Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise to offer for the Record the Budget Committee's official scoring for H.R. 2506, the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002. The Senate bill provides $15.524 billion in discretionary budget authority, which will result in new outlays in 2002 of $5.580 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, discretionary, outlays for the Senate bill total $15.149 billion in 2002. The Senate bill is at its Section 302(b) allocation for both budget authority and outlays. Once again, the committee has met its target without the use of any emergency designations. We have begun the 2002 fiscal year without the Congress completing a single appropriations bill. While extraordinary events have contributed greatly to this late start, it is time that the Congress complete its work. Earlier this month, the President reached agreement with Senate and House appropriators on a revised budget for 2002. The Congress must now expeditiously provide funding that complies with that bipartisan agreement. I ask for unanimous consent that a table diplaying the budget committee scoring of this bill be inserted in the Record at this point.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from our neighboring State, who is a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Already, just in the first months of his term, he has demonstrated a real commitment to family farmers, and also to an understanding of the budget process. I wish that same understanding had been evidenced by these farm organizations that sent this advice to the leadership that could be so very harmful to the very people they seek to represent. I conclude by saying to my colleagues that we need to write the farm bill now. We need to use the money that is in the budget resolution now. No one should be under any illusion that this money is going to be available next year. Most assuredly it is not. Let's be crystal clear about what is at stake; that is, the economic lives of tens of thousands of farm families.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the question of funding a farm bill. A number of the commodity groups have written to leadership suggesting we do not have to worry about moving with expedition to deal with a farm bill this year because, they suggest, they have received a commitment from the administration, and I will quote from the letter: The administration has provided assurances that the resources necessary to fund a farm bill above the current baseline will be available next year. I ask unanimous consent that the letter to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD. That assurance is meaningless. That assurance by the administration that the resources are going to be available next year is meaningless. Why is it meaningless? It is meaningless because the administration plays no role in the writing of the budget resolution. That is purely a congressional document. It does not even go to the President. It is considered in the House and in the Senate, and it is conferenced between the House and the Senate and it never goes to the President. I am the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. I want to alert my colleagues that anyone who believes the same amount of money is going to be available next year as is available this year is absolutely in a dream world. I understand the Secretary of Agriculture has called Members in the last few days telling them money is not a problem, that she has been assured by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mr. Daniels, that money is not a problem. Wrong. Money is a problem. Money is going to be a big problem. We have funding in the current year budget to write a new farm bill. We have $74 billion over the so-called baseline with which to write a new farm bill. Those resources were provided because it was understood without additional resources we could not write an adequate farm bill because the so-called baseline is based on the previous farm bill that has proved to be such a failure. It has been a disaster itself. If it has not been a disaster, why have we had to write four economic disaster bills in a row to keep our farmers from mass liquidation? That is what would have happened without the disaster assistance bills we have passed in each of the last 4 years. The administration says--and these farm organizations people who they are supposed to represent send a letter to the leadership saying--the administration has provided assurances the resources necessary to fund a farm bill above the current baseline will be available next year? How much above the baseline? Seventy-four billion dollars above the baseline because that is what is available now. So they are buying a pig in a poke? They are saying to those of us who represent farmers all across America: You just line up there and you wait and do not worry about it because we are going to have money above the baseline? Really? How do you know? Where is the money coming from? Is it going to be $74 billion, or is it going to be $1 billion above the baseline? The administration would meet its supposed assurance if they provided $1 billion instead of the $74 billion that is available in the budget now. I have never been so disappointed in farm organizations as in the farm organizations that wrote this letter to our leadership telling them do not worry about getting the job done this year because they have gotten assurances that the money is going to be there; that some amount of money--they do not know how much--theoretically is going to be available and they have taken assurances from the administration, which plays no role in determining what resources are available in the next budget resolution to write a farm bill. It is a dereliction of duty. I think they have let down the people who they purport to represent by sending up a letter like this saying: Do not worry about it, the money is somehow going to be there. I say to my colleagues, do not be fooled. The money is in the budget now. If we do not use the money that is in the budget now, it is very likely not going to be available next year. When we write the next budget resolution, we are going to be facing a totally different circumstance than we faced in the spring of this year when we wrote the budget. Does anybody not understand that? Does anybody not see the dramatic transformation from a weakening economy, from a sneak attack on this country, from the need for substantial funds for rebuilding the country, for defending the Nation for counterterrorism efforts? Somehow the money is going to come from somewhere to write a new farm bill. I say to my colleagues, there is money in the