Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise today to speak briefly about the legislation I introduced earlier this month, the Emergency Farm Relief Act of 2006. This bipartisan legislation now has 22 cosponsors in the Senate. As I have indicated, it is fully bipartisan. We have a strong representation from both parties in the cosponsorship of the legislation. It is designed to provide much needed relief to producers who have suffered from natural disasters in 2005 and 2006. Let me direct the attention of my colleagues to the headlines from across my State last year. These headlines talk of massive flooding. In fact, last year in North Dakota, over 1 million acres could not be planted at all. Hundreds of thousands of additional acres were planted and then drowned out. ``Heavy Rain Leads to Crop Diseases.'' ``Crops, Hay, Lost to Flooding.'' ``Area Farmers Battle Flooding, Disease.'' ``Rain Halts Harvest.'' ``ND Anthrax Outbreak Grows.'' These were the headlines all across my State. ``ND Receives Major Disaster Declaration.'' While we recognize that in 2005 the worst disasters were in the gulf--Hurricane Rita and Hurricane Katrina--there was another part of the country hit by disaster, little noticed, and that is my part of the country. Last year, every county was declared a disaster by the Secretary of Agriculture. This is what we saw last year: massive flooding all across North Dakota, especially eastern North Dakota. In fact, at one point I went up in a plane and flew over southeastern North Dakota, and from horizon to horizon, all I saw was water. It was extraordinary, the worst cross-land flooding we have suffered perhaps in our history. It got virtually no attention except by those who experienced it. As I indicated, there were a million acres that were prevented from even being planted. They couldn't plant. They couldn't get in the field even to plant. We suffered an extraordinarily serious disaster last year. Now, irony of ironies, this year we are suffering from drought. The scientists tell us this is the third worst drought in our Nation's history. This drought extends right now through the center of the country. This is from what is called the U.S. Drought Monitor. It is a scientific evaluation of drought conditions in the country. It goes from abnormally dry to exceptional drought. The dark brown is exceptional drought. That is the most severe category. You can see the epicenter of this drought is right in North Dakota and South Dakota. Now the entire State of North Dakota is considered in drought condition. In our State, it goes from severe to exceptional drought. We don't have just abnormally dry or moderate; we are severe to exceptional drought in every part of our State. This is the headline from the Grand Forks Herald in July of this year: ``Dakotas Epicenter of Drought-Stricken Nation.'' Experts say the dry spell is the third worst on record. In our entire history, this is the third worst drought, only eclipsed by the 1930s and an earlier period. In July, Senator Dorgan, Congressman Pomeroy and I, our Governor, and the agriculture commissioner of North Dakota went on a drought tour. This is what we found. This is a pasture in Grant County. It is virtually worthless for grazing. I could show picture after picture of what we saw. One of the most amazing things we found was a corn crop that was irrigated--irrigated corn, and the kernels had not formed. Why? Because not only have we had drought but we have had extreme heat. These are the temperatures for the month of July in North Dakota. All of those in orange are over 90 degrees, many of them over 100 degrees. You can see in the second week of July: 96, 101, 105, 94, 101, 105. But the real tale is told on July 30, when in my hometown it reached 112 degrees. That is why even irrigated corn did not produce. Here is a picture from a Burleigh County cornfield. This is corn in the southern part of Burleigh County, which is my home county. You can see there is virtually nothing growing. It is like a moonscape. These are the conditions we faced all across North Dakota. It is true that there are some places that had good crops, if you just had the right mix of weather conditions, even though there was drought. Perhaps they had irrigation or for some other reason they had a good crop, but much of North Dakota has been devastated. I am told by the bankers of our State that if we do not get help, 5 percent to 10 percent of the producers in North Dakota will be forced off the land. That is how severe this crisis has become. During the August recess, I organized a drought rally in Bismarck, ND. Hundreds of farmers and ranchers came from all across the State. Our Governor attended, as did Senator Dorgan and Congressman Pomeroy and our agricultural commissioner. The message was loud and clear: If there is not assistance that is meaningful, if it does not come soon, thousands of farm families are going to lose their livelihood. That is the reality of what we confront. In late August, the Secretary of Agriculture traveled to South Dakota. He proposed there a program that is totally and completely inadequate. The program he proposed is mostly money that is already in the budget. It is not new money, just a shuffling of the deck. On September 12, the Secretary notified me that all North Dakota counties had been designated as primary disaster counties for the 2006 crop year. Why aren't we satisfied? Because all that makes available are low-interest loans. This crisis is so severe that more loans are just going to drive people deeper into debt and are going to further pressure them off the land. On September 12, when the Secretary notified me that all North Dakota counties had been designated as disaster counties, it was also the day I was joined by hundreds of farmers from across the country, dozens of Senators--colleagues from the House and Senate--at a press conference only a few yards from here. Thirty-four national farm organizations have announced that they are asking Congress to provide this disaster relief which is contained in my legislation; 34 national organizations have united behind my legislation. So the question before the Congress of the United States is, Will we act and will we act in time? I pray that this Congress will act, and I pray we will act in time. If we fail, thousands of farm families will be forced off the land and will lose their livelihoods. That is the reality we confront. That is why Senator Nelson and I have come to the floor today. All I can do is ask colleagues to remember that when the Gulf States suffered horrendous disasters in Hurricane Karina and Hurricane Rita, all of us came to help. We are asking for that same consideration now, as the center of the country suffers from truly a devastating drought. I will yield the floor, but before I do so, if I could just say to my colleague, Senator Nelson, I thank him for his leadership, as he has repeatedly pressed for this assistance to pass. I think we should say for the record that this assistance has passed in the Senate twice already, by overwhelming margins. In fact, there was an attempt to take it out of one of the supplemental appropriations bills and 72 Senators voted for it. Seventy-two Senators voted to keep it in. So there is strong bipartisan support in the Senate. Our problem has been that the