Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. At 12:45, I will be making a motion to table the McConnell second- degree amendment to amendment No. 4200. We are working on a bill that I have spent hundreds of hours on, part of them in hearings, much of the time in drafting my own legislation, then working with Senator Gramm to come up with an even better bill, and then working with Senator Sarbanes to come up with the bill we have before us. There is a crisis in the stock market. Two days ago, it dropped by 185 points. Yesterday, it dropped by 285 points. Some suggest that is because Congress is working on this issue and it is scaring the heck out of the people of the United States. I hope that is not the case. I hope it is a sign that they do want to have a solution, and they want to have a solution quickly. We do have the solution that, combined with the House bill, can serve the purpose of restoring the confidence of American investors. The McConnell amendment is a clients' bill of rights to reform the way attorneys treat their clients. It is not about securities and exchange. It is all about attorneys. Senator Edwards and I modified our amendment so it applies only to action before the Securities and Exchange Commission. That was so that if this debate draws out with multiple second-degree amendments well beyond the time we have the cloture vote, our amendment will still be germane. A standard that the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, has put on amendments is that they be germane. He did an extensive speech last night about the need to do germane amendments and get this finished. This amendment is good and well intended. It requires attorneys to do a number of things in representing those who put their trust in attorneys' hands, and this includes requiring attorneys to provide written disclosure to their clients on the number of hours that will be spent on their case, the attorney's hourly or contingent fee, the probability of successful outcome, estimated recovery of costs, and bereavement. Under normal circumstances, I probably would be very excited about this bill. The reason I am opposing it is simply because it does not have anyplace in the accounting reform bill that we are debating today. I realize it does not change anything in my amendment. It is not a substitute amendment, but it is an addition that will cause problems further down the road. It will delay actually getting accounting reform into place. The accounting reform bill is being used as a vehicle to provide a free ride for a nongermane, unrelated amendment. I will probably use that same line again on a number of other amendments that come up later--it is nongermane. The McConnell amendment needs to hitchhike on a different road with a different vehicle at a different time. Over several months, I and my esteemed colleagues on both sides of this aisle have worked hard on the accounting reform bill. We have worked hard to keep out surplus, nonrelevant issues so we can get through the process of getting accounting legislation through in a timely fashion and in a bipartisan manner. We have been very successful at keeping out exact amendments even that deal with how to do accounting and have set up a process where people who are knowledgeable on that can figure out the right way to do it and the right way to do it faster than before. I strongly believe this bill cannot afford to be held up any longer just for Members on both sides of the aisle to score political points on hot button issues. A lot of us have pet projects and issues we would have liked to add on, but we resisted and we encouraged our colleagues on the Banking Committee to do the same thing. We are now in the amendment process, but amendments should be germane to the contents of the underlying bill and amendment. That is not a requirement until after cloture, but we need to get the bill done. There is no reason we even need to go to cloture if we would get the germane amendments done and get this into a conference committee so we can get the work done. The McConnell second-degree amendment, while well intended, is not germane. It does not deal solely with securities laws or those attorneys appearing and practicing before the SEC. It does not deal solely with attorneys working for publicly traded companies but to any attorney and any client practicing any form of Federal law. It does not deal with an attorney's professional responsibilities of reporting Federal securities law violations to its corporate client. It is much broader than the underlying amendment which does deal strictly with Federal securities laws, attorneys appearing and practicing before the SEC, and internal reporting by an attorney within a publicly traded company. In addition, the McConnell amendment is going to require study and debate, meaning more time spent diverting passage of the much needed accounting reform bill. We are running out of time before the next recess and have several important bills yet to consider, including Homeland Security Department legislation. While the McConnell amendment is well intended, the timing is simply wrong. I respect my colleague from Kentucky and his constant support and earnest effort to make attorneys play it straight with their clients. But I must respectfully oppose this amendment at this time. I hope we will be able to debate and vote on it on another day. When the time is appropriate under the agreement, I will make a motion to table the amendment. I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ENZI. Sure.

Mr. ENZI. Yes.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I will give a little explanation for the point raised that this particular bill--because a time has been set for the vote--will not hold things up. There are about 60 amendments out there; there are probably 10 that actually deal with what is in the bill. There has to be some point where we have to ask, Can we not concentrate on what is in the bill instead of bringing up the other things? I am sorry that yours is the bill on which we are starting that.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we have, I think, before us, about 60 amendments. I join my ranking member, the Senator from Texas, in his comments about how we need to get this bill done as quickly as possible. The stock market is dropping. It may be because of what we are doing. It may be because of the need to have this bill done. Either way, getting this bill done will give some assurance to the stock market both that we are not dabbling in it anymore, and that we have completed our work and have provided a solution. As a result--and I regret that it is on this amendment with my friend from Kentucky--I will begin making tabling motions on amendments that do not have a direct aspect to the bill. I also would be doing that to amendments that put specific accounting language into the bill, even if it is relevant. This bill is not designed to put in specific accounting language; it is designed to set up a process for getting to specific accounting language. That is a very fine distinction and a very important one if we want to have the kind of stock market and the companies that we envision. With those comments, at this time I move to table the McConnell amendment.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I do rise in support of the Edwards-Enzi- Corzine amendment. I am disappointed there has been a second-degree amendment to this, on which amendment we are working. It does not deal with the same topic. It does not deal with the same bill. It is going off in a different direction. If we keep having second-degree amendments throughout that go off in other directions, we are not going to get this bill finished and through the process. So it would be my hope it would be withdrawn. I will concentrate my efforts on the amendment I have worked on with Senator Edwards, Senator Corzine, and others. This amendment is designed to assure that attorneys are responsible for fully informing their corporate client of evidence of material violations of Federal securities law. That is what we are talking about through the whole accounting reform. Over the past few months, Congress and the public have concentrated on the role of accountants and auditors involved in Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, and others. We have held hearings and drafted legislation intended to restore a high level of ethical behavior to corporate America and the accounting industry. This breach in ethical behavior led to the problems these companies are now experiencing. I have to say through all of those hearings, as an accountant, I felt the profession was very picked on, and the profession deserved to be picked on--not everybody in the profession. Again, it is that one-half of 1 percent or one-tenth of 1 percent who are fouling up everything for everybody. It happens in a lot of different professions. As we beat up on accountants a little bit, one of the thoughts that occurred to me was that probably in almost every transaction there was a lawyer who drew up the documents involved in that procedure. I know as to the companies we looked at, that was the case. It seemed only right there ought to be some kind of an ethical standard put in place for the attorneys as well. All of the people who are involved should be looking at a new way of doing business. As an accountant, I have been deeply disturbed by the action taken by some in my profession, and as a result I have taken a more personal interest than others might in drafting legislation which will ensure that accountants act professionally and responsibly, and which will protect the interests of corporate shareholders. Following hearings on this matter, it has become clear that the role of attorneys who counseled these corporations and their accountants must be scrutinized as well. Just like accountants, these lawyers are expected to represent the corporation in the best interests of the shareholders. In doing so, these attorneys are hired to aid the corporation and its accountants in adhering to Federal