Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I would note that obviously the amendment that has already been debated in the time consumed, the Gregg amendment, would be the first amendment to be voted on and these other amendments voted on in the order indicated, or we will do it as offered. I guess we can do it as offered, if that would accommodate the Senator from California, because we did the Boxer-DeMint amendment offered earlier. We will do it as offered. I thank the Senator from Iowa for his courtesy.

Mr. CONRAD. Absolutely, an additional minute. Always, anytime, to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote sequence with respect to the pending motions be as follows: the Gregg amendment, the Conrad AMT amendment, the Kyl AMT amendment, the Boxer China-India amendment, the DeMint China-India amendment--those are both with respect to energy provisions--the Vitter OCS amendment, the Graham energy nuclear reserve fund, and the Gregg discretionary spending cap, with the remaining provisions of the previous order in effect.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, no objection.

Mr. CONRAD. No objection.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I wish now to turn to the Gregg amendment that was previously offered with respect to a $1 trillion cap. Let me indicate that the spending in the budget resolution that has gone to the conference committee takes spending down as a share of GDP each and every year from 20.8 percent of GDP in 2008 and 2009, every year stepping it down until we get to 19.1 percent of GDP in 2012 and 2013. I might add, we balance the budget in 2012 and 2013 under the budget. The comparison of the spending under the resolution and the President's budget is depicted by these lines: The green line is the budget resolution spending line; the President's is the red line. You can see almost no difference. That is because there is almost no difference between the spending in the President's budget and the spending in the Senate budget resolution. In fact, here are the differences: The Senate budget resolution has $3.08 trillion of spending over the period of the 5 years. The President has $3.84 trillion of spending over the period. What are the differences? Let me indicate as a percentage, that is a 1-percent difference--1 percent. Why do we have 1 percent more than the President? Well, because first we rejected his Medicare cuts. That is 45 percent of the difference. Forty-three percent of the difference is we rejected his cuts to law enforcement. We rejected his cut to veterans. We rejected his cuts to transportation. My goodness. We just had a bridge collapse in Minnesota, 35W. Can you imagine the horror? You are driving home and the bridge collapses. We don't think it is wise to be cutting transportation funding when we are not maintaining the roads and bridges we have now, much less dealing with the gridlock that exists around the country as well. So we have rejected those cuts by the President. We specifically rejected his proposal to cut the COPS program, not by 10 percent and not by 20 percent. The President proposed cutting the COPS program 100 percent. What is the COPS program? That is a program that has put 100,000 police officers on the street in this country. In my State, it has put over 200 officers on the street. I just held a hearing with every part of law enforcement represented: the police chiefs, the sheriffs, the States' attorneys--open testimony. They said it was absolutely beyond their understanding why the President would propose cutting the COPS program 100 percent, but he did. He proposed cutting weatherization assistance 100 percent. Why would you cut weatherization assistance when that is designed to reduce fuel bills when oil is $120 a barrel? He says cut weatherization assistance 100 percent. He says cut first responder grants 78 percent. I just held a hearing that involved all of the first responders in my State: The fire chiefs, the police chiefs, and all of the others, including the EMS personnel, emergency medical services. I asked them: Do they think it makes any sense to cut the first responder grants 78 percent? They unanimously said absolutely not. What are we going to do in terms of interoperability of communications if we are not upgrading those systems? One of the things we learned on that fateful day, September 11, was that the failure to have interoperable communications created a fiasco at the Pentagon when all the emergency responders were going there to try to help and they couldn't communicate with each other. That is what these grants are for, to provide interoperable communications, to provide the training to respond to disasters, both natural and manmade. The President says cut it 78 percent. The President said cut community development funds 24 percent. He said cut clean water grants 21 percent. He said cut low-income home energy assistance--the very popular LIHEAP program--which is already underfunded, another 15 percent. We said, no, that doesn't make any sense; yet we produced a budget that balances. It balances in the fourth year--not by much, but it does balance, according to CBO. We stay in balance in the fifth year, unlike the President's budget. The President balanced in the fourth year but went right back out of balance in the fifth. He has an addiction to debt unlike anything I have ever seen. This President has almost doubled the national debt in just 7 years. He has more than doubled foreign holdings of our debt in that period. We owe the Chinese hundreds of billions, we owe the Japanese hundreds of billions, and we even owe Mexico. This President's legacy is one of debt. In this budget, we bring down the debt as a share of GDP in each and every year, according to the scoring of the budget resolution, from 69.6 percent down to 66 percent. That is not as much progress as I would like to make. Senator Gregg and I have a separate proposal to deal with the long- term entitlement problems and those challenges, to deal with that in a bipartisan special task force that would have the power to come back with a recommendation that would get a vote in the Congress of the United States if a supermajority of the members of the task force, who are completely bipartisan, would agree on the plan. Mr. President, I am proud of this budget resolution. I think this trillion-dollar cap on discretionary spending is a pure political gambit. Let me add one other thing. If this cap were imposed, part of what is included in that spending is spending on our national defense. So that would put defense under the gun and put it at risk of additional cuts. I am a little surprised that the Republicans are proposing that. I don't think this is the time to be making cuts in national defense, but that would be in the pot and be subject to cuts under their proposal. I hope we reject that approach. With that, I think we are very close to being ready to go to votes. I see my colleague, the Senator from Florida, here. I wonder if the Parliamentarian could advise us on the time remaining on the Conrad-Kyl AMT amendment and the Gregg $1 trillion cap. How much time is left on those two?

