Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, would you alert us as to the time situation?

Mr. CONRAD. Is the Senator filing the amendment?

Mr. CONRAD. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. CONRAD. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I hope people are listening and paying very close attention. There is a lot at stake in the series of votes that are going to occur. The Senators have made the case that we are back in an era of budget deficits. I say to them, I warned our colleagues that is where we were headed. I did not do it this year. I did it last year. And I begged our colleagues not to go down the road that was taken. I warned them that we would be back to raiding Social Security, Medicare, and every other trust fund in sight, but they cast all caution aside and went down that road. Today there is a fundamental question of whether or not we are going to have budget disciplines in place as we go through this year's appropriations process. I will offer an amendment that extends those budget disciplines. Every colleague is going to have a chance to be recorded as to whether or not they want budget discipline. The amendment before us has very serious defects. It is not the budget disciplines that worked in the nineties that helped us get back on track. It is not those. It is a new scheme, and it is a scheme that has an enormous loophole. The loophole is that discipline is based on projections of what is going to happen. Have we learned nothing? Last year, we were told there was going to be $5.6 trillion available in surplus over the next decade. That was a projection. Do you know what it is now? Nothing. Zero. The money is all gone. Let's not base budget discipline on projections. Does the Senator from New Mexico seek time?

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I hereby submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report prepared by the Congressional Budget Office under section 308(b) and in aid of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. This report shows the effects of congressional action on the 2002 budget through May 21, 2002. The estimates, which are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of H. Con. Res. 83, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2002, show that current level spending in 2002 is below the budget resolution by $11.6 billion in budget authority and by $18.8 billion in outlays. Current level revenues are equal to the revenue floor in 2002. I ask unanimous consent that the report be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the record the Budget Committee's official scoring of S. 2551, the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States. The Senate bill provides $31 billion in net, new discretionary budget authority, of which $13.9 billion is for defense activities and $17.1 billion is for nondefense activities. That additional budget authority will increase outlays by a total of $8.43 billion in 2002. Of the total spending authority provided, the Appropriations Committee has designated $31.007 billion as emergency spending, which will increase outlays by $8.243 billion in 2002. In accordance with standard budget practice, the Budget Committee will adjust the Appropriations Committee's allocation for emergency spending at the end of conference. The Senate bill is within the committee's revised section 302(a) and 302(b) allocations for budget authority and outlays. In addition, it provides more than $1 billion less in net, nonemergency spending authority than either provided by the House Appropriations Committee or requested by the President. The Senate bill violates section 205 of H. Con. Res. 290, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2001, by including a number of emergency designations for spending on nondefense activities. I ask unanimous consent that two tables displaying the Budget Committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended, requires the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to make adjustments to budget resolution allocations and aggregates for amounts designated as emergency requirements pursuant to section 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended. On May 1, 2002, I submitted revisions to H. Con. Res. 83 pursuant to section 314 as a result of an emergency designation in P.L. 107-147, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002. This measure was enacted into law on March 9. Since that date, CBO has revised the cost estimate for this legislation and these revisions are reflected in the adjustments submitted today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the following table in the Record, which reflect the changes made to the allocations provided to the Senate Committee on Finance and to the budget resolution budget authority and outlay aggregates enforced under section 311(2)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I conclude by thanking my colleague, Senator Harkin, the chairman of the committee, who really did an outstanding job getting this bill through the committee, through the Senate, and through the conference. Certainly, thanks also go to our colleague on the other side of the aisle, Senator Lugar, for his passionate position and his wisdom. Even when he disagreed, he would provide us with observations that guided us in terms of altering what would otherwise have been a weaker bill. So I thank him and recognize his very professional staff as well. Senator Lugar, we thank you and your staff. On Senator Harkin's staff, I want to thank Mark Halverson. Mark, who is the staff director of the Agriculture Committee, showed enormous diplomacy going through this process. This is tough stuff. It is extraordinarily complicated. There were hundreds and hundreds of hours of deliberation. I thank Mark Halverson for always keeping his cool and for his wisdom in keeping a focus on the ultimate goal. I also thank Susan Keith as well, who worked so hard on this bill. We appreciate all that she meant to its conclusion. On my staff, I thank Tim Galvin and Scott Stofferahn. Tim Galvin and Scott Stofferahn were an extraordinary team. They played a key role throughout this process. Tim Galvin, who used to be on the staff of former Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, who served as head of the Foreign Agricultural Service in the Clinton administration, joined my Budget Committee staff more than a year ago. I could not have chosen better. He has been absolutely outstanding. Scott Stofferahn, who is on my State staff, commuted--and this was truly a case of long distance commuting--to participate in the deliberations on this bill because he headed the Farm Services Agency in North Dakota under the previous administration for 8 years and knew the details of farm programs backwards and forwards. He was really indispensable to our efforts. So special thanks to Tim and Scott, to the staff members of Senator Harkin and the staff members of Senator Lugar, and certainly to our colleagues on the House side. There were times we had very deep disagreements in the conference committee, but one thing you never questioned was that each and every Member was doing his or her level best for the farmers of this country, for the taxpayers of this country, for the consumers of this country. We had different ideas about what that represented, but I never questioned the good faith of any member of that conference committee, including those who disagreed with us. Certainly to Congressman Combest and Congressman Stenholm, we appreciate your patience. The patience of each of us was tried at times, but it was an important effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Might I get in the chain as well? I know after Senator Grassley----

