Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I wish Senator Byrd a happy birthday. I was there at the celebration last night. Senator Byrd is one of the great men in American history. As people will look back on his career, they will see a truly remarkable public servant. It has been my privilege in the 21 years I have been here to watch Senator Byrd, to learn from him. He is a truly remarkable man, a renaissance man, somebody who studied not only American history but world history. He has learned from what he has studied. He brings the wisdom of the ages to this Chamber. We have enormous admiration for what Senator Byrd has meant to this country, to his State, and to the Senate that he loves so much. We all recognize Senator Byrd and want to honor him on this special day. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Ohio for his service on the Agriculture Committee. He has brought new vision, new vigor to the committee. We very much appreciate his service there. This has been a difficult challenge, but I think we can be very proud of the result. This bill is fiscally responsible, and at the same time it does begin the orientation of priorities. It gives additional funding to not only conservation but to nutrition, where the Senator from Ohio has been a real leader. Over and over he has reminded us of not only our responsibility to fellow Americans, but a moral responsibility we have to make certain we change some of these programs that are so critically important to people all across America. It is so often overlooked that the vast majority of the money in the farm bill, 66 percent of the funding, goes for nutrition. That is where the vast majority of the spending goes. We can be very proud of the changes that have been made. We have added over $5 billion above the baseline for nutrition, to begin to address things that have not been changed for 30 years. The Senator from Ohio has been a leader, somebody who prodded us all to be better than we have been. I thank the Senator from Ohio for his leadership.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I come to the floor to respond to remarks made yesterday by the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee. I must say, sometimes my friends on the other side of the aisle amaze me on the question of fiscal policy. Because after nearly 7 years of rubberstamping the Bush administration's completely failed fiscal policy, they are so anxious to distract attention from what they did, they now want to besmirch what we have done. We are not going to let them do that. I have enormous respect for my colleague. He and I work together on the Budget Committee. I like him. I respect him. But it is not his right to rewrite history. The fact is, when they were in charge, as recently as last year, they couldn't even get a budget. They had no budget for the United States. They did not produce a budget, even though they controlled the House of Representatives, the White House, and the Senate. They did not produce a budget for our country. In fact, 3 of the last 5 years they didn't produce a budget for this country. Facts are facts. Not only did they not produce a budget, they did not finish work on 10 of the 12 appropriations bills for last year. They are now complaining we have not completed this year's work. One reason is, we had to start out by doing virtually all of last year's work before we could get started on this year's work. That is a fact. The larger reality is that Democrats not only produced a budget, they produced a budget that will balance the books over 5 years. That is not according to my numbers or the Senate Budget Committee's numbers. That is according to the Congressional Budget Office that is nonpartisan. They are the ones who have the responsibility to make these judgments. They say our budget will balance over 5 years. The President never has produced a budget that would balance. In fact, none of his budgets come even close. In fact, he has run up record deficits and record debt and put America in a deep hole. Our friends on the other side supported every one of his misguided efforts. Facts are facts. Let's look at the record of our colleagues. For nearly 7 years, our friends on the other side of the aisle voted lock, stock, and barrel to support the President's failed fiscal policy. The result is record debt, and the explosion in Federal debt comes at the worst possible time, just before the retirement of the baby boom generation. That has been their policy. That is their record. We on the Democratic side are working feverishly to change this failed course. Let's be clear. Under the President's policies, the $5.6 trillion projected surplus he inherited has been completely wiped out. Worse than that, the President's policies have driven us deep into deficit, as this chart shows. This is the record. This isn't a projection. This is what has happened under the President's policies. He inherited a surplus, in fact, a surplus so large that for 2 years we were able to stop what had gone on for 20 years, raiding Social Security to pay other bills. For 2 years under the Clinton administration, that bad habit was stopped. Instead of using Social Security money to pay other bills, we were able to actually pay down debt. That is a fact. That is not an imagining. That is not a political claim. That is historic fact. Here is the record of our friends on the other side. Here is what happened to spending they controlled. Make no mistake, they controlled it completely. They controlled the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the White House. Here is what happened to spending. It went from $1.9 trillion a year to $2.7 trillion a year on their watch. And they accuse us of being big spenders? Excuse me? This is their record. This is what they did. They ran up the spending in the country by 50 percent. But it didn't end there. Here is what they did on the revenue side. On the revenue side, real revenues have been stagnant during the entire time of this administration. They will show you a very different chart. They will show you not real revenues, which are adjusted for inflation; they will show you a chart that only looks at the last 3 years, and they will do it not adjusted for inflation. So the last 3 years they will show a big increase in revenue. But we all know that is not an apples-to-apples comparison, and we all know that neglects to point out what has happened over the whole period of their control. Over the whole period of their control, there has been virtually no increase in the real revenues, the inflation-adjusted revenues of the country. They have been flat, as this chart shows. What is the result? If you dramatically increase spending and revenue is flat, what happens? The debt explodes. That is precisely what has happened with our colleagues on the other side in control. They walked in here with a debt at the end of the first year of the President's tenure at $5.8 trillion. We don't hold them responsible for the first year, because they are working on the budget of the previous President. But look what has happened to the debt. They have run it up $3 trillion in these last 6 years. They have run up the debt to a fare-thee-well. And increasingly, it is foreign-held debt. That is, we are increasingly dependent on the kindness of strangers to finance this incredible borrowing binge our colleagues on the other side have taken this country on. When they came into office, we had a trillion dollars of U.S. debt held abroad. That is now over $2 trillion. They have more than doubled foreign holdings of U.S. debt in this short period of time from 2001 to 2007. They then go after the spending that is in our budget. Let me be clear. We pay for our spending. We balance the books in 5 years. If you look at total spending, there is virtually no difference between what the President proposed and what we proposed. The difference is seven- tenths of 1 percent. Where did we propose spending some additional money? We proposed not to spend more money in Iraq. We proposed to spend more money right here at home on critical domestic priorities, in three areas: No. 1, aid to our veterans and their health care; No. 2, children's health care; and, No. 3, education. Those are the priorities of the American people. Those are the priorities that will make a significant difference to our country over time: more money for education so people can go to college, so they can come out with less debt, so parents can afford to help their kids get the best education they can; more money for veterans health care to keep the promise that was made to veterans when we sent them in harm's way; more money for children's health care so we begin to cover children with health insurance. That is a good investment because if you are able to help a child lead a healthier life, that is an investment that pays off over a lifetime. But more than that, Democrats adopted a rule that we call pay-go. What pay-go says is simply this: If you want more tax cuts or more mandatory spending, you can do it, but you can only do it if you pay for it. In the Senate we adopted the rule that new mandatory spending and tax cuts must be offset, must be paid for, or that you get a supermajority. Now let me be clear: Pay-go is working. My colleague on the other side calls it ``Swiss-cheese-go,'' as a way of deriding the new discipline that they refused to follow. We used to have pay-go, and you can see--it is very interesting--the difference. This chart goes back to 1990. You can see that red ink back in the early 1990s. Then things started to get better when a strong pay-go rule was put in effect, as shown right here on the chart. The result was that, coupled with other steps, every year the deficit was reduced. In fact, we got into a situation in which we had a surplus. Then our friends took over after the 