President has issued a veto threat, and the House of Representatives so far has upheld that veto threat by refusing to consider the Senate legislation. We believe we should give them one more chance because now this drought disaster has deepened and been joined by, of course, the effects of Hurricane Ernesto, which did enormous damage in North Carolina and Virginia, right up to Maryland. Now is the time. People need help. They deserve it. This disaster assistance will only give help if people have suffered a loss of at least 35 percent. This doesn't make them whole. They would still suffer enormous losses. But at least it would give them a fair, fighting chance. I want to repeat, you only get help under this legislation if you have suffered a loss of at least 35 percent. It is not too much to ask that we provide this kind of assistance to those who have suffered natural disaster. This is not regional legislation, it is national legislation. Anyone, anywhere, who has suffered a loss of at least 35 percent would be eligible for some assistance. Again I acknowledge the leadership of my colleague from Nebraska who has been so persistent and so determined to get help to our producers. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I know that the occupant of the Chair is acting as a representative of her party, whatever her particular position might be. I want to lay it out on the record because I know the Chair can't explain her own position. She is precluded by the rules from doing that. We don't hold the Chair personally responsible in any way for this objection. We understand that she is required to do so. Any occupant of the chair would be so required. It is probably important to put that on the record. Madam President, we deeply regret that there has been objection raised. We deeply regret that we are not given the chance to pass legislation which has already passed this body twice before but that has been blocked because the President has threatened a veto and the House has so far gone along with his threat. Again, the Senate has acted twice in overwhelming numbers to pass drought relief. Goodness knows it is needed. I was home just this last weekend. I was all across the northern tier of North Dakota. In every location, farmers came to me, ranchers came to me, and said: Kent, is there not an understanding in Washington what is happening here? Does no one care? If there is no response and if it does not come soon, thousands of us are going to be gone. One of the most prominent bankers in my State, I say to my colleague from Nebraska, came to me this weekend and said: Kent, if there is not disaster relief, 10 percent of the farmers in my portfolio are going to be out of business. They will not get financing. They will not even get financing to go into the fields next year. One of the farmers said to me: It has been 5 years since I had a normal crop. Between this extraordinary flooding, these extraordinary droughts-- and I don't pretend to know whether global warming or global climate change is part of this. What I do know is something is happening that is absolutely extraordinary in our part of the country. We have gone from massive flooding to massive drought this year. Flooding and drought of that proportion has never been seen before in my State--or at least rarely seen. On the drought monitor, they say this is the third worst drought in our Nation's history. We need to act. We are not asking to make people whole. They will not be made whole by our disaster relief bill. They only get help if they have at least a 35-percent loss. Then the help only comes to the losses over that amount. We are not asking to make people whole. We are not asking that people have some big windfall. We are asking that people be given a fair fighting chance. That has been denied today. But today is not the end of the story. We are going to come back. Again, we want to acknowledge this body has twice overwhelmingly passed disaster assistance. We appreciate that. Our problem is not in this body. Very frankly, our problem is in the other body and at the White House. That is where our problem lies. I again want to thank very much my colleague from Nebraska for his steadfast leadership on this issue. That is so important to the people we represent.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Hatch, in introducing the Medicare Durable Medical Equipment (DME) Access Act. This bill responds to the concerns I heard from seniors and suppliers in North Dakota about the negative impact competitive bidding could have on the ability of DME suppliers in rural States to remain viable. The bill we introduce today is designed to preserve access to DME in rural areas. The Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) required Medicare to replace the current DME payment methodology for certain items with a competitive acquisition process beginning in 2007 in 10 of the largest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). The Medicare Durable Medical Equipment Access Act would require several modest changes to the competitive acquisition program to help preserve access to medical equipment in rural areas. First, our bill would build upon language in the MMA that allows the Secretary to exempt rural areas to prevent these beneficiaries from losing access to needed medical equipment. Specifically, it would require the Secretary to exempt MSAs with fewer than 500,000 people. Second, the MMA allows the Secretary to waive the application of quality standards in the competitive acquisition process if applying the standards would delay implementation. Our bill would ensure that quality standards are included when determining the winning bid to ensure that patients receive both high-quality and low-cost equipment. Third, in creating the competitive acquisition program, the Secretary may contract with only as many providers as deemed necessary to meet demand in an area. Any provider not awarded a contract would be prohibited from participating in Medicare for up to three years. This bill would allow certain small businesses to continue providing DME in Medicare at the competitive acquisition bid rate, allowing them to offer in-person care to Medicare beneficiaries. Fourth, under the MMA, the Secretary can use competitive acquisition bid rates in one MSA to set the reimbursement for another MSA. Our bill would require that the Secretary compare the two to ensure that the bid rates aren't inappropriately applied. Finally, the Medicare Durable Medical Equipment Access Act would take additional steps to ensure that competitive acquisition results in savings, that providers have access to administrative and judicial review, and that any meetings of the newly created CMS Program Advisory and Oversight Committee on competitive bidding be open to the public. These provisions are small steps, but they will ensure that beneficiaries in rural areas have access to the medical equipment they need. While we should pursue options for making the Medicare program more efficient, we must also protect access to care. I believe this bill achieves the appropriate balance between these two goals. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Hatch, in introducing the Medicare Durable Medical Equipment (DME) Access Act. This bill responds to the concerns I heard from seniors and suppliers in North Dakota about the negative impact competitive bidding could have on the ability of DME suppliers in rural States to remain viable. The bill we introduce today is designed to preserve access to DME in rural areas. The Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) required Medicare to replace the current DME payment methodology for certain items with a competitive acquisition process beginning in 2007 in 10 of the largest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). The Medicare Durable Medical Equipment Access Act would require several modest changes to the competitive acquisition program to help preserve access to medical equipment in rural areas. First, our bill would build upon language in the MMA that allows the Secretary to exempt rural areas to prevent these beneficiaries from losing access to needed medical equipment. Specifically, it would require the Secretary to exempt MSAs with fewer than 500,000 people. Second, the MMA allows the Secretary to waive the application of quality standards in the competitive acquisition process if applying the standards would delay implementation. Our bill would ensure that quality standards are included when determining the winning bid to ensure that patients receive both high-quality and low-cost equipment. Third, in creating the competitive acquisition program, the Secretary may contract with only as many providers as deemed necessary to meet demand in an area. Any provider not awarded a contract would be prohibited from participating in Medicare for up to three years. This bill would allow certain small businesses to continue providing DME in Medicare at the competitive acquisition bid rate, allowing them to offer in-person care to Medicare beneficiaries. Fourth, under the MMA, the Secretary can use competitive acquisition bid rates in one MSA to set the reimbursement for another MSA. Our bill would require that the Secretary compare the two to ensure that the bid rates aren't inappropriately applied. Finally, the Medicare Durable Medical Equipment Access Act would take additional steps to ensure that competitive acquisition results in savings, that providers have access to administrative and judicial review, and that any meetings of the newly created CMS Program Advisory and Oversight Committee on competitive bidding be open to the public. These provisions are small steps, but they will ensure that beneficiaries in rural areas have access to the medical equipment they need. While we should pursue options for making the Medicare program more efficient, we must also protect access to care. I believe this bill achieves the appropriate balance between these two goals. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to oppose the so-called Oman Free Trade Agreement. There are two primary reasons that I oppose this agreement. First, the Oman agreement is a continuation of an utterly failed trade policy. I believe we must change direction, and we need to change direction now before our record trade and budget deficits cripple our economy. Mr. President, this chart shows the trend in the U.S. trade deficit. This chart shows the trade deficit per month, and if we go back to 1992, we can see the trade deficit was running about $3 billion a month--a little over that. The total trade deficit that year for the entire year was $40 billion. Now we fast track to this year. After 10 trade agreements and 14 years, we are now at a trade deficit, as of last year, of $718 billion. And we are headed for a trade deficit of over $800 billion based on the most recent trade deficit. In July, we saw a trade deficit approaching $70 billion for the month. When are we going to conclude that we are on a course that is leading nowhere? Mr. President, NAFTA provides one vivid example of how these trade deals have affected our trade deficits. In 1993, the year before NAFTA took effect, we had a small trade surplus with Mexico--as this chart shows, about $1.7 billion. Last year, after 12 years of NAFTA, our trade deficit with Mexico exceeded $50 billion. In other words, before NAFTA, we had a trade surplus, albeit a small one. Now we have a massive trade deficit, and some say this is a success. I would hate to see a failure. If this is a success, what would be a failure? Agriculture provides another clear example. When this administration took office, we had a trade balance in agriculture of a positive $15 billion. That was in 2001. Every year, this balance has gone down: to $13 billion in 2002, $10 billion in 2003, just under $10 billion in 2004, last year it slipped to under $5 billion, and this year they are now anticipating a trade balance in agriculture of only $2 billion. That is stunning, absolutely stunning. We used to run a trade surplus in agriculture of over $25 billion a year. Now we are very close to having no trade balance in agriculture. Yet we keep going down the same path, trumpeting every one of these trade deals as another great success. I do not think there is much credibility left in that argument. I would be the first to admit I have voted for some of these trade agreements. I voted against NAFTA, and I voted against the CAFTA agreement, the most recent agreement entered into here. I voted against the so-called Canadian Free Trade Agreement, but I supported the agreement with China, I supported WPO, and I believed that it would advance the cause that is so important to the international economy. At some point we have to deal with facts. We have to deal with reality. We have to deal with what is really happening, not some academic argument. We have to deal with the reality that our country is going deeper and deeper into debt. We are now the world's largest debtor nation, and by a large margin. I believe the Oman agreement continues that failed trade policy. We are now getting more than we are giving. When you read the fine print in the study that was done by the U.S. International Trade Commission, the nonpartisan U.S. agency in charge of analyzing trade agreements, you discover that this agreement will increase our trade deficit with Oman. So here we go again, one more time of failed negotiations leading to more deficit, more debt, and the United States borrowing more money. In the fine print of the analysis that has been done what you find is that imports of apparel from Oman will increase by more than $42 million a year, but the exports of all products to Oman will increase only between $14 to $41 million. So, once again, we are asked to approve a deal that is the product of a failed negotiation. Once again those who negotiated on behalf of the United States have brought back a loser, claiming all the while it is a great success. At some point you have to check the record. At some point you look at what has actually happened, and you compare the claims to the results. When we do that on the trade agreements, what we find is that they have been a miserable failure for this country. Perhaps it should not be surprising that this agreement would increase our trade deficit. It is produced by the administration, an administration that has said at various times that outsourcing is a good thing. It is produced by an administration that does not believe in having other countries improve their labor standards so that it is fair competition. In fact, this administration has repeatedly rebuffed the