securities law. When their counsel and advice is sought, attorneys should have an explicit, not just an implied, duty to advise the primary officer and then, if necessary, the auditing committee or the board of directors of any serious legal violation of the law by a corporate agent. Currently, there is no explicit mandate requiring this standard of conduct. It is clearly in the best interest of their client to disclose this kind of information to the board, rather than just upper management. Maybe it could be called the ``smell test.'' If something smells wrong, somebody who can do something to fix it ought to be told. It is important to understand the corporate attorney's client is the whole corporation and its shareholders, and not just the CEOs or some of the executives, accountants, or auditors. As a result, their ultimate duty of representation is not to the people to whom they normally report but to the shareholders through the board of directors. This amendment would require the Securities and Exchange Commission to enact rules within 180 days to set forth minimum standards of professional conduct and responsibility for attorneys appearing and practicing before the Commission; not all attorneys, just attorneys appearing and practicing before the Commission; that is, those who are dealing with documents that deal with companies listed by the Securities and Exchange Commission. This amendment instructs the Commission to establish rules that require an attorney, with evidence of material legal violation by the corporation or its agent, to notify the chief legal counsel or the chief executive officer of such evidence and the appropriate response to correct it. If these officers do not promptly take action in response, the Commission is instructed to establish a rule that the attorney then has a duty to take further appropriate action, including notifying the audit committee of the board of directors or the board of directors themselves, of such evidence and the actions of the attorney and others regarding this evidence. It is all within the corporation. This amendment is simple. It requires the attorney to contact specific persons who are part of the management hierarchy and explain the problem. If that fails to correct the problem, the attorney must contact the audit committee or the board of directors. I am usually in the camp that believes States should regulate professionals within their jurisdiction. However, in this case, the State bars as a whole have failed. They have provided no specific ethical rule of conduct to remedy this kind of situation. Even if they do have a general rule that applies, it often goes unenforced. Most States also do not have the ability to investigate attorney violations involved with the complex circumstances of audit procedures within giant corporations. Similarly, the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Responsibility do not have mandatory rules for professional conduct for corporate practitioners which require them to take specific action. The ABA merely has a general rule that an attorney must represent the best interests of an organization and suggests a number of ways an attorney could respond, including reporting illegal conduct to a responsible constituent of the organization, such as the board of directors. But this does not mandate action. In response to Enron and the current environment concerning corporate integrity, on March 27 of this year the ABA did form a task force on corporate responsibility. But how many task forces have been formed and accomplished nothing? Task forces are often used to delay implementation of necessary changes. When task forces are used, we all know it takes years to set up the rules. When they are established, States may not actively enforce them or even have the means to enforce them. In any event, it is my understanding that the ABA's task force's preliminary recommendations are for the attorney to report law violations through a chain or ladder of the corporation. That is what, in fact, this amendment does, first through the legal counsel or CEO and then to the audit committee or the board of directors. While I almost always advocate a State solution, in this instance I must advocate a Federal solution. In the past, Congress has authorized a Federal commission to regulate the conduct of attorneys through promulgation of rules on attorneys practicing before them. For example, 31 U.S.C. section 330 provides the Treasury Department authority to regulate the practice of attorneys appearing before the Internal Revenue Service. Accordingly, the IRS has promulgated rules on the conduct of attorneys. Under 31 CFR, part 10.21 of the IRS regulations, each attorney who knows the client has not complied with the revenue laws or who has made an error or omission on any return or document required by the IRS shall advise the client promptly of the fact of such noncompliance, error, or omission. The amendment I am supporting will give the SEC authority to promulgate a rule similar to the IRS rule. In the past, the SEC has tried to impose ethical conduct on attorneys. SEC rule 2(e), previously 102(e), authorizes the Commission to disbar or suspend from practice before it a lawyer or other professional who violates the securities law, assists in someone else's violation, or otherwise engages in unprofessional conduct. Through this process, the SEC previously instituted proceedings under rule 102(3) to enforce the ethical standards for the practice of Federal securities law. But it has stopped bringing these types of actions. This amendment will get the SEC back on track and make attorneys stand up and pay attention if they have evidence a corporate agent has committed a material legal violation. In the wake of Enron, over forty professors with expertise in Federal securities and ethics law, have written to SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt asking for some form of regulation over the practice and conduct of attorneys involved in Federal securities law. In their letter, they state that if senior managers will not rectify a violation, lawyers who are responsible for the corporation's securities compliance work, should be required to report to the board of directors. As they point out, such a disclosure obligation is still less onerous than that imposed on accountants under section 10A of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, which requires an auditor to report, both to the client's directors and simultaneously to the SEC, and illegal act if management fails to take remedial action. The amendment I am supporting would not require the attorneys to report violations to the SEC, only to corporate legal counsel or the CEO, and ultimately, to the board of directors. Some argue that the amendment will cause a breach of client/attorney privilege, which is ludicrous. The attorney owes a duty to its client which is the corporation and the shareholders. By reporting a legal violation to management and then the board of directors, no breach of the privilege occurs, because it is all internal--within the corporation and not to an outside party, such as the SEC. This amendment also does not empower the SEC to cause attorneys to breach their attorney/client privilege. Instead, as is the case now, attorneys and clients can assert this privilege in court. In addition, this amendment creates a duty of professional conduct and does not create a right of action by third parties. The Fourth Circuit has made such a ruling concerning the code of conduct applied by the IRS Rules. The SEC has already found that attorneys who fail to take steps to prevent their clients from violating Federal securities law are guilty of aiding and abetting. This amendment will put attorneys on the right course. By reporting violations to the board of directors, they can avoid being found guilty of aiding and abetting their client. Just as I am concerned about the conduct of accountants because that is my profession, I would think member attorneys would be as concerned about the conduct of the legal profession. To ignore the role attorneys played in Enron, World.Com and Global Crossing is a disservice to their profession. I hope you will join me in ensuring that attorneys are required to conduct themselves ethically and in the best interests of their client when they see evidence of a material legal violation. They should be expressly required to report that type of activity to upper managers, and ultimately, to the board of directors who represent the shareholders. After Enron, it is clear we need some hard and fast rules, and not just an arcane honor code rarely adhered to, so the necessary measure of client duty is placed into the hearts and minds of the legal profession. Again, I am disappointed there is a second-degree amendment. This is an important amendment and something that I thought would be cleared by both sides. We will deal with the rest of the process. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I object.