2000 election, and look what has happened since: They immediately weakened pay-go. It is one of the first things they did. Look what has happened since: They immediately frittered away the surplus that had been built up, with great difficulty, and plunged us back into deficit. Now we have restored pay-go, and we are moving in the other direction. We are finally moving out of deficit. Let me be clear that pay-go is working. What is the evidence? Here is the evidence. The Senate pay-go ``scorecard'' has a positive balance of $670 million over the next 11 years. That means the legislation we have passed thus far has, in fact, been paid for. You would not have a positive balance on the pay-go scorecard unless the legislation that is passed has been paid for. These are facts. These are not political claims. These are not the assertions that were made on the other side without the backing of fact. These are facts. No. 2, every bill coming out of conference committee this year has been paid for--or more than paid for. My colleague calls it ``Swiss- cheese-go''? No. This is pay-go, properly applied, getting real results, requiring that things be offset--something they never bothered to do. Pay-go also has a significant deterrent effect, preventing many costly bills from ever being offered. Interestingly enough, my colleague on the other side, in his previous service as head of the Budget Committee, said this. He had a different view of pay-go back then. I am quoting him from back in 2002, 5 years ago. He said this: The second budget discipline, which is pay-go, essentially says if you are going to add a new entitlement program or you are going to cut taxes during a period, especially of deficits, you must offset that event so that it becomes a budget-neutral event that also lapses. . . . He went on to say: If we do not do this-- In other words, if we do not have pay-go-- if we do not put back in place caps and pay-go mechanisms, we will have no budget discipline in this Congress, and, as a result, we will dramatically aggravate the deficit which, of course, impacts a lot of important issues, but especially impacts Social Security. That is what he said 5 years ago. He was right then. He now contradicts himself and, unfortunately, the record bears out his previous position. Because when he weakened pay-go--and his side weakened pay-go--what was the result? Exactly what he predicted 5 years ago. The deficit has exploded, the debt has exploded--all while they controlled the fiscal direction of the country. He was right then. He should have stayed with that position. The country would have been in far better shape. Now he made a series of arguments in his assault on pay-go, suggesting that it is ``Swiss-cheese-go.'' Let me indicate we do not have to take my word for it on the question of what has happened under pay-go with the legislation that is passed. We can look to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, because what we find is that his argument is full of holes. It is not pay-go that is ``Swiss-cheese- go.'' It is his own argument that is full of holes. Here is what the Congressional Budget Office says: On the SCHIP reauthorization--that is children's health care--the overall effect of that legislation led to a savings of $207 million; on the higher education bill that he criticized, the combined effect of that legislation was a savings of $752 million. In other words, the legislation was paid for, plus additional savings were created so that the cost was completely offset. It did not add a dime to the deficit or debt. In fact, it had savings. As to the immigration bill that never passed the Senate, it had, when it went down, large unified savings--over $20 billion over 10 years. The farm bill shows savings of $102 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office. So these four bills cover virtually all of the phony claims--phony claims--made by the other side with respect to pay-go. Again, you do not have to take my word for it. This is an official document from the Congressional Budget Office. The Senator on the other side, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, attacked the children's health insurance bill, saying it was not paid for. Wrong. The Congressional Budget Office says not only was it paid for, but that it had savings of $207 million. The College Cost Reduction Act of 2007--he said it was not paid for. Wrong. According to the Congressional Budget Office, over 10 years, it saves $3.6 billion. The Immigration Reform Act. He has again said it was not paid for. According to the Congressional Budget Office, he is wrong again. Over 10 years, it would have unified savings of over $25 billion. The Food and Energy Act of 2007 he says is not paid for. The Congressional Budget Office says he is wrong again, that it saves $102 million.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me conclude on the farm bill itself. This farm bill is fiscally responsible. It is a 5-year reauthorization. It is fully paid for. It complies with pay-go. It cuts commodity title payments by $7.5 billion over 5 years. That is a fact. In fact, the share of the total Federal budget going to commodity programs is reduced from the previous farm bill, from three-quarters of 1 percent of total Federal spending to one-quarter of 1 percent. That is a fact. This bill tightens payment limitations and eliminates loopholes. It adopts the elimination of the three-entity rule that allowed people to hide behind paper entities to get farm program payments. It eliminates that abuse. It requires direct attribution of farm program payments so a living, breathing human being has to be the recipient of these payments--again, instead of being able to hide behind a mask of phony corporate entities. This bill is fiscally responsible. When my colleague says this bill has tax increases in it--$15 billion he asserted of tax increases-- wrong again. Is there more revenue in this bill? Yes. How can it be there is more revenue but not tax increases? Well, let's look. Let's look at where the revenue comes from--$15 billion over 5 years. Where does it come from? It comes from codifying the ``economic substance'' doctrine that prohibits businesses from using certain tax- avoidance schemes. Is that a tax increase? No, I do not think that is a tax increase. I think that is shutting down a bunch of tax scams that are going on around the country. In fact, you heard the Republican ranking member of the Finance Committee out here on the floor vigorously defending that pay-for, and that came out of the Finance Committee on a vote of 17 to 4--overwhelming bipartisan support. The second pay-for is to revoke tax benefits for leasing foreign subways and sewer systems. Now they are going to say that is a tax increase? Let's understand what is happening. We have certain corporations and wealthy individuals who are buying--get this--buying foreign sewer systems, and depreciating them on the books for U.S. tax purposes--leasing those sewer systems back to the European cities that bought them in the first place. Did they do this because they are in the sewer business? No. They are not in the sewer business. They are in monkey business. They are buying foreign sewer systems to depreciate them on the books in the United States to reduce their taxes in the United States. They have nothing to do with being in the sewer business in European cities. They want to call that a tax increase? Again, that provision came out of the Senate Finance Committee on a vote of 17 to 4--a very strong bipartisan vote. Where is the other revenue coming from? Increasing penalties for failure to file correct information returns. That is not a tax increase. That is a penalty for people who are trying to cheat. Finally, denying deductions for certain fines and penalties. That is, again, an additional inducement for people to play fair. In addition, much of the money--in fact, two-thirds of the money-- that has come from this additional revenue has been turned around and put right back out in tax cuts. You did not hear that from the other side, did you? They never mention that fact. Well, what are the tax cuts that are in this bill? There is $7.3 billion for conservation, including a tax credit for farmland in the Conservation Reserve Program--a program that affects over 10 million acres across the United States. There is $2.5 billion for energy, including a tax credit for small producers of cellulosic fuel and $800 million for agriculture and rural areas. Those are the tax reduction elements which are a part of this bill. The final point I want to make is this Democratic-led Congress has rejected the failed fiscal policies of the last 2 years. We have put in place a strong pay-go rule. It is working by any standard--by any objective standard. While it would not single-handedly solve all of our problems, it is making a meaningful contribution. The fact is, the pay- go scorecard, as of this moment, shows a positive balance. That means the legislation that has been advanced has been paid for. That is a significant departure from what has gone on in the previous 6 years under the control of our colleagues on the other side. So it is going to be a long, tough slog for us to get done what needs to be done and get America back on track, at least in the fiscal arena. While the Senator from New Hampshire and I have sharp disagreement on these matters, we are working together on a plan to bring together a bipartisan task force--16 Members; 8 Democrats, 8 Republicans--with the responsibility to come up with a plan, a long-term plan to get America back on track. In that, he and I are joined at the hip, and we are prepared to ask our colleagues to come together in a bipartisan way to develop a plan to deal with these long-term imbalances. So while we have sharp disagreement on the question of pay-go and on the question of their fiscal record versus ours, one place we are in complete agreement is on the need to face up to these long-term fiscal imbalances. That is in the interests of our country. That is in the interests of every citizen of America. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, just very briefly if I could, I say to my colleague, I am just going to take 30 seconds.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I wanted to thank my staff director of the Senate Budget Committee. The other day I thanked all of those who have worked so hard on the farm bill, the members of my staff, including my lead negotiator and my entire negotiating team; six members of my staff. I did not thank at that time my staff director on the Senate Budget Committee, Mary Naylor. No one has worked harder in this Chamber at the staff level to try to get us back on a fiscal track that makes sense than Mary Naylor. She has been with me many years. She was the person who ran all of my budget operations before I became chairman of the Budget Committee, and when I became chairman, I asked her to be the staff director because there is no one for whom I have higher regard than Mary Naylor, and I wanted to thank her formally and publicly today for her extraordinary commitment to making this country better. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Look, we obviously are not going to do that, take advantage of this situation. But I must say, I am tempted after days and days of not being able to consider amendments on the farm bill that is critically important to this Nation's economy. We got the bill through the Agriculture Committee without a single dissenting vote. Twenty-one members of the Senate serve on the Senate Agriculture Committee. That is over one-fifth of the Senate. After months of difficult negotiations we reached conclusion. Now we are in this circumstance in which people want to offer amendments on everything from the Exxon Valdez to medical malpractice to immigration to labor issues to a whole series of things that have nothing to do with the farm bill. Now, we all understand that very often hundreds of amendments are filed on major bills that Senators have no intention of actually offering. Certainly, we know there are hundreds of amendments filed on this bill. But I say to my colleagues, this has now gone on for 10 days. We have not considered one amendment. We have not considered a single amendment. At some point, one would hope there would be an accommodation. Typically, in a situation like this, the accommodation is that a certain number of amendments are offered by each side. That list is agreed to, entered into the Record, and votes are held. Typically on a farm bill there are about 20 amendments voted on, 20, 22, 24. We could have been done with this bill by now. We could have been finished in the Senate. Then we would be in the conference committee to work out the differences between the House and Senate. But we are where we are. The reasonable way out of this is to proceed as Senator Reid offered last night. I heard him clearly. He said we would take only five amendments on this side. If they need more amendments on their side, he is open to considering their amendments, even some of them nonrelevant. He made very clear he would accept a certain number that are nonrelevant. I ask our colleagues on the other side, can't you come up with a list of amendments that you absolutely have to have voted on, including those nonrelevant amendments that you believe you have to have a vote on? Can't you do that? Couldn't we enter that into the Record and conclude work on this farm bill? Why is it important? Why does this farm bill matter? First, because we have a food policy in this country that is making a difference. How do we know that? Here is the first way we know it. Who pays the least for food in the world? It is our country. The numbers are very clear. We spend 10 percent of our disposable income on food; 5.8 percent is spent on food eaten at home; 4.1 percent is spent on food eaten away from home. So of the 10 percent of our disposable income that goes for food, about 60 percent of that is food eaten at home, so about 6 percent. The comparable figure in these other countries is Japan, 14 percent of their income goes for food eaten at home; France, 15 percent; China, 26 percent; Philippines, 38 percent; Indonesia, 55 percent. There is no country that comes even close to ours in terms of the percentage of income going for food eaten at home. Even when you factor in food eaten outside the home, we are far less than any other country in the world. Of course, as the Chair knows well, the distinguished Senator from Colorado, who is such a valued member of the Agriculture Committee, who also is an important member of the Finance Committee, these are not only agriculture provisions, these are provisions that come from the Finance Committee on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, provisions to provide an incentive to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This bill is called the Food and Energy Security Act because it looks to both, and both are critically important. Agriculture is one place where we still export more than we import, one of the few places in the economy where that is true. On energy, it is one place where we could actually help dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It has been done in a fiscally responsible way. I hear the news broadcasts. I see what is written in some of the press. It is amazing that they don't have the basic facts of this legislation, and they don't present them to the American people. Let me show this chart. Commodity programs, which are a small fraction of this bill, are the support programs for the major commodities in this country. They draw all the criticism, all the heat. The fact is, commodity program costs are going way down. This red line shows what the Congressional Budget Office estimated would be the cost of commodity programs when the last farm bill was written. This red line is what they estimated the farm program would cost, the commodity parts of the farm bill. But look at what has actually happened. We are well below their estimates, not only for the current farm bill but look at the estimates going forward. The costs of the commodity program are down dramatically from the past farm bill, from the projections that were made at the time the last farm bill was written. As a share of total Federal spending, it is also down. According to estimates when the last farm bill was written, the total farm bill passed in 2002 would take 2.33 percent of total Federal spending and the commodity programs would take .75 of 1 percent. Now as we look to this new farm bill and what the Congressional Budget Office is saying--these are not my numbers or Ag Committee numbers--they say the Food and Energy Security Act costs will be down to less than 2 percent of total Federal spending. In fact, 1.87 percent of total Federal spending. And the commodity programs, the things that draw the controversy, are down to one-quarter of 1 percent of total Federal spending. I have not seen that statistic written in a single Washington Post column. I have not seen it on any of the television broadcasts, not one. They are supposed to be giving the American people the information they need upon which to base a decision, and they are not telling people that the farm program is being reduced as a share of Federal spending or the commodity program is one-third of what it was estimated to be when the last farm bill was written. I don't see a single column telling the American people that fact. I don't see a single broadcast that allows that fact to be told to the American people. The Food and Energy Security Act as a share of total Federal spending is going down, not up. The commodity programs are going down, not up, as a share of total Federal spending. The other thing they seem to forget about is where does the money go? This pie chart shows where it is going. Almost two-thirds of the money, 66 percent, is going for nutrition. That is not just farm States; that is in every State. Every State has school lunch. Every State has food stamps. Every State has food banks. Every State, every community benefits by the nutrition spending in this bill. It is nearly two- thirds of the total. I don't see that reported by a single news source. I haven't seen any of them report that basic fact. I haven't seen any of them say 9 percent of the money is going for conservation of natural resources. That is money that goes to every State of the Nation. I don't see any of them reporting that less than 14 percent of the money is going for commodity programs. The fact is, this legislation is important to the Nation. It is important to the agriculture sector, no doubt, but it is also critically important to our energy security to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It is critically important to our economy. It is critically important to our continuing competitiveness, because the Europeans, our major competitors, are spending more than three times as much to provide support to their producers as we provide to ours. What are we supposed to say to our producers? You go out there and compete against the French and the German farmer, and while you are at it, go compete against the French Government and the German Government too. That is not a fair fight. Our farmers and ranchers can take on anybody. They are happy to compete against the French and the Germans. But they can't be expected to take on the French Government and the German Government as well. That is exactly what is happening in world agriculture. The Europeans are providing three times as much direct support to their producers as we provide ours. That is a fact. Those are not my numbers. Those are the numbers from the