A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the maximum amount of a Federal Pell Grant.

There is 7\1/2\ minutes remaining in opposition?

There is story after story for everything in this country. The problem is, if we start funding all the stories, we will run out of money and tax our kids so they cannot afford it and tax ourselves so we cannot afford it.

The issue is setting priorities. The President has suggested a priority in the area of CDBGs. I suspect this Congress is not going to accept that priority, but it should function within the caps that have been set in order to decide whether it chooses that priority.

This is a reasonable approach, to set a cap and then say to the Appropriations Committee, you decide whether CDBGs make more sense than some other program that would compete for the same amount of money.

I will not vote for either of these amendments, but if I had to vote for one or the other, I would be more inclined to vote for the one from the Senator from Minnesota because he does not impact caps and takes it out of something called 800 which is the general operation of the Government which means basically a cut to IRS and other operating accounts within the Government.

I don't think that should be the way we should approach this. We should, rather, allow the Appropriations Committee to make decisions on this and we should not be arbitrarily in the Senate reallocating money from IRS over to the CDBG Program on the basis of anything, including stories.

I understood the Senator from Maryland wanted a couple of minutes.

I yield the Senator 2 minutes.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Maryland.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Madam President, I rise in opposition.

How much time would the Senator need?

Madam President, I yield the Senator 2 minutes.

Madam President, a lot of folks around here talk about budget reform, and this is budget reform in that it returns us to the days when the President was treated essentially this way, back under President Clinton, under President Bush the first. I think it is important to know what the issue is.

The issue is not defense spending, because the proposed budget point of order and the Presidential involvement does not apply to defense spending. So with regard to the supplemental that is coming at us, the majority of which is defense spending, it does not affect that. It is nondefense areas where basically emergency designations are used to avoid the cap.

The cap is the enforcement mechanism on the discretionary side. There are going to be instances where we are going to have to go through the cap because there are legitimate emergencies--hurricanes, the tsunami. But the simple fact is, there are also instances where we have used the emergency designation, such as for oyster farming, where maybe they were not quite emergencies, and yet they allowed the cap to be avoided for that spending item.

This tries to put some balance back into the process of when we are going to have domestic emergencies and when we are not, and making sure the President is part of that process, which has traditionally been the way we did it around here. So I think it is reasonable change.

I understand the chairman and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee are concerned because it may well impact them, although I suspect with this President they will be able to work out an understanding that they will agree on. But I do think it is an enforcement mechanism that is appropriate at this time.

Madam President, do I have any time left?

I yield that back.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following this debate which has just been completed, the following times be allocated specifically for Members to offer their amendments; provided further, that if the Senator is not here during the allocated time, the clock run against the time reserved for the amendment.

I send a list of those allocations to the desk.

Madam President, the Senator from Massachusetts is correct. Money does not solve the problem of education. If it did, the city of Washington would have the finest schools and the best academic experience in the country instead of the worst. The students regrettably score at the bottom of the Nation year in and year out. Yet on a per capita basis, more money is spent per child here in Washington than any place else in America: $12,000 a year per child. I congratulate the present Mayor for trying to address the issue through creating choice within the school system. But that is a fact. Money does not necessarily solve education problems.

However, in the area of money, this Presidency has done a dramatically better job than the prior President in his commitment to increasing education dollars. Since coming into office, President Bush's increase in education exceeds that of President Clinton by 33 percent. His increase in funding for title I exceeds that of President Clinton by 52 percent. His increase in IDEA funding exceeds that of President Clinton by 75 percent. His increase in funding of No Child Left Behind exceeds President Clinton's areas in approximately the same programs by 46 percent. In this budget proposal, the President has proposed adding another $500 million in IDEA, $600 million in title I, $1 billion in No Child Left Behind, and half a billion dollars into Pell grants.

In addition, this budget itself sets up the process for significant increases in funding in the Pell grant area so that we can get to a $4,150 grant next year. And if we follow the proposal of this budget, we will get to a $5,100 grant for people who use Pell grants and go to college for 4 years and complete their schooling.

In addition, we put in $5.5 billion, approximately, in order to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. And yes, it is paid for in large part, but it is paid for by basically ratcheting down on lenders. I suspect the Senator from Massachusetts will be comfortable with many of the pay-fors which Senator Enzi comes up with in committee. So the education commitment of this administration has been extraordinarily strong, and this budget puts forth some very creative and unique ideas for going forward on that aggressive approach.

