The records show that it is in rough balance and actually has a slight surplus over the period of the 10 years in this budget. It is not just the Congressional Budget Office documents that show there is a Medicare trust fund surplus; it is the administration's own documents issued by the Office of Management and Budget that show Medicare, Federal hospital insurance, HI trust fund surpluses each and every year. It is not just Medicare Part A; it is Medicare Part B the administration is now claiming is in deficit. But look at their own reports. Here is Part B, the Federal supplementary medical insurance trust fund; look at the reports they have issued. They show that over the 10-year period of time they are in rough balance in Part B. What they have tried to do is say, because Medicare Part B is financed 25 percent from premiums and 75 percent from the general fund, the general fund contribution represents a deficit. It does not. If we were to apply that standard, every other Federal Government program would be in deficit because they are funded, by and large, by 100-percent contributions from the general fund. Is this administration claiming the defense budget is in deficit because it is financed 100 percent from the general fund? I have never heard that from them. I never heard from them that education is in deficit because it is funded 100 percent by the general fund. That is precisely how you fund most Government programs. Medicare Part B physician services actually has an additional funding mechanism. Some of it comes from the general fund, but part of it--25 percent, roughly--comes from the premiums paid by Medicare-eligible people. Now, is this administration saying that in a deficit they are proposing a big increase in the premiums that senior citizens pay? I would like to hear the answer to that. Is that what they are suggesting? They have a problem because I believe it is wrong to use Medicare and Social Security trust fund money to pay for the other programs of Government. Their own congressional leadership doesn't agree with them. If they are saying that my views are the views of the 1930s, are they making that same accusation with respect to the Speaker of the House of Representatives--the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives? This is what he said on that question on March 2 of this year: We are going to wall off Social Security trust funds and Medicare trust funds. And consequently, we pay down the public debt when we do that. So we are going to continue to do that. That's in the parameters of our budget and we are not going to dip into that at all. That is the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives. Is the White House saying he has 1930s economic views? It doesn't stop there. This is a quote from the House majority leader, Dick Armey, a Republican. He said, this month: Let me just be very clear on this. The House of Representatives is not going to go back to raiding Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Does Mr. Lindsey think Dick Armey, the Republican majority leader in the House of Representatives, has 1930s economic views? It doesn't stop there. Here is a quote from July 11 from the House Budget chairman in the House of Representatives, Mr. Jim Nussle: This Congress will protect 100 percent of the Social Security and HI trust funds. Period. No speculation. No supposition. No projections. The Congress has voted unanimously, or almost unanimously. There were a few that didn't see it this way for lockboxes and all sorts of different mechanisms to make sure this occurred. Both parties prepared budgets that did so. We will protect 100 percent of Medicare and Social Security. Does Mr. Lindsey say the Republican House Budget Committee chairman has 1930s economic views? What say you, Mr. Lindsey? It appears to me you are contradicting the elected leadership of your own party in the House of Representatives. And it is not just in the House of Representatives. If we come to the Senate and look at the statement from the former chairman of the Budget Committee, the very distinguished and able Senator Pete Domenici, this is his quote: For every dollar you divert to some other program, you are hastening the day when Medicare falls into bankruptcy, and you are making it more and more difficult to solve the Medicare problem in a permanent manner into the next millennium. Mr. Lindsey, does Senator Domenici, the former Republican chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, have 1930s economic views? It is not just the former chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, the former Republican chairman, and not just the elected leadership of the House of Representatives--all Republicans--who have said very clearly that they intend to protect both Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Every Republican Senator, every single one, voted 4 months ago, on language that said the following: Preserving the Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance surpluses would restore confidence in the long-term financial integrity of Social Security and Medicare. That is what they said. They said very clearly the same thing I am saying. Mr. Lindsey, does every Republican Senator have 1930s economic views? I don't think so. We ought to have a thorough and honest debate. But Mr. Lindsey, don't misrepresent my view and misrepresent my record. It is there for anybody to check. I proposed not a tax increase this year; I proposed a significant tax reduction, a much bigger tax reduction than this administration proposed for this year. I proposed a real fiscal stimulus at a time of economic downturn. I didn't just propose it; I voted for it. My record is clear. Interestingly enough, this administration proposed no fiscal