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, all of us are just returning from the Fourth of July recess. It is a grand time, I am sure, across the United States. It was particularly a grand time in Wyoming. I get to go to a lot of parades and fairs and rodeos. It is really our only time outdoors to get a little bit of suntan that, unfortunately, goes from the wrist to the tip of the fingers, and the neck up. But it is a grand time. I want to share with my colleagues one of the adventures of this Fourth of July recess. I got to be in a place called Lovell, WY. It is in the northern part of Wyoming. They had a dedication of a veterans memorial center that features a huge mural that includes pictures from all of the wars in which we have participated. The mural goes down into a rocky beach that contains rocks from different wars that we have been in as well. They had a dedication of this veterans memorial center. The dedication was also attended by Commander Lovell, whose town is now his namesake. That is the Lovell of Apollo 13 fame and ingenuity. Of course, it reminded me of that time in 1957 when the United States realized that we were behind in all of the scientific races. It challenged many of us to improve education in the United States. I think that continues today. The United States met that challenge. I remember when Sputnik went up I was appalled and I immediately became one of those rocket boys, one who was anxious to learn as much about science and space as possible. I am pleased to say the Explorer Post that I was in launched a rocket with electronic ignition the second time we did it. We also learned on the first one that you have to clear that with the FAA so you don't shoot down airplanes. There have been a lot changes in that. I got to go to this parade and dedication of the mural. It was very patriotic. At the beginning, as they unfurled this new flag on a huge new pole, we did say the Pledge of Allegiance. There was a reaction to the previous Wednesday's Ninth Circuit announcement because when the words, ``under God'' were said, they were louder than the whole rest of the pledge, just as an affirmation that the people of Wyoming were upset with the decision that had been made. But it was that kind of event that makes your heart swell and brings tears to your eyes. There was a song about heroes sung by elementary students. It reminded me that community, and communities across this country, are made up of heroes. Heroes are just ordinary people who do extraordinary things. Fortunately, in America we have a lot of those. We are in a rapidly changing world. In April, I had an opportunity to go over to Russia with three interpreters. We worked on an international agreement of cooperation on controlling weapons of mass destruction, on export controls. That meeting was a tremendous shock for me. All the time I was growing up, Russia was our enemy--the Soviet Union where the people were out to get us. I was sitting across the table from their equivalent of the Senate and House talking about cooperation. I also had an opportunity to meet with some small businessmen while I was over there. I think it was an even bigger shock for them to be talking to a capitalist about free enterprise. I think we will learn a lot from each other as the world changes. I have to tell you that the people in Russia today have a tremendous amount of respect for us. Part of it comes from the action the United States took in Afghanistan. We did in 1 month what Russia wasn't able to do in 7 years. That did get us some respect. The rest of the world anticipates that the reason we are able to do things such as that is the tremendous technology we have, the inventions and weapons we have developed. Some people think it is because of this capitalism, of businesses--and businesses deserve tremendous applause for the role they have played. Since there was a parade that day and a lot of Tootsie Rolls were thrown out to the kids along the streets, it reminded me that Tootsie Rolls had been a part of every war since World War II. That company has donated Tootsie Rolls. It is one of those chocolates that don't melt in the heat. For Afghanistan, they donated eight semis loaded with Tootsie Rolls. But I also heard about a little event that happened in Korea. They used to be able to call in the plane, and the plane would dump Tootsie Rolls on little parachutes. But one day, they got a little confused on the code word, and when a bombing run was called in on North Korea, they used Tootsie Rolls for the code word for it, and the North Koreans had Tootsie Rolls dropped on them. We have businesses that participate in all kinds of ways in making sure our country is a better country. But what they usually miss in all of the discussions about why America is great doesn't have to do with technology. It doesn't have to do with capitalism. It has to do with the people. As a people, we have developed over the years of our existence the promotion to the rest of the world of the kind of government that works, and that has worked better and longer than any other government. But it isn't the Government either. It is the people. We have people who have values, enthusiasm, ideas, and community. That came out on September 11. On September 11, there were a lot of people around the world who were pretty sure there was a major tragedy which hit this country and that we would fall apart. Instead, what they saw was America coming together. We came together with a sense of community which they didn't expect, with patriotism that has been unequalled, I think, in our history, with voluntarism, and, most of all, faith. Those are the things that make us different from the other countries. Those are the things that have made us great. It is exciting to have an opportunity to participate in ceremonies, such as the Lovell Veterans Memorial Center dedication. I ask unanimous consent that the speech of MG Ed Boenisch, Adjutant General of the Wyoming Military Department, given at that dedication be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I know it was a great day across America when we celebrated the Fourth of July. I look forward to the future Fourth of July and the daily events when patriotism and community and faith are shown in our country.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the speech which Commander Lovell gave at that ceremony be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, these are interesting times. I hope colleagues have been listening. The two presentations that preceded me were outstanding explanations of both the bill and the financial problems facing the world today. I don't think you can get a clearer explanation of the problems than those given by Senators Gramm and Sarbanes. They are very detailed and very much to the point and lay the groundwork for what we are about to do. Usually in this Chamber, we have a solution and we are looking for a problem. Today, we have a problem and we are looking for a solution. We have a problem before the Senate. The way this process works, is that we try to place the solution in the best possible form. Under our form of government, the Senate will work on its bill; the House works on another bill on the same topic. When those two bills have been completed, there will be a conference committee and we will work out the differences. Through every one of those processes, there will be changes to the legislation. We get 100 different opinions from 100 different backgrounds on any piece of legislation. That is what makes our form of government work. At the other end of the building, there are 435 people from different backgrounds. They all lend their opinion issues that come before the House. It is sometimes a slow process, but it is the best process in the world. It will work on this problem for which we are looking for a solution. If the economy were different today, we would not have this problem. When there are changes in the economy, we realize accounting problems-- or at least that is when the accounting problems become apparent. That is where we are today. I am the lone accountant in the Senate. There is a good reason for that. Accountants are out there doing very detailed work. When you listen to what is in this bill, you are going to hear details that you do not hear with other legislation. It is the nature of the occupation, of the profession of accounting. In the last 6 months, there has been an increased interest in the accounting profession. Kids in colleges have been asking the Deans about this phenomenon called accounting that nobody has talked about for a long time. It is a tremendous opportunity for accountants to finally explain what they do. Some of the kids are looking into accounting for the wrong reasons. They want to be one of the green eyeshade people bringing down huge corporations. That is not what it is about. It is an opportunity to make sure everyone understands business in America. Accountants are the people with the very basis who both know it and can explain it. That is their job. Somewhere along the line, it is possible for people to get distracted from that main goal. We are trying to bring them back to that main goal--providing a basis where everyone can understand the value of the companies in which they are investing. Today we are addressing accounting legislation that has been reported out of the Banking Committee. It has been through initial scrutiny. It has been through the process that leads us to the floor. I have talked about the floor process, but so far this has only been through the hearings process. We had 13 hearings in the Banking Committee. They were on very diverse topics and a very diverse bunch of people who understood each of those topics testified. I commend Senator Sarbanes for the way he conducted the process of the hearings, and then the process of negotiations that led up to the committee vote. That happened over the last several months. On this issue, I can think of no other Chairman in either the House or Senate who did a more thorough job in conducting hearings. The Banking Committee stayed on the substance and did not allow enormous outside pressures on this issue to interfere with trying to get to the bottom of the real problem. The hearings were not finger-pointing. The hearings were an attempt to get valuable information to arrive at the best possible solution. In addition, the witnesses at the hearings presented objective views. Had it been my choice to call the witnesses, I would have chosen nearly every person who testified. That shows the care and concern that went into choosing the individuals who provided this basic information. The witnesses offered several different views, and they came from diverse backgrounds. I also thank the Chairman for the way he and his staff conducted themselves through the endless negotiations we had during that same timeframe. Right now, it seems as if everyone is writing an accounting bill-- including myself. In fact, I got calls as soon as Enron occurred from some of the House Members who said they would really like to work on a bill with me. Of course, the first question I had to ask them