This amendment is not the way to proceed. The Senator from Massachusetts has never been a wilting violet on the concept of increasing taxes. This amendment reinforces that fine track record as it increases taxes by $10.9 billion. In fact, the entire other side of the aisle has not been much in the way of wilting violets on the issue of increasing taxes.

So far we have had approximately seven amendments that we have accounted for. I think there are a lot more floating around here that we have not yet accounted for that had they been passed or if they are passed--four of them were, fortunately, defeated--would have added $47 billion. That doesn't count this $10 billion. So we are up to almost $60 billion of new taxes that has been proposed so far. I suspect that number is understated because I think we are missing five or six amendments that had been suggested in the last few hours late last evening.

So there is no question but there is a philosophy on the other side which this side is trying not to subscribe to, which is that you just raise taxes and you spend more money and that solves the problem. That doesn't solve the problem. The problem is that we have to set priorities, and within those priorities, some programs of the Federal Government should be funded more aggressively than others.

What the President has suggested specifically is that the core educational initiatives of the Federal Government--No Child Left Behind, title I, special education, Pell grant, higher education--will be funded extremely aggressively. The Congress may not decide to choose to follow that course of action, but at least we should go forward with the concept that we are going to set the priorities within a budget that we can afford and not break that budget and raise taxes on the American people.

Therefore, I oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Montana for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. President, I appreciate the question of the Senator from Montana. Yes, the Senator's understanding is correct. We took great care to assure that this budget resolution was constructed to provide the Agriculture Committee with the flexibility needed to achieve a reduction in the deficit while ensuring continued support for programs that provide a critical safety net for farmers and ranchers, promote conservation, and reduce hunger.

Yes, the Senator is correct. I believe the House budget resolution proposes reducing mandatory spending for agriculture by $5.3 billion over the next 5 years. I add that the President's budget proposed to reduce mandatory program spending for agriculture by nearly $9 billion.

Mr. President, I will state that the Senator from Montana has been extremely persuasive. We started out with a budget number in this budget that essentially tracked the President's number in agriculture. But as a result of listening to the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Georgia, chairman of the Agriculture Committee, we have backed that number down rather dramatically from the original request of $9 billion by the President's $2.8 billion. And we have, as the Senator from Montana noted, at the request of the Senator from Georgia, given maximum flexibility to the Agriculture Committee so that they can reach that number. Remember, that is a 5-year number, not a 1- year number; the $2.8 billion is spent over 5 years. They can reach that number however it is deemed best in looking at it through the lens of the Agriculture Committee, where the real expertise resides.

I thank the Senator from Montana for his very constructive effort in this area. I assure the people of Montana he has certainly held their interests and put their interests first and aggressively pursued it.

I yield the balance of our time to the Senator from Georgia.

To quote President Reagan: The only thing in this city that has eternal life is a Federal program.

COPS is the No. 1 poster child for that statement. Why is the COPS Program being wound down? Because when it was started, it was supposed to end after 3 years.

That was the agreement. When President Clinton offered this proposal, which I supported, which I funded--I happened to chair the subcommittee that funded this proposal--the understanding was it would be a 3-year program. The cities and towns would come in, they would get their police officers approved, and then after 3 years those police officers would be off the Federal payroll, on the local payroll, and when we got to 100,000 police officers, the program would end. In the year 2000, we got to 100,000 police officers; in the year 2001, we got to 110,000 police officers--and the program goes on and on.

There was an agreement 2 years ago that we would only fund those officers who were sort of the end of the line--in rural communities, essentially--and then we would terminate the program the way it was supposed to be originally terminated. That has not happened, either.

Finally, the President, living up to the commitment of President Clinton, has said: Enough is enough. The program did what it was supposed to do, it put over 100,000 police officers on the street. As a result of doing that, it has succeeded. Let's declare victory relative to this program because it accomplished what it was supposed to accomplish--it added 110,000 or 120,000 officers, I guess, in the end-- and let's take these funds which were being used here and move them to another account, specifically accounts which are going to be more focused on a targeted response--primarily to the threat of terrorism-- versus a general response.