budget this year to write a new farm bill, and if we do not use the money that is available this year, you can forget that same amount of money being available next year. It is not going to happen. The economy is weakening. That means less revenue. On the spending side, we are having to spend more money on defense, on counterterrorism, and on rebuilding those areas that were damaged in the attacks. That means everything else next year is going to be very squeezed. That means there is not going to be the same amount of money available next year to write a decent farm bill. Frankly, the money that has been provided in this year's budget is just barely enough to write a decent farm bill. It is, in fact, less--it will provide less than farmers have gotten each of the last 3 years. Not just a little bit less, substantially less; in fact, 26 percent less on average than they have gotten under the disaster assistance bills of the last 3 years. So nobody should be under any illusion about the money being available next year. Nobody should be under any illusion. The administration is in no position to help with this problem because they have no role--none, zero--in writing the budget resolution that will be adopted next spring. So these farm organizations that have run out, supposedly representing their members, and told the leadership here, don't worry about getting the job done this year, have done an enormous disservice to their membership--enormous. What are they going to say when we get to write a new farm bill next year and the money is dramatically reduced? What are they going to say to their members then, after counseling delay? What are they going to say to them? What is the administration going to say? Because this administration has made clear they don't want us to write a new farm bill this year; they don't want to spend the amount of money that is in the budget. Unfortunately, what that means is that the rural parts of this country, those that are dependent on agriculture, are going to be in very grave danger of being left out and left behind as we write, ironically enough, a stimulus package for the national economy. These farm organizations that have written the leadership here saying the resources necessary to fund a farm bill above the current baseline will be available next year are giving very bad advice. They are wrong. They are just as wrong as wrong can be. It is really hard to understand how they would ever have written such a letter without doing their homework first because they have let down their membership.

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. I say to my colleague, there is no question in my mind what the consequences will be. No. 1, substantially less money to write a new farm bill than the money left in this budget. No. 2, that means a totally inadequate farm bill. No. 3, that means hard-pressed farmers would be in even more serious shape because we failed to use the money that was available in this year's budget to write a farm bill that would strengthen their economic condition. I want to make this as clear as it can be. They say they have received assurances that the resources necessary to fund a farm bill above the current baseline will be available next year. No. 1, there is no statement there about how much above the current baseline. The current baseline was predicated on the old farm bill--the old farm bill that was a total failure, the old farm bill that required us to write four disaster assistance bills in the last 4 years. This has no assurance that it is going to be the same amount of money that is in the budget this year. In fact, we know the administration doesn't want us to have the same amount of money. They have proposed a dramatic cut from what is in the budget this year to write a new farm bill. That is the dirty little secret. They proposed a substantial cut. Instead of over the next 5 years $40 billion being available, they have said only $25 billion ought to be available. Guess what. You can't write a decent farm bill with $25 billion when the money that is in this year's budget is already substantially below what we had the last 3 years to assist farmers at this time of economic crisis. We are already, in the funding that is in this budget, 26 percent below what has been provided in each of the last 3 years. These farm organizations, somehow, got sold a bill of goods. I suspect it is from the Secretary of Agriculture, who is calling colleagues, trying to sell them the same bill of goods, telling them: Don't worry, the money is going to be available; we have been assured by the Office of Management and Budget. Please, don't anybody be misled. The Office of Management and Budget has nothing, zero, to do with writing the next budget resolution. I am chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. I can tell you the same amount of money is not going to be available next year as is available now. If anybody will just do a quick reality check, they will understand that what I am saying is true. No. 1, on the revenue side, the revenues are going down as a result of the economic slowdown and as a result of this sneak attack on the United States. The economy is weaker. It is generating less revenue, so less money will be available on that side of the equation. On the spending side of the equation, the expenditures are going up, and up dramatically. There is more money to defend the Nation, more money for counterterrorism, more money for item after item that is coming to our attention as a result of this vicious attack on our country on September 11. Just a commonsense approach would tell you less money is going to be available next year--perhaps dramatically less money. For anybody to suggest that they have an assurance from the administration--or anybody else who is outside of the Congress where these issues are decided--that resources are going to be available, they are not dealing with reality. They are not dealing with reality. For these farm organizations to send a letter to our leadership telling them, oh, don't worry about getting the job done this year with the money that is available in this budget because they have gotten assurance from the administration that the money is going to be available next year--they have not done their homework. They have done an enormous disservice to their members, in my judgment. And I will say that to them directly when they come to see me about this farm bill. They have done an enormous disservice by telling people money is available, don't worry about it, when, with absolute assurance, we can see the money is not going to be available in the same amount that is available in this year's budget.

