Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I have discussed this with the minority leader. I gave a similar plan, and I said it is not so much whether it is this plan or that plan, we must have a single select committee. We thought about a standing committee, and we said: No, that is going too far. You know and I know that if you tread on the turf of an important committee chairman, they will say no to the leadership. That is precisely what has happened. I am not going to get specific, but we have been working on this for 6 months to a year, and if we just get into personalities and turf fights, there ought to be a way to work this out. So this select committee would prioritize and coordinate with Tom Ridge. My word, if he can do it with 40 agencies, we can do it here with all the subcommittees and committees we have in the Senate. If we do not, we will not be part of the answer.

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, I have been present.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator for his help, support, leadership, and advice, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. If the distinguished Senator will continue to yield, we increased that number by 22. There was a GAO report, as the Senator knows. He always sat as the presiding chair and now ranking member at the subcommittee because of his intense interest. We would not have the subcommittee focus on this problem without the leadership and inspiration of the Senator from Virginia. The GAO issued a rather critical report in regard to the teams, what we call civil support teams, the idea being that very well trained National Guard units could be within 4 hours of any community to be one of the first responders and signal back to the Federal Government--now with the FBI, with FEMA, with the Red Cross, with everybody concerned-- exactly what the problem was. That report found no fault in the raid teams. That report focused on the lack of direction and leadership within the Department of Defense. We fixed that problem with the help of the able staff, including the able staff member sitting to the Senator's right. He goes on periodic inspections to make sure these raid dreams are up to snuff. It means within 4 hours of anywhere in the United States you will have a crack professional and well-trained National Guard team to come in to immediately recognize the problem, indicate to the first responder, and also Washington, exactly what the problem is, and respond as fast as possible. It was that initiative that the distinguished Senator mentioned to this Senator, and we were able to increase the number of teams even before the Department of Defense clearly recognized that need.

Mr. ROBERTS. I think the agreement was, at least as far as this Senator understood, that I was going to have 20 minutes to talk about an amendment I had planned on introducing. I am not in a position to acquiesce to the Senator's request. I would have to check with our leadership in that regard. I have no doubt the Senator has an outstanding amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1438, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002. As the ranking Republican on the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, I would like to thank subcommittee Chairman Landrieu and her staff for their cooperation in the preparation of this bill. While I may have some concerns with several issues contained within the legislation, I do support the bill and urge its adoption by the full Senate. At this time I would like to take a moment to highlight a few important issues which are under the jurisdiction of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee. In particular, the legislation continues to build upon the committee's past efforts to strengthen and streamline the Department of Defense's combating terrorism program. As we were tragically reminded by the events on September 11 and last year's bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, it is vital that we continue to focus on this growing threat. As we all know, the threat of attacks on our national and defense information systems seem to grow daily. Last year, Senator Warner proposed an innovative scholarship program to encourage young people to pursue careers with the Federal Government in the information assurance area. I am gratified that our collective efforts this year have increased support for this innovative program, as well as other Departmental efforts to enhance the security of our critical information systems. However, I am concerned that the funding level included in the bill for the scholarship program may not be sufficient. Since the creation of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee in 1999, I have worked hard to ensure that our nonproliferation and threat reduction programs in Russia are fulfilling their national security objectives. This year I have worked hard to incorporate the kind of oversight I believe is essential if these nonproliferation programs are going to produce the desired results. This committee has a long history of supporting a strong and stable science and technology program and I was pleased to see the administration's budget request of $8.8 billion in this important area. This $1.2 billion increase over last year's request is the first step towards achieving the Secretary's goal of having science and technology programs make up 3 percent of the overall defense budget. It remains critical that we continue our support of a vibrant science and technology base. I strongly urge the rapid adoption of this important legislation. Our Nation is faced with a daunting task ahead and now is the time to show our strong support for the men and women in the armed services who so proudly and bravely serve our Nation.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in expressing support for this resolution, a resolution of the Senate of the United States expressing our very prayerful condolences to those who lost their lives as a result of this heinous crime, not only against themselves but against America and, just as important, against democracy and freedom. First, let me say this Congress stands behind our President and his determination to punish those who harbor terrorists as well as the terrorists themselves. Second, our fight against terrorism will necessitate more cooperation than we have ever seen or experienced from our allies and other governments. I am a little encouraged. They know we are not alone. Several Arab state leaders, long American allies, have expressed support. I understand that similar expressions have come from Russia. This will take an unprecedented diplomatic and foreign policy undertaking. As we determine how best to address this ongoing threat, it will not be necessary to start anew or to reinvent the antiterrorism wheel. I have had the privilege, as some have said, of serving for 3 years as the chairman of the newly created Subcommittee on Emerging Threats. That is a subcommittee created by our distinguished former chairman, John Warner. The committee is now ably chaired by Senator Mary Landrieu. Our subcommittee is now compiling the testimony of the many witnesses we have had over the past 3 years and the recommendations we have made which we will make available to the administration, to the Pentagon, to the American public, and, yes, to the 46 Federal agencies that have claimed jurisdiction of one kind or another with regard to homeland security. In this respect, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter that five Senators representing the Senate Armed Services, Intelligence, and Appropriations Committees and two subcommittees, including the Emerging Threats Subcommittee, sent to Vice President Cheney as of last July.

Mr. ROBERTS. This letter followed 3 days of hearings in which bipartisan Members of Congress asked detailed questions of some 46 Federal agencies. Senators Stevens, Warner, Shelby, Gregg, and Roberts offered this letter as a blueprint from which to eliminate the current patchwork quilt approach and renew attempts to forge a national strategy to combat terrorism and safeguard our national security. Let me warn that this act of terrorism may well be just the beginning. We must understand our enemy. In this regard, I quote from a retired Army officer and author, Ralph Peters, who warned several years ago: These warriors are made up of the true believers, those who will die for a cause, whether religion, a nationalist vision, or a conviction of ethnic superiority, and a desire to avenge wrongs suffered whether real or imagined. Even when they are our enemies, they are heroes to their own people--another thing we do not understand--witness the young Palestinians waving flags upon learning of the terrorist attack against the United States. They do not deal rationally with our standards and we falter when we rely on them to do so. Repeatedly, we have failed to see the appeal of the upright man, perceived as such by his own people, who hates us and who is willing to propagate endless slaughter to drive us away and to use weapons of mass destruction when required. This pool certainly includes the Osama bin Ladens of the world. Again, we should not underestimate the nature and character of our enemies. And they are our enemies. Let me recommend to all of my colleagues the book by Samuel P. Huntington, ``The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order.'' His book should be required reading for all of my colleagues and those within the national media and all interested in preserving democracy, freedom, and Western values. He quotes Arthur Schlesinger Jr. as stating Europe and America are the unique source of individual liberty, political democracy, and the rule of law, not to mention human rights and also cultural freedom. It is precisely these unique concepts that are now under attack and why we must have an international response. The principal responsibility of Western leaders, especially now, is not to attempt to reshape other civilizations in the image of the West, which is beyond our power, but to preserve, to protect, to renew the unique qualities of Western civilization where they have been nurtured, appreciated, and taken root. That responsibility overwhelmingly falls to the United States of America. That statement has foreign and national security policy ramifications that deserve a great deal more comment on this floor at a later time. I will add one other thing. Every witness before the Emerging Threats Subcommittee, when we asked about the threat against the United States, said: It is not a matter of if but when. When is now. The tragedy is now. It will not stand. It will not stand.