Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Stabenow is my designee on this amendment. She has the amendment to send to the desk. I yield to Senator Stabenow. Amendment No. 191

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Perhaps we can propound a unanimous consent request. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham, continue for 10 minutes; then turn to the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, for 15 minutes; then go to the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, for 15 minutes; and then go to the Senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow, for 10 minutes.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. We will be happy to provide it. We do not have a copy at this point ourselves.

Mr. CONRAD. First thing in the morning.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent Senator Johnson be shown as the prime sponsor, that I be shown as a cosponsor, along with Senators Daschle, Harkin, Dorgan, and Lincoln.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I call up the Johnson amendment.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is a place where we have some fundamental agreement and yet some disagreement on how to accomplish the goal. We face a crisis in American agriculture. It is deep, it is abiding, and it is devastating. Let me put up a chart that shows what USDA tells us will happen to net farm income in the period from 2000 to 2002, the last 2 years on this chart. One can see that net farm income is going to plunge unless we take action. Senator Grassley is to be commended for taking action by offering his amendment. I disagree with some of the specifics, but I commend him for standing up for American agriculture at a time of extreme need. The next chart shows what our major competitors are doing in comparison to what we are doing to support our producers. The European Union, our biggest competitors in world agriculture, is providing $313 an acre of support per year to their producers. By comparison, we are providing $38 an acre for our producers. Europe is doing nearly 10 to 1 over and above what we are doing--nearly 10 to 1. Those are the very difficult circumstances our farmers face. We are telling our farmers: You go out there and compete against the French farmer and the German farmer, and while you are at it, take on the French Government and the German Government as well. That is not a fair fight. That is just the first part of the equation. Let us go to export assistance. This chart shows that the European Union is flooding the world with agricultural export subsidies. The blue part of this chart is the European share of world agricultural export assistance. One can see the Europeans account for 83.5 percent of all the world's agricultural export subsidies. The U.S. share is that little red piece of the pie, 2.7 percent. The Europeans are outgunning us on export assistance 30 to 1--10 to 1 on domestic support, internal support, and 30 to 1 on export assistance. We wonder why American agriculture is in trouble. We worry why Europe is gaining world market share. It is very clear if one does an analysis of why that is occurring. It is because they are providing much greater assistance to their producers than we are to ours. Let us go to the next chart. Here is the history from 1991 to the year 2000. The green line is the prices farmers pay for inputs. That line goes up, up, and away. The red line is the prices farmers have received. One can see that the peak of what farmers received was in 1996, right before we enacted the last farm bill. Since then, prices farmers have received have gone down, almost straight down. The gap between the prices farmers pay and the prices on what they sell is growing, is dramatic, and is devastating. That is what has led to the crisis in American agriculture. That is what requires a response. That is why the Senator from Iowa is proposing this amendment. That is why we will propose an alternative that we think is superior, that is better, that has more funding because, very frankly, what the Senator from Iowa has offered is inadequate: $63.5 billion over 11 years will not come close to matching what the Europeans are doing. It will not come close. Our amendment provides $97 billion over that 11-year period. We fund it in the first year, in the current budget year, out of the surplus and in the succeeding years out of the President's proposed tax cut. We would reduce the size of his tax cut slightly to provide additional support to agriculture. Why don't we adopt the proposal of Senator Grassley? Very simply because once again the proposal he is offering goes right into the Medicare trust fund to provide support for agriculture. This next chart shows year by year. This is the problem I addressed on prescription drugs. It repeats itself. These are the year-by-year numbers in the Republican budget. In the year 2005, they only have $7 billion available without going into the Medicare trust fund. The next year they only have $12 billion available. Senator Grassley's proposal spends $9 billion in the year 2005 for this package. He is going into the Medicare trust fund to provide the resources for agriculture. We say, no. We want to provide the resources for agriculture. We have an amendment at the desk to do it. We provide 50 percent more so we can come close to matching our major competitors, the Europeans. We say, no, we are not going to tap the Medicare trust fund to do it. We are not going to tap the Social Security trust fund or the Medicare trust fund for any other purpose, we don't care how laudatory. We think it is wrong. If any company in America tried to tap the retirement funds of their employees or the health care trust funds of their employees, they would be headed to a Federal institution, but it would not be the U.S. Congress. They would be headed to a Federal institution. They would be headed for a stretch. It is illegal. You can't raid the trust funds if you run a company. You can't raid the retirement funds of your employees. You can't raid the health care trust funds of your employees, and we shouldn't either. We have stopped this practice the last 3 years and we shouldn't take it back up. We ought to draw a bright line and say no raiding of the Social Security trust fund, no raiding of the Medicare trust fund, not in any year. That is why we have a different proposal. Our proposal says very clearly, yes, additional assistance to agriculture and substantially more than is in the Grassley plan. We have $97 billion over 11 years; he has $64 billion over 11 years. I think the more important difference is we will not raid the Medicare trust fund to do it. In the first year, this current fiscal year, we take it out of the $96 billion of nontrust fund surplus that is available, and in the succeeding years, we take it by reducing slightly the President's proposed tax cut. Amendment No. 176 (Purpsoe: To provide emergency assistance to producers of agricultural commodities in fiscal year 2001, and additional funds for farm and conservation programs during fiscal years 2002 through 2011)

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for working through this procedure in a fair way and an efficient way. We have used the time relatively well today. We now have scheduled the next two amendments, or really three amendments because there will be two first-degree amendments on agriculture and then we will go to an education amendment. We also are scheduled to vote on agriculture with time to debate that both this evening and tomorrow. I want to send a clear message to those colleagues who are concerned about agriculture, as the chairman described. My colleagues need to be here tonight to discuss this issue because there will be limited time tomorrow morning. We will have only an hour and a half when we come back in tomorrow morning to conclude debate on this important set of amendments. If there are colleagues on either side of the aisle who are concerned about agriculture and want to participate in that debate, they need to know tonight affords the best opportunity because there will be limited time tomorrow. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I think at this point it would be appropriate to welcome the Vice President to the Chamber. We are glad you are here. We hope you will stick around to break the next tie.