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have been listening to the Senator from New Mexico, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, former chairman of the Budget Committee, and a very valued member of that committee. But I must say I disagree with his conclusions about this farm bill. Let me just enumerate the reasons. First of all, while it is true a new budget resolution has not yet passed, it is also true under the rules of this body that the previous budget resolution guides our actions until the new budget resolution is passed. The budget resolution under which we are operating provides for the amount of money that is in this farm bill. This farm bill is entirely within the budget requirements under which we are operating. No. 2, every budget that has been presented for the next year includes this same amount of money. The budget the President has presented, the budget the House presented, the budget that has passed the Senate Budget Committee--each and every one of them has the same amount of money for a new farm bill that was in last year's budget resolution. So the question of what the budget resources are is not in doubt. The fact is, the Congressional Budget Office has provided an estimate of cost. That is always the case when the Senate and the House are considering legislation. They do an estimate of the cost. We operate under that cost until the job is finished. We don't change the estimates in the middle of the effort. We don't change the rules in the middle of the game. They made an estimate, and we are living with it today. We don't change estimates in the middle of a legislative agenda because to do so would make the work of Congress virtually impossible. If we changed the estimates every time the Congressional Budget Office made a new estimate, the committees would never know what resources they had to deal with. So this is a longstanding practice of the Senate and the Senate Budget Committee. Once the action has been taken in the Senate and in the House, as it has been, we don't change the estimates in the conference committee. That would create chaos. So the fact is, the estimates we were operating under when the bill was considered in the House, and then considered in the Senate, were the same estimates used in the conference committee, the same estimates being used today, and the reason there is no budget point of order against the farm bill that is being considered. Those are the facts. These budget estimates that were done by the Congressional Budget Office and were used by the Senate and House as they worked up a farm bill were made in good faith. Now, with later information, they may alter them somewhat, but we have to follow the assumptions that were made at the time the legislation was considered. We certainly don't change the estimates in the middle of legislative activity or in the conference committee to resolve the differences between the Senate and House farm bills. Let's lay the budget issue to rest. There is no budget point of order against this bill. This bill is in full compliance with the requirements of the Budget Act. That is No. 1. No. 2, why is this farm bill necessary? I read the eastern press, and they are panning this bill almost on a daily basis. I submit to you that many of these newspaper writers, editorial writers, have never set foot in my State. They clearly have not paid much attention to what our farmers are up against in this international environment. We are not an island unto ourselves in the United States. We are up against very tough, determined competition from countries all around the world that are doing much more for their producers than we are doing for ours. Let me repeat that. Our major competitors are doing much more for their producers than we are doing for ours. To abandon our producers is to put them on an unlevel playing field. To create a circumstance in which they cannot fairly compete would be a profound mistake for this country, for our producers and, ultimately, for our economy. Let me just direct people's attention to this chart, which says it very clearly and very well. Our major competitors are the Europeans. Their supports are far higher than U.S. supports for farmers. The most recent data available show the average support level in Europe is $313 per acre. That is how much assistance the Europeans give their farmers--$313 an acre. Here is the comparable level of support in the United States: $38 an acre. It is $38 an acre in the United States and $313 an acre in Europe. It is no wonder there are hard times in rural America. It is no wonder there are hard times up and down the main streets of every rural city and town. It is no wonder if you go to the European countryside, it is prosperous. Why? Because our European friends have decided they are willing to put out a lot of money to have a prosperous rural countryside so everybody doesn't go to town. They don't want everybody to go to town. They want people out across the land. What else? They want to have an assured source of supply. The Europeans have been hungry twice. They never want to be hungry again, and they are willing to pay to make certain the productive capacity is out across their countryside and to make certain they are never hungry again. It doesn't end there. These are not Kent Conrad's numbers or Budget Committee numbers; these are from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's analyses of the different support levels in different parts of the world. These are the numbers of the official scorekeepers internationally. They are the ones who do the determinations of actual support in various regions of the world. As I have indicated, it doesn't end there because if we look at export support, export subsidies, we find the European Union floods the world with agricultural export subsidies. This pie shows the amount of export support in the world. The blue part of this pie is Europe's share. Europe accounts for 84 percent of all the world's agricultural export subsidy--84 percent. Here is the United States' share: Less than 3 percent. Less than 3 percent of the United States; 84 percent in Europe. They are outgunning us almost 30 to 1. That is what our competitors are up to. By the way, they have gone from being the biggest importing region in the world to being nearly the biggest exporting region in the world in 20 years, and they did it the old-fashioned way: They bought the markets. They bought markets that were traditionally ours. Some of our opponents on the other side would say to American