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I rise in support of S. 1046, the Brown v. Board of Education 50th Anniversary Commission bill, which Senator Brownback and I introduced. 2004 marks the 50th anniversary of this landmark Supreme Court decision which found the doctrine of ``separate but equal'' to be patently unconstitutional. In 2004, it will have been half a century since Oliver Brown of Topeka, Kansas, on behalf of his daughter, Linda, fought the menace of racism and won. This watershed case is an important victory in the civil rights movement, and this Congressional Commission will allow us to fully celebrate and reflect on what this decision has meant to our nation. On May 17, 1954, in the Brown v. the Board of Education decision, the high court issued a definitive interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court stated that the discriminatory nature of racial segregation ``. . . violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees all citizens equal protection of the laws.'' This case brought relief not only to the families from four states and the District of Columbia who were combined under the Brown case, but to individuals throughout our country as it marked a turning point in our Nation's history. This bill, S. 1046, allows for the establishment of a Congressional Commission to celebrate this historical occasion, by developing public education initiatives and coordinating observances in conjunction with the Brown Foundation for Educational Equality, Excellence and Research in Topeka. The Brown Foundation is concurrently working with the National Park Service in order to convert Linda Brown's former all- black elementary school into a historic site in time for the 50th anniversary. I'd like to thank Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Hatch for their expeditious consideration of this important legislation. I'd also like to thank the Kansas Congressional Delegation for all their work on this issue as well. Finally, I'd like to thank Cheryl Brown Henderson, Linda's sister, who is the Executive Director of the Brown Foundation. Her untiring work has furthered the legacy of the Brown decision and allowed the vision of a Congressional Commission to become closer to a reality.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, there is a sigh of relief all throughout farm country in regard to passage of this emergency assistance. We avoided a partisan train wreck, losing the money, taking the money from next year's farm bill, and or next year's emergency assistance. I regret that it came to this. This is a trail we really did not have to take. When you serve on the Agriculture Committee--and I have done that in the House and Senate--you have the opportunity to serve on one of the most nonpartisan committees in the Congress. With the events of the past week, I deeply regret what some have referred to as partisan milk that got a little sour and curdled a little bit. But, we have cleaned it up and we have made some progress. We have an old expression in my hometown of Dodge City, KS: If you are riding ahead of the herd, it's a good thing to take a look back now and then to make sure it is still there. I say to my colleagues, the reverse is also true. We have done that today. It is a good idea for both sides to take a look and tell your leadership when you are about to be driven off an emergency assistance cliff along with our farmers and ranchers. We avoided that today, and that is a positive step. We had the possibility of endangering emergency funding for our farmers and ranchers. I was worried some would have preferred an issue as opposed to a bill. We were about to saw off the branch that supports our farmers and hang all of us in the process. Here is the deal. If the majority had prevailed, the bill would have had to be conferenced with the House. If we simply check the lights in the House, they are out of town; they are gone. I went over to the House last night during the debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights. I met with both the Agriculture Committee chairman, Larry Combest, and the ranking member, Charlie Stenholm, both good friends, not to mention the members of the House Agriculture Committee. They were adamant, and I mean adamant--put that in bold letters--in support of the statement they released a day or two ago. Their statement--not mine--said: For the sake of our farmers, the U.S. Senate must put politics aside and realize the critical importance of passing the 2001 crop assistance bill immediately, so that the process can continue and a bill can be sent to the President for signature. The House statement went on: The House Ag Committee, anticipating this need, acted early and responsibly, passing a bill out 6 weeks ago. That is now 7 weeks. This bill was passed by the House on June 26-- Unanimously on a voice vote-- and was immediately sent to the Senate where it languished. If payments are not made before September 30 of this year then $5.5 billion that was fought for and budgeted for farmers will disappear. At this critical time, we must all put our agendas aside and concentrate our efforts on providing the needed assistance for farmers. It is unwise to encumber the bill with unnecessary, nonemergency items like increased conservation spending when our farmers' livelihoods hang in the balance. The process must move on. My friends, those were the words of the Chairman and Ranking Member in the House. We have done that. I think it is a step in the right direction. I point out that one of the reasons the House was so adamant, why they were so upset, is that the House Agriculture Committee passed a new farm bill out of committee last week, and it uses the $2 billion extra that was in the Senator from Iowa's approach for their farm bill. I do not know how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have proposed, or we would have proposed, to reconcile the difference. I am not sure what the farm bill will look like in the Senate, but I do not think we want to propose the House cut their own farm bill in terms of target price, AMTA payments, loan levels. Obviously the farmers of wheat, corn, cotton, rice, and soybean in North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, and Kansas would not have supported that move. I say it again: We were about to borrow from the future. We did not do that. I will sum up what I think happened in this situation. I think it could be a good lesson learned. June 5, my colleagues on the other side take over control of the Senate and the Senate Agriculture Committee. June 20, the House Agriculture Committee passed its bill. This is the emergency assistance bill. June 26, the full House passed the bill on a voice vote. June 28 to July 24, 6 hearings were held in the Senate Agriculture Committee on the farm bill and other issues no hearings or meetings on the assistance package were held during this time. July 25 we went to markup. Late July 27, the bill is brought up for debate; July 30 through today, this moment, debate on the legislation. July 31, the CBO sends a letter to the Senate stating 2001 funds will be scored in 2002 if the bill is not passed before the August recess. July 31, the House Agriculture Committee Chairman Combest and Ranking Member Stenholm asked the Senate to please approve the House-passed bill and get the money to farmers and ranchers. August 1, Mr. Combest and Mr. Stenholm make strong statements that I don't have to go into, again asking the Senate to pass the House bill. August 2, CBO verbally confirmed to me what they stated in their previous letter of July 31: The bill must be passed before the August recess or they will score the money going out in fiscal year 2002. Again this morning, CBO staff again confirm to my staff that the Senate bill, as written, must be passed before the August recess in order for the money to be scored in fiscal year 2001. I think that lays out the facts. Again, the point was, delay. In August, there is going to be a new budget estimate. I think we all know about the rhetoric and the legislation that will be flying around in September and October with any emergency or additional spending bumping against the trust funds. Do we really want to be considering a package like this with amendments, saying we cannot use the money because it will allegedly come from Social Security? Do we want agriculture in that position? Do we want farmers and ranchers being the poster people for raiding Social Security? I don't think that is a very good idea. Finally, you can't have it both ways. Further delay of trade authority for the President and getting a consistent and aggressive export policy will certainly mean a continued loss of market share and exports. We have to sell our commodities. If we don't, it means there will be calls for another emergency bill next year. I hope we don't have to have that, but we may. And this money and this emergency bill, or at least in the proposal offered by the distinguished chairman, would have taken money from that account. I was very worried this morning. I thought Senators could, maybe would, take this issue and ride with it, that we would have gone squarely into a boxed canyon and fired off our shotguns of partisan rhetoric, whoop and holler as to who was to blame. Some of that has been said on the Senate floor. Or we could have passed the House version, and we did, of emergency relief and get assistance to hard- pressed farmers and hopefully begin bipartisan work on the next farm bill. I