Mr. CONRAD. It could be clearer if you did not raid the Medicare trust fund for a new benefit, a new promise, when you need the Medicare trust fund money to keep the previous promises. That is how clear it is.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, it has come down to this: We both agree roughly on the amount of money necessary to fund a meaningful prescription drug benefit. Our friends on the other side of the aisle are $300 billion; we are at $311 billion. There is not much difference there. There is a profound difference on how to fund that amount of money. We say do not use the trust funds of Social Security or Medicare. Our friends on the other side of the aisle say raid the Medicare trust fund, which we believe is a profound mistake. We ought to fund this proposal, but we ought to do it the right way. We ought to do it the fiscally responsible way. We ought to do it without raiding a dime of trust fund money. That is our proposal. That, I believe, deserves the support of our colleagues. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. CONRAD. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. CONRAD. I yield 2 minutes to Senator Baucus.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, what a difference a few hours makes. What a dramatic transformation. When we proposed this morning a prescription drug benefit and the funding for it of $311 billion, the other side said: There the Democrats go again. All they want to do is spend money. But here we are at 4:30 in the afternoon and the Republicans are back. And what do they want to do? They want to spend almost the identical amount of money. What has occurred here is absolutely fascinating. There has been a transformation. It has been really quite remarkable. All of this morning the Republican line was, Oh, the Democrats just want to spend money. But by 4:30 in the afternoon the Republicans want to spend the same money. The difference is they want to raid the Medicare trust fund, and we want to protect the Medicare trust fund. We want a prescription drug benefit directly and clearly out of surpluses outside of the trust funds. Let me show you why the proposal of our friends on the other side will put us right into the trust funds. This chart shows the surpluses available under the Republican budget proposal year by year. As you can see, in the year 2005, there is only $7 billion available before they are into the Medicare trust fund. They are here proposing $300 billion of expenditures for a prescription drug benefit. When you divide $300 billion by the 10 years covered, that is about $30 billion a year. If they use $30 billion in the year 2005 for a prescription drug benefit, guess what. They are using Medicare trust fund money to fund a prescription drug benefit. What is wrong with that? That way leads to bankruptcy of the Medicare trust fund at an earlier date. That leads to insolvency of the Medicare trust fund at an earlier date. That is why our amendment is superior. It is better fiscally. It is better for a prescription drug benefit because we will not permit raiding the Medicare trust fund to fund a prescription drug benefit. We protect every penny of the Social Security trust fund, every penny of the Medicare trust fund, and we fund a prescription drug benefit--the $300 billion they are talking about--out of what is remaining. They are funding the Medicare prescription drug benefit out of the trust fund. It is just as clear as it can be. This amendment ought to be relabeled the ``Grassley Raid the Medicare Trust Fund Amendment.'' That is what we ought to call it because that is what it does. I yield the floor. Does the Senator from Michigan seek time? I yield the Senator from Michigan 5 minutes.

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield time off the resolution to the Senator from Florida for the purposes of a question or for any other purpose.

Mr. CONRAD. I am glad to give 5 minutes off the resolution.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time will the Senator from North Carolina need? I will provide 10 minutes off the budget resolution.

Mr. CONRAD. I yield to the Senator from Montana for 5 minutes.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I was very interested to hear the lack of response to the question that the Senator from North Dakota posed to the Senator from Oklahoma. The Senator from Oklahoma answered every question except the one that was posed to him. The simple question that was asked was what happens to the solvency of the Medicare trust fund if you use money out of that trust fund to provide a prescription drug benefit? The correct answer to that question is, you reduce the solvency of the Medicare trust fund. You make the trust fund go broke even sooner. That is what this chart shows. If you raid the Medicare trust fund to provide a prescription drug benefit, you make Medicare go broke sooner. That is why we on our side have taken the fiscally responsible course. The fiscally responsible course is to pay for a prescription drug benefit but not to touch one dime of the Social Security trust fund or the Medicare trust fund because that only endangers the solvency of those trust funds. So we have proposed a fiscally responsible plan, one that protects every penny of the Social Security trust fund, every penny of the Medicare trust fund, and then, with what remains, provides a tax cut with one-third of the money; with one-third of the money provides for the high-priority domestic needs including a specific program for prescription drugs. No, no, this is not just a matter of putting up a number. This is based on policy. This is based on a plan that is a prescription drug plan that is universal. Everybody who is eligible for Medicare can sign up. It is voluntary. If you do not want to belong, you do not have to belong. It provides enough support so people would actually be in the program, so you are not just getting the sickest people in and have a program that will not stand scrutiny over time. Then, with the final third, to fund this long-term debt that is growing because of our Social Security liability. That is a fiscally responsible plan. We do not rob Peter to pay Paul. We do not raid the Medicare trust fund to provide a new set of benefits when you need the money in that trust fund to keep the promises already made. The correct answer to the question I posed to the Senator from Oklahoma is, if you take money out of the Medicare trust fund to fund a prescription drug benefit, you hasten the insolvency of the Medicare trust fund. It goes broke sooner. We should not do that. That is a mistake. I thank the Chair. The Senator from Montana wants time off the resolution?

Mr. CONRAD. What happens, if you take a prescription drug benefit out of the Medicare trust fund, to the solvency of the Medicare trust fund?

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?