stimulus for this year. I am holding up their plan. I will submit it for the Record because it is right here. If Mr. Lindsey thinks we have forgotten who proposed what, he is dead wrong. We remember very well. Who stood where on the question of fiscal stimulus for this year? I not only proposed significant tax relief for this year; I proposed significant tax relief going forward. It is true, not as big a tax cut in future years as the administration proposed, because I could see they were putting us in danger of raiding the Social Security and Medicare trust funds in the future, at times when even they say the economy will be growing strongly. That is their economic plan. That is their budget plan that has put this country in jeopardy, that has put us in a position of violating the trust with the American people. It is their budget plan, it is their tax plan, that has us on a collision course with going back into the deficit ditch. Mr. Lindsey is the chief economic adviser to the President of the United States and the architect of this failed plan. He will be held accountable by history. He said they had a plan that added up. I confess, I didn't know when I was on the floor day after day after day questioning the wisdom of their plan that it would be revealed in this year how flawed it really was. I did not think we would face a problem until perhaps 2003 or 2004. But already we are in trouble; already this administration is using Medicare and Social Security trust fund money-- at least Medicare trust fund money this year, clearly Medicare trust fund money next year and perhaps even Social Security trust fund money--and that is before their request for a substantial increase in defense expenditures. I am willing to engage in a tough and spirited debate on these issues with any representative of the administration. But I do not expect them to misrepresent my positions and my clear record. That is unacceptable. That is absolutely unacceptable. All of this is especially ironic, given the headlines in the Washington Post today: ``Social Security Future Grim, Bush Panel Says.'' Here is the first paragraph of that article: A commission assigned by President Bush to redesign Social Security yesterday offered a bleak appraisal of a ``broken'' system, warning that deep benefit cuts, tax increases, or ``massive'' federal debt are inevitable unless Congress allows the personal retirement accounts the White House favors. What irony, warning that: . . . deep benefit cuts, tax increases, or ``massive'' federal debt are inevitable unless Congress allows the personal retirement accounts the White House favors. I have always believed it is inappropriate to say I told you so, but, I told you so. When we had the budget debate, the proposal I put before our colleagues protected the Social Security and Medicare trust funds in each and every year, but, more than that, set aside $750 billion out of the surpluses of today to prepay some of the Social Security liability tomorrow. This administration said no. This administration turned their back on an opportunity not only to protect the Social Security and Medicare trust funds in each and every year but, more than that, to set aside money to prepay part of the liability that is coming, which they now say threatens massive debt, tax increases, or deep benefit cuts. Where were they when just months ago we had that exact debate? They didn't know this? We all knew it. We all knew that is where we were headed. Yet Mr. Lindsey, as the chief economic adviser to the President, and the rest of this economic team, plunged ahead with a budget and tax plan that never added up, that doesn't add up, that risks putting us back into the budget ditch, and now are misrepresenting my record by trying to assert that I favor tax increases at a time of economic downturn when my record shows absolutely to the contrary, that I proposed a far bigger tax cut this year than did the administration. Finally, for them to assert that my budget plan meant more resources going to the Federal Government--nonsense. The budget proposal I put before our colleagues continued to shrink the role of the Federal Government, from 18 percent of gross domestic product today to 16.4 percent of gross domestic product at the end of this budget period, the lowest level of GDP since 1951. Mr. Lindsey, that is my record. Those are my positions. No attempt by you to distort them or misrepresent them is acceptable. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object, I ask that after Senator Dodd completes his remarks, that it be possible for me to address the Senate for a period not to exceed 30 minutes. I make the request to respond to an attack that was made on me by Mr. Lindsey, the President's chief economic adviser.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the record the Budget Committee's official scoring for S. 1172, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002. The Senate bill provides $1.9 billion in discretionary budget authority. Per tradition, that amount does not include funding for exclusive House items. The discretionary budget authority will result in new outlays in 2002 of $1.6 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, discretionary outlays for the Senate bill total $2 billion in 2002. The Senate bill is well under its Section 302(b) allocation for budget authority and outlays. In addition, the committee once again has met its target without the use of any emergency designations. I again commend Chairman Byrd and Senator Stevens for their bipartisan effort in moving this and other appropriations bills quickly to make up for the late start in this year's appropriations process. I ask 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. Mr. President, I hereby submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report prepared by the Congressional Budget Office under section 308(b) and in aid of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. This report meets the requirements for Senate scorekeeping of section 5 of S. Con. Res. 32, the first concurrent resolution on the budget for 1986. This report shows the effects of congressional action on the 2001 budget through July 10, 2001. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are consistent with the assumptions of H. Con. Res. 83, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002, which replaced H. Con. Res. 290, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001. The estimates show that current level spending in 2001 is below the budget resolution by $12.1 billion in budget authority and by $8 billion in outlays. The current level is $1 million above the revenue floor in 2001. I ask unanimous consent that a letter to me from Dan L. Crippen, Director, CBO, and an accompanying report be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today in support of S. 1171, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002. The Senate bill provides $24.96 billion in discretionary budget authority, which will result in new outlays in 2002 of $16.2 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, discretionary outlays for the Senate bill total $24.7 billion in 2002. Of that total, $15.2 billion in budget authority and $14.9 billion in outlays is for defense spending. The Senate bill is within its Section 302(b) allocations for budget authority and outlays for both general purpose and defense spending. Further, the committee has met its target without the use of any emergency designations. I again commend Chairman Byrd and Senator Stevens for their bipartisan effort in moving this and other appropriations bills quickly to make up for the late start in this year's appropriations process. I also commend subcommittee Chairman Reid and Senator Domenici for not only bringing this important measure to the floor within its allocation, but also for providing significant additional resources above the President's request for both the Department of Energy's Atomic Energy Defense Programs, which will help dramatically reduce the threat of proliferation of nuclear warheads, materials, and expertise in the former Soviet Union, and for renewable energy resources, which will help ensure an energy portfolio that balances the Nation's long- term needs for both energy and the environment. I hope all Senators will join me in thanking our able colleagues from Nevada and New Mexico for their vision and good work. I urge the adoption of the bill. I ask 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. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today in support of H.R. 2217, the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002. The Senate provides $18.5 billion in nonemergency discretionary budget authority including an advance appropriation into 2002 of $36 million, which will result in new outlays in 2002 of $11.5 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, discretionary outlays for the Senate bill total $17.6 billion in 2002. Of that total, $1.32 billion in budget authority and $1.03 billion in outlays falls under the new cap for conservation spending. The remaining amount counts against the general purpose cap for discretionary spending. The Senate bill is within its Section 302(b) allocations for budget authority and outlays for both general purpose and conservation spending. In addition, the Senate bill provides new emergency spending authority of $235 million for wildland fire management, which will result in outlays of $167 million. In accordance with standard budget practice, the budget committee will adjust the appropriations committee's allocation for emergency spending at the end of conference. I again commend Chairman Byrd and Senator Stevens for their bipartisan effort in moving this and other appropriations bills quickly, in order to meet our responsibilities to maintain an effective federal government. Their bill limits the use of the contentious legislative riders that have hampered its predecessors, and provides vital funding to manage our nation's natural resources, to support better and more efficient use of our energy supplies, and to meet our commitments to Native American tribes. I urge the adoption of the bill. Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that a table displaying the budget committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, my staff says the Senator is incorrect when he says his amendment protects Medicare from the sequester, protects Social Security. They assert after examining the amendment that it does not protect Medicare from a sequester. More importantly is the question of whether there is a trust fund surplus. I ask the Senator from Ohio, does he dispute the report of the Congressional Budget Office? The report of the Congressional Budget Office is as clear as it can be on page 19. I refer the Senator to ``Trust Fund Surpluses.'' Here is Social Security. We all know it is in surplus. Medicare, hospital insurance, Part A, is in surplus every single year. Part B is in rough balance over the 10 years. The Senator from Ohio has confused the funding mechanism for Part B. The funding mechanism is part of the cost, for Part B is premiums paid by those who are Medicare eligible and the other part is a general fund contribution. It is not in deficit. It is a choice made by Congress as to how to fund Part A, which are payroll deductions. That is how it is funded. It is in surplus. Part B is funded by premiums for part of the costs and by general fund contributions for the other part. It is not in deficit. It