have been through six farm bills. You can always have an issue or you can always have a bill. It is basically that simple. In this regard, without question, I think the decision reached spared agriculture and that means the assessments will be forthcoming. There used to be a chairman in the House Agriculture Committee in Texas, Bob Poage, an outstanding chairman, great chairman. People used to ask Bob, when a farm bill came to the floor of the House, Mr. Poage, Mr. Chairman, is this the best possible bill? And he would say, no; but it is the best bill possible. In a gesture of friendship and bipartisanship with the distinguished chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, the distinguished ranking member, and other members of the Agriculture Committee, the distinguished acting Presiding Officer is a very valued member of the committee. Let's work together on this. Let's not go down this road again. Let's work in a bipartisan matter for farmers. I pledge I will do that. I pledge to the chairman I will do that. This morning was not a pleasant experience for any of us. But we did the right thing as of this morning. To reiterate: Mr. President, this is a partisan trail that we did not have to take. When you serve on the Agriculture Committee, you have the opportunity to serve on one of the most nonpartisan committees in the Congress. With this standoff, I deeply regret the spilled partisan milk, and its gotten pretty sour. There is an old expression we have in my home town of Dodge City, KS--``If you are riding ahead of the herd it's a good thing to take a look back now and then to make sure its still there.'' My colleagues, the reverse is also true. It would be most timely and a good idea this morning for the herd across the aisle to look ahead and tell your leadership that you are about to be driven off an emergency assistance cliff--along with our farmers and ranchers. Those who are endangering emergency funding for our farmers and ranchers, those who apparently prefer an issue to emergency farmer relief are about to saw off the branch that will support farmers and hang all of us in the process. Here is the deal. Obviously, should the majority prevail, this bill would have to be conferenced with the House. Check the lights over there, the House is gone. I went over to the House last night during the debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights and met with both Agriculture Chairman Larry Combest and Ranking Member Charlie Stenholm, not to mention many members of the House Agriculture Committee. They are ADAMANT in support of the statement they released just a day or two ago. That statement, theirs--not mine--said this: The Senate Majority Leader is diverting attention with a fast shell game to quickly switch blame for the Senate not finishing its work on farmer assistance on time. Close of business set for early August has been scheduled since the beginning of the year. Against this well publicized early August deadline, the Senate has had the House-approved bill languishing for over a month now. There has been absolutely nothing keeping the Senate Agriculture Committee from moving on its own package, rather than waiting until the last minute. The Senate's search for an excuse on a past-due bill must mean they fear going home to face the music from constituents. In another statement on July 31: For the sake of our farmers, the U.S. Senate must put politics aside and realize the critical importance of passing the 2001 crop assistance bill immediately so, that the process can continue and a bill can be sent to the President for signature. The House Ag committee, anticipating this need, acted early and responsibly, passing a bill out 6 weeks ago. This bill was passed by the House on June 26, and was immediately sent to the Senate where it has languished. If payments are not made before September 30 of this year, then $5.5 billion that was fought for and budgeted for farmers will disappear. At this critical time, we must all put our agendas aside and concentrate our efforts on providing the needed assistance for farmers. It is unwise to encumber the bill with unnecessary, non-emergency items like increased conservation spending when our farmers' livelihoods hang in the balance. The process must move on, and the Senate must act. I would also point out that the House Agriculture Committee passed a new farm bill out of committee last week. It uses this $2 billion for 2002 funding on the new farm bill. How do my colleagues on the other side propose to reconcile this difference? I'm not sure what the farm bill will look like in the Senate. But would they propose the House cut the target price, AMTA, or loan levels in its proposal? Will the wheat, corn, cotton, rice, and soybean farmers in North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, and other States support that move? I will say it again, we are borrowing from the future if we pass this bill as it is currently written. Mr. President, let me sum up: June 5: My colleagues on the other side take over control of the Senate and Senate Agriculture Committee. June 20: House Agriculture Committee passes its bill. June 26: The full House passes the bill on a voice vote. June 28 to July 24: Six hearings in the Senate Agriculture Committee on the farm bill and other issues. No hearings or meetings on this assistance package. July 25: Mark-up. Late July 27: Bill is brought up for debate. July 30 through today: debate on this legislation. July 31: CBO sends letter to the Senate stating 2001 funds will be scored in 2002 if the bill is not passed before the August recess. July 31: House Agriculture Committee Chairman Combest and Ranking Member Stenholm ask the Senate to approve the House passed bill and get our money to our farmers and ranchers. August 1: Mr. Combest and Mr. Stenholm accuse the Senate majority leader and chairman of obstructing the passage of this important legislation. August 2: CBO verbally confirmed to me what they had stated in their previous letter of July 31: the bill must be passed before August recess or they will score the money going out in FY02. Mr. President, I believe that lays out the facts. Again, the point is the delay. In August, there will be a new budget estimate. And we all know the rhetoric and legislation that will be flying around here with regard any emergency or additional spending bumping against trust funds. Do we really want to be considering this package with amendments saying we cannot use the money because it allegedly will come from Social Security. Do we want agriculture in that position? Finally, let me say you cannot have it both ways on the other side of the aisle. Further delay of trade authority for the President will certainly mean continued loss of market share and exports. That means another emergency bill next year. And, this money robs that account. Now, Senators can take the issue and ride with it, squarely into a box canyon and fire off our partisan pop guns and whoop and holler as to who was to blame. Or we can pass the House version of emergency relief and get the assistance to our hard pressed farmers and hopefully begin bipartisan work on the next farm bill. We can have an issue or we can enact emergency assistance, it is that simple. In this regard, without question the decision reached this morning will spare agriculture further delay and will provide the assistance needed.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, on Wednesday, Kansans paid their final respects to Governor Finney and I join with my colleague Senator Brownback in expressing our state's condolences to the Finney family. While Senate business kept me from attending her funeral in Topeka, I want to share with my colleagues her success in Kansas government and politics. Although Joan and I belonged to different political parties, she put those differences aside when it came to work together for the State of Kansas. Governor Finney was a straight shooter, never ducking behind guarded words. Some believe that her direct nature hurt her politically in the State Capitol, but Kansans appreciated this quality. In an interview with the Topeka Capital Journal she said, ``I believe the people should be supreme in all things . . . Even if you don't agree and the majority want a certain issue and believe in a certain issue, I accept that and I will stand by the people.'' Governor Finney is a key figure in Kansas' strong tradition of electing women to various offices. She served as State Treasurer for four consecutive terms and then was elected as the first female governor serving from 1991 to 1995. She will be remembered for her dedication and hardwork for all Kansans throughout her life. During his sermon, Reverend Francis Krische, pastor of the Most Pure Heart of Mary Catholic Church reminded mourners that ``She knew how to be with people. This was one of the keys to her success''. Madam President, it is painful when God calls home a friend and colleague, but her memory will continue to remind us of our commitment to our constituents and family.