efforts of the House of Representatives to strengthen labor laws in Oman so that they meet the core international standards. I do not believe this is a good agreement on the merits. But in addition, this process is horribly flawed. The way this bill has been brought to the Senate floor makes a complete mockery of the fast-track process. Why do I say that? Well, as every Member of this body knows, the Constitution gives the Congress, not the President, the responsibility for regulating foreign trade. Yet in recognition that we cannot have 535 trade negotiators--435 Members of the House and 100 Members here-- Congress has agreed to the fast-track process for considering trade agreements. In agreeing to fast track, each Senator gives up the most fundamental rights of a U.S. Senator. The most fundamental rights of any Senator are the right to amend and the right to extended debate. Those are the two things that distinguish this body from any other parliamentary body in the world. And most analysts have said it is a key to the importance of the U.S. Senate. In return for our giving up those core rights of any Senator--the right to amend, the right to extended debate--there is supposed to be a detailed consultation with the Congress in negotiating trade agreements and developing the implementing legislation. In practice, the Finance Committee, of which I am a member, is the focus of this consultation because the Finance Committee has jurisdiction over trade policy. In theory, the committee has extensive input during the process of negotiating agreements. Theoretically, it does not then need to amend the implementing bill once it is formally introduced. When it comes to developing the implementing bill, this consultation occurs through what is known as the mock markup process. It is like a regular legislative markup, only it is a mock markup in that it is not proceeding under the regular legislative course. The mock markup is the Finance Committee's opportunity to amend the implementing bill before it is formally introduced and then cannot be amended under fast-track rules. This informal process has a long history. During consideration of previous trade agreements, the process has lasted months and produced a host of changes. On the Oman agreement, I offered an amendment to prevent products made with slave labor, or under sweatshop conditions so egregious as to be tantamount to slave labor, from benefiting from the agreement. I did so because of a sad history, a sad history with the agreement with Jordan that failed to prevent horrific sweatshops in that country. I did so because it is not free trade when foreign workers are locked in factories and forced to work 100 hours a week for pennies an hour. Can anybody argue that represents free trade? That is not what Members of this body support when they vote in favor of free trade, but a recent study in Jordan found that is precisely what is happening. Workers from Bangladesh, China, and other parts of Southeast Asia were promised much greater pay than they could earn in their home countries. Not surprising, thousands went to Jordan. They paid hundreds of dollars to recruiters to get the jobs in the Jordanian apparel industry, but when they got to Jordan, their passports were taken away so they could not leave or change jobs. They were then forced to work 90 to 120 hours a week. They were paid far less than Jordan's minimum wage and were denied what they had been promised. And if they complained, they were beaten or jailed. Now, these are unpleasant facts, but they are facts, and we can either choose to turn away or be condemned by history for allowing this to occur when we served in a position of responsibility. Here is what the workers reported, according to the New York Times earlier this year: We used to start at 8 in the morning, and we'd work until midnight, 1 or [even] 2 a.m., seven days a week. . . . When we were in Bangladesh they promised us we would receive $120 a month, but in the five months I was there I only got one month's salary--and that was $50.'' These stories are repeated over and over and over. Mohammed Saiful Islam, a Bangladeshi, said that several times the workers had to work until 4 a.m., then sleep on the factory's floor for a few hours, before resuming work at 8 a.m. ``The workers got so exhausted they became sick,'' he said. ``They could hardly stay awake at their machines.'' Several workers said that when they were sick they did not receive medical care, but were instead punished and had their pay docked. Hazrat Ali said he sometimes worked 48 hours in a row and received no pay for the six months. ``If we asked for money, they hit us,'' he said. Nasima Akhter said that the Western factory gave its workers a half-glass of tea for breakfast and often rice and some rotten chicken for lunch. ``In the four months I was in Jordan, they didn't pay us a single penny,'' she said. ``When we asked management for our money and for better food, they were very angry at us. We were put in some sort of jail for four days without anything to eat. And then they forced us to go back to Bangladesh.'' These conditions are appalling, but they are all confirmed. This happened. And the question is, Are we going to allow this to continue? We would not ask American workers here at home to compete with these sorts of practices. Is it reasonable to expect our workers to compete with work conditions like these abroad? I think not. And we certainly-- we certainly--should not be giving special trade benefits to products made under these conditions. That is immoral. In the case of Oman, its labor laws fall far short of the core ILO standards, the International Labor Organization standards. Oman, like Jordan, relies heavily on guest workers who are often at a serious disadvantage in trying to assert their rights. Oman has been cited by our own State Department for human trafficking. And according to the International Trade Commission, the Oman Free Trade Agreement is expected to greatly increase apparel production and exports to the United States from Oman. The warning signals are before us. Are we going to act? I hope we do. That is why I offered an amendment in the Finance Committee that clarified that goods produced with slave labor or de facto slave labor of the sort that occurred in Jordan will not benefit from this agreement. The administration raised objections at the time, but the committee rejected the administration's advice and unanimously adopted my amendment--unanimously adopted my amendment. I believe it adopted my amendment because the members believe that products manufactured in these sorts of abusive conditions should not get special benefits under this free-trade agreement. The Finance Committee spoke loudly and clearly. By an 18-to-0 recorded vote, the committee disagreed with the administration and said that we need to add protections in this agreement because local labor laws and U.S. laws did not work in the case of Jordan and may well not work in the case of Oman. Yet the bill before us today does not include these protections. It does not include an amendment passed unanimously in the Senate Finance Committee. This process is now so broken and such a sham that we can pass an amendment in the so-called mock markup by a unanimous vote and it means absolutely nothing. This process has lost