Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 15 minutes.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have just had a rather extraordinary experience in the Senate Budget Committee with the chairman putting that committee into adjournment after a very short discussion of the reconciliation measure that was before the Committee. We had hoped that there would be an opportunity to discuss this afternoon and Monday what is in this budget reconciliation package that has been put forward by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We believe that the American people deserve a chance to hear precisely what this package will mean. We believe it has severe consequences for the people in this country. We believe there are very sharp cuts in Medicare and Medicaid that are going to mean increased burdens for our senior citizens, are going to mean hospital closures all across America, and especially in rural America, that there are going to be many people who are elderly, who are ill, who are not going to have the kind of care that they deserve. Much of that is being done in order to provide a tax reduction that will go disproportionately to the wealthiest among us. Many on our side of the aisle, I believe everyone on our side of the aisle, believes that is an inappropriate set of priorities. One thing our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said, and said repeatedly, is that they are balancing the budget by the year 2002. Mr. President, that is not accurate. Senator Dorgan and I, 2 days ago asked the head of the Congressional Budget Office for an analysis, if the law of the United States is followed, will the reconciliation plan put forward by the Republicans balance the budget in the year 2002 or not? The head of the Congressional Budget Office reported to us in a letter yesterday, with a revised letter today, that if the law of the United States is followed--that is, if Social Security surpluses are not included in the calculation, which under our law is specifically excluded; that is, we are not to count Social Security surpluses in determining whether or not the budget of the United States is in balance--when that calculation is made, the head of the budget office told us in a letter dated today, ``excluding an estimated off-budget surplus of $115 billion in 2002.'' Again, let me read that phrase, ``excluding an estimated off-budget surplus of $115 billion in 2002,'' that is primarily Social Security surpluses, if those are excluded ``from the calculation, CBO would project an on-budget deficit of $105 billion in the year 2002.'' Not a surplus, not a balanced budget, a $105 billion deficit in 2002. Let me just say, I think anybody who knows anything about accounting would understand you do not count Social Security surpluses in calculating whether you have balanced the budget or not. Why is that? That is because the Social Security trust fund has been set up to run surpluses in preparation for the time the baby boom generation retires. Unfortunately, all those surpluses are being spent, and what is happening is we are using that money today instead of saving it or paying down the existing debt to better prepare ourselves to meet that demographic time bomb. That is a profound mistake. Let me just make clear, if any company in the United States tried to take the retirement funds of its employees and put them into the pot to balance the budget, they would be in violation of Federal law. Indeed, that is precisely what has been happening in the United States. It has been going on since 1983. It should not be permitted to continue. We have already run up almost $500 billion of IOU's, but that is going to grow geometrically over the next 18 years. We have a chance to get our house in order. We have a narrow window of opportunity, and we ought to take advantage of it. We should not be looting and raiding the Social Security trust funds in order to assert that we are balancing the budget. That is not truthful. And I am pleased to say the Congressional Budget Office has now acknowledged that the budget will not be in balance by 2002 but, in fact, will have a $105 billion deficit in that year. I think there are other reasons the Republicans in the Budget Committee at least were not eager to have a further discussion of the reconciliation bill. I think there are a lot of things they would prefer the American people not hear before votes are held and cast on that measure. One of the things they may not be eager for the American people to hear is that there is going to be a $1.3 trillion increase in the national debt under the Republican plan. That is the cumulative increase in the debt that is being added to the $4.9 trillion in debt we already have in this country. They are going to add, under their plan, another $1.3 trillion of debt. Yet, they insist on a tax reduction, a tax cut, primarily going to the wealthiest among us, which will add to this debt. What sense does that make? I can say to my colleagues that when I queried the people of my State, they made it clear to me to balance the budget first before there is any tax cut. We can have tax cuts after we balance the budget. We are not balancing the budget, No. 1; No. 2, we are adding $1.3 trillion to the national debt, and $245 billion of that is tax cuts which, again, primarily go to the wealthiest among us. Let me just go a little further so that people have a chance to hear what is in this tax package that has just passed, because we have heard on the other side of the aisle the assertion that this is a significant tax cut that would go to American families. I wish that were true. I wish it were true that it was really directed at the middle class, because while I believe it is not the time for tax cuts, when you are adding $1.3 trillion to the national debt and you have not really balanced the budget in 7 years, and even with that I think we could look more kindly upon a tax cut if it were really directed at the middle class. That is not where this tax cut is directed. In fact, what we learned yesterday is that the Senate Republican plan would mean tax increases for everyone