Mr. CONRAD. I will allow the Senator an additional minute if the Senator in opposition will be given an additional minute as well.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, on the second motion, we have no objection on this side to adopting that motion by unanimous consent.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the first motion I like very much, the debt disclosure. I think that would be a very useful item for Members of Congress and for the people of the country. So I readily accept motion No. 1. Can we accept that motion by a voice vote?

Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to go first. The Senator is talking about this being the biggest tax increase in history. That is the same speech he gave last year. We can now check the record and see what actually happened and, lo and behold, there was not the biggest tax increase ever. In fact, there was no tax increase. In fact, there were tax cuts. The Democrats in both Houses of Congress cut taxes by $194 billion. In this legislation before us, we have no tax increases. We have additional tax reductions. Included in this resolution are the middle- class tax cuts, the marriage penalty relief, the child tax credit, the 10-percent bracket, further alternative minimum tax relief, estate tax reform, energy and education, property tax relief, and extenders. The difference in revenue, which is only 2.6 percent between our bill and the President's, can completely be met by closing down these offshore tax havens, abusive tax shelters, and aggressively going after the tax gap, the difference between what some owe and what they are failing to pay.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, two of our colleagues and a third, counting me, have very graciously agreed to take voice votes to shorten this process. Now we will turn to Senator Kyl for an explanation of his motion.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kyl for his willingness to do this on a voice vote. He has described the amendments well. I see no purpose in further discussion. I ask for a voice vote on the Conrad and Kyl motions.

Mr. CONRAD. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, under the budget resolution, spending goes down each and every year as a share of domestic product, 20.8 percent down to 19.1 percent The Senator opposite seeks to make those reductions more steep and embrace the President's proposal which would eliminate the COPS Program--not just cut it but eliminate it, a program that puts 100,000 police on the street--cut the Weatherization Assistance Program 100 percent at a time of $120 oil; cut the first responder grants--police, fire, emergency medical 78 percent; cut community development 24 percent; cut clean water 21 percent; cut LIHEAP 15 percent. More than that, because of the way this amendment has been written, this would put defense in the pool to be cut. If you want to do that, vote for the Senator's motion. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have enjoyed immensely listening to the description of this bill of the Senator from New Hampshire who is the ranking member of the Budget Committee, which I chair. I have great respect for Senator Gregg and affection for him. The description he has given of this bill has almost no relationship to the legislation that is before us. It is enormously entertaining but it is largely a fiction. It is a fiction that is interesting to listen to, but again it bears almost no relationship to the legislation before us. The Senator made reference to Soviet economists. Let's make clear, the American system of food production is the most efficient, the cheapest, the most plentiful, the most stable, the safest in the world. Americans have less of their disposable income going for food at this time than consumers at any time in the history of the world. Let me repeat that. The American consumer today enjoys the lowest cost of food in relationship to our income of any consumer in the history of the world. That is a fact. In fact, the Wall Street Journal published, last year, an article in which they said--and I want to read this. I hope people will pay attention. People need to understand how remarkable the American agriculture system has been and is. This is what they said: The prospect for a long boom is riveting economists because the declining real price of grain has long been one of the unsung forces behind the development of the global economy. Thanks to steadily improving seeds, synthetic fertilizers and more powerful farm equipment, the productivity of farmers in the West and Asia has stayed so far ahead of population growth that prices of corn and wheat, adjusted for inflation, have dropped 75 percent and 69 percent, respectively, since 1974. Among other things, falling grain prices made food more affordable for the world's poor, helping shrink the percentage of the world's population that is malnourished. That is a result of the genius of American farm policy and the extraordinary productivity of American farmers and ranchers working within that system. When the Senator says this counters market economics and leads to payments when prices are high, he obviously does not know how the farm program works. It is the opposite of what the Senator suggested. The way the system works is there is support from the Government when prices are low to prevent a collapse of the productive system. When prices are high, the support fades away. That is the way the system works. It does not increase support at times of high prices. It is precisely the opposite. The Senator said the reform provisions in this bill only save less than $300 million. Wrong. The reform