its credibility. This process cannot be taken seriously. Every Member of this body should know that in giving up their core rights--the right to amend, the right to extended debate--in return for a program that is supposed to include consultation between the Congress and the administration--consultation that is supposed to go through the Finance Committee, through the mock markup process that is our ability to change things, that is our ability to offer amendments to alter the final outcome--it means nothing--nothing. Two years ago, we debated the Australian FTA, and the Finance Committee adopted an amendment I offered then to protect our ranchers. It went through procedural contortions to drop the amendment. I said at the time: This precedent strikes me as dangerous. It opens the process to abuse, and it reduces the Committee's role in crafting trade policy and trade legislation. It may have been expedient. . . . But I believe that we will come to regret this precedent. It invites a future President to ignore any recommendations made by the Committee on future trade implementing legislation. Unfortunately, that prediction has come true. Here we are with another trade agreement, this time a trade agreement which was amended in the Finance Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, by a unanimous vote, and that amendment appears nowhere in the final product. This process has become a sham. It is a snare and a delusion for Members here to think that Congress has any effect. There is no need for a Congress of the United States if this administration or any administration arrogates to itself the full power of the Government of the United States. That is what has now happened with trade agreements. The Congress may as well not exist. We may as well not be here because we have no ability to alter the outcome. The only ability we have remaining is to reject the agreement outright. I have reached the conclusion that is the proper course. I believe we ought to reject this agreement on two bases: No. 1, it is a continuation of a failed trade policy that is driving us deeper and deeper into debt; and second, it is the product of a process that has become a complete sham. The facts speak for themselves. Let me conclude. The Oman Free Trade Agreement promises few, if any, benefits to the U.S. economy and will actually make our trade deficit worse. Moreover, the safeguards that were supposed to protect against imports made under abusive sweatshop conditions have been summarily dropped from the bill, despite a unanimous vote in the committee of jurisdiction. Finally, the process the Finance Committee followed sets a terrible precedent. No Senator should welcome the precedent that the administration can simply ignore the will of the Finance Committee on a particular trade issue important to the people we represent, secure in the knowledge that the trade implementing bill can be pushed through as part of a larger take-it-or-leave-it package. So I hope my colleagues, even those who generally support trade agreements, will think long and hard about how they cast this vote. This vote is going to set another precedent--one more precedent--that says the fast-track process is completely broken. If you believe the Senate and the Finance Committee should not have a voice on trade agreements and trade implementing bills and you support the use of slave labor, human trafficking, and egregious, abusive sweatshops, you should vote for this bill. But if you believe that consultation under fast track should be meaningful, if you believe the mock markup process should not be a mockery, and if you oppose slave labor, you should vote against this bill. I urge my colleagues to stand for a new direction in trade policy, to stand for agreements that benefit the American economy, and to vote against the Oman Free Trade Agreement. As someone who has supported many trade agreements, I come to this conclusion reluctantly. I come to this conclusion only after 20 years of service in the U.S. Senate, seeing one after another of these trade agreements entered into, each one of them heralded as another great success, only to find that we are on course to running up the greatest trade deficit in the history of the United States--$700 billion of trade deficit last year, headed for $800 billion this year. Mr. President, if this doesn't send a message that we are on the wrong course, I don't know what would. Finally, this is a process that is completely bankrupt--absolutely, completely bankrupt. I entered into the chance as a member of the Finance Committee to offer amendments in good faith. I did so responsibly. My amendment passed unanimously. Yet it is summarily dropped by the administration for no good reason. Mr. President, this fast-track process is fast track all right; it is a fast track to decline. It is a fast track to rising deficits and debt. It is a fast track to the centralization of power in this country in the hands of a few in the administration, without regard to congressional input. That is not the history of this institution. That is not the constitutional history of our country. We were not designed to be a government of only one branch, the executive branch. Our constitutional history suggests that this is to be a government of shared powers, with an executive branch, a legislative branch, and judicial branch, all with their appropriate roles. Increasingly, with respect to trade, the role of the Congress is the role of a rubber stamp. Our Founding Fathers would be spinning in their graves seeing how the fast-track process has been contorted into a process that allows the administration to make the decisions with respect to the trade policy of this country, without an ability of Members of Congress to alter its course. That is a profound mistake, and we will regret it in the future. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first I thank very much the Senator from Washington for her courtesy, and the Senator from Maine as well. I will be very brief. I also recognize my colleague from Nebraska for his leadership and thank him publicly and personally for offering this amendment right now. Normally, I would never join in offering this amendment on port security, but this involves the food security of the country, and this has now become a critical matter in our part of the Nation. We just had a drought rally yesterday with farmers from all across America, joined by 14 Senators, on a fully bipartisan basis, and joined by my State's governor and joined by Members of the House of Representatives from the heartland of the country as well. The message was clear and consistent: It is imperative that Congress act now. If there is a failure to act, literally thousands of farm families will be forced off the land. That is how acute this crisis has become. By scientific measure, they now tell us this is the third worst drought in the Nation's history. The extraordinary irony is that last year in my State we had massive flooding--flooding that prevented 1 million acres from even being planted. I note the occupant of the Chair represents the State of Louisiana which suffered so dramatically from Hurricane Katrina. Those of us outside that area agreed to help and support disaster assistance because it was clearly needed, and we were pleased to step forward and offer our