earning under $30,000 a year. Those earning under $30,000 a year, which are 51 percent of the American people, get a tax hike. They get their taxes increased. I will demonstrate that point by asking unanimous consent that the tables be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, when we look at where the breaks go, because there are $245 billion of tax cuts in this package. Where do they go? They go, disproportionately, to the wealthiest among of us; 48 percent goes to people earning over $100,000 a year. We can see on this chart that the top 5 percent of the people, 2.8 million families making over $200,000, get, on average, a $3,400 tax break. People earning over $200,000 a year get a $3,400 tax break. The richest 1 million families in America, those making over $350,000, get a $5,600 tax break. Mr. President, I say to you, I do not think that is fair. I do not think it is fair to increase the taxes of those earning less than $30,000 a year in order to concentrate tax breaks on those who are the wealthiest among us, to give a $3,400 tax break to the top 5 percent, those earning over $200,000, and a $5,600 tax break to the top 1 percent, those earning over $350,000 a year. Mr. President, this is the chart that was provided for us yesterday that shows the distributional effect of tax provisions in the Senate Finance Committee chairman's mark for revenue reconciliation and the earned income tax provisions previously adopted by the committee. When you take into consideration previous changes in the earned income tax credit and the changes in this package, one finds that people earning up to $30,000 all experience a slight tax increase under this plan. But those who are earning above that amount experience a tax reduction. But let us see who gets what. Those earning from $30,000 to $50,000 a year get less than $250 of tax reduction a year, while those earning over $200,000 a year, get $3,400 in tax reduction. That does not strike me as fair. It does not strike me as balanced. It does not strike me as the kind of targeted tax relief that is seriously intended to help hard-pressed middle income families in this country. Mr. President, this redistributional effect, taking from those who are of more modest income, those earning up to $30,000 a year, and giving them a tax increase and reducing taxes for the wealthiest among us, giving 48 percent of the benefit to those who are earning over $100,000 a year, continues a trend that I think ought to concern us all, and that is the concentration of wealth in this country in the hands of fewer and fewer people. This chart shows the share of wealth of the top 1 percent of the households in America. In 1969, 20 percent of the wealth in this country was in the hands of the top 1 percent. By 1979, 30 percent of the wealth of this country was controlled by the top 1 percent. But by 1989, 39 percent of the wealth of America was held in the top 1 percent of this country. Mr. President, anybody who has studied history knows what this trend means. When wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, it leads to political instability, it leads to, I think, a threat to all of our institutions. It is no wonder that people are angry across America, as they see the wealth of the Nation concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been quick to accuse the Democrats of being for redistribution of income. Let me say that our friends on the other side of the aisle have been the champions of income and wealth redistribution. Over and over and over, in committee after committee, our friends on the other side of the aisle have pursued policies that concentrate wealth in the hands of those who are already the wealthiest among us. I ask the simple question, how much wealth do the top 1 percent want to have in their hands? They have nearly 40 percent now. Do they want 60 percent of the wealth of America in the hands of just 1 percent of the people? Do they insist on 80 percent of the wealth in the hands of just 1 percent of the people? I do not think this is good social policy. I do not think it is good economic policy. I think it threatens the future of the country. Mr. President, 73 percent of the American people pay more taxes in payroll taxes than they pay in income taxes. Yet, what is happening under the Republican plan is to take payroll taxes--the only way to justify payroll taxes at their current levels is if you are building surpluses to prepare for the day when the baby boom generation retires. But all of those moneys are being spent, not saved. They are being taken and spent in other areas of the budget. And so what is really happening is an enormous redistribution of wealth. Make no mistake about it. We are taking payroll tax money, generating surpluses and not saving them, but spending them. And we are spending part of them to give a big tax reduction to the wealthiest among us, so we are taking payroll taxes that are regressive. That simply means lower income people pay a higher percentage of their income in payroll taxes, taking money from them and flushing it back out in a tax cut to the wealthiest among us. Forty-eight percent of the benefit goes to the top 1 percent. That is what is going on here. It is an enormous redistribution of wealth, going from middle-income people, because under the Republican plan, 51 percent of the people, those earning less than $30,000 a year, are going to experience a tax increase. The money is being taken from them in payroll taxes and other taxes, and part of it is then being used to give a big tax cut to the wealthiest among us. I do not think that is fair or right. I do not think it represents American values. Mr. President, I think that is the reason the chairman of the Budget Committee was so swift to gavel the Budget Committee into adjournment, because they did not want to see and hear these facts being provided to the American people. They want to pass this in the dead of night without a chance for the American people to see and hear what these plans will mean for the people of this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, might I have 30 seconds?