provisions in this bill save close to $3 billion, and I will specify that momentarily. The Senator says the disaster program is a slush fund. Really? A slush fund? Let's review the facts. In the last 3 years, every State in the Nation has received disaster payments--none of it budgeted for, none of it paid for. In this bill disaster assistance is budgeted for and paid for. That is a reform and that is a fact. One of the things I am most interested in is the Senator suggested millionaires could still get farm program support under this bill. Yes, and lightning strikes once in a while, too. Because that is what it would take for a millionaire to get support under this program. I have just gotten results from the IRS moments ago because I wanted to know, with the new limits put in place--which, by the way, are very dramatic reform. It used to be, under current law on nonfarmers, they had a limit of $2.5 million of adjusted gross income before they would start to lose farm program payments. We have reduced that for nonfarm income to $500,000. There is another limit for farm income. Farm income, that had no limit in the past, now begins a limit at $750,000, at which, of that adjusted gross income, farm income of that amount, you lose all of your direct payments. But the two could go together. In other words, you could have somebody with $750,000 of farm income and $500,000 of nonfarm income, and still be under the limits. So I thought, wouldn't it be interesting to find out how many farmers in the country would be in that category--$750,000 of farm income and $500,000 of nonfarm income--because that is what the press is all talking about. They add the two together and then they double it because of a spouse. Do you know how many are in that category in the whole United States? How many would have $500,000 of nonfarm income and $750,000 of farm income? Do you know how many the IRS has reported to me there are in the entire United States? Zero. None. So much for the argument from the Senator from New Hampshire. Facts are stubborn things. Let's go to the essence of this bill. Why do we need support for farmers at all? It is a legitimate question. The Senator asked why don't we do it for the guy who has a shoe store? Why don't we do it for the guy who has some other small business? Here is the reason. Because we are in a world economy in which our major competitors have made a decision to strongly support their producers--far more strongly than we support ours. Our major competitors in world agriculture are the Europeans. This is how much they spend to support their producers: $134 billion. This is after the so-called cap reform in Europe that dramatically reduced what they do. This is where they wound up: $134 billion. Here is where we are: $43 billion. So they are outgunning us over 3 to 1 on support to their producers over what we do for ours. OK, I had an interviewer say to me: That is wrong. Maybe it is wrong but it is reality. What would happen if we yanked this support out from under our producers when our major competitors are providing three times as much support to theirs? We did an analysis. Do you know what we found? Here would be the result. Two words: Mass bankruptcy. Because if your major competitors are providing three times as much support to their producers as we provide to ours and we yank the rug out from under ours, guess what happens: The Europeans take over world agriculture. Wouldn't that be great, if we became dependent on foreign food the way we are dependent on foreign oil? That is what the critics of this agriculture policy apparently would prefer. But those of us who have studied it and those of us who have fought to ensure that we retain a strong agriculture component in this country have concluded that would be a disaster for the American economy, for American consumers, and that would be a disaster for our farmers and ranchers. Where does the money go in this bill? We have looked at, and just received, a final analysis. Two-thirds of the spending in this bill goes for nutrition--two-thirds of the money in this bill. This is the absolute low-ball estimate of what goes for nutrition. You could do an analysis that would take it up to as much as 73 or 74 percent. It depends on what you include and exclude. We have tried to do this based on CBO analysis of the final scoring of this bill. Nine percent goes for conservation. Only 13.9 percent goes for commodities, that is the support for farmers and ranchers, and about 8 percent for crop insurance. That is where the money goes. When the other side asserts that this increases the deficit and it is not paid for, they are making things up. They are making things up. Because this is the score by the Congressional Budget Office. Here it is. This is not Kent Conrad's numbers. This is not the Agriculture Committee's numbers. These are the numbers of the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation. They are independent. They are professional. They are nonpartisan. They are responsible for the scoring of all legislation before the Congress of the United States, and here is their conclusion. Over 5 years, this bill saves $67 million. Over 10 years, it saves $110 million. So all the spending has been offset, has been paid for. In fact, we have done a little bit more. So the net result is to actually reduce the deficit over 5 years by a modest amount--$67 million; over 10 years by $110 million. But these are facts. This is not make believe. This is not make things up. This isn't the administration saying there is $20 billion here above the baseline--that is all made up. We are dealing with facts. We are dealing with reality. When I hear