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the remainder of the debate and consideration of the Emergency Agriculture Assistance Act, Matt Howe, a member of my staff, be granted privileges of the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered by the distinguished former chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Lugar. I know agriculture program policy is somewhat of a high- glaze topic to many of my colleagues. I know many ask questions as to the details and the vagaries of farm programs, why we seemingly always consider for days on end every year emergency farm legislation and Agriculture appropriations, what we now call supplemental Agriculture bills. In the ``why and hows come'' department, let me recommend to my colleagues yesterday's and today's proceedings and in particular Senator Lugar's remarks with regard to this bill and, more importantly, the overall situation that now faces American agriculture and farm program policy. It is a fair and accurate summary that the ranking member has presented. In typical Dick Lugar fashion, the Senator from Indiana has summed up the situation very well. If you want a 15-minute primer in regards to agriculture program policy, simply read the Senator's remarks. Why are we here? Why are we considering this legislation? The title of this legislation is the Emergency Agriculture Assistance Act of 2001. The name implies to me that the bill is to fund pressing economic needs in farm country. We have them. That is what the committee actually set out to do. In the debate, we have heard a great deal about how much is enough to address the problems in farm country. And certainly with the committee's mark, some $2 billion over what was agreed to in the budget and with the possibility of a Presidential veto, that debate is absolutely crucial. I don't believe any agriculture Senator is looking forward to a possible Presidential veto--I hope not--or agriculture becoming a poster child in regards to out-of-control spending, porkbarrel add-ons, or eating into the Medicare trust fund or, for that matter, Social Security. It seems to me we ought to stop for a minute and ask: Why are we having these problems to begin with? For the third year in a row farmers, ranchers, and everybody else dependent on agriculture have been trying to make ends meet in the midst of a world commodity price depression, not just in the United States but the entire world. There are many reasons for this: unprecedented record worldwide crops; the Asian and South American economic flu crippling our exports; the value of the American dollar, again crippling our exports; and my personal view, the lack of an aggressive and consistent export policy, highlighted, quite frankly, by the inaction in this Congress with regard to sanctions reform and Presidential Trade Authority (PTA). If you have in the past exported one-third to one-half of the crops you produce and you experience 3 straight years of declining exports and increased world production, not to mention what many of us consider unfair trading practices by our competitors, you begin to understand why the market prices are where they are. Add in very little progress ever since the Seattle round in regards to the World Trade Organization, and you can understand why we have a problem. Now what are we going to do about this? To address this problem, when this year's budget resolution was passed, it included $5.5 billion for spending in 2001 and $7.35 billion in 2002, with total funding of $73.5 billion for 2002 through 2011. I might add, if you add in the baseline for agriculture, you are talking about another $90 billion. That is a tremendous investment, to say the least. When we passed the budget, the assumption among virtually all of us, and all of our farm groups and all of our commodity organizations, was that the funding for 2002--not 2001, the funding for 2002 would be used for one of two things: An agricultural assistance package in 2002, if needed, or funding for the first year of the next farm bill. We should make it very clear to our colleagues, our farmers and ranchers, our conservation and wildlife organizations, our small towns and cities--we are borrowing from the future when we have $7.5 billion in this package. I don't know if it violates the budget agreement or not. I don't know what the Parliamentarian would say. Regardless, the pool of money available for writing the next farm bill has just shrunk by $2 billion. We are robbing next year's funds for this year's emergency bill. We are going to be left with less than $5.5 billion in 2002 funding. Are we prepared to take that step? Apparently some are. There are always disagreements on the Agriculture Committee. But I think the Agriculture Committee is probably the least partisan committee, or one of the least, in the Congress. Certainly in the Senate, we have always tried to work in a bipartisan manner. In fact, that is how former Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska and I operated when we wrote and passed crop insurance reform in the last Congress with the leadership and the able assistance of the chairman and the ranking member. With all due respect, that has not happened on this legislation. We were given very short notice on the components of the package, the markup itself. When we actually arrived at markup, the legislation was not the same language our staff was provided the night before. I will not dwell on that, but it is most unfortunate. It is a harbinger of what I hope will not happen in regards to the farm bill debate. Furthermore, I am deeply troubled that the title of this legislation is the Emergency Agricultural Assistance Act of 2001. The name implies that the bill is to fund pressing economic and income needs in farm country. That is not what we have before us with this proposal. In fact, I am deeply concerned that we are providing funding here for several commodities that are actually at or above their long-term average prices and returns, while also making many programmatic changes. We are doing a mini farm bill. I want to serve warning. I do not argue that commodities, other than the program crops, have not faced difficult times. Indeed, many have been in rough times. But let's make it very clear that the program commodities, those that are usually receiving the AMTA payments, the market loss payments, have stringent requirements that many, if not all, specialty crops do not have to meet in order to be eligible for payments. Chief among these is conservation compliance. To receive assistance, a program crop producer has to meet very stringent requirements on conservation compliance. In many instances they have spent thousands of dollars to meet and maintain these requirements--good for them, good for their farming, and good for the environment. Today I put colleagues on notice that if we intend to continue making payments to commodities that do not meet these requirements, I will propose they have to meet the same guidelines as producers of wheat, corn, cotton, rice, and soybeans to receive their payments. I thought about introducing an amendment on this legislation. That would just delay it further and get us into more debate, and I consider it an item for the Farm Bill debate. Time is of the essence, so I will not do that. I do mean to offer or at least consider it when we debate the farm bill. It isn't so much a warning. It is just a suggestion that fair is fair. All commodities should be treated equally in their requirements to receive payments through the Department of Agriculture. Let us also remember exactly why we set aside the $5.5 billion for the purpose in the budget. The $5.5 billion is equal to the market loss assistance payment we provided last year, and it was to address continued income and price problems with these crops. What am I talking about? Wheat, 57 cents to 67 cents below the 12- year average. That is about a 20-percent drop below the 12-year average. That is the plight of the wheat producer. Cotton, 7.65 cents below the 12-year average, about 12.5 percent below the 12-year average. Rice, same situation, even worse--about 27 percent below the 12-year average, $2.02 per hundredweight below the 12-year average of $7.52 per hundred weight. Corn, 47 cents below the 12-year average; 21 percent below the average price. It is the same thing for soybeans, 26 percent below the average price. In regard to these problems in farm country, I believe we will continue to stand and face the same problems, regardless of what farm bill we put in place, if we do not get cracking on selling our product and having a consistent, regular, predictable, and aggressive export program. The real emergency bill, as far as I am concerned, other than this one, is passing a clean bill to grant the President trade promotion authority--the acronym for that is the TPA--and obtaining real sanctions reform. The distinguished ranking member of the committee, Senator Lugar, has had a comprehensive sanctions reform bill proposed for as long as I have had the privilege of being in the Senate. I do not argue that trade will solve all of our problems. It will certainly help. In 1996--this is one of the reasons we are here--ag exports were over $60 billion, almost hit $61 billion. Last year, ag exports were only $51 billion. Just subtract the difference. It is not a one-for-one cost, but one can see $50 billion and $61 billion, not selling the product. That is roughly about the same amount we are sending out in subsidies the past two or three years. That seems to indicate we should press ahead in an emergency fashion in regards to our trade policies as well. Since 1994, when the trade authority expired, there have been approximately 130 bilateral agreements negotiated around the world. We have been involved in two of them. We cannot sell the product in regards to that. It is very difficult to compete in the world market when our negotiators cannot get other countries to sit down at the table. I am a little disturbed and very concerned in regards to the lack of real blood pressure to move ahead on this legislation from the other side of the aisle. I am getting the word that trade authority for the President might not even be passed this session. It might put it off on the back burner. How on Earth can we be passing emergency farm legislation to provide assistance to hard-pressed farmers and ranchers when we have lost our exports and we cannot sell the product? We have to move here, it seems to me, on TPA. As we have begun hearings on the next farm bill, I have also indicated my support for expanding conservation and rural development programs. This farm bill is going to have conservation and rural development in the center ring with the commodity title. I stand by that support. I want to credit the chairman of the committee, the distinguished Senator from Iowa, who has shown great leadership in focusing on conservation. The increases in funding and the program changes should be done in the context of the farm bill where we can a have full and open debate. Senator Crapo has a bill that I have cosponsored and others have bills. In this bill we have not