farmers: You go out there and compete against the French farmer and the German farmer, and while you are at it, you take on the French Government and the German Government as well. That is not a fair fight. Our farmers are ready, willing, and able to compete against anybody any time, but it is not fair to put them up against the treasuries of European nations. It is not fair to put them up against the Treasury of the Government of France and the Government of Germany and the Government of England. That leaves the playing field tilted badly against them. That puts American farmers in a circumstance in which they cannot possibly compete and succeed, through no fault of their own. To do something other than to try to level the playing field is to abandon our farmers. It is to wave the white flag of surrender and say to the Europeans: You just take it, take it all; take the agricultural base, and while you are at it, take the 20 million jobs that go with it; take the jobs in distribution, in transportation, in marketing; take them all. Because that is what they would like to do, and that is why they are spending so much to achieve that very result. We do not have to look very far to see what is occurring in world agriculture. All we have to do is study the annual statistics, and we can see very clearly the pattern and plan of the Europeans. We can either decide to wave the white flag of surrender, engage in what I call a unilateral surrender, or we can fight back. That is a fundamental question before this body as we consider this farm bill: Are we going to fight back, or are we going to roll over and surrender? That is a fundamental question for this country. Do we want to maintain the capacity to produce food in this country, or do we want to be dependent on foreign countries for our sources of food? That is a fundamental issue before this body in considering this farm bill. I pray this country makes the decision that we are going to try to level the playing field; that we are going to fight back; that we are going to give our farmers a fair, fighting chance. To do otherwise is to abandon them in this international competition. This farm bill has improved countercyclical support. That was a key failure of the last farm bill. The last farm bill said: The market is going to work even though other countries are not following it, even though other countries have these massive programs to intercede, to maintain a network of family farms across their countries. We know it did not work. How do we know? Because we had to pass economic disaster bills in each of the last 4 years, economic disaster bill after economic disaster bill because the previous farm bill was a disaster itself. This is an attempt to provide a stronger structure under agriculture so we do not have to repeatedly come back to our colleagues to ask for economic disaster assistance. Let me make clear, we may have to come back for natural disasters; indeed, I think we will because none of us can predict when a hurricane might strike, when we might have a tornado, when a part of the country might be hit by drought or overly wet conditions. Natural disasters often require a response. None of us can predict when they might strike, what their effects might be. But economic disasters, which were created in part by the last farm bill, hopefully we can prevent. We do it with higher loan rates, and with optional updating of bases and yields--those are the determinations of what a farmer's base is for support. We do it with a new marketing loan program for pulse crops: dry peas, lentils, and small chickpeas, which are important in crop rotations in part to break the disease cycles we have seen and that have contributed the need for disaster programs in recent years. There is the repeal of the sugar loan forfeiture penalty, a penalty that should never have been imposed in the first place. The bill has country of origin labels for imported meat, fish, produce, and peanuts. This is critically important. Have we learned nothing from what has happened in the rest of the world? Europe has been hit by mad cow disease and by hoof and mouth disease, and they have responded by creating a system that will allow them to know where each animal came from, the specific farm the animal came from, because they know they need to have that information. I had the Ambassador from Uruguay in my office just last week. They are creating a system to know the origin of the food they eat. In Uruguay, they are going to be able to track an animal back to the farm it came from, so if there is a problem, they can trace it and isolate it and prevent an expansion. That is just common sense. Think of how many times we have heard on the news that there is a recall of food products, and they provide you the listing of the number on the can so we know what to look for. What would they do if there were no numbers on the cans of processed foods and we did not know what to look for? What would we do when they found there was a problem of tainted product and they had no way to track it? We would either have to throw it all away or take our chances. There is a better way. We have found that better way. It is to know the source of the food. That is what we are doing in this bill. Yet there are people who are still railing against doing what anybody with any common sense knows we need to do. We need to know the origin of the food we are eating. That is basic. That is basic to dealing with foot and mouth disease, that is fundamentally important to dealing with mad cow disease, that is fundamentally important to dealing with possible terrorist threats, so that if any problem develops, we can trace the source of our food, we can isolate it, and we can eliminate the threat. That is common sense, and this bill provides it. This conference report also includes a strengthened commitment to rural development, conservation, trade, and, yes, nutrition programs. In conservation alone, I was amazed to read an editorial that suggested that somehow the commitment to conservation in this farm bill was inadequate. What farm bill are they talking about? This bill has increased the commitment to conservation by 80 percent, and yet they said it was insufficient. Mr. President, an 80-percent increase is insufficient? We need to do a better job of conserving our soil. We need to do a better job of conserving our precious water resources. This bill makes major strides in that direction. One of the key elements of the bill is the signature piece of the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin of Iowa, who authored the conservation security program which is part of this bill. He has said something that I think is going to resonate in history because he has declared: We are not going to just continue conservation programs the same old way, we are going to make a departure. We are not going to just have the Federal Government pass laws that become regulations and then, if people do not follow them, we penalize them. Instead, he says: With the conservation security initiative, we are going to establish what national priorities are in conservation, and then we are going to provide an