them make these claims that we did not address the administration's concerns--we spent hour after hour after hour in this conference committee, attempting to address administration concerns. I think we did a pretty good job. The reality is the administration changed their stated concerns so often it was hard to keep track of what their priority was. In fact, at the end they came to us and said they had no priority, that all of their demands were nonnegotiable, that all of them should be treated with equal importance. I have never negotiated with any administration on anything that came in with a list of nonnegotiable demands and said everything had the highest priority, but here is what we tried to do. They said we had to limit any additional resources to $10 billion. We agreed to that. They said it had to be offset with spending cuts. We agreed to that. They said that the adjusted gross income limits for farmers and nonfarmers had to be reduced significantly. We did that. They said there had to be beneficial interest reform to avoid the kind of scandal you saw in Katrina. We did that. The Senator from New Hampshire said we did not, that a farmer could simply pick the right time to market his crop and avoid the consequences of any kind of reasonable restraint. That is not--they have not read the bill. In the bill we give the administration special authority in a disaster to prevent the Katrina abuse we all saw. In addition, we added an additional reform requiring a 30-day moving average for prices before somebody could fix their marketing loan. That is a very significant reform. Yet it is very clear, the critics have never bothered to read the bill. We also were asked by the administration to provide a revenue countercyclical program, and we did. They asked us to provide planting flexibility. And we did. They asked us to provide food aid flexibility. And we did. They have a series of miscellaneous provisions we tried to honor, including limitations on privatizing food stamps; Cuba trade provisions; out-of-lease fees. We answered each one of those objections. It does not stop there. Because we have heard the critics say there is no reform, no reform in this bill. I will tell you, that is the biggest fiction of all. That is the biggest fiction of all. Let's talk about the reform that is in this bill. First, significant adjusted gross income limit adjustments to prohibit payments to Manhattan millionaires. That is in this bill. We required payments to be attributed to living, breathing human beings instead of paper entities. We eliminated the three-entity rule that allowed paper entities to evade payment limits. We cut direct payments by $300 million. We produced schedule F reform that will save $479 million. We reformed crop insurance, saving $5.6 billion. We decreased support for corn-based ethanol, saving $1.2 billion. We prohibited payments to cowboy starter kits and ranchettes. We reformed disaster assistance so that it is budgeted and paid for. I might also add, we reformed disaster assistance so we would prevent what happened in the bad old days where somebody could have a loss on one part of their operation and gains on another part and still get a disaster payment. That is all over. If you do not have, on your whole farm, disaster losses, you will not get a disaster payment in the future. That is reform. Facts are stubborn things. In short, we have gone the extra mile to address the administration's legitimate requests and provided reform in this bill. I wish to take a few minutes to address three other claims the administration has made, because they are especially egregious and false. The administration's spokesman said: At a time of record farm income, Congress decides to further increase farm subsidy rates. More fiction. Here is the fact. The conference proposal does not increase subsidies at times of record farm income. To the contrary, the conference proposal: cuts direct payments by $300 million, reduces commodity spending by $3.5 billion, reduces the ethanol tax credit by $1.2 billion. The conference proposal only pays producers if prices collapse or when there is a loss of production. I am talking now about marketing loans. I am talking about the countercyclical program. Let me give you an example of what they are talking about. They say we have increased farm subsidy rates at a time of record farm income. Let me give this example to show you how truly absurd that statement is. Wheat prices now average about $8 a bushel. Okay. That is what you get when you go to market. You go to sell, you get about $8 a bushel for wheat. We increased the loan rate from $2.75 to $2.94. We increased the loan rate from $2.75 to $2.94. We increased the target price from $3.92 to $4.17. Obviously, neither one of those has any application when prices are high. The only way you would get the benefit of these safety net proposals is if prices were to collapse. We have not increased the support when prices are high; we have strengthened the safety net in case prices collapse. Facts are stubborn things. In fact, the only one--the only one--who is a party to these negotiations who talked about increasing support when prices are high was the administration. They proposed increasing direct payments by $5.5 billion. Those are payments that would go out to farmers at a time of high prices. Facts are stubborn things. When they say there has been no reform in this bill, here is the total spending under the farm bill compared to total Federal spending: less than 2 percent of Federal spending, and the support for commodity programs is one-quarter of 1 percent of the entire Federal budget; one- quarter of 1 percent. When