had a full and open debate on the conservation programs in this bill. There are numerous provisions in this legislation that either create or extend or modify USDA programs, many of which have nothing to do with the financial difficulties in rural America. This is going to create a problem, not only in the Senate but also in regards to the House-Senate conference. The best I can tell, the way this legislation is drafted, it is going to require a conference with at least three separate House committees, the chairmen of which are not exactly conducive to emergency farm legislation. That is not the way to create swift and easy passage of what many consider must-pass legislation. We are going beyond the scope of this legislation by including provisions that should be debated and considered openly in the farm bill debate. I think we are making decisions that are taking away from the 2002 budget for 2001 and reducing either a 2002 emergency package or the next farm bill money by $2 billion. My last point is this: I am concerned about the tone of some of my colleagues in terms of their debate, especially on the other side of the aisle, who argue that we on this side of the aisle were responsible for holding up this bill and putting agricultural assistance for our farmers and ranchers in jeopardy. We have already told every farm lender, every farmer and rancher in America, that a double AMTA payment was coming. Why? Because of the loss in price and income I have just gone over with all of the program crops and other crops as well. Every banker knows that. Every producer knows that. We have to do it now because the Congressional Budget Office, in a letter today, tells us we will lose the money if we do not. In May, the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, in his position as the then-ranking member of the Budget committee, wrote to then-chairman Lugar of the committee, asking that the committee move on an agricultural assistance package or risk losing the funds. Soon after that letter was received, we had a little fault line shift of power in this body. The fault began to take place in late May. It was completed on June 5, when the distinguished Senator from Iowa took over as chairman of the Agriculture Committee. Let me repeat that. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle took over June 5. The legislation was not brought before the Agriculture Committee until last week, July 25, 7 weeks after taking over the reins of control, 9 calendar days from our scheduled August adjournment. This delay occurred when everybody knew full well we were going to have contentious issues, the Dairy Compact, everything, and it could lead to a prolonged and substantial debate. I see my time has expired. I ask for 2 more minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the distinguished Senator. We know anytime an ag bill is brought to this distinguished body, we are getting into all sorts of controversies and so consequently, knowing this, they went ahead and presented a bill $2 billion higher than the House version. It is $2 billion higher. We have all these other programs we should consider in a farm bill. They are good programs. I support the programs. It is substantially different in substance from the House bill that is going to require a conference with up to three House committees. Speaking of the House, I want to point out the House Agriculture Committee passed its version of this assistance package June 20. It passed on a voice vote in the House--get it out, get the assistance out to farmers. It did not even have a vote. They passed it by a voice vote, June 26, a full month before we even held committee markup in the Senate. I might also point out it was the ranking member of the House, the distinguished Congressman from Texas, Charlie Stenholm, who led the charge to keep the package at $5.5 billion. Let me go through that time line again: The Senator from Iowa took the reins of the Committee on June 5, the House Agriculture Committee passed the bill on June 20, and the full House passed the bill by voice vote on June 26. Yet, we did not even act in the Senate Agriculture Committee until July 25. I must ask why we waited, when we knew it was must pass legislation? We can pass a $7.5 billion. We can go ahead and do that. It will be $2 million over what we allowed in the budget. We are robbing Peter to pay Paul. Again, we could come up with different names. We can take a look at the possibility of a Presidential veto. That is a dangerous trail to be on. I do not want to go down that trail. We have an opportunity now to vote for Senator Lugar's amendment and keep this within budget, keep this within guidelines, and get the assistance to farmers. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the distinguished ranking member, and former chairman, for yielding me the time. I ask for 15 minutes if I might. If I get into a problem, maybe a minute or two.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues, Senator Rockefeller and Senator Kennedy, to introduce a piece of legislation that continues to build on our efforts to improve math and science education. The National Mathematics and Science Partnerships Act creates a program through the National Science Foundation NSF, that provides a variety of recruitment incentives for college students and individuals who are engineering, science and math professionals in other fields, to pursue teaching math and science. Additionally, math and science teachers are provided a variety of professional development opportunities. I am pleased to include in this legislation a portion of a bill I introduced earlier this year, S. 478, the Engineering, Science, Technology and Mathematics Education Enhancement Act. The Math and Science Partnerships Act will provide grants for K-12 math and science teachers to do research in engineering, science and math to do research in these areas to improve their performance in the classroom, a demonstration project for LEAs to develop a program to build technology curricula, purchase equipment and provide professional development for teachers specifically aimed at economically disadvantaged students. It also provides in-service support and a master teacher grant program to hire master teachers who are responsible for in-classroom help and oversight. Additionally, the legislation assists high school students in pursuit of their careers as math and science teachers by informing them of courses they should complete in preparation for college. Bipartisan efforts to increase and enhance math and science education has been encouraging and I am glad to see that math and science education is finally beginning to receive the recognition that is needed and deserved. The need to recruit and retain teachers in the math and science fields as well as the need to improve the professional development opportunities for teachers currently teaching math and science is crucial. An article that appeared on May 6th in The Hutchinson News, discusses the teacher recruiting woes that the State of Kansas is experiencing. The article highlights Fort Hays State University in Hays, KS and tells of a young graduate, Lora Clark, who has a teaching degree in mathematics. With her degree Lora could have found a job anywhere in the State of Kansas or with several other States who were recruiting Fort Hays State teaching graduates. Thankfully, she chose to stay in her home state and fill a mathematics teaching position in Hanston, Kansas. However, what stands out most from the article is the number of math and science positions available at the career fair at Fort Hays State and the number of students that have graduated with teaching degrees in math and science. There were 125 math and science teaching positions available and only 8 students graduating with math and science teaching degrees. We desperately need to fill these positions with teachers who have been properly trained and have professional development opportunities in order to encourage students to pursue fields in engineering, science, technology and math. The U.S. will need to produce four times as many scientists and engineers than we currently produce in order to meet future demand. The U.S. has been a leader in technology for decades and the need for skilled workers that will require technical expertise continues to climb. Congress has had to increase the number of H-1B visas to fill current labor shortages within these fields, we need to focus on long- term solutions through the education of our children. Improving our students knowledge of math and science is not only a concern of American companies but also a concern of U.S. National Security. According to the latest reports and studies regarding National Security, the lack of math and science education beginning at the K-12 level imposes a serious security threat. The report issued by the U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century reports that ``The base of American national security is the strength of the American economy. Therefore, health of the U.S. economy depends not only on an elite that can produce and direct innovation, but also on a populace that can effective assimilate new tools and technologies. This is critical not just for the U.S. economy in general but specifically for the defense industry, which must simultaneously develop and defend against these same technologies.'' We are all aware of the need for good teacher recruitment and retention programs because of the shortage of teachers many of our states are experiencing or will experience. Math and science education is no exception and I am glad to join my colleagues in introducing a piece of legislation that will aid in improving and enhancing math and science education and I encourage my colleagues to join in our fight.