OECD, the international scorekeeper that keeps track of competitive positions. What happens if we pull the rug out from under our producers when they are faced already with a more than 3-to-1 disadvantage going up against our biggest competitors? What happens? Two words: Mass bankruptcy. That is what would happen. Farm income would plummet in this country. Cash flow would dry up. Farm and ranch families would be forced off the land. America would experience in agriculture what we have already experienced in so many other economic sectors. We would become dependent on the kindness of strangers for our food. We are already dependent on the kindness of strangers for our money because we are borrowing so much money, because we are not being fiscally responsible. We already are dependent for 60 percent of our energy on foreign countries. Sixty percent of our oil comes from abroad. We are headed for 70 percent on energy if we fail to act. The Food and Energy Security Act is one place we could make a meaningful difference in reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Why? Because it encourages and provides incentives for the development of ethanol, and ethanol not just from corn but ethanol from cellulose, things such as switchgrass and wood fiber. Because we know we cannot attain the goals this Congress and this President have set for the country in alternative fuels by only relying on corn for ethanol. We will have to have a breakthrough on the use of cellulosity. There are other provisions to encourage the use of biodiesel fuel as well as ethanol. We look around the world. We don't have to look far to see other countries that have made significant progress in reducing their dependence on foreign oil by looking at alternative fuels. Look at the case of Brazil. Brazil, a number of years ago, was 80 percent dependent on foreign energy. Just as we are 60 percent on foreign energy today, they were 80 percent dependent. Today they are on the brink of energy independence. That is startling. They have gone from 80 percent dependence on foreign energy to virtual energy independence. They have done it over a 20-year period. They have done it by focusing on ethanol and flexible fuel vehicles, and what a difference it is making to their country. Look at their economy. It is soaring. Think how different our country would be if instead of spending $270 billion a year importing foreign energy we were spending that money here at home, helping to grow our way out of this energy crisis. We could do it. Instead of maintaining this dependence on the Middle East, how about looking to the Midwest? How about having a circumstance in which a President could wake up in the morning and know he didn't have to worry or she didn't have to worry about what was going to happen in the Middle East and how that might threaten the energy security of our country, because that person might know we no longer were dependent on Saudi Arabia, on Kuwait, on Venezuela; that instead we were able to produce the energy here at home. This isn't a fantasy. It is a possibility. But it is only going to happen if we take steps. Some of the steps that are needed to be taken are in this legislation, this legislation that is going nowhere over some argument that the other side ought to be able to offer a whole bunch of amendments on things that have absolutely nothing to do with food and energy security. Medical malpractice, Exxon Valdez, the alternative minimum tax--those have nothing to do with the farm bill. But those are amendments that are pending on the other side. A final point I want to make is from an article in the Wall Street Journal from September 28 of this year. The headline of this chart is ``Farm Productivity Spurs Global Economy.'' Somehow, something has happened in this country. We have forgotten about our roots. We have forgotten about where we came from. We have forgotten about what has helped America be strong. Right at the core of our strength and our success has been an incredibly productive agricultural sector--farm and ranch families all across this country who have dramatically increased their productivity through technology and through their own good work. But look at what it means not just to us but around the world. This, again, is from the Wall Street Journal of September: 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 fertilizer 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, had 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. How did all this happen? If the farm policy of this country, which is the dominant agricultural producer in the world, is so flawed--as is repeated hour after hour by every broadcast station in this country and repeated in newspaper column after newspaper column--how is it we have had this incredible success and it has gone completely or virtually unnoticed by the major media? Could it be that maybe they have not done a very good job of telling the American people the full story? Could it be that they have been so eager to find fault with every corner and every piece of farm legislation because they kind of at heart look down on people who work the land? I hate to say it, but I think now we are getting at the truth. I think there is a deep arrogance among some about people--farm and ranch families--who are out there, and they want to somehow believe they are superior to them. They want to believe they are farming the mailbox and that there are all these endless abuses. It is fascinating, if there are all these endless abuses, why do the reform proposals that have been presented and have been suggested raise so little money? If there is this rampant abuse, as is presented in the popular media, why do all the measures to reform the system save so little money? How could that be? Could it be because the abuses that do exist--and there are abuses--could it be that they are the exception rather than the rule? Could it be that we actually have an agricultural policy in this country that has worked so remarkably well that the price of grain, corn and wheat, adjusted for inflation, has dropped 75 percent and 69 percent, respectively, since 1974? Could it be that we have an agricultural policy in this country that has worked beyond anyone's fondest dreams? Could it be that those who put this policy in place actually knew what they were doing? Could it be that one of the reasons for America's remarkable success and agricultural abundance and low food prices relative to every other country in the world is because we have been doing something right? Could that be? Maybe it is. Maybe that is the real story the popular media has not written or broadcast. Maybe they have failed to see that part of America's success story is America's agricultural policy--a policy that now can extend not only to food security--and, by the way, has anybody been watching lately what happens when we become dependent on foreign countries for our food supply? Has anybody been watching the questions of food safety from not only food but other products coming from foreign countries? Is anybody paying attention to the energy opportunity that is in this legislation to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and help further strengthen this incredible country? It is easy to criticize. It is easy to point the finger. It is easy to castigate. It is easy to act superior. It is hard to produce something that builds a better future for our people. That is hard. I will just ask those who have been such constant critics: Can't you open your mind just a little bit and acknowledge what is clearly the larger truth? The larger truth is, we have the cheapest food as a percentage of income in the history of the world. The truth is, we have the most abundant and the safest food supplies of any nation in the history of mankind. The truth is, the cost of this program is going down as a share of the total Federal budget--and in the case of the commodity programs, going down dramatically. The truth is, we have an opportunity to improve the energy security for our country. The truth is, we have a chance to strengthen the economy and to make this a much more secure country. Right now, that opportunity is being missed. Look at this Chamber. This is the Thursday before we are supposed to leave for 2 weeks for Thanksgiving. I hope when people sit around those family tables across America enjoying the bounty of our country, they think, for just a moment: Where did that bounty come from? It did not just come from the grocery store. I am talking about who grew the crops, who raised the livestock, who raised the poultry we are going to enjoy around that dining room table. Where did it come from? How much does it cost in relationship to what others are paying around the world? What is the further opportunity we have to reduce our dependence on foreign energy? Isn't part of it--a significant part of it--anchored in the rural communities of America, a place where we could help grow our way out of this dependence on foreign energy by producing it right here at home? I hope Americans will think about this. I hope even some of our critics in the media will think--gee, maybe shouldn't they report the full story? Maybe should just one article talk about the positive things that have happened? I know the good news is not news according to the news media, but I do not know how the American people can be expected to make a fair and objective decision on the merits of this legislation or the food policy of the country if they are not given the whole story--the whole story--not just the things they can make into a headline and castigate people. I hope for just a moment our colleagues will reflect: Does this process--here we are, it is Thursday at 12:40 p.m. Eastern time, and I am the only one here, other than the distinguished Presiding Officer, who is a Member of this body.