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Is it not amazing what a day makes? Yesterday, the American people were told, you enact the Republican plan, you have a balanced budget. You even have a little bit of a surplus. But when we asked the question, yes, but what if you obey the law of the United States, which says you cannot count Social Security surpluses--and, of course, the reason you cannot count Social Security surpluses is because no accountant anywhere would allow you to take the reserve funds, the retirement funds of your people, and throw those into the pot and call it a balanced budget. That is why we have a law that says you cannot count the Social Security surplus. And when you ask the question, what do you do if you obey the law? then the head of the Budget Office comes back and says, including an estimated off- budget surplus of $180 billion, which is the Social Security surpluses, CBO would project an on-budget deficit of $98 billion in 2002--$98 billion. In fact, the Republican plan, in order to balance, takes every penny of Social Security surpluses over the next 7 years--$650 billion. It takes all those Social Security surpluses, throws those into the pot and says, hallelujah, we have a balanced budget. Well, of course, they do not have a balanced budget. They do not have a balanced budget by the law of the United States. They do not have a balanced budget that any accountant would anywhere certify to in America. I say to my colleague, is it not interesting the difference a day makes, from a surplus to a massive deficit in the year 2002 under the Republican plan? There is no balanced budget here, just a big fraud. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. If I might just conclude, I would like to say this is completely paid for. It is paid for out of farm accounts to another farm account where there is, I think, a clear need across the country, where producers have suffered a catastrophic loss, and where there was not the availability of crop insurance to cover that loss. To the extent there is crop insurance available, no payment is available. Again, it is paid for completely out of other agricultural accounts. Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD. I yield back my time.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is no giveaway program. A farmer must have a loss of at least 35 percent. It is only on that part of farmers' production that is not eligible for crop insurance that would be allowed any forgiveness. There is a $2,500 cap per farmer. On a national basis, there is a $35 million limit. And it is all paid for. It is paid for by reducing the authorization for the Export Enhancement Program from $795 million to $717 million. I just say to my colleagues, this year we had an $800 million authorization. We are going to spend less than $400 million of that. So I believe these funds are available for this purpose. It will allow farmers to get forgiveness on part of their advance deficiency payment in those circumstances where they have faced massive losses; in those circumstances where they have part of their crop that could not be covered by crop insurance. Where they could have gotten it covered by crop insurance, they are expected to have done so. It is paid for. It is fair. It will relieve suffering as a result of the transition from previous disaster programs to no disaster program. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk and ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this amendment is to deal with what I think is clearly an unintended consequence. In many parts of the country this year we have crop failure, most of it weather related. Whether it is wheat in North Dakota or Kansas, whether it is cotton in Mississippi, or corn in Iowa and Illinois, we have a series of circumstances in which unusual crop losses have occurred. That has led to a perverse result. Farmers across the country are being presented with a bill to repay their advance deficiency payments and in many cases they have no crop with which to pay it back. What has happened is producers were paid an advance deficiency payment, prices rose because of these crop shortages and shortfalls and, as a result, farmers are expected to repay their advance deficiency payments. But those who have suffered a catastrophic loss have no crop with which to make these repayments.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I note the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee are on the floor. H.R. 1976 provides funding of $3,000,000 for grants to certified State mediation programs. Mediation is a proven effective tool in resolving disputes between the Department of Agriculture and America's farmers and ranchers. And as you know, mediation has been used for quite some time with regard to loans. However, current law [7 U.S.C. sections 5101 through 5106] also directs certified State mediation programs to offer mediation in other areas of dispute with the Department of Agriculture. These areas include wetlands determinations, compliance with farm programs, including conservation programs, agricultural credit, rural water loan programs, grazing on National Forest System lands, pesticides, and other issues as the Secretary of Agriculture considers appropriate.