assistance. I might say to the occupant of the Chair and to others who are listening: Now we have suffered as a result of a disaster. It is different. It is not as dramatic, but for those affected, it is every bit as dire. I say to my colleagues, this is one of the worst situations I have seen in my lifetime in the State of North Dakota. Last year, here is what the headlines said all across the State: ``Heavy Rain Leads To Crop Diseases.'' ``Area Farmers Battle Flooding And Disease.'' ``Beet Crop Could Be Smallest In Ten years.'' ``Crops, Hay Lost To Flooding.'' ``Rain Halts Harvest.'' It was a devastating year. As a result, last year I offered disaster legislation that formed the basis of this amendment. I updated that legislation on Wednesday of last week. We now have 20 cosponsors in the Senate on a fully bipartisan basis saying this legislation is needed, it is needed urgently, and it is needed now. This is a picture from last year of a farmstead in North Dakota completely surrounded by water. I know these are remembrances to the occupant of the Chair of what happened in his own State of Louisiana. Again, we would be quick to acknowledge the disaster in the Gulf States is more dramatic, more far-reaching, but this is national legislation. This wouldn't just help those of us hurt by flooding last year and drought this year; this would help all those wherever they are situated who have suffered from a natural disaster. This year, as the Senator from Nebraska just demonstrated, this is what the Drought Monitor shows: Right down the center of the country, a very persistent and extreme drought. In fact, they have a schedule that goes from abnormally dry to moderate drought to severe drought to extreme drought to exceptional drought, exceptional drought being obviously the most extreme. And you can see the core of the exceptional drought is right in the heartland of America. But we are not alone because we can see areas of exceptional drought right down the center of the country, all the way over to the State of Arizona. Not only did we have extraordinary drought, we had the most incredible summer of extreme temperatures that I have ever seen in my lifetime, culminating on July 30 in my hometown when it reached 112 degrees--112 degrees. I went to a corn farm south of Bismarck, ND, that was irrigated--irrigated corn. We stripped the corn of its husk and the ears weren't filling, even though they were putting tens of thousands of gallons of water on that field a day. Why not?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is a farm field in North Dakota. This is supposed to be a cornfield. You can see there is nothing there; it is devastated. This is widespread in my State. This picture is from Grant County, an alfalfa field, and you can see it is in a Moon state. There is nothing there. Let me just conclude by saying to my colleagues, this is an urgent matter. This is a response to a disaster. If we fail to act, the bankers of my State have told me we will lose 5 to 10 percent of the farmers and ranchers in my State. South Dakota is worse, and this disaster goes right down the center of our country. The time to act is now. I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Pryor be added as an original cosponsor as well.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. The amendment is on behalf of myself and Senators Dorgan, Salazar, and Menendez. Five years ago, our Nation was viciously attacked by al-Qaida. We all remember the horrific images from that fateful day. I remember so well arriving at the Capitol building for early morning meetings and, as we entered, security personnel ordered an evacuation. Those of us who were evacuated from this building went back to our offices and were again evacuated there, as there was a belief that there was a potential threat to the Capitol complex. Later on, we saw the results of the attack. We saw people jumping from the World Trade Center. We saw the attack on the Pentagon. We did not know, in the early hours, who was responsible, but we knew the world had changed. I remember very well that night, as Members of Congress stood on the steps of the Capitol showing that we were shoulder to shoulder in defense of America. That night, there were no Republicans, there were no Democrats; there were just proud Americans on the steps of this Capitol, men and women elected to represent our individual States here in this Capitol. In the 20 years I have been in this Chamber, I never saw such unity, such a sense of purpose that we would not let these acts stand and that those who were responsible would be held to account. We need to renew that spirit. We need Democrats and Republicans standing together to bring to justice those who were responsible for these horrific acts. In this photo is the man who planned, financed, and organized those operations, Osama bin Laden, the head of al-Qaida. It has now been over 1,800 days since those attacks, and this man is still on the loose. This man has still not been brought to justice. I believe it is one of our Nation's highest priorities that he and the other top leadership of al-Qaida be brought to justice. I include Mr. al-Zawahiri. I think we also know that Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban in Afghanistan, has not been apprehended and brought to justice either. To me, this is centrally important to the war on terrorism. We have to get the terrorist leaders who designed the attack on our country. I say to my colleagues that I graduated from high school from an American military base in Tripoli, Libya, North Africa, Willis Air Force Base. I had relatives who were in the intelligence service of the United States who served in that part of the world as well. One thing I learned when I was in that part of the world is that if a fight started, you better get the leaders and you better get them quick; otherwise, it mushroomed and escalated. My experience was very minor. It was on the basketball court, where we would have shepherds periodically come and start throwing stones. We found out early that you better get a stone and you better nail a couple of their guys or the thing got worse. I think all of us who have studied the Arab world know that in that culture, if somebody attacks and is not held to account, that person grows in stature in that culture. We have to hold to account Osama bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, and all of the rest of the al-Qaida leadership. I think that is absolutely critical for success in the war on terror. Osama bin Laden continues to call for attacks on us. We are now seeing a Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan. Last month, we saw a plot that may have been orchestrated by al-Qaida to blow up airliners flying between Britain and the United States. Unfortunately, the latest intelligence--and this is not classified, so I am not disclosing any state secrets here--according to the National Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, the number of al-Qaida operatives worldwide has grown from 20,000 in 2001 to 50,000 today. Some of our colleagues have likened this to World War II. I don't believe that. This is not like World War II. This is fundamentally and profoundly different. In World War II, we had Hitler Germany attempting to achieve world dominance. In World War II, we