is a funding decision made by the Congress. Part A is in surplus; Part B is in rough balance. To suggest there is no surplus, I ask the Senator, what is his conclusion, this money doesn't exist? There is no surplus in Part A year by year? I don't think so. It is as clear as it can be. If one says there is no surplus and make it a jump ball, make this money available for other purposes, that is what will happen around here. That is the implication of the Senator's position. I don't think that is a wise position. I don't think it is a prudent position. It is certainly not a conservative position. It is a position that says we can use this money for any purpose; it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that we have a trust fund. It doesn't matter that these moneys are supposed to be protected. We will use them any place. That is exactly what got us back into trouble in the 1980s. We raided every trust fund in sight and put this in the deficit ditch and exploded the deficits and exploded the debt. I don't want any part of repeating that process. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Again, the Senator from Texas talked about spending being out of control. I just beg to differ. I do not think that is what the record shows. As a share of GDP, Federal spending has gone down each and every year for the last 9 years, from 22 percent of GDP to 18 percent this year. Under the budget resolution that passed, Federal spending as a share of gross domestic product is going to continue to decline, from 18 percent of GDP down to 16.3 percent, the lowest level of GDP since 1951. Discretionary spending, domestic discretionary spending is going to be at the lowest level in our history. So, please, let's not be telling the American people there is some big spending binge that has been going on here and put up a chart such as the one the Senator from Ohio has up there that has just one part of Federal spending. Amendment No. 873

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we always welcome the sage observations of the former chairman of the Budget Committee and, probably not surprisingly, we disagree. There is nothing in my amendment that precludes reform of Medicare. I not only serve on the Budget Committee, I serve on the Finance Committee. I have been part of every reform effort on Medicare that has occurred. So I am in favor of Medicare reform, and there is nothing in my amendment that prevents further Medicare reform. In fact, I believe this amendment is part of Medicare reform because it recognizes that the trust funds of Social Security and Medicare both deserve protection. That is the reality. That is what is at the heart of this discussion and debate today. Make no mistake, this talk about Medicare being in deficit is just erroneous. Let's review the Congressional Budget Office report. Here is Medicare. Under the table that is headlined ``Trust Fund Surpluses,'' Medicare Part A, which is financed out of payroll deductions, is in surplus each and every year of the 10 years of the forecast period. Medicare Part B is in rough balance over the 10 years. In some years, it is down $1 billion and then it is in surplus by $3 billion, $2 billion, $2 billion. The fact is Part B is in rough balance over the 10 years. The Senator says it is a deficit. It is not a deficit. It is a funding mechanism we decided on in Congress for Medicare Part B. Part of the money comes from premiums. Part of the money comes from the general fund. It is not in deficit. The report of the Congressional Budget Office shows very clearly it is in rough balance. Part A is in clear surplus. If you allow the money that is in surplus in the trust funds of Medicare to be used for other purposes, which we are now poised to do because of an unwise fiscal policy that has been put in place, guess what happens. What does that mean? I do not think we want to force the Medicare trust fund to go broke faster. It does not make sense to me. The Senator from Michigan is seeking time. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio and I see the same problem, but we have a different approach to solving the problem. The Senator from Ohio says the Social Security is endangered. I agree. I say not only is the Social Security trust fund endangered but so, too, is the Medicare trust fund. Despite the words from the Senator from Ohio, there really is a Medicare trust fund. It really is in surplus. We know that. That is from the reports from this administration. Those are what the reports from the Congressional Budget Office make very clear. Here is the ``Medicare Budget Outlook,'' from chapter 1, from the CBO, table 1-7 ``Trust Fund Surpluses.'' Under ``Medicare, Hospital Insurance (Part A),'' the trust fund is in surplus each and every year of the years under consideration. Part B, referenced by the Senator from Ohio, is in rough balance. What the Senator from Ohio has confused with his charts, is that Part A has always been funded in one way, under one formula, and Part B has been funded under a different formula. Part A is funded by deductions from payrolls of employees all across the country. As I indicate, Part A is in surplus. Part B is funded by premiums paid by Medicare beneficiaries and by general fund contributions. That is not in deficit as asserted by the Senator from Ohio. That is incorrect. Long ago, Congress determined Part B would be funded in part by contributions from the general fund, in part by premiums. We decide that level of contribution from the general fund as a matter of law. We make that determination. It has nothing to do with the Part B trust fund being in surplus or deficit. In fact, the reports of the Office of Management and Budget and the reports of the Congressional Budget Office show