was, What did you find really happened with Enron? Usually the answer was, We don't know yet. Their response was, but we want to get ahead of the curve. I am glad we had the patience to wait, to hold the hearings, and then to negotiate through a number of different bills to come up with the one before the Senate today. Those negotiations by Senator Sarbanes and his staff were both honest and fair. Although we were not able to agree on everything, which is the basis of negotiation, I believe all negotiations took place in good faith. I thank the Chairman for that. I do think we have a bill that is a good basis for finishing the process and going to conference. Enron, Global Crossing, WorldCom, and the other numerous restatements that are occurring have caused a ripple effect on the trust of corporate executives and their auditors by the public. These executives, the persons in whom shareholders put their trust, have stained the entire corporate community. A few bad apples have spoiled the bunch. As a result, the legislation we will be debating this week will restructure the way executives operate by increasing accountability and making it easier to discipline fraudulent behavior while at the same time increasing penalties for illegal activity. This legislation will force the management of companies to be accountable to their shareholders by requiring that they certify the accuracy of their financial statements. In addition, the legislation will require that members of corporate audit committees are independent directors. We provide the audit committee the ability to engage outside consultants and advisers and provide them the resources they need to determine whether the accounting techniques being used are in the best interests of the shareholders. In addition, all employees should be subject to the same rules when selling company stock. In this regard, the bill prevents officers and directors of a company from purchasing or selling stock when other employees are restricted. And when these officers or directors do sell stock in the companies in which they work, they should report the transaction on the next business day. However, the cornerstone of this legislation will be to change the way in which a company's auditors interact with their clients, and also to force them to be more accountable. While I believe that accountants have extremely high ethics and standards, I do believe the current environment has highlighted a number of problems inherent in the current oversight structure of the accounting industry. I do believe it is an awesome task to be the accountant trying to explain this to everybody else. I do need to explain a little bit why there are not more accountants in legislatures or in the Senate or in the House. That is because if you pick up experience in legislating, most of that is done during the tax season and we need the accountants during the tax season. And they need the business during the tax season. If they don't earn at least 70 percent of their revenue during that time, they are out of business, which precludes them from picking up legislative experience. There is no requirement that you have to have legislative experience before you come here. There is no requirement that you have any kind of experience. But that is why there are fewer accountants here than there are a number of other professions--it is a matter of timing. While I am hesitant to move forward with the number of changes included in the bill, I do believe the legislation is necessary given the current lack of faith in accountants. Make no mistake about it, this legislation is federalization of the accounting industry. This bill places a Federal Government bureaucracy at the helm of accounting regulation. While the legislation doesn't prevent the State accountancy boards from continuing to regulate accountants registered in their States, it does establish an overlord regulator to oversee the firms which audit publicly traded companies. My hope is that this new oversight structure will renew the faith the public has in auditors and the financial statements which they help prepare. In addition to my own proposal, over the past several months I have seen a lot of different proposals. I have also spoken to and met with many of my colleagues about this issue. I have spoken with groups from different industries; I have talked to scholars, consumer advocates, and regulators. All the groups agree that steps need to be taken to enhance the oversight of accountants. I have examined several existing models of quasi-public regulators such as the New York Stock Exchange and the National Association of Securities Dealers. One point is clear: When these organizations were established, there was a desire to appoint the most informed individuals, those who actually deal with the industry on a day-to-day basis, as majority members of the boards that oversee the industry. For instance, the National Association of Securities Dealers, NASD, has a large board which must consist of anywhere between 17 and 27 members. Nowhere in the NASD rules does it state their board members may not serve if they have previously been involved in the securities industry. As such, the majority of the NASD board members have worked within the industry. Why should the accounting industry be treated so differently? Why would we create a board which oversees the accounting industry and then require that a minority of its members have ever practiced accounting? The NASD plays just as important a role in the protection of investors as the accounting oversight board will, so why shouldn't the persons who sit on this board have the best possible knowledge of the accounting industry? I do want to thank Senator Sarbanes for the change he made in the legislation. Originally it said there could be no more than two accountants on this five-person board. He made the change so that two will be accountants. It is a very significant change so that accountants are represented on the board. Previously it would have been possible to have no accountants regulating the accounting profession. Every piece of legislation has its handful of unintended consequences, despite how well-meaning Congress can be. I fear the way in which the accounting industry will change when a group of non- accountants set the standards which accountants must follow. Lawyers do not have non-lawyers setting ethical and professional standards which they must follow, yet I would argue that those standards are as important as accounting standards and ethics. I don't want my message to be misconstrued. I do believe that a board should be established to oversee the accounting industry. I also agree the board members should have all the tools necessary to effectively oversee the industry. I agree that the board members should be full- time and independent from the accounting firms. I agree that they should be appointed by government and not by industry. But I do not agree that the members of the board should be excluded just because they may have passed a CPA exam 25 years ago. To the contrary, because I believe this board should be as effective as possible, I believe the board members should know how an audit engagement works and they should know the pressures that are applied to an auditor from a client. I believe with this knowledge the board may in fact apply stricter standards than a board of non-accountants. As I said, I believe accounting firms should be subject to strict scrutiny. However, I do not believe this legislation should pave the road for the trial bar to open frivolous lawsuits against accounting firms. Arthur Andersen no longer exists. Can we really afford to lose another one or two of the final four firms? We used to call them the big five. Now we call them the final four. It was mentioned earlier that there are 16,254 SEC-filed corporations. That is 16,254 to be reviewed, primarily by four accounting firms. If the trial lawyers pick off one after another after another of the firms because the Board provides information and because they are handed that information, how will we have those 16,254 audited at all? I am hoping there are a lot of young people listening who are going into accounting who may start firms and grow the firm themselves so they can handle an audit of a Fortune 500 company. But it doesn't happen overnight. And we have to make sure that there is auditing, and not just consulting, which some people will point out is where most of the money is these days. It makes me nervous to know that essentially only four accounting firms now have the resources and expertise to audit the world's largest companies. We rely on these firms to verify the books of diverse and complex companies because they are the only firms that can provide this service. If we subject them to the will of the trial bar, they will surely continue to be driven from existence, one firm at a time. Instead, we should punish the wrongdoers to the fullest extent possible and rely on good managers of companies to do their jobs effectively. In the end, we are going to end up making the audit committee members full-time employees, and then there will not be any independence--another problem about which we have to worry. Having said this, I do believe this legislation is needed at this time. Congress must produce a remedy to help restore investor confidence. We have seen that real penalties, or at least a threat of strong penalties, need to be hung over the heads of corporate executives to assure they maintain their obligations and responsibilities. The moral and ethical breakdown among some of those executives is disgraceful, and investors must know these executives will be punished severely when they make selfish judgments. A major concern, as we have gone through this legislation, trying to put the bill in its present form, has been the relationship to small business. As I mentioned 16,254 companies are the ones that are registered with the SEC. There are thousands of companies out there that are not SEC registered businesses. There are thousands of entities out there