The police officers, obviously, have a terrorism role, but they have a lot broader portfolio when they walk on that street, from moving- vehicle crimes to, obviously, violent crimes to drug crimes. But the dollars that were being spent on the COPS Program have been moved over, essentially to homeland defense and other accounts, the purpose of which is to get the Federal role together in an area where we have a priority, which is fighting terrorism.

The officers who were put on the street by this program are theoretically still on the street because the communities that use this program to basically gear these officers up--I think we paid 75 percent the first year, 55 percent the second year, 25 percent the third year, and then it goes on the community's payroll, that officer's salary-- those officers are still out there, one presumes.

It is just extremely ironic that there would be such an outcry to keep a program that the prior administration fully expected and put forward as a program that was going to be focused on getting 100,000 police officers on the street, and when it accomplished that it would terminate. It accomplished that and more, and it should be terminated.

So I hope maybe we could prove President Reagan wrong once. He has been right on just about everything he ever did as a President, but maybe we could just prove him wrong once--I'm sure it would make the other side happy--by showing all programs are not eternal in this city and we can terminate one--the COPS Program.

I yield the remainder of my time on this amendment, then, and we will move on to the next amendment, which I guess is Senator Feinstein's.

Amendment No. 188

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the first piece of legislation that I will sponsor in the 109th Congress--a resolution calling on the Senate to strengthen the Pell grant program so that more families can afford higher education.

The Pell grant program is the single largest source of grant aid for postsecondary education funded by the Federal Government. It provides grants to students based on their level of financial need to support their studies at the institutions they have chosen to attend. For this fiscal year, the Pell program is funded at $12.8 billion and is estimated to serve more than 5.3 million students.

I am pleased to have Senator Feingold and Senator Coleman joining me in this bipartisan effort to marshal additional Federal resources for the Pell program. They each have been a leader in the effort to expand access to higher education.

Our system of higher education is in many ways the envy of the world, but its benefits have not been equally available. Unfortunately, it is still the case that one of the most determinative factors of whether students will pursue higher education is their family income. Students from families with incomes above $75,000 are more than twice as likely to attend college as students from families with incomes of less that $25,000.

Even more unsettling are studies demonstrating the negative effect of unmet financial need on college attendance for even the most academically prepared students. Among the most highly qualified high school students, those from low-income families were 43 percent less likely to attend college than their wealthier counterparts.

To help remedy these inequities, the Federal Government has wisely invested in a need-based system of student financial aid designed to help remove the economic barriers to higher education. Central to this effort over the past 30 years has been the Pell grant program. This program was designed as the cornerstone of Federal student assistance.

Unfortunately, the purchasing power of the Pell grant has been significantly eroded in recent years, forcing students to rely increasingly on loans to finance their higher education. In 1975, the maximum Pell grant covered approximately 80 percent of the costs of attending a public, 4-year institution. Today, it covers less than half of these costs, forcing students to make up the difference by taking on larger and larger amounts of debt. On average, students from the University of Maine graduate with approximately $18,000 in debt from Federal student loans alone, and this reflects national trends. As startling as this figure is, it does not include additional indebtedness that many students incur through private loans or credit card debt to finance their education.

The decline in the value of grant aid and the growing reliance on loans bring other negative consequences. The staggering amount of loans can force some students to abandon their plans to attend college altogether. According to the College Board, low-income families are significantly less willing, by almost 50 percent, to finance a college education through borrowed money than their wealthier counterparts.

That does not surprise me. Many working families in Maine are committed to living within their means. Understandably, they are extremely wary of the staggering amount of debt that is now required to finance a college education.

I also know this to be true from my experiences as a college administrator at Husson College in Maine. At Husson, 85 to 90 percent of students currently receive some sort of Federal financial aid, and approximately 60 percent of students receive Pell grants.

As Linda Conant, the financial aid director at Husson told me, ``You cannot imagine how difficult it is to sit with a family and to explain to them the amount of loans that are needed to finance a post-secondary degree. It

scares them. That is why Pell grant aid is so important for low-income families. For these families, loans don't always work, but Pell does.''