we wrote the farm bill in 2002, the estimates were that commodity programs would take three-quarters of 1 percent of all Federal spending. So support for commodity programs has been cut by two-thirds. That is a dramatic reform. Where did the money go? All of the new money, the $10 billion we are above baseline here, has been paid for by other spending cuts. All of it went to nutrition. Now, on the disaster program--I want to end on this note--here are the States that got disaster payments over the last 3 years. Texas qualifies too, because it got payments. So every single State, and Guam, plus Puerto Rico, got support under the disaster program. None of it budgeted for, none of it paid for. In this disaster proposal, we budget for it and we pay for it. And to have the former chairman of the Budget Committee suggest this is a slush fund--no, no, no. What this is is being responsible. That is what this is called, because we know there are going to be disasters. We do not know what they are, we do not know where they are going to occur, but we know they will occur. Instead of leaving it out, putting it on the charge card, we budgeted for it and paid for it. This disaster program is not only budgeted for and paid for, it also will only go to people who actually have disaster losses. It also requires them to have crop insurance. The CBO scoring proves this will increase the use of crop insurance, which is good for taxpayers as well as farmers. One other thing that is very important to understand. This will protect against cuts in conservation. Because the one time they did pay for disaster programs, where did they take the money? They took it out of conservation. What a shortsighted approach that was. We have hopefully prevented that from happening again. I am extremely proud of the product that has been produced by this group of Senators and Congressmen on a bipartisan basis. I thank our chairman, Chairman Harkin, for bringing a vision of change to this farm bill. Without that vision, without his passion for it, without his pushing for it, moving in the direction of a greater emphasis on conservation, it would never have happened; and to our ranking member, Senator Chambliss, who has been a strong guiding voice throughout these deliberations. He is somebody I formed a very close working relationship with as we wrote this bill. He has had the best interests not only of farmers and ranchers, he has had the best interests of this country foremost in his mind every step of the way. This country and certainly his State owes him an enormous debt of gratitude. We thank Senator Chambliss for the extraordinary time and effort he has put into this bill. To Chairman Baucus, the chairman of the Finance Committee, who has been such a rock throughout this process, who provided strong leadership at every step of the way, and helped provide the financing, along with the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, who also participated in hour after hour, day after day, week after week, of deliberations to form a bill that was responsible, and who provided much of the push to get these reforms adopted. Now, I recognize this does not have all of the reforms certainly the Senator from Iowa would have liked, but we would never have gotten this much without his pushing. Chairman Peterson, on the House side, no one worked harder to get this result. I applaud him for the remarkable vote in the House today. The legislation passed there 318 to 106. That is in the face of a Presidential veto threat. The ranking member, Congressman Goodlatte, whom I came to have great respect for in these discussions; thoughtful, responsible, rational. Chairman Rangel, who helped us with the funding so we could pay for this bill without any tax increase. Congressman Pomeroy, the only Member of the House to serve on both Ways and Means and the House Agriculture Committee, who played such an important role. In the Senate we cannot forget those other Members who played such key roles: Senator Leahy with the dairy provisions, former chairman of the committee; Senator Stabenow, who is, in large part, responsible for the dramatic improvement in the treatment of specialty crops that are such an important and growing part of American agriculture; and Senator Lincoln, Blanche Lambert Lincoln. I tell you, her constituents have got a fighter in their corner every day. Nobody is a more aggressive fighter for her folks than the Senator from Arkansas. Before I end, I wanted to say a few thanks to staff as well, because this has been an effort that has gone on well more than a year. I want to thank my own legislative director, Tom Mahr, who played such an important role in making this all work financially. Jim Miller, my lead negotiator. Jim Miller has given body and soul to this effort. I am so proud of him. He is an encyclopedia on agriculture. He is also extremely adept with the numbers. I estimate Jim Miller has spent 3,000 hours on this effort. I also want to recognize Scott Stofferahn, who is my other lead negotiator, who is the father of these disaster provisions, worked with the agriculture commissioners around the country to come up with the provisions for this reform. John Fuher of my staff who is a young man who came on this team and brought his ``A'' game. Joe McGarvey, who does the energy work on my staff. Miles Patrie, who worked on the nutrition provisions. My deepest appreciation for their extraordinary effort. Day after day, night after night, weekend after weekend sacrificed. To the chairman's staff, Mark Halverson and Susan Keith, who have spent--I would not even know how to calculate the time and effort. I do know Mark Halverson has