that hire auditors to give confidence in the financial statements they have that are not SEC filed. One of our concerns has been that we not change business so drastically that these small businesses will no longer be able to afford auditors. So we built in protections for the small businesses. Our intent with this bill is not to have the same principles that apply to the Fortune 500 companies apply to the mom-and-pop business. When they hire an auditor, they want that auditor to give them every bit of information they possibly can so the information they get improves their business and doesn't hide anything from investors. Mom and pop are the investors. We have taken a lot of care to be sure we are not cascading the provisions down into small business. We will look at additional ways, I am sure, to make sure that does not happen. This is not a license to States to do the same thing that we are doing on a Federal basis. There is recognition that on a Federal basis there is a bigger problem than on a State-by-State basis. I also want to point out there is also a responsibility by the individual investor. They have to learn to diversify and not to keep all of their eggs in one basket. I hope we can turn this situation into a chance to educate small investors as to how best to manage and invest their money. Nothing will bring back the billions of dollars employees of some of these companies have lost. But hopefully the collapse in confidence will ensure that individuals will never again lose their life savings because of a lack of diversification or knowledge of finance. What will this legislation provide? It will provide a strong oversight body to watch the accounting industry. It will provide a set of corporate governance laws that will require corporate executives to become accountable for their financial statements. It will provide assurances that corporate boards watch the management of the company with a more critical eye--no longer will board memberships be cushy jobs with no responsibility. It will also provide assurances to the American people that Congress will not allow these millionaire and billionaire executives to steamroll their obligations to the shareholders. It will also ensure that research analysts aren't being told what to say by the investment bankers. To a great extent, I believe the marketplace has made remarkable changes to address a number of the issues which were highlighted by these corporate failures. First and foremost, corporate boards and audit committees will no longer turn their head when management wants to engage in questionable ethical engagements. Also, credit rating agencies will impose much more scrutiny on the companies they rate to protect financial institutions and other lenders. Lenders themselves will require more information about the stability of the companies in which they invest. Research analysts will ask more questions about the company, and more importantly, they will demand more answers from executives. But perhaps, most important of all, is the fact that investors, both institutional and individual, will be more critical. Shareholders will wake up and learn about the power of their votes on corporate actions. We've already seen great strides from some institutional investors in that they plan to use their votes in shareholder meeting to keep executives honest and accountable. They also plan to use their votes to impact executive compensation packages. These private sector solutions will be more effective than any legislation which can be passed out of Washington. One of our country's greatest strengths rests in the dominance of our capital markets. But the strength of our markets is only as strong as the underlying confidence in the listed companies. When these companies build facades instead of standing on principle, it shatters the entire system. Congress and the SEC must find a middle ground where we allow the marketplace to continue to operate in the capital markets to the greatest extent possible but also assures investors, both domestic and internationally, that the U.S. capital markets will continue to be worthy of their investments. We must continue to convince investors, that at the core of the American capital markets, there must be a high level of integrity and ethics by all players. I want to reiterate another message that has been prevalent this afternoon. As we get into this bill, there are virtually no limits on what amendments can be put on--at least unless there is a cloture motion. I hope people will recognize the need to have something done, the need to get it done quickly, and not try and make this a vehicle for everything they ever thought needed to be done with corporations. The purpose of this bill is not to solve the international problems of business for everything that we ever thought of. I hope my colleagues will constrain their amendments, keep them to the corporate governance and accounting area we are working on, and help us to get this bill finished as quickly as possible. Again, I thank Chairman Sarbanes and Senator Gramm for their tremendous efforts and insight which they provided in the previous explanation of this, and for the hours of work they have put into the solution that is before us today. I hope we can keep it to a limited solution, take care of the problems that are recognizable, and reach agreement so we can get this to conference and get a bill to the President for his signature. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise in support of H.R. 3275. I am very pleased that the Senate is considering this valuable legislation which would make the United States compliant with two very important treaties. I believe one of our most significant duties, as the United States Senate, is the consideration of treaties for ratification. We alone have the responsibility to give advice and consent to international understandings and agreements made by the executive branch of our Government. The two treaties this legislation addresses are part of a nearly four-decade process of conventions considering acts of terrorism. As we debate this legislation, we are examining long-term global means to address the threat of terrorism. The Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism require the United States and any country adopting the treaties to criminalize terrorist bombings and to criminalize direct or indirect financing of terrorist acts. The Financing Convention addresses some of the issues we worked on last year. The Senate has already approved antiterrorism legislation that included provisions dealing with money laundering issues which help deter and punish terrorist acts and would enhance law enforcement investigatory tools. The legislation established rule-making procedures for the U.S. Treasury, clarified guidelines for international banking, and maintained accountability considerations for individuals and financial institutions. I believe it is imperative that we continue to address terrorist financing domestically as well as internationally. In response to requests by the United States, countries throughout the world began the search for terrorists' financial assets. The freezing of these assets is a first step to the eradication of global terrorist organizations. On September 28 of last year, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1373 which established a set of legally binding obligations for each member nation. Now, this is quite significant because there are not a lot of legally binding resolutions considered by the Security Council. Resolution 1373 requires each nation to prevent the financing of terrorism, deny safe haven to terrorists, and increase cooperation and information sharing in these efforts. Resolution 1373, which passed with our support, also directs nations to ratify all outstanding terrorism related conventions. Nations, both allies and former adversaries, overwhelmingly acted to sign, ratify, and become compliant with a number of terrorism conventions. It has taken the United States nearly 9 months to do so. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on these treaties last October and approved them in November. The full Senate ratified the treaties in December. Now, most people might think that once the Senate gives its advice and consent to a treaty, it is ratified and the United States is full party to the agreement. This could only be seen as a ``virtual'' ratification. It is not, however, until the United States is fully compliant with the treaty that the President can deposit our articles of ratification and we become full treaty members. It is this last step where the Senate faltered. We had the House approved implementing legislation last December. We are only now, in June, contemplating its passage. We cannot drag our feet any longer. Today we are considering implementing language. We are ready to vote. We are ready to make the United States compliant with important treaties that can help us fight against terrorism. The amendment language is identical to the version passed by the House in December. It is the right language, the appropriate language and should pass the Senate today. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, support the fight against terrorism, and support making the United States compliant to these two valuable international agreements.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Would the leader consider propounding a request to put statements in the Record?