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, we stand in the midst of an amazing period of history. Not since the industrial revolution has society witnessed such an explosion of technological advancements. The rise of the Internet yields volumes of information to anyone at anytime and is only a mouse click away. It is imperative that we use this medium responsibly. The strength of our country is deeply rooted in informed citizens freely exchanging ideas. Common men and women engaged in the political process is the lifeblood of the United States. As legislators, we are the stewards of democracy. It is our duty to encourage citizens of all persuasions to actively play a role in this democratic saga. With the emergence of the Internet, there is no better way to make this possible than by supporting this resolution. I, along with my distinguished colleague, Dianne Feinstein of California, am submitting a resolution entitled, ``The National Civic Participation Week.'' It declares the week of September 15, 2002 as a time devoted to the education of the political process on the Internet. This resolution challenges the technical industry to create Web sites that promote civic involvement. Further, it calls on local communities to establish links that provide helpful information to its citizens such as polling locations, registration, and, voter information. We submit this resolution today in response to the declining participation in the American political system, particularly among younger citizens. I offer some sobering statistics: In the last presidential election, of the 25.5 million Americans between the ages of 18-24, only 19 percent registered to vote and only 16 percent actually voted. In the 1996 presidential election, of the 24 million Americans that age, only 47 percent registered, and 32 percent voted. 22 percent of U.S. teens did not know from whom the United States won its independence. 14 percent thought it was France. 10 percent didn't know there were thirteen original colonies. About 23 percent didn't know who fought in the civil war. Our country has come along way from the early days of the thirteen colonies. Those were times, as Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in his ``Democracy in America,'' of citizens creating ``freedom schools'' to teach and learn of freedom and democracy and the role that each of us can play to help it flourish. We believe that the Internet and other new technologies can play a crucial role in acting as ``freedom schools.'' With so many young people drawn to the Internet, it is an ideal medium to cultivate democratic virtues and encourage participation. The possibilities are numerous. The World Wide Web has the potential to assist citizens on finding information with how the government works, how laws are made, and how citizens can effectively communicate with their elected officials. This resolution offers no Federal mandates or governmental expenditures. It does not prescribe what information should be posted on the web or how it is disseminated. Instead, we as Senators are making a collective statement that we recognize the power of the Internet and its vast potential at promoting civic virtues. It is a resolution that encourages those within the technology industry to provide valuable information on the inner-workings of democracy. Let us use the Internet's vast information highway to cultivate learning and greater awareness in civic affairs. It is our sincere hope that we can rekindle the spirit of the ``freedom school'' of the American Revolution through the Internet. May these new technologies illuminate and continue the lessons and dreams of our forefathers.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, here is the issue: The ability of States to determine what is best for themselves. That is the issue. Sure, the issue is the Patients' Bill of Rights. But if Kansas or Nebraska or Maine or Massachusetts or Louisiana or Connecticut--as I look at Members in the Chamber--have an effective patient protection system that is working, why impose new Federal regulations that will force them to overhaul the system they have in place? The Collins-Nelson-Roberts, and others, amendment would simply give the State of Kansas and other States the flexibility to provide patient protection required under this bill in a way that best fits each State. For example, last year in Kansas we implemented a new law that assists patients who get into a dispute with their insurance company over the refusal to pay for medical procedures. It is a long process, but the independent reviewer will make a decision and reply within 30 business days after an appeal procedure. According to Kathleen Sebelius, our very good Kansas State Department of Insurance Commissioner, there were 22 cases that were closed last year; 12 decided in favor of the HMO and 10 overturned the decision made by the HMO. Now that more Kansans are aware of their ability to receive this external appeal and receive independent review, more cases have been filed with the Kansas Insurance Department. Simply put, our State commissioner, Kathleen Sebelius, and the Kansas State Department of Insurance are doing a good job looking out for the best interests of Kansans covered by HMOs. So the question is, Why does the Federal Government need to tell our State we have to completely scrap what we are doing and put into place a Federal layer of new Washington-knows-best requirements? How good is this really for families in Kansas, or your States' families? In fact, Kansas has a large number of patient protections that have been in place for years, and the list is impressive. The list includes a comprehensive bill of rights, the internal and external appeals I have already described, consumer grievance procedures, emergency room services, OB/GYN access, prompt payment, continuity of care, a ban on gag clauses and financial incentives, screening and breast reconstruction, prostate cancer screening, maternity stay, drug and alcohol abuse treatment, standing referral, and the list goes on and on and on. Under the bill we are debating today, many of these effective consumer protections Kansas has in place will have to be thrown out and we will have to start all over. Our Kansas State Insurance Commissioner, Kathleen Sebelius, also serves as the president of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Kathleen has written a letter that clearly lays out the devastating effects the Washington one-size-fits-all plan will have on State insurance markets, and she warns--listen to this, colleagues-- that this is going to be administered by an outfit called the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. It used to be called HCFA. If you really want to turn over your state regulations to HCFA, that is another issue that we can talk about for at least an hour or two. The commissioner stated in her letter: The proposed patient protection bills are far more complicated than the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, and will require considerable oversight. To resolve these issues, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners urges Congress to include in any patient protection legislation provisions that would preserve State laws and enforcement procedures, such as internal and external review processes. Failure to maintain State authority in this area could lead to implementation of regulations that are inconsistent with the needs of consumers in a State and that are not enforced effectively. I think she nailed it right on the head. I am an original cosponsor of the Collins-Nelson amendment because it would allow States to do what they are already doing well. If these standards are not met, only then would the Federal Government come in and impose its standards, and the State would then be required to meet a higher standard in order to be made eligible for the Patient Quality Enhancement Grant Program. Other amendments will have a stick; this is a carrot. I prefer a carrot; other Senators may prefer a stick. Let me just say, in summing up, can any other Member of this body honestly tell me what is in this bill is better than what the State of Kansas already has in terms of patient protection? Do you know better than our commissioner, Kathleen Sebelius, or Governor Graves, and the Kansas State Legislature? The answer is no. My colleagues, support this amendment and give States a chance to apply the standards they have currently in place, that are working. The external and internal appeals process is working. Don't make us reinvent the Federal wheel. I thank the Chair and my colleagues.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I say that is splendid news.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today the Senate will resume voting--and voting--on amendments to the reconciliation and tax relief bill, and consecutive votes will occur throughout the morning. It is hoped--hope springs eternal--that final passage on the tax relief and reconciliation bill will occur during today's session. If passage occurs as expected, the Senate will resume consideration of the education bill. There will be additional votes all throughout the day, and Senators are encouraged to stay in the Senate Chamber after the final votes on the tax bill. I thank my colleagues for their consideration and cooperation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, a week ago yesterday Senator Hagel, our colleague from Nebraska, took the floor of the Senate and with straight talk said some things that made a great deal of sense. They bear repeating at this point in this debate. First, he said it was time for this debate. Our current campaign finance laws make absolutely no sense. That is true. Since the proponents are bound and determined to take up their version of what I call ``alleged reform,'' before we get to the business of tax relief, the energy crisis, foreign policy, and national security concerns, not to mention a host of other pressing issues, it is time, certainly, to dispense with this issue. However, in so doing, let me remind my colleagues of our first obligation. That is to do no harm. Senator Hagel warned we must be careful not to abridge the rights of Americans to participate in our political system and have their voices heard. He understood and underscored the paramount importance of the first amendment to the Constitution, that being the freedom