gone gray in the effort. The Finance Committee staff, as well. Before I mention them, I wish to single out the extraordinary staff of Senator Chambliss: Martha Scott Poindexter, Vernie Hubert, Hayden Milberg. What first-class people. These are the kinds of public servants who deserve everyone's respect. On the Finance Committee staff, Russ Sullivan, Cathy Koch, Rebecca Baxter, Jon Selib, Senator Baucus's legislative director. Senator Grassley's staff, who are outstanding as well, absolutely outstanding: Elizabeth Paris, Kolan Davis, Mark Prater, first-rate people who did their level best for the American people. I can tell you, I have never been more proud to be part of an effort than I was to be involved in this one. I see somebody else on the floor, the former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, the Senator from Texas--the Senator from Kansas; I was seeing if I could get a rise out of him--Mr. Roberts, who has been of so much importance to this conference effort and to the effort in the Senate Agriculture Committee as well. I tell you, I am proud of this product. This is a bipartisan product. This is a bipartisan effort. It is good policy and it deserves our colleagues' support. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 203 of the Concurrent Resolution 21, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2008, I move to waive section 203 of that concurrent resolution for purposes of the pending conference report, and I ask for the yeas and nays at the appropriate time.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 307 of S. Con. Res. 21, the 2008 budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels for legislation, including one or more bills and amendments, that reauthorizes the 2002 farm bill or similar or related programs, provides for revenue changes, or any combination thereof. Section 307 authorizes the revisions provided that certain conditions are met, including that amounts provided in the legislation for the above purposes not exceed $20 billion over the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 and that the legislation not worsen the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2007 through 2017. On November 5, 2007, I filed a reserve fund adjustment pursuant to section 307 for an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2419. That legislation passed the Senate on December 14, 2007. The Senate is considering the conference report to accompany H.R. 2419, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. I find that the conference report also satisfies the conditions of the deficit-neutral reserve fund for the farm bill, including being fully paid for over both the five and 10-year time periods. Therefore, pursuant to section 307, I am amending the reserve fund adjustment made on November 5, 2007, and further revising the aggregates in the 2008 budget resolution, as well as the allocation provided to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, to reflect the final estimate for the completed farm bill. I ask unanimous consent that the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 21 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize a community in North Dakota that will be celebrating its 125th anniversary. On June 11-15, the residents of Valley City will gather to celebrate their community's history and founding. Founded by the Northern Pacific Rail Road in 1872, this community went through an assortment of names before settling on Valley City. After being known as Second Crossing, Fifth Siding, Wahpeton, and Worthington, Valley City was chosen to describe this beautiful town located in the Sheyenne River Valley. Because the community was developed around the winding Sheyenne River, its eight historic bridges have become an integral part of Valley City's rich history. This ``City of Bridges'' offers many one of a kind and original bridge designs, including the Valley City State University suspension footbridge and the concrete arched Rainbow Bridge. Valley City has a lot to offer its residents and visitors alike. With its antiques, crafts and collectables Valley City offers a distinctive shopping experience. Some of its hidden treasures include a visitor's center, the Barnes County Museum, and the Sheyenne River Valley National Scenic Byway. The scenic byway stretches 63 picturesque miles along the Sheyenne River, following ancient Native American foot paths. The area has become a magnet for hunters, fisherman, and outdoor enthusiasts of all kinds. It is also the proud hometown of our Congressman, Earl Pomeroy. Valley City is the ideal location for its residents to grow and prosper together. To celebrate its 125th anniversary, the city will hold a rubber duck race, a street dance, a craft fair, a parade and fireworks. Mr. President, I ask the U.S. Senate to join me in congratulating Valley City, ND, and its residents on their first 125 years and in wishing them well in the future. It is places such as Valley City, North Dakota that have helped shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Valley City has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to honor a community in North Dakota that is celebrating its 125th anniversary. From June 28 to July 6, the residents of Jamestown will come together to celebrate their community and its historic founding. Founded in 1883 on the intersection of the Pipestem and James Rivers, Jamestown was named by GEN Thomas La Fayette Rosser whose hometown was Jamestown, VA, which was also located on a James River. In 1883 and again in 1932, the city of Jamestown made an attempt, though unsuccessful, to become the capital of the State. Jamestown