Mr. CONRAD. And Senator Nelson. Let me say that I hope our colleagues will think very carefully about how we break this gridlock. This does not reflect well on the body. This does not reflect well on the Senate of the United States that we are not able to move forward on legislation that came out of the committee without a single dissenting vote and we have been stuck here for 10 days doing nothing. I hope we are going to prove we are better than this when we return. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

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

Mr. CONRAD. I think this would be an opportune time to pass the farm bill. Does anybody object?

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first of all, I am enormously relieved to hear what has been discussed, and I hope in the next few moments that we could agree, first of all, on amendments that have to be voted on for both sides, No. 1; No. 2, that we would agree on time limits, and it is very clear that unless the time for the debate on amendments that must be voted on is limited to 1 hour apiece, on average--some could be a little more, some could be a little less, but if we don't on average have time agreements of 1 hour or less, we cannot finish the work this week; and finally, that we agree to an order. I have seen colleagues who are very interested in some certainty. For example, if we could do Grassley-Dorgan in an hour and a half and then go to Lugar-Lautenberg for an hour and a half to at least begin the process, that would be enormously helpful, and then establish a list in order with time agreements. I wanted to take a moment to respond, as leadership is working on that kind of proposal, to an article that appeared in the Washington Post this morning that I thought was not telling the whole story about this farm bill. They have asserted that there is all this new spending in the farm bill. They focus just on the spending side of the ledger; they didn't focus at all on how we pay for it. I want to indicate that it is true that there are increases in this bill. We have increased spending on nutrition by $5.3 billion; on conservation, we have increased resources by $4.5 billion; on energy, by $1.1 billion and then an additional $1.4 billion from the Finance Committee, for a total increase in energy of $2.5 billion. Where did we find the resources for those additional investments? Well, that is the uses on this side, and the sources are on this side. Over one-third of the money came out of the commodity programs. Commodity programs have been reduced. They have been reduced from the baseline. They have been reduced as a share of total Federal spending. The fact that the press--at least some elements of the press--seem unwilling to tell the American people is that the reduction in commodities--over a third of the money that has been used to give more money for nutrition, more money for conservation, more money for energy, a third of the money came out of commodities. Almost a third of the money came out of crop insurance. Now, if you are going to tell the story, Washington Post, tell the whole story. These are not just my estimates. These are not Kent Conrad's numbers, or the committee's numbers; these are the numbers from the CBO. They show, on the 2007 farm bill, commodity programs have been cut by $4.2 billion, crop insurance by $3.7 billion, for a total savings out of the $7.9 billion. That is from these so-called baselines. These are facts. They also seem to overlook the fact that if you look back on the last farm bill, you will see that the estimate at the time was that the farm bill would take 2.3 percent of total Federal spending. The commodity programs were to take three-quarters of 1 percent. Look at the contrast with this farm bill. With this farm bill, the total share of Federal spending is down from 2\1/3\ percent to less than 1.9 percent, and commodity programs--the ones that draw all of the conflict and the controversy--have been dramatically reduced to one-quarter of 1 percent of total Federal spending. The Washington Post never mentions these facts. If we look at commodity program outlays on this chart, here is the baseline at the time of the farm bill. This is what it would cost into the future. Look at the estimates from the CBO on what the commodity programs will cost now. It is a very dramatic reduction in real terms, in relative terms--in whatever terms you want to use. If you are going to report honestly to the American people, then you need to tell them the whole story, not just the story that is the way you want to write it. You have an obligation to people to tell them the whole story so they can make a judgment about what is fair and what is right. This bill is fiscally responsible. It is paid for. It takes up a much smaller share of total Federal spending than the previous farm bill, and the commodity provisions have been cut by two-thirds as a share of total Federal spending. If you look at where the money goes--I will tell you, I sometimes read these articles and hear broadcasts, and I wonder why don't these reporters tell people where the money is going. You would think this is all for subsidies for rich farmers. The fact is, the vast majority of the spending in this bill is going to go to nutrition programs; 66 percent of the money in this bill is going to go for nutrition programs. Have you seen any article written by the major mainstream press that has told the American people that fact? Nutrition programs go to every corner of this country. They are 66 percent of the money in this bill. Crop insurance is 7.6 percent. Conservation is 9 percent. Again, conservation is important to every corner of America. When you put conservation and nutrition together, that is 75 percent of the spending in the bill. Commodity programs are only less than 14 percent of what is in this farm bill. I hope at some point somebody will start to tell the American people the full story. I certainly don't read it in the Washington Post. I have not seen a single story in the Washington Post about agriculture that I thought was fair and balanced. I have not seen one. They are writing with a point of view. They are writing as advocates. When I grew up, news people felt an obligation to try to tell both sides of the story. But, apparently, those days are gone. Today, if a publication has a point of view, or your television program or television station or network has a point of view, that is how you report it. You report one side of the story. That is not responsible, and it is not telling people what they really need to know to make an informed judgment. It is withholding from people certain information they would need to make any kind of objective judgment. That is what is going on here. I don't want my colleagues to be fooled or to miss the point that this farm bill is taking much less of total Federal spending than the previous farm bill, and the commodity provisions that, in the last farm bill, were estimated to take three-quarters of 1 percent of Federal spending is down to one-quarter of 1 percent. Why do we need that one- quarter of 1 percent? Very simply, because our major competitors, the Europeans, are providing more than three times as much support to their producers as we provide to ours. This is a fact. The Europeans are providing more than three times as much support to their producers as we provide to ours. So what happens if you yank this slim rug out from under American producers? Even though we are already outspent more than 3 to 1 by our major competitors, what would happen if we yank that rug out from our producers? Two words: ``mass bankruptcy.'' That is what would happen. Is anybody paying attention? Do these publications or these news broadcasts give one whit about what happens to the rural economy in America? Why don't they ever report that the Europeans--on export subsidies--are outgunning us more than 80 to 1? That is a fact. But they don't seem to care. They don't seem to care because, I guess, it doesn't affect their economic lives directly. But I represent a State that has farm and ranch families from one side of our State to the other, from one corner of North Dakota to the other. The hard reality is they are out there competing against the French and German farmers, and they can do that. They are ready to do that, to take on a fair fight. But when you ask them to take on not just the French and German farmers but the French Government and the German Government, as well, that is not a fair fight. To say to our farmers and ranchers: You go out there and take on the French and German farmers, and while you are taking on the French and German Governments, your Government is going to be AWOL, absent without leave; your Government is going to declare unilateral disarmament; your Government is going to let you fend for yourself-- good luck, Charlie, because the other side is outgunning us more than 3 to 1 already. But some here say, let's not even put up a fight; let's throw in the towel and let the Europeans take over world agriculture. They