I also heard from Judy Kenney from Northern Maine about the importance of Pell grants. Judy lives in Castle Hill, not far from my home town of Caribou. Her daughter and son both were able to attend college with the help of Pell grants. As she told me, ``At the time, my husband Maylen was farming and having a rough go of it and I was a teacher and didn't make much. But the Pell grants my children received made it possible for them to graduate, one from the University of New England and one from Thomas College. Without these grants, they couldn't have finished and now they are making good wages and paying taxes!''

Judy couldn't be more right on both counts. Not only can the typical bachelor's degree recipient expect to earn about 73 percent more over a lifetime than a high school graduate, they also typically contribute 100 percent more in Federal income taxes than the average high school graduate. So this is truly a Federal investment that pays for itself over the long run.

We also know that having a well-educated workforce is crucial to our economic future and competitiveness in the global economy. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has projected that over the next 10 years, there will be significant growth in jobs requiring at least some post- secondary education. So increasingly, higher education is going to be necessary to ensure employability and to prepare Americans to participate in tomorrow's economy.

Pell grants make the difference in whether students have access to higher education, and a chance to participate fully in the American dream. That is why today I am introducing a resolution calling on the Senate to begin restoring the value of the Pell grant program.

This resolution calls on the Senate to raise the Pell maximum grant award to $4,500, a $450 increase in a single year. This increase is long overdue. The maximum grant award has been essentially level-funded for 4 straight years--at $4,050 for the past 3 years and only a $50 increase in FY 2002.

During these 4 years, think of the students who might have entered college and graduated with a degree, if only they had received additional Pell grant aid. Pell grants are targeted to the neediest of students--recipients have a median family income of only $15,200. An additional $450 in Pell grant aid may very well be the deciding factor on whether these students can pursue their college dreams.

The resolution also calls on the Senate to amend the Higher Education Act to provide higher authorization levels for the Pell maximum grant that would allow for a doubling of the maximum grant to $9,000 over the next 5 years. This is an ambitious goal but a worthy one for a nation that understands the opportunities that a college education brings.

As my colleagues know, the Higher Education Act is expected to be reauthorized this year. As the Senate HELP Committee considers the reauthorization, it is my hope that this resolution will prompt a discussion about the need for the maximum grant to grow.

I know that my good friends Senator Enzi, the new chairman of the Senate HELP Committee; Senator Kennedy, the ranking member; Senator Alexander, the chairman of the new Education and Early Childhood Development Subcommittee; and his Democratic counterpart will all work hard with other committee members to produce a strong reauthorization bill. I look forward to working with them further; they are all champions of ensuring greater access to quality education for all Americans, regardless of their financial means.

The President also has recently announced his intention to include a proposal in his 2006 budget request to eliminate the Pell shortfall and to provide an increase in the maximum grant of $100 for each of the next 5 years. I commend the President for focusing on Pell grants, and I hope that we can work together to provide a more substantial increase for the maximum grant for the upcoming year. An increase of approximately $100 for each of the next 5 years will not be enough to increase the purchasing power of Pell grants and will not keep pace with inflation or rising tuition costs. For 2004-2005, the average costs of tuition and fees for a public, 4-year institution rose by over 10 percent.

I will ask unanimous consent to have a letter of support for my legislation printed in the Record. This letter is from the Student Aid Alliance, a coalition of more than 60 organizations representing students, colleges and universities. Founded by the American Council on Education and the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, the Student Aid Alliance includes members such as the American Association of Community Colleges, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, and the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, to name just a few. I am pleased to have their support.

Mr. President, now is the time for us to make a commitment to raising the Pell maximum award to $4,500 for the upcoming award year. The Pell grant program is the foundation of making good on the American promise of access to higher education. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution.

I ask unanimous consent to have the letter to which I referred printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment is critical to my home State of Montana and to most States in the Nation. It is agriculture. Agriculture is the financial engine that drives, certainly, my State's economy. It brings in $2 billion of annual revenue plus benefits to rural communities and to our State generally. One in five Montana workers is employed in agriculture or a related field.

But this amendment is important not just to Montana; it is important to the Nation. America's agricultural producers provide us with the safest and highest quality food supply in the world. We all know that. It is worth repeating. It is worth remembering. Sometimes we take things for granted. Our agricultural producers in America provide us with the safest, highest quality food supply in the world. Americans are extremely fortunate to enjoy those benefits.