Mr. CONRAD. Yes.

Mr. CONRAD. We do. The hard reality is this, in my judgment. In the budget resolution, those funds are available to us until the next budget resolution is passed. But there is another thing that is going to happen. In January of next year a new economic assessment is going to be made by the Congressional Budget Office, by the Office of Management and Budget, and it is going to show significant deterioration. That is going to change the dynamics very significantly, and that is going to make the ability to use this money in this budget resolution now to write a new farm bill much less real next year. So nobody should be under any illusions. A lot is at stake for agriculture. This is not agriculture somehow separate and distinct from the rest of the economy because we know agriculture plays a key role, right at the heart of this economy. We know if agriculture is hurting, Main Street businesses are hurting. Certainly that is true in our State. Certainly that is true in the State of the distinguished Chair. The irony is, right at the time we are considering writing a stimulus package for the national economy, we are getting advice to forget about writing a strong farm bill this year when we know the money that is available now will not be available next year. That is reality. For these farm groups to write to our leadership and say to them, don't worry about it, we have assurances that the resources necessary to fund a farm bill that is above the baseline will be there next year, they have completely bought a pig in a poke. I hope the members of these organizations will call their associations and ask them: What are you doing? What kind of advice are you giving down there? It is not advice that is good for the people you represent. This may be good advice for the administration. This may be the advice the administration wants to give. Why are they signing up for that? Why are they endorsing the administration's position when the administration is taking the position that is totally counter to what is good for not only I believe the farmers of America but for the national economy? One of the things the economists have been telling us about the stimulus package is that one of the most effective things you can do is get money into the agricultural sector because, No. 1, that money gets out quickly to the farmers and, No. 2, because there is such economic hard times for farmers. We have the lowest farm prices in real terms in 50 years. That makes farmers have a greater dispensation to spend the money that is part of the farm program.

Mr. CONRAD. I believe these groups have been flimflammed. I do not know a nice way to say it. I don't think they understand how the budget process works--for them to be realigned on the representation from the administration about money that is going to be available in the next budget resolution. The administration doesn't have any role in writing the next budget resolution. That is written in the House of Representatives and the Senate. The administration has absolutely nothing to do with writing the budget resolution. That is what makes the resources available next year. Just a little bit of commonsense analysis would tell you that the same amount of money is not going to be available next year. Receipts are going down. Expenses are going up. That means there will be less money available. When a budget resolution is written next year, there will not be anywhere close to this amount of money available for writing a farm bill. That puts all of the people who we represent in jeopardy. That puts their financial lives on the line. For the farm organizations that are supposed to represent these very people to send up a letter such as this tells me one of two things: No. 1, either they have been totally hoodwinked about the budget circumstances we face next year, or, No. 2, they aren't thinking very carefully about who they have a responsibility to represent. No. 3, perhaps they have just not done their homework and don't know the circumstances that we will be facing.