that the Part B trust fund is in rough balance because of that funding mechanism. It is not in deficit. That is an inaccurate statement. Part A is in surplus. So I believe the proper policy here is to give protection to both the Social Security trust fund and the Medicare trust fund, not just the Social Security trust fund, because the truth is Medicare is headed for insolvency even sooner than Social Security. I believe we ought to save the Social Security surplus and save the Medicare surplus; we ought to provide protection to both. It is critically important that we do so. The amendment I have offered in the second degree to the amendment of the Senator from Ohio protects the Social Security surpluses in each and every year, takes the Medicare Part A trust fund surplus off budget, just as we have done with Social Security, and gives Medicare, the same protections as Social Security and contains strong enforcement for both. This is an amendment that received 60 votes on the floor of the Senate last year. Sixty Members voted for protecting both Social Security and Medicare. I hope we will do that again. To go to the specific comparison of the two amendments I think would be useful to our Members. First, on the question of taking Medicare off budget, my amendment does so, to provide the same protection we have provided to Social Security. The basic idea is a simple one. Should we be using Medicare trust fund money or Social Security trust fund money for other purposes? Should we be using that money to fund the other operations of Government? My answer would be that at a time of economic growth we simply should not. We should not be raiding trust funds, retirement funds, health care funds, to pay for other functions of Government. We should not be using Medicare trust fund money to pay for national defense. We should not be using Medicare trust fund money or Social Security trust fund money to pay for education. We should not be using trust fund money to pay for tax cuts. We should not be using trust fund money to pay for the park system. The fundamental reason not to is we need that money to make the funds solvent. We have the baby boom generation coming along. If we use that money for other purposes, it is not available to pay down debt or to address the long-term liability in those programs. The fundamental effect is we dig the hole deeper before we start refilling it. My amendment would take the Part A trust fund off budget and protect it just as we do Social Security. The Voinovich amendment does not. He does not protect Medicare like Social Security. The second question is, Does it protect Medicare surpluses? My amendment, the Conrad amendment, does. It creates supermajority points of order against any legislation that would decrease the Medicare trust fund or increase trust fund deficits in any fiscal year. The Voinovich amendment has no such provision. On the third question of protecting Medicare against cuts, yes, on the Conrad amendment. We exempt Medicare trust funds from mandatory sequesters. We do not think those funds that are dedicated to Medicare should be used to cover up the deficit in other places in the budget. We do not think Social Security funds should be used for that purpose. We do not believe Medicare funds should be used for that purpose. We have already separately taxed people for Medicare and Social Security. They are in surplus. To take their funds to pay for other functions of the Federal Government is just wrong. No private sector entity could do that. There is not a private sector entity in America that could raid the retirement funds of their employees to pay the operating expenses of the company. There is not a private sector firm in America that could take the health care trust funds of their employees and use them to fund the other operations of the company. That is illegal. It would be illegal under Federal law if any private sector organization tried to do it. Why don't we apply the same principle to ourselves? Why don't we say: Look, trust fund money? That is a different category. It is a different category from other spending. If we are going to do that, we have to treat the Social Security trust fund and Medicare trust fund in the same way. My amendment does. The amendment of the Senator from Ohio simply does not. In fact, the amendment of the Senator from Ohio would require Medicare to be cut. Under his sequester, Medicare could be cut, defense could be cut, any other part of Federal spending could be cut; it is undifferentiated. It doesn't matter whether it is a trust fund or other operations of Government; under the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, they could all be cut. I do not think that is right. I do not think it is right to treat the Medicare trust fund the same way as other Federal programs when there is a shortfall in Social Security--to cut Medicare to make up for it? I don't think so. I do not think that is the right principle at all. The fourth question: Do we protect on-budget surpluses? Yes, under the Conrad amendment we create a supermajority point of order against the budget resolution or other legislation that would cause or increase an on-budget deficit for any fiscal year; in other words, taking out Social Security and Medicare, treating them as trust funds. That is what they are supposed to be, that is what they are designed to be, and we ought to treat them as such. The amendment of the Senator from Ohio is the same as my amendment in that regard. Protecting Social Security? The two are the same. On the final question, providing for cuts in Medicare, education, defense, and other programs, no, my amendment does not provide new sequesters beyond existing mandatory and discretionary sequesters under the Budget