Agriculture is a small part of the Federal budget, but it is expected to shoulder huge cuts, very disproportionate cuts in this budget resolution.

The Senate budget resolution calls for a reduction in mandatory agricultural programs of $5.4 billion over 5 years. The budget resolution puts $2.8 billion of those savings on fast track through reconciliation.

I was one of the farm bill negotiators and supporters of that legislation, but I disagree with some of the provisions within the law. The 2002 farm bill represented a delicate balance between diverse interests. It was very tough to put that together. The 2002 farm bill was a 6-year bill, not an on-and-off bill but a 6-year bill, and people had reason to expect it settled farm policy for 6 years. People have to plan, to have a sense of what is going on. It is not just farmers, but bankers, equipment suppliers, and farm implement dealers. Producers and bankers who made financial decisions to enter into contracts with the understanding that the farm bill would not be renegotiated until 2007, that was their understanding.

If Congress proceeds with the agriculture cuts in this budget resolution, we will be cutting nutrition, not just the six basic crops in the farm bill, but cutting nutrition, conservation, and forestry programs. These cuts are not directed solely at the commodity programs. In fact, they are directed at many other segments of the whole agriculture bill.

The Senate should put off the policy discussions that are behind these cuts until we begin debate on the new farm legislation. That is the appropriate time to debate these policy discussions, not in the budget resolution to cut for the sake of cutting. The commitment

that Congress and the President made to farmers, to conservatives, and the neediest in our society should be maintained until a new farm bill is developed.

Proposed mandatory spending cuts will also unilaterally disarm our trade negotiators, especially our agricultural trade negotiators. The United States recently lost its appeal of the World Trade Organization dispute panel decision concerning domestic cotton. It is not widely known, but it should be well understood, the implications of that decision.

At the same time, we are negotiating a new global trade agreement with the WTO, of which agriculture is a critical part. That decision is going to put our agricultural producers and our agriculture program in jeopardy. We should, therefore, not commit to the substantial agriculture policy changes that this resolution would require while we are engaged in those trade talks. We should not unilaterally disarm. It makes no sense, and I cannot understand for the life of me why this budget resolution unilaterally disarms our farmers before we go into negotiations. Some argue the proposed cuts are good for our negotiators because they demonstrate to other countries that the United States is serious about agriculture reform.

I have learned through very hard, bitter experience that no country altruistically, out of the goodness of its heart, if it has any sense, is going to lower a trade barrier. They do not unless they have to. You have to provide leverage. There are many examples where the United States had to exercise leverage to get other countries to lower a trade barrier. It takes leverage. They just do not do it out of the goodness of their heart.

If we do that, think what the Europeans are going to do. They are going to say: Oh, those Americans, they have already eliminated their agriculture program, they have cut their supports, so we Europeans do not have to go quite so far. I tell you, it makes no sense, no sense whatsoever for this Congress to pass a budget resolution which cuts agriculture by such a dramatic amount.

In 2002, total EU domestic supports plus export subsidies totaled $37 billion. What was ours? What was the U.S. comparable figure? It is about $17 billion, and that is just actual spending.

Look at that: Europeans have twice the amount of agricultural support payments that we have, twice as much as the United States has--more than twice as much as the United States has. Yet we are coming before this body and saying we are going to cut agriculture even more, while the Europeans have close to three times the amount of subsidies we have. I do not think that makes much sense.

The total amount agreed to in the WTO Uruguay Round is $81 billion for the EU and $19 billion for the United States. Just think of that. That was the Uruguay Round. That was a mistake. Mr. President, 81 for them, 19 for us. These cuts contained in the budget resolution, to which I am opposed, are, therefore, clearly ill timed. This is the wrong time to do this. Developing countries, in particular, have offered very little in agricultural talks. If we pass this resolution, they are going to ask themselves: Why should they? They can keep their sky-high tariffs on agricultural products and still get the United States to cut its support of U.S. agricultural programs.

We also lose bargaining power to push for changes to the European's agricultural policy. That policy transformed postwar Europe from the world's largest food importer to one of the world's largest net exporter of agricultural products.