Mr. CONRAD

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

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank my colleague from Connecticut for raising the issue. We were in a briefing the other day. Representatives from the administration were alerting us to a vulnerability of this country. They were making the point the Senator has made, that we are only inspecting about 1 percent of the foodstuffs that come into this country. That represents a vulnerability for America. I say to my colleagues, if this farm plan were to pass, the vulnerability of America would increase geometrically. This is the most radical farm plan ever endorsed by any administration in my memory. I am 53 years old. I have followed farm policy very closely all of my life, being from a farm State. It is breathtaking what this administration has said we should put in place. It is absolutely the wrong plan at the wrong time, and we must reject it. I thank my colleague very much for his input.

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about farm policy. We have just now heard that the administration has endorsed Senator Lugar's farm plan, which fundamentally, in my judgment, abandons family farms and the rural economy. The farm plan that the administration is now supportive of is radical and it is ruinous. I don't know how to sugarcoat it. This is an absolute unmitigated disaster for the rural parts of the country. The President is, in essence, backing a plan that eliminates farm programs--this at a time that our major competitors, the Europeans, are outspending us 10 to 1 in support for farm producers, and in terms of export support they are outdoing us 30 to 1. It is no wonder that these are hard times in farm country. It is no wonder that when I go home to North Dakota--one of the most agricultural States in the Nation--farm producers tell me they wonder why they should stay in agriculture when there is virtually no financial return. There is enormous risk. The plan the President has endorsed is an absolute abdication. It says we are going to eliminate AMTA payments immediately. It says we are going to eliminate in just a few years the marketing loan program. It says we are going to eliminate the sugar program, the dairy program, and the peanut program. For all of that, it substitutes a voucher system that is woefully inadequate, and which will leave tens of thousands of farmers in a position of financial failure. That is the plan this President has endorsed. That is the plan the President would impose on farm producers across this country. I cannot say strongly enough what an absolute economic disaster that plan would be for virtually every farm State in the Nation. What the President is calling for is abandoning of farmers in every part of America. What the President is saying is he doesn't like the previous farm policy. Very few of us do. His answer is a farm policy that signals retreat. His policy would say to our European adversaries and competitors: You take the agricultural markets. You become the dominant producer in the world. That is a profoundly wrong policy for this country. I am certain the Europeans are taking great comfort today in the announcement by the White House that they back a policy which is a policy of unilateral surrender. I do not know how else to term it. If this policy were ever to become the law, you would see mass bankruptcy all across the rural parts of this country. One of the farm group leaders in my State was in my office. I described for him the plan that the administration had endorsed. He thought I was joking. He thought I was putting him on. He could not believe that this would be a farm policy endorsed by this or any administration. In fact, when I asked a group of farm leaders what would happen if we saw the kind of cuts that the President's plan would impose, he said it would mean the race to the auctioneer. This is a serious matter. The irony is that at the very time this administration is arguing for a stimulus package for the economy, they are proposing a package for agriculture that is the opposite of a stimulus package. It is a package that would destroy many of the farm producers all across this country. My State is perhaps the most agricultural State in the Nation. This farm policy now endorsed by the Bush administration would be a devastating blow to North Dakota. A few months ago, the President came to North Dakota and said his administration would be farmer friendly. Now we see a complete abdication on that commitment. Now we see a total reversal with the President proposing a plan that would be an absolute calamity--an economic calamity--not only for North Dakota but for South Dakota, for Nebraska, for Minnesota, for Montana, for Iowa, and for every other farm State in this Nation. This cannot be. I hope over the weekend people will reflect on what has happened. I hope all across this country farm group leaders and farm producers will call the White House, call their representatives, and call their Governors and urge them to tell the White House they have to reverse course. We cannot abandon rural America at a time when the rest of the national economy is already in trouble. We cannot say to America that we are going to provide stimulus to help the economy recover in the urban parts of the country but we are going to abandon the rural parts of our Nation. That cannot be, and it will not be. I am saying to my colleagues that no stimulus package is going to pass here unless all of America is included--unless the rural parts of this country and the urban parts of the country are treated with respect. This proposal and this plan is an absolute unmitigated disaster for farm families.