is known as the ``Pride of the Prairie''--and it has much to be proud of. The city's dedication to promoting both conservation and tourism resulted in the construction of the World's Largest Buffalo. This massive 60-ton monument, which began as an art project of students from Jamestown College, draws visitors from all over the country. The buffalo is the center of the Frontier Village, a gathering of genuine Frontier-era buildings and the National Buffalo Museum--all of these together attracting over 100,000 visitors a year. Adding to Jamestown's celebrity is the presence of two of only a few albino bison in North America. The first, known as White Cloud, gave birth to an albino calf this last year, bringing another albino bison to the herd tended by the National Buffalo Museum. The rarity of this occurring is immense and has added to interest in the city. Jamestown has also helped shape the direction of North Dakota. And, for many, as the city that brought us Louis L'Amour and Peggy Lee, Jamestown has helped shape a generation. Coming into its 125th year, I am certain that Jamestown will continue in its role to provide leadership to many of our communities for years to come. Jamestown will be commemorating this special occasion with over a week of fireworks, car shows, races, banquets, socials, air shows, golf tournaments, school reunions, presentations, and parades. Mr. President, I ask the U.S. Senate to join me in congratulating Jamestown, ND, and its residents on their 125th anniversary and in wishing them well for the future. By honoring Jamestown we keep the pioneering, frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Jamestown that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Jamestown has a proud past and a very bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to commend the Peace Corps and its volunteers for 47 years of service to our country. In 1960, John F. Kennedy challenged students to dedicate a portion of their lives to serving their country overseas in the cause of peace. A year later, as President, he established the Peace Corps. And now, after 47 years, the Peace Corps shines as a beacon of our commitment to the world. Created to extend the volunteerism of the American people abroad, the Peace Corps has sent more than 190,000 citizens to nearly 140 countries as grassroots ambassadors of American goodwill. They have made lasting contributions in fields like agriculture, education, health care, and the environment. Twenty-seven North Dakotans currently serve in the Peace Corps. I know many individuals who volunteered their service. What I have heard of their experiences is truly remarkable. President Kennedy challenged us to ask what we can do for our country. The men and women of the Peace Corps rise to that challenge. Through their service, they demonstrate to the world that America and her people truly do care.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleague, Senator Stabenow, to introduce an important piece of legislation for Medicare beneficiaries living in rural areas. The Medicare Telehealth Improvement Act will ensure that rural beneficiaries have access to health care services by connecting remote areas to the services often only available in large urban centers. Fifteen years ago, I cofounded the Congressional Steering Committee on Telemedicine and Health Care Informatics to bring more attention to this technology and its potential. I took an interest in this technology because in large, rural, medically underserved States like mine, telemedicine provides access to care that is simply unavailable otherwise. In many areas of North Dakota, routine check-ups with a specialist can require a 200 mile round trip journey. That's fine for a young person on a nice spring day. But it doesn't work for seniors in the middle of a North Dakota blizzard. That's why in 1997, we fought to provide Medicare coverage of telemedicine services. But access to this benefit was strictly limited. For example, the telehealth service must be provided in a health professional shortage area or county not classified as a metropolitan statistical area. In addition, only consultations, office visits, individual psychotherapy and pharmacologic management are covered services. Moreover, reimbursement, which is the same as the current physician fee schedule amount, is limited to physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurse midwives, clinical nurse specialists, clinical psychologists, clinical social workers, and registered dieticians. Finally, only physician offices, hospitals, rural health clinics, and Federally-qualified health centers are eligible to be originating sites and receive the ``facility fee.'' While this benefit has been helpful to seniors in rural areas, the adoption of telemedicine in the Medicare program has been slow. That is because we had to place too many restrictions on the benefit to control the estimated costs o covering these services. However, experience has shown that the use of telemedicine does not dramatically increase spending. In fact, it can actually save money. That is why Senator Stabenow and I are introducing the Medicare Telehealth Improvement Act today. More seniors need to have access to this technology in all areas of health care, and our bill makes important changes in Medicare coverage. First, the Medicare Telehealth Improvement Act would increase the number of originating sites eligible to receive the facility fee to include nursing homes, dialysis facilities and community mental health centers. Moreover, it would allow any other site that has telecommunications systems to be an originating site, but these sites would