Enforcement Act. The amendment of the Senator from Ohio amends the Budget Enforcement Act to sequester spending in any year the estimated on-budget spending exceeds one-half of 1 percent of total estimated outlays, regardless of what caused the deficit--regardless of what caused it. Under his proposal, even if it was a tax cut that caused the shortfall, you have to go out and cut Medicare; you have to go out and cut defense; you have to go out and cut education, even though it was not a spending increase that caused the problem. If it was, instead, a shortfall in revenue or if, instead, it was some other provision that created the problem--a tax cut, for example, that caused the shortfall--his answer is the same in every case: You cut spending. It doesn't matter what the cause of the problem is; you treat them all the same. I do not think that makes sense or stacks up. Under the amendment my colleague from Ohio is offering--I call it the Republican broken safe because there is not a penny reserved for Medicare--you are protecting Social Security, which my amendment does as well, but he does nothing for Medicare. I do not think that is the way we want to go. I will go back to my colleague from New Mexico, who I see is on the floor now. This was his statement back in 1998: For every dollar you divert to some other program you are hastening the day when Medicare falls into bankruptcy, and you are making it more and more difficult to solve the Medicare problem in a permanent manner into the next millennium. He was exactly right when he made that statement. That is why I offer this amendment today, to protect Social Security and Medicare, to treat them as trust funds, because that is the way they were designed, that is the way they were set up, and that is the way we ought to treat them. This chart shows we are already in trouble. Under the budget that was passed, with the tax cut that was passed, with the economic slowdown that is occurring, in the fiscal year 2001, the year we are in right now, you can see we started with a $275 billion forecasted surplus, but $156 billion of that is Social Security money and $28 billion is Medicare trust fund money. When you take those out, you have $92 billion left. Then you take out the tax bill. That is $74 billion. If you take out what is in the budget resolution that passed both the Senate and the House, that is another $10 billion out of this year-- most of it in the bill that is before us right now, the supplemental appropriations bill. Then when you look at the interest associated with the first two, we are down to a margin of only $6 billion this year. Now we have been told by the administration we can anticipate--to be fair, this is Mr. Lindsey, Larry Lindsey, the President's Chief Economic Adviser, who did a back-of-the-envelope calculation and said when we adjust the number that he used for the different baselines, we would lose another $20 billion this year because of the economic downturn. That puts us in the hole this year by $17 billion. That puts us into the Medicare trust fund by $17 billion. That is before any appropriations bill has passed. No appropriations bill has passed. There is no spending beyond what is in the budget, and we are already in trouble. And for next year you can see the same pattern, but it is more serious in that we are using all of the Medicare trust fund next year, plus we are even using some of the Social Security trust fund--only $4 billion but, nonetheless, the numbers show that with the economic slowdown this year, we can anticipate lower receipts next year. If you look at all of the numbers and you look at how much of the money is in the trust funds, you find that we have a problem this year and next year. If we go even further and look at the next 10 years, what we see is that we have problems in the Medicare trust fund in the first 4 years. Every year we are into the Medicare trust fund just based on the budget that has passed, based on the tax cut that has passed, based on the economic downturn we see so far. And that is before we consider the President's request for billions more for national defense. We are in trouble already. We are into the trust funds already before we consider the President's defense requests, before we consider any new money for education. Remember, we just passed an authorization bill with over $300 billion of new money for education. This is before we have any money for natural disasters. And we typically have $5 to $6 billion for natural disasters every year. This is before the tax extenders are passed. Those are popular provisions. The research and development tax credit-- does anybody believe we are not going to extend the research and develop tax credit? Does anybody believe we are not going to extend the wind and solar tax credits? If we do, it is not in the budget. And it just makes the problem more severe. I say to my colleagues, we are into the trust funds before any of these additional measures, before the President's defense requests, before any new money for education, before money for natural disasters, before the tax extenders are provided for, before the alternative minimum tax problem is fixed. And I am not talking about a total fix to the alternative minimum tax; I am just talking about a fix to the problem created by this tax bill that has been passed. Just fixing that matter is a $200 billion cost. This is before any further economic revisions. And we have been alerted by the Congressional Budget Office to expect a further downward revision to the long-term forecast because of the weakening economy. Colleagues, what could be more clear? We have a responsibility to deal not just with the short term but with the long term as well.

Mr. CONRAD. I would be happy to yield.