of speech. Second, the Senator from Nebraska then emphasized we should not weaken our political parties or other important institutions within our American system. He stressed we should encourage greater participation, not less. I want my colleagues and all listening to listen to Senator Hagel. I start from the fundamental premise that the problem in the system is not the political party; the problem is not the candidate's campaign; the problem is the unaccountable, unlimited outside moneys and influence that flows into the system where there is either little or no disclosure. That is the core of the issue. On that, Senator Hagel was right as rain on a spring day in Nebraska. He went on to say political parties encourage participation, they promote participation, and they are about participation. They educate the public and their activities are open, accountable and disclosed. And, then he nailed the issue when he said: ``Any reform that weakens the parties will weaken the system, lead to a less accountable system and a system less responsive to and accessible by the American people. ``Why,'' Senator Hagel asked, ``Why do we want to ban soft money to political parties--that funding which is now accountable and reportable? This ban would weaken the parties and put more money and control in the hands of wealthy individuals and independent groups accountable to no one.'' It makes sense to me, Senator. Finally, Senator Hagel warned the obvious. In this regard, I simply do not understand why Members of this body and the proponents of alleged reform--and all of the twittering media bluebirds sitting on the reform windowsill--are so disingenuous with the obvious. It seems to me either they are blinded by their own political or personal prejudice or they just don't get it or they just don't want to get it. Senator Hagel warned last week: When you take away power from one group, it will expand power for another. I do not believe that our problems lie with candidates for public office and their campaigns. I believe the greatest threat to our political system today is from those who operate outside the boundaries of openness and accountability. Three cheers for Chuck Hagel. He has shined the light of truth into the muddle of reform. My colleagues, at the very heart of today's campaign law tortured problems are two simple realities that cannot be changed by any legislative cleverness or strongly held prejudice. First, private money is a fact of life in politics. If you push it out of one part of the system it re-enters somewhere else within the shadows of or outside the law. Its like prohibition but last time around it was prohibition with temples, bedrooms, and labor union payoffs. More to the point with members of this body deciding every session some two trillion dollars worth of decisions that affect the daily lives and pocketbooks of every American, there is no way anyone can or should limit individual citizens or interest groups of all persuasions from using private money, their money, to have their say, to protect their interests, to become partners in government--unless of course you prefer a totalitarian government. Second, money spent to communicate with voters cannot be regulated without impinging on the very core of the first amendment, which was written as a safeguard and a protection of political discourse. We got into this mess by defying both of these principles with very predictable results. Lets see now, here is a reform, let us place limits on money spent to support or defeat candidates. Whoops, those who want to have their say now run ads that are called issue advocacy, and we are running at a full gallop in that pasture-- can't stop that expression of free speech; it is constitutionally protected, or at least it was until yesterday in Senator Wellstone's amendment. When my colleagues placed tight limits on contributions to candidates and called that reform, we went down the same trail again. Whoops, those who want to have their say in a democracy began giving to political parties with unregulated soft money. So now we have hard regulated disclosed and soft unregulated disclosed, and express advocacy and issue advocacy, and they are all wrapped up in a legalistic mumbo-jumbo that defies understanding or enforcement and has given reform and the Federal Election Commission a bad name. My friends, this money-regulating scheme is bankrupt. Yet here we are again with the same medicine show, same horse doctor, and the same old medicine. But this time around we are to ban soft money given to political parties, and then to really make sure that works, we are going to restrict independent issue advocacy. We have solved the problem. Right? Wrong. Whoops, instead of less money, we will have more--lots and lots of money. Pass McCain-Feingold, or the bill that is the underlying bill now, as amended, and interest groups will bypass the parties and conduct their own campaigns. Why give to individual candidates or their political party when you can run your own independent advocacy campaign, especially given the amounts of money these organizations have at their disposal? We are not talking thousands here, folks. We are talking millions. Talk about a negative ad Scud missile attack in 2002. I will tell you what. With this bill, there will be no party missile shield for those candidates trying to weather the storm. This entire business reminds me of the times I would take my three children to a well-known fast-food pizza and entertainment center; I think it is called Chuck E. Cheese's. As I recall, for the price of one ticket, my kids would run amok from one game to the next, the favorite being called Whackamole, where kids would smack mole-like creatures whose heads popped out of dozens of mole holes. Smack one down, and another two would suddenly jump up. Well, campaign reform is a lot like Whackamole. Well, not to worry now; we will fix that. Let's just add on another layer of reform. We will just limit ads that mention candidates within 60 days of an election. Now, last week, that ban was limited to corporations and unions and by groups they support if the ad was run on television and radio--not any mention of newspapers, posters, or billboards, just radio and television. Yesterday, in a fit of consistent unconstitutionality, we added another layer, making the ban apply to all groups. Thus, now the bill limits free expression. Good grief, Mr. President. How in the world can we say we will improve the integrity of any political system by letting politicians restrict political speech? Can you imagine how everybody concerned will try to game the speech police? By the way, there is an exemption for journalists. I used to be a journalist. Have we stopped to figure out who and what is a journalist and how we will get around that loophole? That is another story altogether. Hello, ACLU. How many court cases, indeed? What a deal. Pass this so-called reform and candidates will spend more time asking for contributions, the very thing they want to avoid, forced by the current low limits to beg every day. Our political parties will lose their main source of funds or become hollow shells, and if the speech controls are upheld, why, our political discussion will be both chilled and contorted. Of course, the real campaigns would be run by the special interests with independent expenditures rather than by the candidates and the parties. My colleagues, we have a choice. We can continue to go down this road of one party basically trying to unilaterally disarm the other and destroying our two-party system and the first amendment in the process or we can really support something that truly deals with the real problems within our campaign finance laws, and that ``something'' is the legislation offered by my friend and colleague, Senator Hagel. His reform does three basic things: First, he protects the first amendment to the Constitution and calls for full and immediate disclosure and identity. Second, he addresses the basic reason that our campaign funds are going around, under, and over the public disclosure table today, the antiquated limit on the amount of contributions that citizens may give to candidates unchanged over two decades. Third, he proposes a limit on soft money that is of concern to me, but at least it is semi-reasonable. I will accept the cap given the full disclosure and the increase of the amount of money that our individual citizens could and should be giving to candidates. Finally, if we are truly serious about getting a reform bill passed, if we want a bill signed by the President as opposed to an issue, it might be a good idea to see if the base bill amended by Senator Hagel would fit that description. President Bush listed six reform principles: First, protect the rights of individuals to participate in democracy by updating the limits on individual giving to candidates and parties and protecting the rights of citizen groups to engage in issue advocacy. Hagel passes; the underlying bill, as amended to date, does not. Second, the President said we should maintain strong political parties. Hagel passes that test; the underlying bill without Hagel does not. Third, the President said we should ban the corporate and union soft money. I don't buy that, but under Senator Hagel, he does limit soft money. Fourth, the President said we should eliminate involuntary contributions. Hagel doesn't deal with that issue. The underlying bill as amended or, to be more accurate, as not amended, does not meet this criterion. Fifth, require full and prompt disclosure. The Hagel bill meets this test. Sixth, to promote a fair, balanced, and constitutional approach. Here, the President supports including a nonseverability provision, so if any provision of the bill is found unconstitutional, the entire bill is sent back to Congress for further deliberation. Well, we still have that issue before us. However, the bottom line is that if you want a campaign reform measure that President Bush will sign, you should support the measure I have cosponsored with Senator Hagel. There is one other thing. Too many