Mr. CONRAD. While the legislation is clear, there is a question regarding the Senate Committee's report language of H.R. 1976. The report language states: ``Grants will be solely for operation and administration of the State's agricultural loan mediation program.'' Is it the committee's intent that federal funding not be used for other issues covered by the certified State mediation program? [[Page S 13916]]

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senators for clarifying the report language with regard to certified State mediation programs. tourism amendment

Mr. CONRAD. I think all time has expired.

Mr. CONRAD. Therefore, it is my understanding that the report language should not be read to limit or exclude activities of the certified State mediation programs that are currently described in the statute. The grants shall be used by certified State mediation programs in a manner which is consistent with 7 U.S.C. sections 5101 through 5106.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I, along with Senators Pressler, Thurmond, and Inouye, introduce the Medicare Anesthesia Services Reform Act. Whether the issue is Medicare reform or overall health care reform, our Nation needs to identify and develop efficient, cost-effective methods of delivering health care. But as we seek to cut health care costs, we must be careful to protect the quality of the health care that patients receive. One way to both provide quality care and better utilize our Nation's health care resources is to more appropriately use the services of Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists--CRNA's. The Medicare Anesthesia Services Reform Act addresses two important issues affecting the regulation of anesthesia practice as it affects CRNA's. The first defers to State laws in determining whether or not nurse anesthetists must be supervised by a physician. And the second provision provides parity of payment when two anesthesia providers are involved in a single Medicare case. The Act helps CRNA's maximize the use of their skills to provide quality health care to patients. Nurse anesthetists administer more than 65 percent of the 26 million anesthetics given to patients each year in the United States. They are the sole anesthesia providers in 85 percent of rural hospitals, including all but a handful of counties in North Dakota. CRNA's play an integral role in providing rural medical facilities with obstetrical, surgical, and trauma stabilization capabilities. CRNA's perform the same anesthesia delivery functions as anesthesiologists and work in every setting in which anesthesia is delivered--traditional hospital suites, obstetrical delivery rooms, dentists offices, HMO's ambulatory surgical centers, Veterans Administration facilities, and others. The first provision in the bill requires the Health Care Financing Administration to defer to State law when determining whether to condition Medicare reimbursement to CRNA's on physician supervision. Medicare's regulations require physician supervision of CRNA's as a condition for hospitals or ambulatory surgical centers to receive Medicare reimbursement, despite many State laws that allow nurse anesthetists to practice without such supervision. In fact, most States do not require physician supervision or direction of nurse anesthetists in the States' nurse practice acts, board of nursing rules and regulations, medical practice acts, or their generic equivalents. The Federal supervision requirement creates several problems for CRNA's. First, some surgeons have been dissuaded from working with CRNA's, in the face of arguments that the physicians may be subjecting themselves to liability for engaging in supervision. But the truth is, the attending physician is no more legally liable for the CRNA's actions than he or she is for the acts of an anesthesiologist. Second, the Federal restriction is anti-competitive, acting as a disincentive for CRNA's to be utilized. Finally, the restriction creates an inaccurate perception among some surgeons that they have an obligation to direct or control the substantive course of the anesthetic process, even though there is no such obligation. By eliminating this prescriptive Federal regulation, we can better maximize the use of nurse anesthetists and eliminate the confusion surrounding CRNA supervision. At a time when the Federal Government is deferring to State judgment on a whole host of issues, it seems completely consistent to let States decide how best to use nurse anesthetists, particularly in light of CRNA's long track record of success. CRNA's have been around for a century. They have been the principal anesthesia providers in combat areas in every war the United States has been engaged in since World War I. CRNA's have received medals and accolades for their dedication, commitment, and competence. And recent studies indicate that better utilization of CRNA's could save the Federal Government as much as $1 billion per year by the year 2010. Clearly, it make sense for the Federal Government to defer to States on an issue that could very well save significant Federal expenses over time. The second proposal included in the Medicare Anesthesia Services Reform Act applies to fairness in reimbursement to CRNA's and anesthesiologists. Under Medicare's current regulations, if an anesthesiologist and a CRNA work together on one case and Medicare later decides