incentive program for farmers to comply. That is a profound difference in the relationship between the Federal Government and agricultural producers. It is a profound change. It is precisely the right change. It says to farmers, when we identify a national priority, we will respond; we will respond with an incentive to encourage you to adopt that practice. That is important. That is important to the environment. That is important to producers. That is important to the Nation. That will provide a template for future Government relations with the people for whom we work. He has made an enormous contribution. This is a $2 billion program that fundamentally changes the relationship between the Federal Government and producers across this country. This bill also includes a renewed commitment to rural development: $1 billion in new funding to encourage and strengthen economic development in the rural parts of this country. It is badly needed. Certainly, in my part of the country, we continue to lose population. We also have the trade title. We are facing tough competition and we need to fight back. One billion dollars in additional funds is in the trade title. We will have an aggressive outreach to other countries to buy American products from American producers. That is what an American farm bill ought to be about. I saw with great interest what the Republican chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the House of Representatives said about this bill. He said this is not a bill for France. This is not a bill for Canada. This is a bill for American farmers and American consumers. This is an American farm bill. Chairman Combest has that exactly right. This is a bill for America. It is a bill that deserves our support. I was proud to work with the conferees on this bill. Chairman Combest, a member I developed great respect for in all the hours of negotiation, is truly an outstanding leader for American farmers, American consumers, and American taxpayers. He was concerned about them all in this conference. So was Congressman Stenholm, the ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee. No one would want to meet a tougher negotiator than Congressman Stenholm. He was very tough. He knew there was a lot at stake for this country, for our producers, for our consumers. To our own conferees, I want to say thank you. Thanks especially to Senator Harkin, who day after day after day stayed and negotiated and fought for a strong farm bill because he knew what would happen if we failed. If you are ever in trouble, you want someone like Tom Harkin fighting for you in the Senate because he is determined and he will not give up. This farm bill is a great testimony to his leadership. I could not leave out our own leader, Senator Daschle, who at key times came into the negotiations to help us over the rough spots. He showed great wisdom, great patience, and great leadership. We thank him for all he contributed. He represents a farm State. He knew what was at stake. Considerable thanks as well to Senator Leahy. I have never seen anyone more determined on behalf of his constituents than Senator Leahy. We listened to a lot of detailed debate on the merits of the dairy provisions of the bill. This bill was improved because of that determination. Now a word about those on the other side. Senator Lugar, the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, disagrees with what we have produced. He has made that clear. I have enormous respect for Dick Lugar. He is one of the most knowledgeable Members of this Chamber on a wide range of issues. On foreign policy questions, there is nobody I would rather talk to or listen to before reaching a conclusion than Dick Lugar. He is an extraordinarily intelligent man, a person of great character. He speaks against this bill out of principle. I respect that. I don't agree with him in this case. I think I have outlined some of my reasons for disagreement, but he makes a very strong case, an intellectually honest case. I disagree with him. However, his argument is intellectually honest, and he has been very clear and forthright throughout the entire procedure. He made very clear he wasn't for this, every step of the way. I admire Senator Lugar. My respect for him has done nothing but grow, although I disagree with his fundamental conclusion. Others say this costs too much money, and I understand that. I am chairman of the Budget Committee. I wish we didn't have to spend this kind of money. Friends, our competitors are spending much, much more. To spend less is to say to our people, tough luck; you are out of business. That would be a profound mistake. Let me close by urging my colleagues to support this bill. It deserves their support. It is a balanced bill. It is within the budget. It is a bill that will make a difference for our country over time. Not immediately, no. It will not solve all the problems immediately. To our colleagues who say this bill costs way too much, we ought to present it in context. In the year 2000, we spent $32 billion helping our producers. In 2001, we spent $22 billion. This is on a fiscal year basis. That is different than on a crop-year basis. On a fiscal year basis, these are the numbers: $32 billion in 2000 and $22 billion in 2001. In 2002, it will be $14.2 billion. In 2003, it will be $19.1 billion. The red bars are the amount added over the current farm bill. So for 2002, without this legislation, it would still cost $12.7 billion in that fiscal year. In the year 2003, it would cost $12.3. This bill adds $6.8 billion to take us up to $19.1 billion for fiscal year 2003, which will start October 1. Remember we are coming from much higher levels of expenditures when you count the underlying farm bill plus the economic disaster payments we have enacted. This chart shows that, although we have healthy levels of expenditures in this new farm bill--more than $70 billion more than we would have had under the old farm bill--we actually have less than was paid out by the Federal Government under the old farm bill plus the economic disaster payments made in each of the last 4 years. I conclude by reminding those who are listening that we are up against fierce competition from our major competitors in Europe who are spending much more than we are, providing much higher levels of support for their producers than we provide for ours, and on top of that, are spending much more to promote their exports than we spend to promote our agricultural exports. Those are the facts. I hope our colleagues will remember when we reach a conclusion that this is a bill that is critically important to American agriculture. A major farm group leader in my State responded tellingly when I posed the question, What happens without this bill? His reaction was immediate and strong: Senator, without this bill there will be a race to the auctioneer. That is exactly right. This bill is all that stands between a race to the auctioneer in every farm community in this country and the continuing viability of the family farm network that has served this country so well.

Mr. CONRAD. It will be Senator Akaka on our side, and Senator Domenici will be next?