are already equal to us in world market share. They are already advancing every day, increasing their market share, while ours slips--they are not alone, by the way. It is also our friends in Brazil, Argentina, and other countries who manage their currencies to secure advantage in terms of agriculture. How long will it be, I ask these cynics, before America succumbs on the agricultural front the way we have on automobiles, electronics, and all the others, where our foreign competitors have taken the advantaged position? How long? We are right on the brink of it happening now. This farm bill is an attempt to meet many needs of the American people. As I said, if you look at where the money goes, the overwhelming majority of this money goes for nutrition; 66 percent of the money in this bill goes to nutrition. I hear some of my colleagues from nonfarm States saying, ``I don't have a dog in this fight; I don't really care what happens in the farm bill.'' Really? Then you don't know what is in the bill. Somebody from a nonfarm State who says they don't have anything in this fight simply don't know what is in the bill. Sixty-six percent of the money goes for nutrition, 9 percent for conservation, and more for research and trade. That is where the money goes in this bill. Commodity programs are a small minority of less than 14 percent. As a share of total Federal spending, the commodity parts of this bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will be less than one-quarter of 1 percent of Federal spending. That is a fact. It is an important fact. It is a fact that the Washington Post, apparently, doesn't want people to know because they never report it. They also never report that the vast majority of this money goes to nutrition programs, or that the next biggest category is conservation. They have an agenda, and their agenda is to look down their nose at people who are in production agriculture, farm, and ranch families, who apparently don't have their respect. It is interesting, they don't write the same kind of article about any other industry that gets help from the Federal Government. Virtually every industry in America has some kind of Federal assistance, whether it is highways for the trucking industry or airports for the airline industry or any of the other things that are done for industry after industry. I don't see them come after them with this same sort of look-down-your-nose arrogance because that is what it is. It is incredible arrogance. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will have a chance to pay attention to both sides of the story in this farm program today. They deserve to hear both sides of the story. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the other day the administration issued a veto threat against the farm bill that is pending before the body. More precisely, the President didn't say he would veto the bill, his aides said they would recommend to the President the veto if the bill that is currently pending before the Senate went to the President. We all know what that means in this town. It may sound like gobbledygook to almost anybody listening, but there is a nuance to what they are saying. The nuance is they are seeking negotiating leverage. That is what this is all about. At the end of the day, I don't think the President is going to veto the farm bill. I think that would be a very unwise move on his part. But I rise today to talk about the chief complaint they raised. They asserted there is too much spending in this farm bill, so I thought it might be useful to look at the President's proposal and how much it spends compared to the spending that is in this farm bill. Since they are asserting there is too much spending in the farm bill that has passed out of the Senate Agriculture Committee, that is before the whole body now, what about their proposal? Here is what I found. These are not my numbers. These are the estimates of the Congressional Budget Office. They say the bill before us that came out of the Senate Agriculture Committee will cost $285.8 billion over the next 5 years. But look at what they found the President's bill would cost over 5 years. Again, this is not my estimate. These are the professional estimates of the Congressional Budget Office. The Congressional Budget Office said the President's proposal over 5 years would cost $287.2 billion. In other words, the President's proposal costs more than the proposal that came out of the Senate Agriculture Committee. I wish to repeat that. The President's proposal costs more, over the 5 years, than does the proposal that came out of the Senate Agriculture Committee. This is only a 5-year bill. I know the President's people tried to make it into a 10-year bill, but it is not a 10-year bill, it is a 5- year bill. The 5-year scoring of the legislation that came out of the Senate Agriculture Committee by the Congressional Budget Office says the bill before us would cost $285.8 billion and the President's proposal would cost $287.2 billion. So if our proposal costs too much, what does he say about his own proposal? What do they say about the proposal they have advanced? Interestingly, in addition, we actually came up with the pay-fors. We have completely offset the cost of the bill that is before the Senate. The Congressional Budget Office has so certified. They say we do not add a dime to the deficit. In fact, what they do say is we have a slight savings at the end of the day, $61 million over 5 years. That is what they say about our bill. The President has never said how he would pay for his bill. So we have an irony here. The President criticizes our bill as costing too much. His costs more. We have specified how this bill would be paid for. He has never specified how his would be paid for. On this question of the cost of this bill, we now have the latest calculations. These are the full and final calculations of what the forecast was at the time the last farm bill was written and the forecast now for this farm bill. It is very instructive. Again, these are the estimates of the Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Research Service. These are not my numbers. These are not made-up numbers, unlike the numbers the White House used the other day, in which they tried to make a 5-year bill into a 10-year bill. It is not a 10-year bill. It is a 5-year bill. When you compare it on a 5- year basis to the White House proposal, our proposal costs less. This extends the analysis and looks back at what the Congressional Budget Office forecasts the current farm bill would cost in relationship to all Federal spending. They said, at the time, the farm bill would be 2.33 percent, 2\1/3\ percent of total Federal spending. This is what they are saying the new farm bill will cost over the 5 years of its life: 1.87 percent of total Federal outlays. In other words, the proportion of total Federal spending in this farm bill is lower than the proportion of total Federal spending of the previous farm bill. Agriculture's share of total Federal spending is going down and going down about quite a bit--about 20 percent. These are facts. In addition, regarding the commodity programs that are the ones that draw all the attention and all the controversy, the projection, when the last farm bill was written, was that would take up three-quarters of 1 percent of Federal spending. It turned out it didn't cost that much. It turns out it was one-half of 1 percent of Federal spending. But look at what the Congressional Budget Office is telling us this farm bill will cost in the commodity area. They are saying it will only be one-quarter of 1 percent of total Federal spending; one-half as much as the previous farm bill. I didn't see the White House mention that. I didn't see them mention this farm bill is going to cost less as a share of total Federal spending than the last farm bill. I didn't see them say the commodity provisions that are controversial provisions, that were projected when the last farm bill was written to absorb three- quarters of 1 percent of Federal spending and wound up costing less, only one-half of 1 percent of Federal spending, is now, if this bill is approved, going to consume only one-quarter of 1 percent of Federal spending. It would be nice if facts were at the basis of an analysis of this legislation. It would be nice if we were dealing with an accurate description of what this bill costs, in comparison to what the President's proposal costs. That would be a useful debate to have. Because, as I have indicated, this bill before us costs less than the President's proposal; in fact, $1.4 billion less than the President's proposal. And he is accusing us of having too much money in this bill? Come on. In addition, we have completely offset the cost. This doesn't add one dime to the Federal deficit or debt. We have completely offset the cost. The President has never presented a plan for paying for his proposal, which costs even more. In addition, I want to rivet this point: When you look back at the last farm bill, CBO said it would