that the use of two anesthesia providers was not medically necessary, neither the hospital nor the CRNA gets paid. Consequently, there is an economic disincentive for hospitals to employ nurse anesthetists, even though they provide such cost effective services. Obviously, Medicare should not pay for services that are not medically necessary. And our bill would not require Medicare to do so. Rather, it simply requires that anesthesiologists and CRNA's or the hospitals that employ them split the fee equally. If someone works on a Medicare case, he or she should get paid for it. The problem CRNA's confront is the poor definition of what constitutes ``medical necessity.'' Medical necessity is interpreted on a case-by-case basis, making it easy for Medicare carriers to deny a claim for payment to a CRNA who cannot prove medical necessity. If a claim is denied, then only the anesthesiologist gets paid, even though both the anesthesiologist and the CRNA did the work. That is just not fair. Last year, I introduced legislation that would have required Medicare to reimburse CRNA's and anesthesiologists based on their contribution to the case. Under that proposal, if a CRNA did more of the work, he or she might get 60 or 70 percent of the payment compared with 30 or 40 percent for the anesthesiologist. If the anesthesiologist did more of the work, he or she would receive a greater percentage of the payment. Some viewed the provision I proposed last year as too difficult to implement. In addition, during health care reform, I worked with the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists and the American Society of Anesthesiologists to develop a compromise that included the 50-50 split that has been incorporated into this bill. Given the negotiations that occurred last year, I believe it is best to include the 50-50 split provision, rather than the provision that I initially proposed. Mr. President, this is sensible legislation. It is fair to both CRNA's and anesthesiologists, alike. And it eliminates some significant problems that are creating difficulty for nurse anesthetists and the hospitals that employ them. Our proposal replaces outdated Medicare regulations and lets hospitals make their individual anesthesia staffing decisions based upon their own needs. It also gives more flexibility to [[Page S 13976]] the States. I hope my colleagues will support it.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. As the Senator from Arkansas is aware, H.R. 1976 provides funding for the Agricultural Research Service to continue operating the ARS potato research facility in East Grand Forks, Minnesota, as an ARS worksite. Research direction and administration will be shifted to a primary ARS laboratory. The ARS Red River Valley Agricultural Research Center Northern Plains Area office in Fargo, North Dakota is located just 75 miles away, and is well equipped to handle administrative functions for the East Grand Forks facility. Is it the Senator's understanding that ARS should transfer the administrative responsibilities called for in this legislation to the Fargo ARS facility?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to let my colleagues know about the very serious flood my State is experiencing. Devils Lake is located within a completely closed basin with no outlet--much like the Great Salt Lake. Due to several years of above-average rainfall, the lake has risen over 13 feet and increased in size by two-thirds within the past 2 years. The ever-advancing waters of Devils Lake have caused millions of dollars in damage to roads, farmland, public facilities and private property. The Devils Lake flood has been especially difficult for farmers and ranchers in and near the basin. Eighty to 90 percent of the pasture and hayland around the lake are affected by the flood. Fields are flooded, roads used by producers are inundated with water, and wet conditions kept many farmers from planting last spring. If water levels continue to rise--as they are likely to do for the foreseeable future--the lake could overrun the dike protecting the city of Devils Lake, threatening lives and causing millions more dollars in damage. Let me give you just a few facts about this terrible flood: The water level of Devils Lake has risen 13 feet in the past 2 years, and is at its highest level in 120 years; Federal agencies have spent over $30 million to mitigate this disaster, including more than $21 million from the Federal Highway Administration to fix flood-ravaged roads; The Corps of Engineers recently placed a protective berm around the Minnewaukan city sewage lagoon because it was about to be overtaken by the lake. When constructed in 1956, the lagoon was more than 8 miles from the lake--8 miles, Mr. President; 1,768 Disaster Survey Reports of damage to public property have been submitted to FEMA's Disaster Field Office. 