had a state, the nation of Germany, attacking its neighbors, seeking hegemony throughout Europe and beyond. We had Germany attacking its neighbors. We had Germany on the move against Great Britain. We had Germany with its allies attacking the Soviet Union. That was profoundly different than a network of terrorists spread in over 70 countries around the world seeking to weaken our country. That is a profoundly different circumstance than we faced in World War II. In World War II, we faced the sneak attack by Japan on the United States, and Japan being allied with Germany in a move to achieve world dominance. That is a profoundly different circumstance than the one we face today. And if we don't adapt our methods and tactics and strategy, we will be less successful. It is critical that we have this debate, and it should not be a partisan debate. To me, this is not a matter of Republicans and Democrats; this is a question of how does our country succeed in this battle against terrorism? How do we best succeed? My own conviction is, it starts with this man. It doesn't end there, but it starts here. Osama bin Laden has got to be brought to justice. Mr. Zawahiri has got to be brought to justice. Mullah Omar has got to be brought to justice. And I don't question--I don't question the intention of this administration to attempt to do that, but I do note that it has now been 5 years, and there has been a failure to get those who organized the attack on our country. That is a fact. And we need to deal with that fact and we need to adopt new methods, new strategies in order to achieve success. That is my conviction. These are things that disturb me greatly. In March of 2004, USA Today reported: In 2002, troops from the fifth special forces group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures. Let's think about that a minute. After Osama bin Laden, who led the attacks, we put in special forces to find him who were experts in Arab culture and in Arab languages. But when we diverted our attention and moved to Iraq, we pulled those forces out of Afghanistan in the search for Osama bin Laden and replaced them, according to these news reports, with troops with expertise in Spanish culture. There aren't many Spanish speakers or much Spanish culture in Afghanistan. I think this was a profound mistake. The article goes on to say: The CIA meanwhile was stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate, and analyze information coming from Afghanistan. When some say the center of the war on terrorism is Iraq, I think they have it wrong. The center is in Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri have been located. I am not saying I know that they are located there now. We know they were located there; perhaps they are somewhere else at this point. But at the time we shifted our focus, I believe it was a mistake. I believe we ought to have focused like a laser on the leadership of al-Qaida. Al-Qaida attacked us; not Iraq. There wasn't a single Iraqi on those airplanes that crashed into the World Trade Center. There wasn't a single Iraqi on the plane that hit the Pentagon. There wasn't a single Iraqi on the plane that went down in Pennsylvania. They were al-Qaida operatives led by Osama bin Laden, not Iraqis led by Saddam Hussein. I might add that once we took our eye off the ball in getting the terrorists and instead went to Iraq, we have now unfortunately freed up Iran for all kinds of troublemaking in the Middle East. Iran is behind the operations of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Is there any doubt that they are the financial muscle behind that operation? This is a battle. It is a battle that is critically important to our Nation's security, and we have to fight it in a smart and disciplined and focused way if we are to succeed. That is my belief. Now we learn that the CIA has closed the unit that is focused on the capture of Osama bin Laden. This report from July of this year says: The Central Intelligence Agency has closed the unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants. The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the CIA Counter-Terrorist Center. The article goes on to say: In recent years, the war in Iraq has stretched the resources of the intelligence agencies and the Pentagon, generating new priorities for American officials. I believe the priority remains getting those who attacked us. It wasn't Iraq that attacked us; it was al-Qaida that attacked us, and it is critically important we hold them to account. On August 21, the President said this: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. He was then interrupted by a reporter who asked: What did Iraq have to do with that? The President: What did Iraq have to do with what? The reporter: The attacks upon the World Trade Center. The President: Nothing. That is correct, nothing. We know from the 9/11 Commission Iraq was not involved in the attacks of 9/11. It was al-Qaida--al-Qaida led by Osama bin Laden. That is where we have to focus. And this, to me, is not a political debate. This is a question of the strategic policy of the United States. How do we best defend America against those who have already attacked us and intend to attack us again? I would submit the first thing we have to do is get the leadership of the organization that is worldwide in scope, that seeks to take us down. Make no mistake, this is a battle with real consequences, and we have got to fight it in the smartest, most effective way. It has now been 1,823 days since Osama bin Laden attacked us. Madam President, 1,823 days; that is a long time. That is nearly 5 years. The President just issued a new intelligence estimate and analysis. There is only one mention of Osama bin Laden in that document, and it is a reference in passing. I don't think it should be a matter that is mentioned in passing. I deeply believe we have to refocus and we have to go after, in a disciplined and dedicated way, the leadership of al-Qaida, starting with Osama bin Laden, going to Zawahiri, and right down the list. I applaud those successes that we have had in getting Zarqawi and others. Thank God for that. But we have got to get those at the top. This amendment adds $200 million to the intelligence budget for a unit explicitly dedicated to bringing Osama bin Laden and other top al- Qaida leadership to justice. The second part of this amendment requires a classified report every 90 days on activities of our Government related to bringing Osama bin Laden to justice. A classified report because, obviously, we don't want to signal the game plan. This is the amendment that I offer, and I thank my colleagues who have cosponsored it with me: Senator Dorgan, my colleague from North Dakota; Senator Salazar from Colorado; Senator Menendez from New Jersey; and now I am informed that additional Senators have asked to join, including Senator Lincoln of Arkansas, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, and Senator Obama of Illinois. I ask unanimous consent to add them as original cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask the Senator from Massachusetts if he seeks time on this amendment.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I have not relinquished my right to the floor. I simply asked a question.