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Parliamentarian for spending a couple of hours today helping me understand the difference between nongermaneness under cloture and nongermaneness on bills that are not under cloture. It is a very difficult distinction, and I can appreciate the work done. I have been trying to get livestock assistance for all the people in the third year of drought in the West. It is extremely critical. Mr. President, I wish to discuss the Enzi-Grassley-Hagel amendment No. 3737 to H.R. 4775, the supplemental appropriations bill. This effort seriously acknowledges the plight of our farmers, ranchers and works to ensure the future of our rural communities by providing an avenue of desperately needed assistance. Our amendment funds the Livestock Assistance Program for disaster experienced in 2001 by reinstating the farm bill payment limitations passed by the Senate in February 2002. One of the most difficult responsibilities we all have as Senators is prioritizing the targeting of a very limited set of resources. Just as a firefighter prioritizes by deciding which homes to save and which are already on the edge of destruction, or a doctor faced with an emergency or disaster reviews the wounded to determine who most needs his help, we are often called upon the make difficult and important decisions that at times may be highly unpopular. This is one of those times our choice may be difficult and demanding, but it is also very, very clear. Just as that firefighter and the doctor need to make decisions that have a tremendous impact on lives and livelihoods, our amendment makes a similar priority decision that the farm bill conference failed to make. This amendment is all about taking care of the folks back home in times of trouble. Without the assistance provided under this amendment, the Congress is clearly deciding who will be the winners and who will suffer the consequences of being the losers. I encourage my colleagues to think about the current structures of the farm bill and how it pits neighbor against neighbor. The farm bill perhaps unintentionally set the winners and condemned the losers to lose in the marketplace. It set up a scenario in which one homestead's rent will be paid and the children in another home will end up watching their belongings go to the highest bidder in an auction. Wyoming livestock producers are facing a third year of drought. In response, some have begun liquidating their stock while others face the loss of their homes. Just days ago, USDA Secretary Ann Veneman declared all but three Wyoming counties primary and secondary disaster areas for 2002. That's an important step, but the amendment before us was written to address the 2001 disaster year! Producers that sold or reduced their herds in the first year of the drought have been unable to buy replacements. The 2-year tax relief provision available to offer short- term relief from forced sales will soon run out. Now evern more producers are being forced to sell their livestock in irrational markets due to the prohibitively expensive price of hay and their ejections from drought-stricken public grazing lands. A forced livestock sale significantly decreases a rancher's future profitability because it decreases the number of production units, sheep and cattle on the ranch. A forced sale also dilutes genetic quality. Many ranchers utilize stringent genetic improvement plans to differentiate their product. A forced sale can flush years of careful record keeping and genetic improvements out through the sale barn in 1 day. In its refusal to acknowledge this grave disaster, the farm bill conference report did not accurately represent the priorities of the Senate. It did not fund emergency disaster assistance to the Nation's livestock producers and it included a payment limitation that favors the corporate producer over the family farmers and ranchers who make this country great. Our amendment reinstates the Senate's position on payment limitations on farm bill payments and uses the savings to offset emergency feed assistance to livestock producers for drought disaster. The Livestock Assistance Program is a program available to livestock producers in counties that have been declared disaster areas by the President or Secretary of Agriculture. It provides minimal financial relief to livestock producers that are experiencing livestock production loss due to drought and other disasters--but only if there is money in the fund. Once LAP is funded, producers apply for relief and a formula splits the available monies accounting to their needs. It assists all producers who qualify, but the extent of the assistance that is avaialble is limited by the program funding and the number of applicants. The more applicants there are across the country, the smaller the individual payment. In fiscal year 2001, the Livestock Assistance Program was funded at approximately $430 million for fiscal year 2000 drought assistance. In Wyoming, 933 producers received $7,752,029 in assistance from those funds at an average of $8,313 per producer. Nationally, it provided assistance to about 186,000 producers at 88 percent of their grazing loss for drought and other disasters experienced in 2000. The need was similar in 2001, but the program was not funded in appropriations. The farm bill conference report did include an amendment I offered to authorize the livestock feeding assistance. With its passage, the Secretary of Agriculture now has the authority to use that program to provide assistance to livestock producers. The program is no longer ad hoc. Using this authorization and funding from the Enzi-Grassley-Hagel amendment, Secretary Veneman will be able to initiate and deliver feed assistance to livestock producers. As a fiscal conservative, the last thing I want to do is further increase supplemental spending over the administration's request. Rather than advocate additional emergency spending, we have worked within the parameters of the President's request to fund this urgent need without using new monies. We are doing this by using an offset the Senate has already approved by rollcall vote. On February 7 of this year, the Senate voted in support of farm bill payment limitations 61-33. The amendment limited total dollar payments to an average of $250,000. The farm bill conference report too generously increased the limitation to $360,000. It is important to ensure federal agricultural aid is available to those who need it most. My personal philosophy supports targeting federal assistance to the neediest farmers and those with greatest risk of losing their livelihoods. I have difficulty accepting the notion that farmers require assistance to the tune of $360,000 when I know there are struggling ranchers in Wyoming and other cattle states that receive almost nothing. The Enzi-Grassley-Hagel amendment equalizes this wide gap in farm bill payments and directs federal agricultural aid to ranchers in dire need. Farm Bill payments were not intended to subsidize every acre of every farm nor every bushel produced. The American taxpayer should not be asked to keep large corporations or weekend hobby farmers in silk overalls and gold-plated pitchforks. Farm assistance was intended for and must continue to be directed at small and medium producers, family farmers who truly need help. Our rural communities depend on farms and the farms, in turn, depend on their communities. Too many small farms are not receiving the assistance that is needed while large multi- million dollar corporations continue to receive federal funds for every acre they take over. Payments to large corporations have nothing to do with good farm policy but good farm policy has everything to do with family farms. In Wyoming, farmers, ranchers, and communities as a whole are struggling through yet another year of drought and another year of fear and endless worry. Will we hear them? Will we respond with good farm policy that will assist those in need and keep people on the farm? It is a difficult task but it is our responsibility to set priorities and save our neighbors from ruin. We can do that by equalizing the gap in farm bill payments so we can provide direct aid to ranchers in real need. That is what the Enzi-Grassley-Hagel amendment does and it's what the American people expect us to do. By supporting our amendment, you are again casting a vote accepting farm bill payment limitations. You are bolstering your earlier votes to provide sorely needed drought relief to livestock producers largely ignored in the farm bill conference report. The choice is simple and has already been made. I hope the leaders will propound a unanimous consent that allows these amendments to be brought up, statements to be placed in as though given live, and then withdrawn, so we can make sure we have statements in the Record. That would save time.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy regarding the coverage of trade promotion authority. My understanding is that TPA includes special provisions regarding perishable and cyclical products. It is my understanding that this language would clearly cover livestock and fresh meat products as they are perishable and cyclical agricultural products. I believe that the language and the coverage are clear, but want to make sure that our negotiators are well aware of our intent and coverage of this legislation and the expectations we have for inclusion in future trade agreements. Reasonable people know that fresh meat is perishable, but many people may not be aware that livestock can be perishable as well. Cattle ready for slaughter, for example, must be processed within two to three weeks of reaching their optimal weight. Once above the optimal weight, cattle gain fat and not muscle. With this quality loss, livestock producers suffer drastic price discounts that can wipe out their profits. Clearly meat production and livestock are also cyclical. Again, taking cattle as an example, the price follows a 10-year-cattle-cycle--the expansion and contraction of the nation's cattle herd have historically affected cattle prices.