times, common sense is an uncommon virtue in this body. Here we have a paradox of enormous irony. Legislation that is unconstitutional, that endangers free speech, that advantages independent special interests and the wealthy and that will cripple the two-party system and individual participation has been labeled and bookshelved by many of the hangers-on within the national media and the special interests that are favored in the legislation as being ``reform.'' I just heard on national television before driving to work that reform was being endangered. What is endangering reform, on the other hand, is these same folks branding the effort by my colleague as a poison pill. Well, colleagues and those in the media, all that glitters is not gold. All that lurks under the banner of reform is not reform. There are a lot of cacti in this world; we just don't have to sit on every one of them. McCain-Feingold, the current bill, is another ride into a box canyon. On the other hand, legislation I have cosponsored with Chuck Hagel is a clear, cold drink of common sense, a good thing to have on any reform trail ride. I salute you, sir, and yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to establish permanent trade promotion authority, also known as Fast Track Trade Negotiating Authority. I am proud, to have Senators Gramm, and Hagel on board in this effort to give the Executive and Legislative branches the capacity to claim new markets for American products and services. As the chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, as well as a member of the Finance Committee's subcommittee on International Trade, Senator Gramm is a leading proponent of opening markets worldwide. I believe he was the first to introduce fast track legislation in the 107th Congress and his January 22nd bill, S. 136, is the basis for the bill I introduce today. As the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on International Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion, Senator Hagel is also a leader on trade issues and has consistently supported global economic engagement. Our bill, the Permanent Trade Promotion Authority and Market Access Act of 2001, amends the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 to extend fast track trade negotiating authority indefinitely. As colleagues recall, fast track includes both trade agreement negotiating authority and congressional fast track procedures, specifically expedited consideration of an agreement followed by the approval or rejection without amendments. Fast track trade negotiating authority was last authorized by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. Since expiration of the 1988 bill in early 1994, the White House has not had authority to negotiate trade agreements under fast track procedures. The President has been effectively prohibited from executing an aggressive trade policy, negotiating agreements when and where opportunities arise. In his `2001 Trade Policy Agenda', U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick noted that ``in the absence of this authority, other countries have been moving forward with trade agreements while America has stalled.'' What does Ambassador Zoellick mean by `moving forward'? Let us review some statistics, compiled by the Business Roundtable, concerning recent international negotiating activity. Of the estimated 130 free trade agreements, FTAs, in force around the world today only two include the United States; only 11 percent of world exports are covered by U.S. FTAs, compared with 33 percent for European Union FTAs and customs agreements; while Western European nations have negotiated 909 bilateral investment treaties, BITs, the United States is party to only 43; 16 Western European countries have BITs with Brazil--the largest country in Latin America, 16 with China, the largest country in Asia, 10 with India, population nearly 1 billion, and 13 with Indonesia-- population more than 200 million. The United States has not signed a single BIT with any of these nations. In our own hemisphere, the news is not much better. Mexico has FTAs with at least 28 countries; 25 of these agreements were concluded since 1994. The statistics indicate that the U.S. is effectively choosing not to participate. While our competitors are carving out markets left and rights for their products and services, we seem satisfied to avoid the challenge of passing fast track trade negotiating authority and giving a President the capability to establish opportunities for American products. Specifically, our farmers need fast track. The U.S. is the world's leading agricultural exporter. Exports represent about 25 percent of gross farm income and an estimated 30 percent of U.S. crop acreage is exported. Considering fast track expired in 1994, it is not surprising annual U.S. agricultural exports are down from a record of $59.9 billion in 1996. Exports were $49.2 billion in 1999 and $50.9 billion in 2000. $53 billion in U.S. agricultural exports are predicted for 2001. Indeed, the Asian financial crisis caused a sizable fall in overall U.S. exports to Asia. Nonetheless, with fast track we could have established enough of a presence for our commodities in alternative markets to offset the impact of the crisis. The bottom line on our legislation is that it permanently establishes fast track trade negotiating authority for this President and his successors. Roberts-Gramm-Hagel is indeed ambitious, but it is needed to prevent the U.S. from being left out of expanding world trade and all of the economic, political, and strategic opportunities therein. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to establish permanent trade promotion authority, also known as Fast Track Trade Negotiating Authority. I am proud, to have Senators Gramm, and Hagel on board in this effort to give the Executive and Legislative branches the capacity to claim new markets for American products and services. As the chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, as well as a member of the Finance Committee's subcommittee on International Trade, Senator Gramm is a leading proponent of opening markets worldwide. I believe he was the first to introduce fast track legislation in the 107th Congress and his January 22nd bill, S. 136, is the basis for the bill I introduce today. As the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on International Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion, Senator Hagel is also a leader on trade issues and has consistently supported global economic engagement. Our bill, the Permanent Trade Promotion Authority and Market Access Act of 2001, amends the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 to extend fast track trade negotiating authority indefinitely. As colleagues recall, fast track includes both trade agreement negotiating authority and congressional fast track procedures, specifically expedited consideration of an agreement followed by the approval or rejection without amendments. Fast track trade negotiating authority was last authorized by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. Since expiration of the 1988 bill in early 1994, the White House has not had authority to negotiate trade agreements under fast track procedures. The President has been effectively prohibited from executing an aggressive trade policy, negotiating agreements when and where opportunities arise. In his `2001 Trade Policy Agenda', U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick noted that ``in the absence of this authority, other countries have been moving forward with trade agreements while America has stalled.'' What does Ambassador Zoellick mean by `moving forward'? Let us review some statistics, compiled by the Business Roundtable, concerning recent international negotiating activity. Of the estimated 130 free trade agreements, FTAs, in force around the world today only two include the United States; only 11 percent of world exports are covered by U.S. FTAs, compared with 33 percent for European Union FTAs and customs agreements; while Western European nations have negotiated 909 bilateral investment treaties, BITs, the United States is party to only 43; 16 Western European countries have BITs with Brazil--the largest country in Latin America, 16 with China, the largest country in Asia, 10 with India, population nearly 1 billion, and 13 with Indonesia-- population more than 200 million. The United States has not signed a single BIT with any of these nations. In our own hemisphere, the news is not much better. Mexico has FTAs with at least 28 countries; 25 of these agreements were concluded since 1994. The statistics indicate that the U.S. is effectively choosing not to participate. While our competitors are carving out markets left and rights for their products and services, we seem satisfied to avoid the challenge of passing fast track trade negotiating authority and giving a President the capability to establish opportunities for American products. Specifically, our farmers need fast track. The U.S. is the world's leading agricultural exporter. Exports represent about 25 percent of gross farm income and an estimated 30 percent of U.S. crop acreage is exported. Considering fast track expired in 1994, it is not surprising annual U.S. agricultural exports are down from a record of $59.9 billion in 1996. Exports were $49.2 billion in 1999 and $50.9 billion in 2000. $53 billion in U.S. agricultural exports are predicted for 2001. Indeed, the Asian financial crisis caused a sizable fall in overall U.S. exports to Asia. Nonetheless, with fast track we could have established enough of a presence for our commodities in alternative markets to offset the impact of the crisis. The bottom line on our legislation is that it permanently establishes fast track trade negotiating authority for this President and his successors. Roberts-Gramm-Hagel is indeed ambitious, but it is needed to prevent the U.S. from being left out of expanding world trade and all of the economic, political, and strategic opportunities therein. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.