not be eligible for the facility fee. Second, the bill allows more providers to participate. For a number of years, we have advocated to include physical therapists, occupational therapists, audiologists, and speech-language pathologists. This bill would make that change. Finally, we would improve the Medicare process for updating the list of eligible services. Despite widespread support for the inclusion of new codes, CMS has not sufficiently updated the list of covered services in recent years. In response, our bill creates an advisory panel that would give recommendations on the addition or deletion of services. Senator Stabenow and I have worked to garner support from a variety of stakeholders. In fact, the bill we are introducing today has the support of the American Telemedicine Association, the National Council on Community Behavioral Healthcare, the American Health Care Association, the American Health Information Management Association, the Center for Aging Services Technologies, the National Association for the Support of Long Term Care, and the National Center for Assisted Living. This bill is a meaningful step to further adoption of telehealth in the Medicare program. It will allow seniors to seek care in the comfort of their communities, instead of having to drive hundreds of miles. I urge my colleagues to support this initiative to ensure that every senior has access to the care they need. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleague, Senator Stabenow, to introduce an important piece of legislation for Medicare beneficiaries living in rural areas. The Medicare Telehealth Improvement Act will ensure that rural beneficiaries have access to health care services by connecting remote areas to the services often only available in large urban centers. Fifteen years ago, I cofounded the Congressional Steering Committee on Telemedicine and Health Care Informatics to bring more attention to this technology and its potential. I took an interest in this technology because in large, rural, medically underserved States like mine, telemedicine provides access to care that is simply unavailable otherwise. In many areas of North Dakota, routine check-ups with a specialist can require a 200 mile round trip journey. That's fine for a young person on a nice spring day. But it doesn't work for seniors in the middle of a North Dakota blizzard. That's why in 1997, we fought to provide Medicare coverage of telemedicine services. But access to this benefit was strictly limited. For example, the telehealth service must be provided in a health professional shortage area or county not classified as a metropolitan statistical area. In addition, only consultations, office visits, individual psychotherapy and pharmacologic management are covered services. Moreover, reimbursement, which is the same as the current physician fee schedule amount, is limited to physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurse midwives, clinical nurse specialists, clinical psychologists, clinical social workers, and registered dieticians. Finally, only physician offices, hospitals, rural health clinics, and Federally-qualified health centers are eligible to be originating sites and receive the ``facility fee.'' While this benefit has been helpful to seniors in rural areas, the adoption of telemedicine in the Medicare program has been slow. That is because we had to place too many restrictions on the benefit to control the estimated costs o covering these services. However, experience has shown that the use of telemedicine does not dramatically increase spending. In fact, it can actually save money. That is why Senator Stabenow and I are introducing the Medicare Telehealth Improvement Act today. More seniors need to have access to this technology in all areas of health care, and our bill makes important changes in Medicare coverage. First, the Medicare Telehealth Improvement Act would increase the number of originating sites eligible to receive the facility fee to include nursing homes, dialysis facilities and community mental health centers. Moreover, it would allow any other site that has telecommunications systems to be an originating site, but these sites would not be eligible for the facility fee. Second, the bill allows more providers to participate. For a number of years, we have advocated to include physical therapists, occupational therapists, audiologists, and speech-language pathologists. This bill would make that change. Finally, we would improve the Medicare process for updating the list of eligible services. Despite widespread support for the inclusion of new codes, CMS has not sufficiently updated the list of covered services in recent years. In response, our bill creates an advisory panel that would give recommendations on the addition or deletion of services. Senator Stabenow and I have worked to garner support from a variety of stakeholders. In fact, the bill we are introducing today has the support of the American Telemedicine Association, the National Council on Community Behavioral Healthcare, the American Health Care Association, the American Health Information Management Association, the Center for Aging Services Technologies, the National Association for the Support of Long Term Care, and the National Center for Assisted Living. This bill is a meaningful step to further adoption of telehealth in the Medicare program. It will allow seniors to seek care in the comfort of their communities, instead of having to drive hundreds of miles. I urge my colleagues to support this initiative to ensure that every senior has access to the care they need. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.