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota. I thank the Senator for introducing this amendment, which will directly benefit our American farmers and the citizens of Cuba who have suffered from inadequate access to food. This amendment would amend a provision that has undeniably hurt the economic viability of our agriculture sector since the passage of the Trade Sanctions and Reform Act, TSRA, in 2001. The TSRA, which prohibited the use of private financing for food and medicine sales to Cuba, instituted an embargo on all exports to Cuba last year. The TSRA provision effectively eliminated one of our nearest and most easily accessible agricultural markets. Our amendment today seeks to remedy this unworkable situation. Given the crisis in American agriculture, the prospect of selling to a new market is welcome news to U.S. farmers and exporters. In my home State of Wyoming, agriculture is a driving force behind economic sustainability, and I firmly believe this amendment will strengthen the position of local farmers as they work to compete at the international level. Allowing food exports to Cuba will not only transfer critically needed supplies to the suffering Cuban people, but it will also create a potential new market for American farmers and exporters. Opponents of this amendment will argue that we should not soften our position on the Cuban embargo, that Cuba has not earned the right to trade, and that we should continue to shut off this socially and economically repressed nation from the world. They will reiterate that isolating Fidel Castro's regime is our only hope in forcing him to recognize the error of his ways. I disagree. Our embargo is not working, because we are not the only country in the world that can provide food and medicine to Cuba. As such, Castro does not have to trade with us. The real losers in this battle are the Cuban people and the American farmers. The United States must develop a policy that goes beyond the embargo. Food and medicine are not tools of war, and should not be used as such. I truly believe this amendment will strengthen our country's role as a promoter of democracy and freedom. Food and medical attention are the most basic of human needs, and until those are satisfied, the Cuban people will not put political reform at the top of their agenda. The U.S. must first help to satisfy the basic needs of the Cuban people, and then push toward full political reform. This amendment takes us one step closer to that goal. As history has proven, political reform comes when individuals are exposed to worlds unlike their own. Take China for example, opening trade and encouraging dialogue with the Chinese has promoted capitalism and democracy in their country. This amendment would increase that exposure and would improve the social and economic well-being of the Cuban population. As one of the principal sponsors of the 2001 Export Administration Act, which was passed by the Senate last September but has yet to see action in the House, I understand the importance of export controls and I recognize the delicacy of this situation. However, I do not believe food and medicine should be controlled under unilateral sanctions. We need to tightly control some exports, but food should be allowed to pass as freely as possible across our borders. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment, not only for the sake of the Cuban people but for the sake of our own local farmers and their families. Now is the time to chart a new course for United States-Cuba relations.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, Senator Grassley has been waiting for an hour and a half to speak but knew there wouldn't be time for his comments before the 12:30 recess. So I ask unanimous consent that following the recess he be allowed to be the first speaker.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the farm bill conference report. The opportunity to write a farm bill comes along rarely in a Senator's career on Capitol Hill. It is an opportunity to survey the road and set the course for agriculture and rural America, in this case, for the next 6 years. And in the next 6 years, we will stick to that course and walk that road. In studying the conference report we have before us today, I fear that we have engineered agriculture's road through the swamp. Once in the mud, it is going to take more than a new farm bill in 6 years to unstick our wheels, pull us out and reverse the damage to America's food and fiber policy. We have a bill before us that ramps up the subsidies farmers are receiving to extraordinary amounts. Now, there is nothing wrong with helping our farmers and guaranteeing a safe and sufficient food supply. However, we should fairly and equitably assist all of agriculture. The House Agriculture Committee says that this bill will cost $45.1 billion of additional spending in the next 6 years. Of that amount, $31.2 billion is going to commodities. The largest portion is for our traditional crops: wheat, corn, cotton and rice. Now in Wyoming, agriculture means more than just farming. Producers are farmers, but they are also ranchers. And the ranchers in Wyoming don't see much benefit to this bill. Seventy percent of the new spending is going to commodities. The rest of the money is being split between other things the farm bill funds like nutrition programs, research and conservation, all important things. I am pleased with the increase in Environmental Quality Incentives Program--EQIP--funds. However, even these are cost share funds and not the direct payments that so many farmers will receive. Ranchers like their independence from government handouts and they usually wouldn't mind being overlooked in the farm bill, but they have a need this year. That need was ignored. There was a proposition that would have given $7,000 to a rancher to feed the best of his breeders from the herd throughout the drought. Talk about extreme cases, we put them at zero. Yes, my State is entering the third year of a drought. Yes, in response to the disaster in my State and other States, I, along with a majority of this body, added an amendment to the farm bill that would have provided $500 million to livestock producers for feed shortages. That amendment passed 69-30. Compared to the billions spent on commodities, this was a small package of assistance for an industry known for refusing Federal assistance. In this farm bill, commodities are the focus of 70 percent of the additional funding. The amount that I wanted to devote to livestock producers is a mere 1 percent of the additional spending. One percent! And the assistance was refused in this final conference report. The conference refused ranchers assistance the same month they are being prevented from moving to their drought-stricken Federal grazing allotments. Since they can't feed their livestock, they must consider selling their herds in a cattle market that is no longer rational and with tax benefits that have run out. The safety net and benefits of the farm bill are not being shared with the ranchers. The producers in my State do have a reason to be thankful. Country of origin labeling is a part of the bill. This is a victory that I have been working toward since I entered this body. It is my fervent hope that the forces that rose unsuccessfully to defeat this program in the farm bill do not undermine the provision in the rulemaking process during the initial, 2-year voluntary period. Also, the conference report does not contain the language that would have appropriated my State's water rights. We fought against this harmful provision that in my State would have allowed the Federal Government to usurp State water rights through implementation of the Endangered Species Act and done it at bargain basement prices. For ranchers, this bill should be labeled, ``Do no harm, do no good'' because another provision vital to ranchers in my State was pulled from the final report. The ban on packer ownership of livestock more than 14 days before slaughter was removed. This tells my producers that the U.S. Senate is unconcerned about the impacts of market manipulation on their family ranches. Not only are we unwilling to provide them financial assistance when they need it in the third year of the worst drought, we won't give them the opportunity to extract their own livelihood from an open and fair market. They are trapped on every side. We had an opportunity to assist all of agriculture with this farm bill, but we did not take it. I have been discussing the repercussions of this bill on my State. There also are repercussions to our national budget. I previously said that this bill is being quoted as costing $45.1 billion in additional spending in the next 6 years. Based on the April 2001 budget resolution baseline, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill would increase direct spending by $73.5 billion in budget authority through 2011. This spending under the fanciest of accounting definitely affects the budget parameters. However, this is 2002 and crop prices are lower this year. A CBO estimate using an April 2002 baseline would add several billion dollars over $73.5 billion in the next 10 years, but the latest numbers are not being taken seriously. When my staff contacted the Senate Agriculture Committee to ask about the April 2002 CBO cost estimate, they were told that it did not matter. In fact, the committee staff said an estimate based on the April 2002 baseline was an ``academic exercise.'' This is real money. This is not an academic exercise. We cannot use accounting to ignore the exorbitant cost of this legislation. For example, I have been discussing the farm bill's additional spending. It hasn't been heard often, but this additional spending is being added to a huge base of current spending on agriculture. When we add the $73.5 billion of additional spending, this bill will cost us over $180 billion throughout the next 10 years. Now that is a number that is flung around these halls flippantly, but $180 billion in Wyoming is a big deal. I think it is probably a big deal all over the country. It is a big deal to our trading partners, too. Madam President, $45.1 billion, $73.5 billion, $180 billion, that is more than a rounding error, that is a gross misstatement of the facts. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. There are repercussions to this bill that move beyond our borders to other countries and our trading partners. We have a WTO responsibility to our trading partners to keep our agricultural subsidies below $19.1 billion. Did any of those numbers I used before sound anywhere near $19.1 billion? I don't think so. In the past years, we have stayed far below that level, but this bill threatens to send us over the top. It will be very difficult to convince our trading partners to lower their own subsidy levels--and they are starting to talk about that--and increase our access into their markets if we so boldly ramp up our own subsidy levels. They are watching. The Australian Agriculture Minister, Warren Truss, said our farm bill ``sends an appalling signal to agricultural trade negotiators seeking a freer and fairer international trading regime.'' Canada's Agriculture Minister, Lyle Vanclief, said: ``The farm bill is a serious blow to the US's credibility in the current round of World Trade Organization negotiations.'' Do not fool yourself, they are watching us this moment to see if we are really interested in fair trade. What signals are we going to send them? I know what signal we will send if we accept this conference report. We are signaling that the United States really isn't interested in increasing our agricultural exports to other countries. Realizing this, I look down the road we have surveyed for agriculture. We are significantly expanding our commodity subsidies, the great incentive for overproduction. We already know we cannot possibly consume what is produced in this country. With this subsidy increase, we are systematically closing the doors on increased exports. With no outlet for their production, we are condemning our farmers to a downward spiral of prices. And countercyclical payments will not stop that spiral. In fact, they intensify the spiral. So we have a conference report before us that will eventually harm the farmers it is trying to help and that ignores the plight of the other half of agriculture, the livestock producers. And it does it with phony and illusive numbers that will appall everyone else. For these reasons, I am voting against this conference report. I urge my fellow Senators to seriously consider whether this is the road they will condemn their farmers and ranchers to for the next 6 years. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Thank you, Madam President. I would like to yield myself such time as I might have for comments.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, it is with a great deal of pride that I share with my colleagues the names of several Wyoming students who are being honored for their outstanding community service with a Prudential Spirit of Community Award. These awards, in their seventh year, are presented by Prudential Financial, together with the National Association of Secondary School Principals. They honor the young people of our State who were nominated for their remarkable acts of volunteerism. This year a record 28,000 young men and women were considered for this special award. The two top youth volunteers from my State are Chelsie Gorzalka, 17, of Clearmont and Tabetha Waits, 12, of Rawlins. We can be proud of each of them for the difference they have made in their communities. Their efforts help to make their home towns better places to live. Chelsie Gorzalka is a member of the Sheridan County Extension 4-H and a senior at Arvada/Clearmont High School. Chelsie received her nomination for the puppet plays she puts on around the State in an effort to educate our young children about the dangers of tobacco and drugs. Tabetha Waits of Rawlins Middle School was nominated for her organization of ``You Can't Break Our Stride'' an all-school walkathon that raised nearly $10,000 to assist the families of those who were affected by the September 11 terrorist attacks. These two award winners, along with the two honorees who have received this award from each of the other States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, will receive a $1,000 award, an engraved silver medallion, and a trip to the Nation's capital. During their stay here, ten from among that group of finalists will be named America's top youth volunteers for 2002. In addition to Chelsie and Tabetha, I would like to congratulate our State's two distinguished finalists. Cory Poulos, 18, was nominated by Natrona County High School. He organized and participated in a Roof-Sit fundraiser that collected more than $5,000 to benefit ``Families of Freedom,'' a post secondary education fund for children whose parents were injured or killed in the September 11 terrorist attacks. Mark Sabec, 17, was nominated by Natrona County High School as well. He created ``No Casualties,'' a peer and adult mentoring project aimed at reducing the number of school dropouts in his community. Our congratulations goes out to these fine young people and to all those who participated in the awards program. Thanks to them, it is clear that our future is in good hands.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask that the unanimous consent request be amended so that I might make a statement on the nominee who will be voted on at 5:30 p.m.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Carolina and the Senator from Alaska for their courtesies. I appreciate this opportunity to speak on behalf of the circuit court judge who we will be voting on at 5:30 p.m. I am so pleased we are having this vote. I have known Terry O'Brien both personally and professionally for over 22 years. I am proud of my association and friendship with him. It is not often that we get to vote on a close friend in this body. In a few minutes, I and my colleagues will have the opportunity to vote to confirm Terry O'Brien to serve on the Tenth Circuit. The Senate Judiciary Committee recognized that Terry is highly qualified to serve in this position when it unanimously voted him out of committee. While the committee members had an opportunity to review Terry's accomplishments and get to know him during his hearing, I would like to share some information about Terry with the rest of my colleagues. After Terry served as a captain in the U.S. Army and worked as an attorney at the Division of Land and Natural Resource in the Department of Justice, he came back to Wyoming to practice law in Buffalo at the law firm of Omohundro & O'Brien. Then in 1980, he was appointed to be a district judge for the Sixth Judicial District in Wyoming located in Gillette, WY. As a result, he moved to Gillette where he remained for 22 years. Terry continued to be our judge until he retired from that position 2 years ago. As mayor of Gillette, I had an opportunity to observe what the local district judge just down the street from my business was doing in the community. Believe me, those who came before him let me know what they thought, too. What I saw and people observed is that Terry had a no-nonsense, fair approach to the law and to the parties involved. He made his decisions based squarely on the law, the facts, and careful consideration, and he explained his reasons for what he was doing. Even if you were the party or the attorney who lost, you always knew where he stood because he took the time to be certain to explain his reasoning and rationale to you. My other observation is that Terry ran his court effectively, professionally, and efficiently. He never wasted anyone else's time nor let any of the parties or their attorneys waste each other's time, either. As to his decisions, they are not full of legal jargon or unnecessary words. Instead, he explains the law so everyone can understand it. To me, this makes him a very good judge and an exceptional writer. On a personal level, we have known each other over 22 years. We were in the same community for that time and watched each other's children grow up. Terry always cared about our community and made many contributions to it. One notable contribution is the 13 years he served as the president and a member of the board of directors of the Campbell County Health Care Foundation. But the most important thing I want to stress is the fact that I have gotten to know Terry both professionally and personally. I can give my personal assurance that our country will benefit from his many talents. I am confident he will be a stellar judge for the Tenth Circuit Court, and I am proud to make this recommendation to my colleagues in the Senate. He began his service to our country as a captain in the U.S. Army, and I hope you will help him to continue his service as a U.S. Tenth Circuit Court judge. I thank the Chair for this opportunity to talk about my friend, Terry O'Brien. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. As the chairman is aware, these grants are very important to small, rural states like Wyoming, which have polling places in some very remote or rural locations. In Wyoming, we actually have some polling places in trailers on gravel roads. Because the Act requires a special voting system for the disabled to be installed in each polling place, Wyoming needs to be sure it can accommodate the disabled by making certain the state can pay for these special systems and ensure the disabled can get into the building to vote. These types of grants will ensure that the buildings which house the special voting equipment for the disabled are ADA accessible. I am also aware the chairman has included the Collins amendment in the manager's amendment to the act. I understand this amendment is intended to assure a minimum amount of grant money is available to each state to improve their voting systems and infrastructure. This is important to the State of Wyoming so it can afford to install these special systems and construct the infrastructure necessary to give the disabled the same opportunity to enter a voting booth and exercise their right to vote.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I would like to inquire of the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, on the intent of the grants to be awarded to states for the purpose of constructing ``polling places, including the path of travel.'' Is ``path of travel'' intended to cover the construction of paved, asphalted, or similarly surfaced disabled or handicapped parking spaces, as well as sidewalks, ramps, and similar disabled access ways to the buildings which house the voting system?