Mr. CONRAD. You can count on that. I say to my friend from the State of Nevada how much we appreciate the assistance he has provided on key farm issues over the years. This is a real jolt to the people I represent because agriculture is the dominant part of our economy. I think people in our State recognize very well the devastation a bill such as this would mean. And I tell you, these are hard times already in our State. Just as we have suffered an economic downturn in this country, we have been facing hard times in agriculture the last 4 years. In fact, the Senator well remembers we have had to write four economic disaster bills for agriculture in the last 4 years. Every year we have had to write an economic disaster rescue package for our farmers. Without it, tens of thousands of farm families would have been forced off the land. That is the hard reality. Now this administration endorses a plan that would prevent us from having the kind of rescue packages we have passed in the last 4 years. They are saying to tens of thousands of farm families: What you do has no value, and you might as well give up and give in and get out.

Mr. CONRAD. Unfortunately, that is the direction. If you will study this farm plan, what it would mean is basically the elimination of farm programs. I know there are people listening who say, gee, maybe that is a good idea. I would say to those people, you need to look at what is happening in other parts of the world that produce agricultural goods because that is not what they are doing. I indicated our European friends provide over $300 an acre of support per year. We provide $38. So already they have an enormous advantage over our producers. And then, when you look at export support, they account for 84 percent of all the world's agricultural export support. We are less than 3 percent. They are outgunning us there 30 to 1. This administration plan is to wave the white flag of surrender. To all those who seek our markets the old-fashioned way, by buying them, we just say, take them; you can become the dominant player in world agriculture. That would be a profound mistake for this country. It has been one of the key sources of American strength, that we have been the dominant player in world agriculture. This plan is a guarantee that the United States would be second class, second rate, and we would have dominance by the Europeans. I pray that this plan never becomes the law and America never has to experience what this would mean to not just farmers but to the main streets in every city and town all across rural America.

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota. In response to the remarks of the Senator, we are working on a stimulus package in the Senate to lift the economy because we know this economy is in a weak condition. It has been further weakened by the events of September 11. It needs a stimulus. It is extraordinary that in the middle of that, when, as the Senator from North Dakota described, agriculture has been in a recession for 4 years, you would say to the rural parts of the country, yes, we are going to have a stimulus package to lift the economy but not in the rural areas; you are going to be left out; you are going to be left behind; you don't count. That is profoundly wrong. On top of that, as the Senator described, the second key issue with which we are dealing is the question of security. The Europeans have made a commitment to grow the food within their own borders because they have been hungry twice. They know what it is to be without adequate foodstuffs. Can you imagine what it would be like in this current crisis if we were dependent on imported food for our own population's needs? How much more serious would the current crisis be if we did not have a strong agricultural base in America? How much more vulnerable would we be if every day's food supply or some substantial part of it had to be brought in from other countries? This is serious business. This administration's endorsement of a radical and ruinous farm plan must be resisted, must be defeated. We must do better. I hope very much that before this year is out, we will have passed a farm program that will make a difference in the lives of the tens of thousands of farm families who are the backbone of the strength of America. Those are the people who are the builders. Those are the people who are right at the heart of making this country strong and great. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. I say to my colleague, it is one of the ironies of this plan. This plan is presented by the architects of the plan under which we are operating now, which has proved itself to be a disaster. That is why we have had to write four economic disaster bills for farmers in the last 4 years. Now they come along with the same chapter, second verse, and this is disaster No. 5. Four years of economic disasters for agriculture, and now they come with a new plan, a plan that is even worse than the plan they imposed on this country in the last farm bill. I do not know what could be more clear. As I reported to the rest of our colleagues, the President came to our State and said he was going to be farmer friendly. This is a total reversal. I had a group of farmers from our State in my office this week. I gave them the outline of this plan. They were stunned. They were shocked. They could not believe this was a serious plan. When I told them not only was this being proposed by one of our colleagues but that the White House was poised to endorse it, they were nonplussed.