April 4, 2001 Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield? Mr. CONRAD. Yes. Mr. HARKIN. The Senator has really encapsulated this. The Grassley amendment, first of all, does not meet the legitimate needs of agriculture. It falls far short of what we need. The Johnson amendment meets that need. Secondly, in terms of conservation, where we want to really move forward, the Grassley amendment does not permit us to support the kind of conservation work we need. The Johnson amendment does. And lastly, as the Senator pointed out, the Grassley amendment is not going to help us in agriculture, but it still raids Medicare. The Johnson amendment doesn't. Again, I thank the Senator for pointing this out. His explanation really encapsulates why the Johnson amendment is best for rural America and does not go after the Medicare trust fund. Mr. CONRAD. It goes to the fundamental problem of the Bush budget and the fundamental problem of the Republican budget which is trying to match the Bush budget. Of course, we don't even have the Bush budget before us. But with the kind of rudimentary outline he has provided us, it simply doesn't add up because the tax cut is so large. When you try to adjust the spending provisions, as both Republicans and Democrats now want to do--we saw that yesterday; Republicans agreed that we need twice as much money for a prescription drug benefit. Today we see the Republicans agree we need substantially more for agriculture. Unfortunately, what they have proposed is inadequate. It provides $64 billion over the 11 years. Our proposal would provide $97 billion. But the biggest problem is the source of the funds. Mr. HARKIN. Yes. Mr. CONRAD. They are--as can be clearly seen with the combined effect of the amendment they adopted yesterday on prescription drugs and the amendment they seek to adopt today --raiding the Medicare trust fund in the years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. That just can't be the way we do business. The Johnson amendment, instead, provides that we take this money first out of the surplus for the year 2001, and thereafter out of the oversized tax cut which goes disproportionately to the wealthiest 1 percent. Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield for a question, I didn't read the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of yesterday's debate, but I heard that the chairman of the Budget Committee had said that the contingency fund should be reserved for Medicare. At least that is what I thought I heard. Yet the Grassley amendment would take money from the contingency fund to pay for agriculture and take it out of Medicare. Did I hear correctly that they wanted to reserve the contingency fund for Medicare? Mr. CONRAD. That is the description they gave. But the problem is, their budget doesn't work. When you break it down year by year, it doesn't add up. And that is the problem they have. Maybe they were hoping nobody would notice or hoping nobody would bother to add it up and see they are raiding the trust fund. But they are. And it is undeniable they are raiding the trust fund in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. That is the reality.