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this amendment is an urgent matter. I hope very much our colleagues would support this amendment on a bipartisan basis so that we send the clear message that this country intends to hold to account those who organized the attack on America. I think that is absolutely essential. I also say to my colleague, if the Senator from Alaska seeks recognition, I will be happy to yield the floor so he can do that. I ask him at this point if he would have an interest in a time agreement on the amendment? We were approached earlier with a request on that matter. I would be happy to explore that, if the Senator from Alaska has any interest.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. CONRAD. We would be happy to agree to a time. Would noon be an acceptable time?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I say to my colleague that it is a curious conclusion to suggest that adding more resources to the intelligence community for the purpose of bringing to justice Osama bin Laden is a slap in the face to the intelligence community. It is no slap in the face to the intelligence community. If anything, it is a vote of confidence in the intelligence community. We owe the country this debate and this discussion. I believed when we went to Iraq we were making a mistake. I said on the floor of the Senate right before that vote that I thought we were diverting our attention from those who attacked us. It was al-Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden, not Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein. The simple fact is we have not brought them to justice. The Senator wonders, what does it mean to bring to justice? We all know what it means to bring someone to justice. Osama bin Laden deserves to be brought to justice. There is no one in this Chamber who doesn't know what that means. The Senator says this amendment is irresponsible. I think it would be irresponsible not to have this amendment. The Senator indicated that he asked us to be further briefed yesterday. We did that. There is not one thing I heard in that room that doesn't tell me that what we are seeking to do here is not the right thing, the responsible thing. We cannot talk about those briefings, and we will not talk about them. Finally, I say to my colleague, this is not political with me. I don't need a political amendment. Anyone who has analyzed my race knows that what I am saying is true. I don't need a political amendment. I have a responsibility to my constituents and to the future of our country. I believe deeply we have not done the job of protecting America when we have failed for 5 years to get the man and the leadership cadre of al-Qaida that organized the attack on this country. I don't choose to make this political. I made very clear in my statement that I don't question for one moment the commitment of this administration to protect America. I don't question for one moment the intention of every Member on both sides of this aisle to protect our country. I don't question that. I did not make this a political matter; I make this a matter of policy-- what is the right thing to do for our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I will discuss a bit more fully what led me to this amendment. It is not the President's comments of several days ago. That was not the genesis of this amendment. I have believed since we went to war in Iraq--anyone can look at the record and what I said in this Senate the night of the vote--I said then that I believed going to Iraq was a distraction. I believe it diverted our attention and resources from going after the al-Qaida leadership that organized the attack on America. I said that then. I believed it then. I believe it now. I have a bit of a different background from many of my colleagues. I went to high school at an American military base in Tripoli, Libya, North Africa. I lived in the Arab culture. One of the ironies was the Senator from Alaska suggested this is a slap in the face at the intelligence community. My family served in the intelligence services of our country in that part of the world. I am precluded from going further than that because of classification issues. I have great respect for those who serve in the clandestine and the intelligence services of our country. I have consulted many of them in writing this amendment. I believe deeply this is the right approach to operationalize, to more fully fund the efforts, not only to get Osama bin Laden--although I believe he is at the top of the list--I also believe it is critically important to get Zawahiri, I believe it is critically important to get Mullah Omar. I regret deeply that resources were transferred from Afghanistan to Iraq. that we had forces that were experts in Arab culture and Arab language and we shifted them to Iraq. The hard reality is, while there have been successes, which I acknowledged in my opening remarks--I would say to the Senator from Alaska, there have been very excellent successes. Getting Zarqawi, thank God, we got him. Thank goodness for each of those who have been captured and taken out of operational involvement in planning additional attacks on the country. But the job is not done. We know that. I believe very strongly that we made a strategic error in going to Iraq. I said it then, I say it now. I believe the focus and the energy and the attention ought to have gone--the priority ought to have been al-Qaida, its leadership, and its worldwide network. I believe this is fundamentally different than World War II. I believe this is a long and difficult struggle. I believe this is a dangerous world. I believe there are people who are plotting right now to again attack our country. And I want to be part of an effort to do everything we can to stop them. That is why I offer this amendment, and for no other reason. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dayton be added as an original cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, there are other Members who are on their way who wish to speak on this matter. I do not know if they will make it. Senator Menendez has arrived. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. There is no objection on our side.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have just heard a very powerful and moving statement from the senior Senator from Montana, and we all understand he has suffered a deep and personal loss. I heard about the very close relationship Senator Baucus had with the nephew he lost, and he should know that his friends and his colleagues share that loss, that we grieve with him and we grieve with the family, that we especially appreciate the very moving statement he made. It is our obligation--it is our obligation--to make certain these losses mean something and that, in the end, our country is successful against this threat. I think every Member of this Chamber recognizes there is a real threat to our Nation and that we owe a deep debt of gratitude to those who answer the country's call, who come forward and serve when they are asked. This Nation owes much to those who have sacrificed, and we should never forget it. Senator Baucus, you should know that your friends and your colleagues--this is a family--mourn with you and grieve with you and your family. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. There is no objection on our side.