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first I rise to compliment my colleague, the Senator from Ohio, on his presentation. I think it was a very useful one. I personally enjoyed it and learned from it. I thank my colleague for the effort that went into that presentation on our energy needs in this country. I thought he did an excellent job of presentation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise to offer the Budget Committee's official scoring for the conference report for H.R. 2217, the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal year 2002. The conference bill provides $19.12 billion in nonemergency discretionary budget authority, which will result in new outlays in 2002 of $11.908 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, discretionary outlays for the Senate bill total $18.017 billion in 2002. Of that total, $1.32 billion in budget authority and $1.029 billion in outlays falls under the new cap for conservation spending. The remaining amount counts against the general purpose cap for discretionary spending. The conference report is within the Appropriations Committee's 302(b) allocations for budget authority and outlays for both general purpose and conservation spending. In addition, the Senate bill provides new emergency spending authority of $400 million in 2002 for federal firefighting activities, which will result in new outlays of $289 million. Per section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended, I have adjusted the committee's 302(a) allocation by the amount of this designated emergency funding. The amount of emergency funding included in the report is consistent with the bipartisan agreement reached earlier this month between the President and congressional appropriators. H.R. 2217 is the first conference report to reach the Senate floor. Twelve more remain after its adoption. It is important that the Senate act quickly and pass this important legislation that will provide vital funding for managing our nation's natural resources, supporting better and more efficient use of our energy supplies, and meeting our commitments to Native American tribes. I ask for unanimous consent that a table displaying the budget committee scoring of this bill be inserted in the Record at this point.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer the Budget Committee's official scoring for the conference report for H.R. 2904, the Military Construction Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002. The conference bill provides $10.5 billion in discretionary budget authority, all classified as defense spending, which will result in new outlays in 2002 of $2.678 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, discretionary outlays for the Senate bill total $9.19 billion in 2002. The conference report is within the Appropriations Committee's 302(b) allocations for budget authority and outlays. It has met its targets without the use of any emergency designations. Given the tragic events of last month, it is imperative that the Senate immediately clear this bill, which provides critical resources to our military for new construction and family housing. In addition, I urge my colleagues to act quickly to complete Senate action on the foreign operations, Agriculture, District of Columbia, and Labor and Health and Human Services bills, all of which have been completed by the Senate Appropriations Committee and passed by the House. Mr. President, it is time that the Senate return to the historic bipartisanship that it displayed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, stop any further delays, and complete our work on the 13 regular appropriations bills for 2002. I ask for unanimous consent that a table displaying the budget committee scoring of this bill be inserted 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 adjust the budgetary aggregates and the allocation for the Appropriations Committee by the amount of appropriations designated as emergency spending pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended. The conference report to H.R. 2217, the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, provides $400 million in designated emergency funding in 2002 for wildland fire management. That budget authority will result in new outlays in 2002 of $289 million. Pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act, I hereby revise the 2002 allocation provided to the Senate Appropriations Committee in the concurrent budget resolution in the following amounts. Pursuant to section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act, I hereby revise the 2002 budget aggregates included in the concurrent budget resolution in the following amounts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print tables 1 and 2 in the Record, which reflect the changes made to the committee's allocation and to the budget aggregates.