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended, requires the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to make adjustments to budget resolution allocations and aggregates for amounts designated as emergency requirements pursuant to section 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended. Pursuant to section 314, I hereby submit the following revisions to H. Con. Res. 83 as a result of an emergency designation in P.L. 107-147, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a table which reflects the changes made to the allocations provided to the Senate Committee on Finance and to the budget resolution aggregates enforced under section 311(2)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation intended to marshal the resources of the Federal Government, the expertise of State and local law enforcement, and the eyes, ears, and caring of our Nation's communities, to work together to eradicate the scourge of methamphetamine from our Nation. Meth statistics are startling, not only for what they say about where we are currently, but even more important about the potential magnitude of the problem in our very near future. Nationwide U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, meth lab seizures have increased seven-fold from 1994 to 2000. The North Dakota lab seizure numbers are even more dramatic: a nearly twenty-fold increase from 1998 to 2001. Among 2001 high school seniors, 6.9 percent had tried meth; the eighth- grade figure was 4.4 percent. Even more startling perhaps is that 28.3 percent of high school seniors said it was ``fairly easy'' or ``very easy'' to obtain meth. This is particularly alarming because meth is more addictive than cocaine, leading to paranoia, aggression, violent behavior, and hallucinations, and ultimately, and amazingly quickly, to brain damage similar to Alzheimer's disease, stroke, and epilepsy. The COPS Anti-Methamphetamine Act of 2002 has one aim, to focus the principles of community policing on the problem of methamphetamine. Since its inception in 1994, the Community Oriented Policing Services COPS, program has been a catalyst for establishing a partnership between police and the community, leading to a reduction in crime and a strengthening of our neighborhoods. It is now time to tightly focus the COPS success on our nation's meth scourge. Until now, meth use and production has too often occurred underground and below the radar screens of local law enforcement. My COPS methamphetamine initiative, by bringing the community and the local police closer together, will help law enforcement to react more quickly before a meth epidemic get ingrained in a locality, to weed it out before its roots get too deep. If a meth problem already exists in a neighborhood, the community-oriented policing model will allow police to have a better pulse on the drug market, on both the supply and the demand ends to better know the market's pressure points. My initiative calls for five years of grants, at $75 million a year, to be given to localities for programs aimed at anti-meth enforcement, production, prevention, treatment, training, and intelligence-gathering efforts. And because meth is such a problem in rural States like North Dakota, I include a mechanism to ensure that smaller localities get their fair share of funding. Meth is a continuing problem and challenge in our nation and in North Dakota, and I have been a strong supporter of providing the resources for local law enforcement to combat this drug. In 1998, for example, I was able to include North Dakota in the Midwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, which has provided additional Federal funding to ensure that Federal, State, and local law enforcement works better as a team. The last piece of the puzzle is to ensure that local police are able to work as closely as possible with the community. It is simply imperative that if we are going to eradicate our Nation's spreading meth epidemic, and the countless associated shattered lives and futures lost, we all need to work together. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation intended to marshal the resources of the Federal Government, the expertise of State and local law enforcement, and the eyes, ears, and caring of our Nation's communities, to work together to eradicate the scourge of methamphetamine from our Nation. Meth statistics are startling, not only for what they say about where we are currently, but even more important about the potential magnitude of the problem in our very near future. Nationwide U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, meth lab seizures have increased seven-fold from 1994 to 2000. The North Dakota lab seizure numbers are even more dramatic: a nearly twenty-fold increase from 1998 to 2001. Among 2001 high school seniors, 6.9 percent had tried meth; the eighth- grade figure was 4.4 percent. Even more startling perhaps is that 28.3 percent of high school seniors said it was ``fairly easy'' or ``very easy'' to obtain meth. This is particularly alarming because meth is more addictive than cocaine, leading to paranoia, aggression, violent behavior, and hallucinations, and ultimately, and amazingly quickly, to brain damage similar to Alzheimer's disease, stroke, and epilepsy. The COPS Anti-Methamphetamine Act of 2002 has one aim, to focus the principles of community policing on the problem of methamphetamine. Since its inception in 1994, the Community Oriented Policing Services COPS, program has been a catalyst for establishing a partnership between police and the community, leading to a reduction in crime and a strengthening of our neighborhoods. It is now time to tightly focus the COPS success on our nation's meth scourge. Until now, meth use and production has too often occurred underground and below the radar screens of local law enforcement. My COPS methamphetamine initiative, by bringing the community and the local police closer together, will help law enforcement to react more quickly before a meth epidemic get ingrained in a locality, to weed it out before its roots get too deep. If a meth problem already exists in a neighborhood, the community-oriented policing model will allow police to have a better pulse on the drug market, on both the supply and the demand ends to better know the market's pressure points. My initiative calls for five years of grants, at $75 million a year, to be given to localities for programs aimed at anti-meth enforcement, production, prevention, treatment, training, and intelligence-gathering efforts. And because meth is such a problem in rural States like North Dakota, I include a mechanism to ensure that smaller localities get their fair share of funding. Meth is a continuing problem and challenge in our nation and in North Dakota, and I have been a strong supporter of providing the resources for local law enforcement to combat this drug. In 1998, for example, I was able to include North Dakota in the Midwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, which has provided additional Federal funding to ensure that Federal, State, and local law enforcement works better as a team. The last piece of the puzzle is to ensure that local police are able to work as closely as possible with the community. It is simply imperative that if we are going to eradicate our Nation's spreading meth epidemic, and the countless associated shattered lives and futures lost, we all need to work together. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Baucus is absolutely right. There are some good provisions in this bill. They are necessary provisions. That is what makes this vote so difficult. I have struggled with the question of how to vote. But, again, the press reports this morning said the Chairman of the Federal Reserve said an economic expansion is now underway. It goes on to report that many economists have concluded that the economy this quarter is growing at an annual rate of 4 percent. Now the House passes a recovery package. They are too late. This is the history of recovery packages. Every time in our history that we have tried to use fiscal stimulus, we have been too late. The centerpiece of this package is 3 years of bonus depreciation. Look, I am a strong supporter of bonus depreciation, but not for 3 years. That encourages people to wait. That makes no sense. This is digging the hole deeper because every penny of it is coming out of the Social Security trust fund--every penny. We are already in a deep hole for the entire next decade. I yield whatever time remains to Senator Carper.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I acknowledge this stimulus package is a dramatic improvement over what the other body sent previously. That misses the larger point. This morning's New York Times headline is interesting: ``The Federal Reserve Chief Sees the Decline Over, House passes recovery bill.'' It is the irony of ironies that, once again, Congress, in trying to provide fiscal stimulus, has acted too late. That is the history of Congress trying to use fiscal policy for stimulus. In fact, when the Budget Committee did an analysis, we found every single time we tried to act, we moved too late. In the Washington Post this morning: ``Greenspan Declares An Expansion,'' it reports that economists are now largely agreed that in this quarter the economy will be growing at 4 percent. Congress comes with its recovery package too late. I have supported a recovery package. I did when we attempted to do one last year when it would have been timely. Unfortunately, that did not occur. I would still support one if it were properly crafted. But I don't believe this legislation meets the test. CBO has stated over the next 10 years we are in deficit each and every year for the entire decade, and by big amounts. They have just told us we can expect $2.3 trillion of non-trust-fund deficits over the next decade. Every dime will be coming out of the Social Security trust fund. That means every dime of this stimulus package is coming out of the Social Security trust fund. We are headed for this future: The trust fund turns cash negative in 2016. That changes everything. When we examine the details of this package, its centerpiece is 3 years of bonus depreciation. I strongly supported bonus depreciation for a 1-year period because every economist said if we stretch it out, we are encouraging companies to wait--not to act now, but to wait. In fact, that is exactly what one sees in the economics of this package-- $39 billion of stimulus this year, but $82 billion in the future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, on another subject, I noticed in today's Washington Times a story headlined: ``White House to Show Triumph of Tax Cuts, Says Recession Stalled Jobs Added.'' This is a news story that comes as a result of a speech later today to the Council on Foreign Relations by Vice President Cheney, and it indicates that he will present findings by the President's Council of Economic Advisers as an answer to Democratic critics of the tax cut. The findings the Vice President will discuss show the third quarter growth last year would have contracted at an annual rate of 2.5 percent instead of the reported 1.3 percent without the tax relief. That should not be any great surprise to anybody. What is surprising is the Republicans attempting to claim credit for the tax cuts that occurred last year. We should not rewrite the history of what occurred. Last year, it was the Democrats who were proposing much greater tax relief than the President's proposal because we believed we needed to give lift to the economy. Here are the facts. For 2002, the President's budget proposed almost no tax relief. The Democratic budget proposed $60 billion of tax relief last year. Those are the facts. Absolutely, Democrats were for more tax relief last year than the President proposed because we thought we needed to give lift to the economy. In fact, we actually passed even greater tax relief than that. But this is what was in our budget. That is what was in the President's budget. I don't think the administration should be running out and claiming credit for what was our idea. This is what actually passed last year: a total of $73 billion, $33 billion in the form of the rebate, and corporate tax changes of $40 billion. Some of the latter were just timing questions that had no impact on stimulus. In terms of the fundamental question about differences in tax cuts, we were not in favor of as much of a tax cut over the 10 years. While we favored a much bigger tax cut last year in order to give lift to the economy than the President proposed, we proposed a much smaller tax cut over the 10 years because we were concerned about the impact on long- term interest rates. Our tax relief proposal was $750 billion over 10 years; the President's proposal was $1.6 trillion. We said at the time that we feared his tax proposal was too large and would threaten the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Guess what? We were right on both counts. We were right to support a bigger tax cut last year, to give lift to the economy. We were right to support a smaller tax cut over the 10 years because the larger tax cut endangered the trust funds of Social Security and Medicare. The facts are now in, and it is just as clear as can be, we were right. The President's new budget shows he will be taking $2.2 trillion over the next 10 years out of the trust funds of Medicare and Social Security. In Social Security alone, the President will be taking over $1.6 trillion of Social Security trust fund money to pay for his tax cut and his other spending priorities. That is a fact. So, yes, tax cuts are beneficial at a time of economic slowdown. Democrats proposed them. Again, the budget difference is very clear. The budget difference, in terms of what was