consume 2\1/3\ percent of total Federal spending. It turned out to be somewhat less. On commodities, they said it would cost three-quarters of 1 percent. Look at this bill. This bill now is estimated to only cost 1.87 percent of total Federal spending and the commodity provisions one-quarter of 1 percent. What does this bill do? This bill is critically important to the national economy. It is critically important to people all across America. Sixty-six percent of this bill goes to nutrition, 9 percent of this bill goes to conservation, so 75 percent of the cost of this bill goes to nutrition and conservation. Those are needs that are equally and evenly spread all across America. Certainly, there are parts of the country that need more help and some less help but very broadly that money is evenly distributed across the country. The commodity provisions are less than 14 percent of the cost of this bill, and we now know they will consume only one-quarter of 1 percent of Federal spending. In addition, this legislation has a critical national priority--to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Mr. President, $2.5 billion in this bill is dedicated to reducing our dependence on foreign oil, to develop cellulosic energy that can help transform America's position in the world. Think how different our country would be if, instead of spending $270 billion a year buying foreign oil from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and Venezuela and all the rest of the major oil producers, so many of whom are in unstable parts of the world--how different our country would be if that $270 billion were spent here, how different it would be if, instead of relying on the Middle East, we could turn toward the Midwest and the Southeast and the Southwest and the northeast for the energy supplies of America, how different it would look if that $270 billion, instead of going to Dubai, was going to America. This bill is important for the country. When the President issues a veto threat, saying there is too much money in it, and his proposal costs even more, they have some explaining to do. They have some explaining to do. I hope my colleagues are paying attention. Before I conclude, I would like to once again thank the ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, the Senator from Georgia, who has worked extremely hard to bring this bill to the floor. This is a bill with strong bipartisan support. He and his staff worked tirelessly to produce a professional product, one the country could be proud of. I believe he and his staff, working with the rest of us, accomplished that. I believe this is legislation that is going to help change our country and change it for the better and do it in a way that will reduce our dependance on foreign oil and also do it in a way that will help improve the American competitive position around the world.

Mr. CONRAD. I will yield.

Mr. CONRAD. The Senator has a good memory. The Senator is exactly right. We saved $17 billion just from the commodity provision alone from what was projected at the time the last farm bill was written. Part of it was, we did a good job of fashioning an agricultural policy that when prices are higher, the support is reduced. The result was very significant savings for the American taxpayer; in addition to that, a food policy that meant the lowest cost food, as a share of national income, in the history of the world. That is a fact. And by a long way. We have the lowest priced food, as the Senator well knows, of any country in the world, and by a big margin. We are spending 10 percent of our income on food. That includes food eaten at home and food eaten out. Other countries are spending, most of the industrialized world, 14 and 15 percent. That is just for food eaten at home. So we are beating them by a country mile.

Mr. CONRAD. Well, once again, the Senator is exactly right. We can go back. These are not my numbers, these are not your numbers, these are not the Agriculture Committee's numbers. These are the numbers of the bipartisan, nonpartisan, Congressional Budget Office. When the last farm bill was written, they said the commodity programs would consume three-quarters of 1 percent of the Federal budget. They say this farm bill, the commodity programs will consume one-quarter of 1 percent. Now, in fairness, they were wrong in the last farm bill. The last farm bill did not cost three-quarters of 1 percent of Federal expenditures, it cost one-half of 1 percent. That is still double what this bill does as a share of Federal spending. Sometimes you wonder when you read these press statements by some of the national media, what are they writing about? They are not writing about this bill because they clearly have not analyzed the bill. It is as clear as it can be that we have dramatically reduced the share of this bill going to commodity programs. We have dramatically reduced it on any measure. In addition, there are, as the Senator well knows, two of the most significant reforms that have been the goal of reformers, and I have always considered myself a reformer. No. 1, we have the end of the three entity rule, and, No. 2, we have the requirement for direct attribution of payments to living, breathing human beings, rather than paper entities. Anybody who does not recognize that is significant reform does not know much about agriculture policy.

Mr. CONRAD. Well, let me say if there were a model around here for fiscal rectitude, this bill would be it because not only does this bill come in within budget, it came in under the budget. As you know, there was a reserve fund created to take advantage of these opportunities that everyone recognized for our country in energy. So there was an extra $20 billion passed by both Houses of the Congress to be available for the Committees on Agriculture to write a farm bill, with the thought in mind that those resources would go for the energy opportunity and to deal with enhanced conservation. And what happened? This committee has come in only $8 billion above the so-called baseline, so well under the amount of additional resources that were allocated by both Houses of the Congress. The occupant of the chair now is a very valuable member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, someone who has a very strong business background, someone who was Governor of his State, someone who balanced budget after budget after budget in that State, and someone who is very attuned to being fiscally responsible, I might add. I want to tell him we have just now gotten the numbers that show what our bill costs, the bill that came out of committee, the bill that is on the floor of the Senate right now, compared to the President's proposal. The President, through his staff, did not issue it. We have to make that clear. His staff said they would recommend to him a veto. They said the problem with it is we spend too much money. Well, now we have been able to compare what the committee did and what the President proposed. Guess what. The President's proposal, according to the Congressional Budget Office, costs $287.2 billion over 5 years. Our bill, the bill that is on the Senate floor, is $285.8 billion. In other words, the President's bill, the President's proposal, cost $1.4 million more than ours--not by my scoring, not by the Agriculture Committee's scoring, but by the scoring of the Congressional Budget Office. That is on a 5-year bill. Now, the President came up--the President's staff, not the President--the President's staff came up with all kinds of almost bizarre ideas. They tried, in part of our bill, to turn a 5- year bill into a 10-year bill. They did not do that with his proposal. But with ours, they tried to take some of the provisions and make them 10-year provisions, and they are 5-year provisions. The fact that there will not be money for some of these things if the next farm bill does not find money to provide for them, those things will end. This is a 5-year bill. And the 5-year scoring shows ours costs less than the President's--less. So I would expect by probably late this afternoon, Mr. Conner, who is acting as head of the Agriculture Department, will issue an apology to us and no doubt have a press conference with the national media and acknowledge that the Congressional Budget Office has found that their proposal costs more than ours. I wait with great interest and anticipation that press conference by Mr. Conner to acknowledge that after new review, and after having an objective third-party analysis of our two proposals, they find ours costs less than theirs, and there will be an apology forthcoming to all of us who crafted this legislation. I eagerly await the announcement of that press conference. Again, I thank the ranking member of the committee for his determination to give good farm legislation for this country, legislation that is not just good for farmers and ranchers, but legislation that is good for taxpayers of this country, legislation that is good for all those who benefit from farm legislation, who are well beyond the farm and ranch gate. Because, as I have indicated, 66 percent of the funding in this bill is for nutrition, 9 percent is for conservation, three-quarters of the money in this legislation is spread broadly across America. In addition, there is money for research. In addition, there is money for trade to make us more competitive. There is money for rural development, and there is money for energy to make us less dependent on foreign oil. The commodity provisions, the ones that draw all the controversy, are down to 13.8 percent of the funding. They will account for only one-quarter of 1 percent of Federal spending, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This committee has done its work and done it well. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to thank the staff of Senator Chambliss, my own staff, and Senator Harkin's staff who worked night and day, weekends, night after night, late into the night on this legislation. They are the unsung heroes. They get too little attention. We are out front. We are the ones who get talked about as helping to craft this bill. I emphasize the extraordinary efforts and performance of staff members from the three Members who worked to put this bipartisan compromise together. From the staff of Senator Chambliss, Martha Scott Poindexter is somebody who has great credibility with my office. She has been extremely professional, worked very hard, has very good judgment, and deep knowledge. We appreciate the attitude she brought to this effort. Vernie Hubert is another absolute first-class professional on the staff of Senator Chambliss who was great to deal with throughout the process. Vernie Hubert is somebody who spent the time to understand the implications of this legislation. We are talking about major legislation. It was held up the other day, but this is what I am talking about. This is an incredible effort, to do it and do it right. I acknowledge the excellent work of the staff of Senator Chambliss. I have expressed the high regard I have for Senator Chambliss, but Senator Chambliss has been ably assisted by Martha Scott Poindexter, Vernie Hubert, and many more whom I have not dealt with. On the staff of Senator Harkin, I wish to single out Mark Halverson, staff director, and Susan Keith. They have done an extraordinary amount of work, brought dedication to this effort. We thank them for it. On my staff, Jim Miller, who knows more about these farm bills than any living human being, has such an absolute commitment to helping family farmers and ranchers. Scott Stofferahn is my staff director back home. He ran the Farm Service Administration in my State. He was a leader in the State legislature and is my very close friend and confidant, somebody in whom I have absolute confidence. Tom Mahr, my legislative director, is one of the smartest people I have ever had working for me. He led the negotiations that involved the relationship of Finance Committee funding and Agriculture Committee funding and helped make sure all of this adds up. He did a superb job. John Fuher is relatively new to my staff but comes from a North Dakota farm family, as straight an arrow as one could ever ask for, somebody who absolutely believes in the importance of family farm agriculture to the economic strength of the country. He comes from a wonderful family and acquitted himself very well. I was amazed at the responsibility John took on in this process. Miles Patrie, another young member of my staff, did a terrific job as well. They were assisted by Joe McGarrey, who is my energy aide and who played a central role in negotiating the energy provisions of this bill. I thank them. Some people have an idea that the people who work in public service have cushy jobs. I wish they could see the work these people have put into this over the last 4 months. I wish they could see night after night, many nights here until 1 and 2 in the morning, weekend after weekend, here late on a Friday, then all day Saturday, then all day Sunday, and then right back here Monday morning and then late every one of these nights, week after week after week. To anybody who does not understand the commitment of people who have done this work, the fact is, virtually every one of them could make a lot more money downtown. They could make a lot more money down on K Street. They have an abiding interest in serving the public and doing right. They have done right on this bill. I am intensely proud of all of them. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. May I have just a minute?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I come to the floor as chairman of the Budget Committee to simply say this bill doesn't spend a dime. This is an authorizing bill. This bill authorizes projects. That makes them eligible for appropriations. That is all it does. It says to the Appropriations Committee that these projects have been reviewed, and they are authorized by the appropriate responsible committee. That is the first and necessary step, but it is not the step that can spend a dime. The Appropriations Committee is the only committee here that can actually create spending from this bill. So I think it is very important for people to realize that basic fact. I thank the Chair, and I thank very much the chairman and ranking member for a very professional job of managing this bill.

Mr. CONRAD

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

Mr. CONRAD

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

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a matter of great personal concern with respect to events in Pakistan. On last Saturday, a Pakistani leader, Aitzaz Ahsan, was arrested while conducting a press conference in Islamabad. Aitzaz Ahsan is one of the most distinguished jurists in Pakistan. He is the chief counsel to the Chief Justice of the Pakistani Supreme Court. He is the head of the Pakistani Supreme Court Bar Association. He is a longtime leader, or was a longtime leader in Pakistani Parliament. He has represented people ranging across the political divide in Pakistan, from Prime Minister Bhutto to former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Sharif, although a political opponent, hired him to be his chief counsel. Mr. President, this is a personal matter because Mr. Ahsan's son is a close friend of our family. I want to say further about Mr. Ahsan that he is pro-Western. He is prodemocracy. He was educated at Cambridge. His son is a close friend of our family, who went to Harvard University, graduated there, went to Yale Law School, graduated there, served in the very prestigious law firm of Cleary Gottlieb in New York, was then hired by Kofi Annan to be a speech writer for him at the United Nations, a post where he continues to serve. I have, yesterday, written a letter to President Musharraf asking for the immediate release of Aitzaz Ahsan. Today, I am circulating a letter among colleagues asking them to sign the letter to President Musharraf, asking for intervention. Mr. Ahsan is not the type of person who ought to be detained, arrested, threatened. That is not going to build respect for democratic institutions or for the future relationship of our countries. I repeat, Mr. Ahsan is pro-Western, prodemocracy, somebody who has labored his life long to promote democracy and the spread of political freedoms in his country. The family has not been in contact for more than 3 days. You can imagine how worried they are. We have even been told there was a move to arrest his wife and that she was not home at the time the security forces came to detain her. I hope the Pakistani Government realizes how this looks to those of us who have been friends of this Government, who have respected the alliance between our countries, to have somebody like Mr. Ahsan arrested. I repeat, he is the chief counsel to the Chief Justice of the Pakistani Supreme Court. He is head of the Pakistani Supreme Court Bar Association, is a longtime leader of the Parliament, somebody who has been retained as counsel by leading figures in Pakistan for many years when they encountered legal challenges. I very much hope the Pakistani Government is listening. I have spoken to the State Department yesterday. We will have further conversations today. I am going to be asking the Ambassador from Pakistan to come and see me to discuss this matter. I take this very seriously. When somebody of Mr. Ahsan's remarkable record and stature is detained in Pakistan--somebody who is pro- Western, prodemocracy, upholds all the values America stands for--that is a serious matter. Mr. President, I hope the Pakistani Government is listening. I hope the State Department is listening. I hope my colleagues are listening. At our caucus today, I will circulate a letter and ask other colleagues to sign the letter to President Musharraf asking for Mr. Ahsan's immediate release. If Pakistan is to have a future--and all of us pray that it will--it is critically important people of Mr. Ahsan's stature and standing are part of that future. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.