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Lieberman and Domenici in introducing the Second Chance Homes Promotion Act. This legislation would provide needed resources to expand and improve the availability of community-based, adult-supervised group homes for unmarried teenage mothers and their babies. Although rates of teenage pregnancy in the United States have dropped in recent years, they remain higher than most industrialized nations. Today, four in 10 young women become pregnant at least once before entering adulthood. Teenage parents are less likely to graduate from school and more likely to end up on public assistance than other adolescents. Also, children born to teenage mothers tend to fare more poorly in school, are less likely to receive needed health care services, and are at greater risk for abuse and neglect. ``Second Chance Homes'' help improve this situation by providing teen parents with a safe, nurturing environment where they can receive guidance in parenting, child development, budgeting, health and nutrition. The welfare reform legislation enacted in 1996 requires that minor teens live with an adult in order to receive welfare benefits. During debate on this legislation, I worked with Senator Lieberman and others to allow second chance homes to qualify as an alternative residence for teenage parents who may be at risk for abuse, neglect or other serious problems in their home. Since this time, we have learned that teenagers who were provided the opportunity to live in second chance homes are more likely to continue their education or receive job training, less likely to have a second teenage pregnancy, and more likely to find gainful employment that allows them to leave the welfare rolls. I strongly believe these are promising results. Unfortunately, not all teenage parents who might benefit from second chance homes have access to these residences. Today, there are approximately 100 second chance homes nationwide, located in only six States. This legislation would provide resources for improving the homes that already exist and creating additional homes where none exist, particularly in tribal and rural communities where there may be fewer options for teenage parents and their babies to receive the assistance they need. Finally, this legislation would provide resources that can be used to conduct further evaluations on the quality and effectiveness of second chance homes. It is my hope others will join us in supporting this important effort.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Lieberman and Domenici in introducing the Second Chance Homes Promotion Act. This legislation would provide needed resources to expand and improve the availability of community-based, adult-supervised group homes for unmarried teenage mothers and their babies. Although rates of teenage pregnancy in the United States have dropped in recent years, they remain higher than most industrialized nations. Today, four in 10 young women become pregnant at least once before entering adulthood. Teenage parents are less likely to graduate from school and more likely to end up on public assistance than other adolescents. Also, children born to teenage mothers tend to fare more poorly in school, are less likely to receive needed health care services, and are at greater risk for abuse and neglect. ``Second Chance Homes'' help improve this situation by providing teen parents with a safe, nurturing environment where they can receive guidance in parenting, child development, budgeting, health and nutrition. The welfare reform legislation enacted in 1996 requires that minor teens live with an adult in order to receive welfare benefits. During debate on this legislation, I worked with Senator Lieberman and others to allow second chance homes to qualify as an alternative residence for teenage parents who may be at risk for abuse, neglect or other serious problems in their home. Since this time, we have learned that teenagers who were provided the opportunity to live in second chance homes are more likely to continue their education or receive job training, less likely to have a second teenage pregnancy, and more likely to find gainful employment that allows them to leave the welfare rolls. I strongly believe these are promising results. Unfortunately, not all teenage parents who might benefit from second chance homes have access to these residences. Today, there are approximately 100 second chance homes nationwide, located in only six States. This legislation would provide resources for improving the homes that already exist and creating additional homes where none exist, particularly in tribal and rural communities where there may be fewer options for teenage parents and their babies to receive the assistance they need. Finally, this legislation would provide resources that can be used to conduct further evaluations on the quality and effectiveness of second chance homes. It is my hope others will join us in supporting this important effort.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the efforts of a patriotic American. On September 14, 2001, Senator Mitch McConnell and I introduced S. 1431, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to issue War Bonds in support of recovery and response efforts relating to the September 11, 2001 hijackings and attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. After the news media broadcast our efforts, Mr. Alex Eucare of Gaithersburg, MD heard about the bill and moved to reserve the Internet domain name ``warbonds.com'' and toll free telephone number ``866-WAR- BOND'' to ensure that others attempting to improperly profit or exploit Americans would not be able to do so. This action by a concerned and caring citizen such as Alex Eucare makes me proud to call myself an American. His act was selfless and unsolicited. Patriotic efforts like this are taking place all over our great nation. There is no doubt in my mind, that with a collaboration of these efforts, we will prevail, both in solidifying our unity as a nation and in punishing those responsible for these acts of terror. As my good friend Senator McConnell noted, ``Alex's foresight in reserving the domain name and toll free number is yet another example of the thoughtful and compassionate nature of Americans. It is those very qualities that Senator Burns and I are confident will make War Bonds such a success.''