proposed, is right here. This is the President's budget: $183 million. That is what he proposed for tax relief in his budget for last year. Our budget resolution had $60 billion of tax relief. That is the fact. Let's not get confused about the 1-year and the 10-year. It is absolutely true that over 10 years we proposed smaller tax cuts so as not to raid the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. But for the Vice President to run out now and claim the tax cuts of last year were really their idea--you have to go back and look at the budget they submitted. It was not their idea. It was the idea of the Democrats who proposed much more significant tax relief last year to give lift to the economy. That is the fact. We also said last year that the 10-year tax cut the President proposed would have an adverse effect on long-term interest rates. Again, I think the evidence is now quite clear. Here is what we see in terms of short-term rates versus long-term rates. We have had eleven interest rate reductions by the Federal Reserve? You can see that by the short-term rates: 11 reductions, and the short-term rates have come down smartly. But look at long-term rates. Long-term rates have been largely stuck. They have not come down. That was one of the concerns we had about the President's long-term proposal, that the markets could see that his budget plan did not add up and that would put pressure on long-term rates and keep them high. That is exactly what has happened. These rates are higher than we believe they would otherwise have been. It is true that short-term rates have come down dramatically. Long- term rates have not. So we believe our position has been confirmed on all counts. No. 1, we supported more tax cuts last year in our budget than the President did in his because we wanted to give lift to the economy at a time of economic weakness. Now the Republican White House is going out and saying they are the ones who had the idea. They are not. Anybody who cares to research it can go back and look at the President's budget--not just the first budget he submitted, but the second budget he submitted, the follow-on budget in the spring. It is the same thing. He had virtually no tax cut last year. The February budget had virtually no tax cut, and his April budget had virtually no tax cut. The people who were pushing for a big tax cut last year for the year 2002 were those of us on this side of the aisle, Democrats. And we were right. As it turns out, we were also right to oppose the size of his 10-year tax reduction because we said then--two things. No. 1, it would endanger the trust funds of Social Security and Medicare, and we now know that is true. No. 2, we said it would put upward pressure on interest rates; that, even at a time when the Federal Reserve was lowering short-term rates, it would hold long-term rates up. That is exactly what we see. The evidence is in. It is just as clear as it can be. I hope as we move forward this year, we can move to rectify fiscal mistakes that were made last year. The raids on the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, the President's budget plans, are dramatic. Here are the facts. The President is going to be taking every penny of the Medicare trust fund surpluses over the next 10 years to pay for his tax cuts and to pay for other spending priorities--every dime--over $500 billion, according to his own calculations. The President is going to be taking, under his budget plan, over $1.6 trillion of Social Security surpluses over the next decade to pay for his tax cuts and other spending priorities. It is in his budget. That is his plan. There is only $600 billion left, every dime of which is Social Security money. The Congressional Budget Office, we believe, when they rescore the President's proposal, will show that virtually all of that is gone because the President has dramatically underestimated the cost of Medicare over the next 10 years. Yesterday, in a hearing with Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, I showed that the Congressional Budget Office believes the President's budget has underestimated the cost of Medicare by $300 billion over the next decade. So there is no money left except Social Security money. That is the hard reality. And the President's budget has taken most of that. I believe history will show very clearly that Democrats last year proposed a greater tax cut in 2002 to try to give lift to the economy, but we proposed a more modest tax cut over the 10 years because we did not want to endanger the trust funds of Social Security and Medicare, and we did not want to keep long-term rates from following short-term interest rates down because that also gives lift to the economy. What is important to understand is that fiscal policy--that is, the spending and tax policy of the Federal Government--can adversely affect the monetary policy that is guided by the Federal Reserve Board. While we move to give lift to the economy through stimulus, that can all be countered by interest rates. If interest rates go up or stay high, that can prevent the economy from gaining strength and moving forward. Facts are stubborn things, as a previous President said. I believe the facts of who stood where with respect to economic policy are just as clear as they can be--absolutely. Tax cuts last year helped reduce the impact of the recession. But it was Democrats who advocated substantial tax cuts last year. It was not the President, either in his February budget or in his April budget. He proposed virtually no tax relief last year. That is the fact. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from North Dakota on the subject of wind energy. Clearly, this is a circumstance in which the Government needs to act, and act quickly, to provide the incentives that have been previously put in place but have now lapsed, incentives that can make a difference between projects going forward and not. I do not know what could be more clear than that the incentives for wind energy are absolutely essential if we are going to diversify the base of energy supply in this country, move to more renewables, and have a greater chance of reducing our dependence on foreign sources of energy that leave us vulnerable in a time of conflict in the very areas of the world in which much oil production is occurring.