2,082 claims for Disaster Unemployment Assistance have been approved; and 2,500 homes in Devils Lake are pumping seepage from their homes, and many have basement floors that are heaving because of high water levels. Much has been done to deal with the flood so far. Federal Emergency Management Director James Lee Witt formed an interagency task force to deal with this disaster. Director Witt formed the task force to bring every relevant Federal, State and local agency togther--with the active participation of many Devils Lake Basin residents--to examine every feasible solution and work to find answers to this flood. The task force recently issued its report which identifies 17 action items to help mitigate the flood's damage. One of the most promising of those action items is the construction of an outlet from Devils Lake. An outlet could drain water from the lake and help prevent further--and catastrophic--damage. The Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation are in the process of studying a long-term lake stabilization plan that would make an outlet possible. Mr. President, this problem is of such enormity that every option must be considered. However, an outlet raises international considerations. Water drained through an outlet would flow into the Sheyenne River, which in turn flows into the Red River of the North, which flows northward into Canada. Canadian officials have expressed concern about an outlet due to water quality issues. The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 provides the basis for protection of boundary waters interests of both the United States and Canada. As a result, it is critically important that both the State of North Dakota and the U.S. Government work with Canadian officials as outlet plans are considered. The U.S. State Department participated in the interagency task force which has considered Devils Lake flood relief options. I was in Devils Lake recently and encouraged efforts to involve Canadian officials, especially from the province of Manitoba, in discussions of flood relief efforts. Mr. President, it is precisely because of our desire to work with our neighbors to the North that my colleague and I introduce this amendment. Allow me to read from the amendment before us: . . . It is the sense of the Senate that the United States Government should seek to establish a joint United States- Canadian technical committee to review the Devils Lake Basin emergency outlet project to consider options for an outlet that would meet Canadian concerns in regard to the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. In short, the amendment says two things. First, Devils Lake Basin flooding is a serious problem. Second, we want to work with the Canadians to find a treaty-compliant way to resolve it. The committee would seek to find a way to construct an outlet while fully complying with the treaty. Only by seeking the active participation of Canada can this project go forward. Let me be clear, Mr. President, it is in the best interest of my State and of our Nation to work with Canadian officials to assuage their concerns about an outlet. That is why this amendment emphasizes the importance of the treaty, and states that the committee should work to meet Canadian concerns regarding the treaty. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. I appreciate the patience and the indulgence of the Chair as well. Mr. President, I will try to be brief. The amendment that I have sent to the desk would deal with a very serious problem that is developing around the country. I am sure it affects producers in the State of the Chair; I am certain it affects the producers in the States of the managers. It deals with the problem of producers suffering crop losses this year because of very serious planting problems that developed around the country. In many parts of the country we had excess moisture; in other parts of the country we had an extraordinary wave of heat that dropped the value of crops and in many cases destroyed crops for our producers. Unfortunately, producers lucky enough to plant a crop were often met with these difficult conditions, and in some cases producers were not able to get a crop at all. The result is that producers who had the expense of planting a crop received an advance deficiency payment. On wheat that amounted to 35 cents a bushel. Because of the crop situation in this country and around the world, prices then went up dramatically, which will require farmers to repay those advance deficiency payments, and in some cases they do not have a crop at all. In other words, farmers are being sent a large bill but have no crop from which to derive income to pay the bill back. Now, in previous years a disaster payment would have been available to meet this situation. But now we do not have a disaster payment. We do have crop insurance. And what my amendment would do is say to producers, to the extent your crop could not be covered by crop insurance, you would be forgiven the advance deficiency payment if you have had a crop failure. We would also attach an additional provision. We would provide that no farmer would get more than $2,500 in forgiveness of advance deficiency payments. Now, I understand $2,500 may sound like a lot to some people. To farmers who have very large expenses, it may sound like not much, but at least it would help offset the costs of putting in a crop, not getting any production, and then being expected to repay an advance deficiency payment when you have no income with which to pay it. And again I want to emphasize to my colleagues, we have provided that this is only available to the extent that crop insurance could not cover the crop affected. In other words, let us say that a farmer took out the 75 percent coverage under crop insurance; only the 25 percent that could not be covered under crop insurance would be eligible for this forgiveness of advance deficiency payment. So on