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, when I came to my office this morning, I received the surprising news that our Secretary of Agriculture has now apparently asked her counterpart in Canada to come to the United States to lobby against the farm bill that is pending. I have never heard of such a thing. We now have reports that the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States is asking an official of a foreign government to come to Washington to lobby the Congress against the farm bill that is designed to help American farmers? What is she thinking of? The article I am referring to is from the Ottawa Bureau of the Western Producer, and this story says the Canadian Agriculture Minister, Lyle Vanclief, received surprising advice when he called American Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman to complain about the possibility that a new United States farm bill would authorize a multiyear, multibillion-dollar farm subsidy program. Veneman invited Vanclief to come south to get involved in the debate. This is a quote from the article: She told Lyle to put pressure on Congress, Vanclief press aide Donald Boulanger said. She said their political system is different from ours because Congress has so much power. She said-- This is quoting the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States-- Lyle, you have to help me lobby Congress. This is not the way any Cabinet Secretary ought to do their business. It is totally and thoroughly inappropriate for the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to ask an agriculture minister of a foreign government to come and lobby the Congress against a farm bill that is designed to help American farmers. This cannot be. I am writing a letter today to the President asking him to renounce these apparent efforts by his Secretary of Agriculture to have the officials of a foreign country become involved in a domestic political discussion in our country. This is a very serious matter. This cannot be the way this administration does its business. I call on the President today to send a very clear message to the Secretary of Agriculture in his administration that she cannot be pursuing foreign government officials to come to this country to lobby this Congress to become involved in a debate in our country. What is next by this Secretary of Agriculture? Has she forgotten whose side she is on? She is in the Cabinet of the President of the United States, not in the Cabinet of the Government of Canada. She is not in the cabinet of the European governments, which would welcome the kind of advice that apparently she is giving and the kind of involvement in our domestic affairs she is reportedly seeking from the minister of agriculture in another country's government. It is as though the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States has completely forgotten her obligation. The reason it is critically important for us to pass a farm bill is to try to level the playing field to some degree with our major competitors. In case our Secretary has forgotten, I have a chart which shows an analysis of the difference between what our major competitors are doing for their farmers and what we are doing for ours. This is Europe. They are our major competitors. This is what they are doing on average per year to support their farmers: Over $300 an acre of support. The comparable figure in the United States: $38. These are not my numbers, these are the numbers of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. These are the international scorekeeper's numbers. They are the ones that are telling us our major competitors are doing far more for their producers than we are doing for ours. And it does not stop there, because on world export subsidy, this is the picture: This pie represents all world agricultural export subsidies. The blue part of this pie is Europe's share. Eighty-four percent of all world agricultural export subsidies is European. They are buying these markets. The U.S. share is this little red sliver--less than 3 percent. So we are being outgunned nearly 30 to 1. And we have a Secretary of Agriculture who is reportedly calling on an official of a foreign government to come to our country to lobby our Congress against a farm bill for our farmers? It is absolutely preposterous. This is what our farmers are up against, and we have a Secretary of Agriculture who is supposed to represent American farmers, not Canadian farmers. Here is what American farmers have experienced: The green line is the prices farmers have paid for the inputs they must buy. The red line shows the prices farmers have received. It is very interesting that the peak of prices for farmers occurred at the time we wrote the last farm bill. Since that time, one can see what has occurred: A virtual price collapse. The gap between the prices farmers are paid and the prices they pay has turned into this enormous gulf. It is no wonder agriculture in America is in deep trouble. It is no wonder when I ask my farmers what happens if they do not have this new farm bill, the answer from one of the major farm group leaders in my State was: It will be a race to the auctioneer. That is the reality. That is because our farmers are out here playing on the world stage. We are asking them to compete against the French farmer and the German farmer, and we are telling them: While you are at it, take on the French and German Government, as well. That is not a fair fight. We can either choose to wave the flag of surrender and give up, throw in the towel, let our people be wiped out, or we can fight back. That is what this farm bill debate is about. Now we have the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States apparently calling her Canadian counterpart, urging him to come to this country to fight against the farm bill that is moving through our Congress. I have to wonder what she is thinking. She is not on the payroll of the Canadian Government. She is a part of the United States Government. It is thoroughly and totally inappropriate for her to be asking a representative of a foreign government to come to this country to lobby the U.S. Congress against a farm bill for American farmers.

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank my colleague for his insight. It is a remarkable set of circumstances. I call on the Secretary. If this press report is inaccurate, I hope she will say so publicly and do it today. But this press report quotes the spokesman, a press aide of her counterpart in Canada, the Canadian Agriculture Minister, Lyle Vanclief; his press aide, a Mr. Donald Boulanger, is quoted. This is what the article reports: She told Lyle [Mr. Vanclief, Canadian Agriculture Minister] to put pressure on Congress. That is in quotation marks. Following that, again quoting Mr. Boulanger, the press aide for the Canadian Agriculture Minister: She said their political system is different from ours because Congress has so much power. She said, Lyle, you have to help me lobby Congress. I hope it is wrong. I hope the Secretary will today indicate she never made any such invitation, that she never made such a statement. If this is her statement, I think she has a lot of explaining to do. It probably should start with an explanation to the President of the United States, why a Secretary of Agriculture of the United States is imploring her Canadian counterpart to come to lobby the U.S. Congress against a farm bill that is pending before the Congress of this country.