no bushel, not one, would any farmer receive crop insurance and a forgiveness of an advance deficiency payment. In addition, if a farmer had chosen only to get 60 percent coverage and 75 percent coverage was available, he would only qualify as if he had the 75 percent coverage. Obviously we do not want to create a perverse incentive by saying to the guy that went out and purchased the 75 percent coverage, ``You know, you were a fool to do that because the Government is going to come in here and at least forgive your advance deficiency payment on that part not covered by crop insurance.'' So we have tried to target this in a way that makes sense. We worked with the Congressional Budget Office. They now tell us this would cost $35 million. We have offset that by reducing the amount available for the Export Enhancement Program next year by that $35 million. In other words, we say reduce by up to $35 million the amount available in the Export Enhancement Program for next year in order to fully pay for the forgiveness of advanced deficiencies for farmers who had disaster this year. Again, I think we have crafted this in a careful way. Let me just say that this year on the EEP program we had $800 million authorized. We know we are going to only use $400 million. We had $800 million authorized, and we will use something less than $400 million. I say to my colleagues, at least for the purposes of getting this to the conference committee, let us have a vehicle out there that allows us to forgive these advanced deficiencies to a total of $2,500 per farmer, and only on those bushels where they do not have crop insurance or could not have had crop insurance to offset some of the disaster we see around the country. Many parts of the country--I know in the South the cotton crop was adversely affected by unusual heat. It came at a critical time and as a result that crop was damaged. In my part of the country we had flooding, most unusual flooding. I know in the State of the Chair, that flooding and wet conditions were serious. As a result, we have a whole series of disease problems. With that, I would thank the chairman for his assistance this afternoon and this evening in trying to put something together. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, might I just say that this has been designed with all farmers in mind. This has not been designed to benefit just one region or one crop. We know that losses have been severe throughout farm country from different situations in different parts of the country. In our part of the country, in an unusual turn of events, we have had too much water. That is a rarity in North Dakota, I might say. We have a million acres not planted in the State of North Dakota. That is truly a rarity. But we know that there are different circumstances. In Indiana, they had excess heat at the time the crop was forming and, as a result, significant losses. I know Missouri has had the same problem North Dakota has, and terrible disease problems as a result of excess moisture. I know Mississippi has had problems as a result of weather conditions there. The one thing farmers cannot do much about are the vagaries of weather and price. This year, prices have shot up, and that is terrific for those farmers who have a crop, but if you do not have a crop, it means you are going to have to pay back your advance deficiency payment at the very time you do not have the crop to get the income to pay it back. I had a farmer call me the other day and he said, ``Senator Conrad, I have a bill coming due to pay back my advance deficiency payment, $8,000. I got no crop, and I got no money. I had the expense of planting. I had the expense of fertilizing, and I had the expense of putting it all in. Then we had disastrous flooding. So I've got no crop, and I have a bill coming due for another $8,000, and there's no way I can pay it. It is really not fair.'' And just as the Senator from Mississippi described, those of us who are very wary of this notion of doing away with disaster programs, we are right because the crop insurance program does not make up for the lack of a disaster program. For many producers, that is going to be a disaster in and of itself. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. CONRAD. No, clearly not. That community college has formed the basis of providing an educated cadre of employees that make those firms successful. I say to my colleague, if you could go there and see the difference it is making in the self-confidence of those people, in their sense of self-worth, it is just a dramatic thing. Again, I thank my colleague for what he has done.

Mr. CONRAD. It is very dramatic because their contracts run in the tens of millions of dollars a year. It has made a dramatic difference to the economy of that reservation. I might say to my colleague, not only has that industry made a difference, they have also--this is very interesting--formed a computer company. That computer company now does the work for the Treasury Department. They manage the computer systems of the U.S. Treasury Department. They have done a first-class job. They employ literally hundreds of people in doing that service, and they have done a superb job, by the way, an absolutely superb job, and they are graduates of that particular community college.

Mr. CONRAD. The tribal industries had built the water trailers that were used in Desert Storm.