Let me state what happened. This pretty much demonstrates what happened in this country, why agricultural producers in the United States are in tough shape. In the 1970s, the European Union was the world's largest net importer of agricultural products. They decided that is wrong; we have to do something about it. So they did. What did they do? They implemented massive agricultural support payments for their farmers so that in a 10-year time in the mid-1980s, Europe became the largest net exporter of agricultural products. It was a big shift from the world's largest importer to the world's largest exporter in 10 years, and that is where they stayed. That is what we face. That is why it is wrong right now in this budget resolution to further cut agricultural payments which are disproportionate right now.

Our farmers and our ranchers can compete with anybody in the world just as long as the playing field is level, but we should not put American farmers and ranchers at a disadvantage by cutting U.S. programs just as we are seeking changes in other countries' programs. We should not unilaterally disarm. We should not unilaterally disarm agriculture just as the trade talks reach a critical point. They are upcoming. To do so would not just be unwise, it would be reckless.

Agriculture is being asked to make a substantial and disproportionate contribution to spending reductions. This is unjustified. There are other cuts in this budget not nearly as great as the ones agriculture will face. I just think it is sensible to support this amendment so we do not cut agriculture the way proposed in this resolution. It makes no sense.

I see some of my colleagues on the floor who wish to speak on this amendment. I see Senator Conrad. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?

Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from North Dakota if he might have time he can allocate to other Senators, insomuch as the time remaining on this amendment has virtually expired.

I wonder if I can impose upon the very gracious generosity of the Senator from New Hampshire and ask if perhaps he could give a little time on this side.

I thank the Senator. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Pryor.

Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the senior Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. President, is there any of my time remaining?

I yield that to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors to my amendment: Harkin, Stabenow, Dayton, Pryor, Lincoln, Salazar, and Conrad.

Mr. President, I want to start out today by acknowledging the cooperation and thanking the chairman of the Budget Committee for working together with those of us who have real concerns about agriculture and, particularly, relative to, obviously, the numbers that are contained in the President's budget and the final number agreed upon between the Budget Committee, as well as the Agriculture Committee. I thank my friend, Senator Burns from Montana, for his outstanding input into this and his persuasive arguments. It is because of things like that that we have been able to negotiate this number down to something that we think is now fair and reasonable.

Let me, first of all, say that I, too--like my Democratic colleagues on the other side alluded to earlier--came to the floor immediately after the President's budget was sent to the Hill. He was extremely critical of that budget relative to the requested deficit savings in agriculture.

I, too, was at the table when we negotiated the 2002 farm bill. On the House side, we felt like we had a good farm bill, and we got together with folks on the Senate side and crafted a bill that provides a real safety net for our farmers across America.

The fact is that that farm bill has worked exactly like those of us who crafted the farm bill wanted it to work--that is, philosophically. When times and yields are good and prices are up, there are very few Government payments going to our farmers. In tough times, when prices are low and yields are low, whether it be from drought or other circumstances, in agriculture country the Federal Government does extend a helping hand not to guarantee any farmer a profit, but it allows them to get through to the next year when times might get better.

That having been said, I discussed not just on the floor of the Senate my displeasure with the administration relative to their budget proposals, but I went directly to the President. I told the President face to face that I was very disappointed in the numbers that had been sent down here and that, at the end of the day, I really did feel like America's farmers and ranchers would be willing to pay their fair share for deficit reduction, but we were simply not going to pay a disproportionate amount when times are difficult in agriculture country, and when we have farmers who have depended on that 6-year farm bill and have made financial plans, whether it is the purchase or lease of land, purchase of farm equipment, or planning for the growing and harvesting of crops, as they have done, depending on that 6-year farm bill being in place.

Therefore, as chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I made a commitment to our farmers and ranchers that we are going to do everything possible to make sure that the policy of that farm bill is not changed. We can do that.

The folks on the other side, frankly, have made my argument for me. That is this: They have said, correctly, that in 2002 when the farm bill was passed and signed into law, fiscal conservatives all across the country and the media really chastised those of us that crafted that farm bill for spending way too much of the American taxpayers' money on agriculture programs. We knew that if the farm bill worked right, we would never spend what was projected. In actuality, it was projected that we would spend $52 billion on commodity programs in 2002, 2003, and 2004, and because we have had good yields and good prices in those years, we have spent only $37 billion. That is just in one title of the farm bill. So we have achieved savings of $15 billion in 3 years.

We also have the food stamp title, where no projected savings have been talked about at this point. Maybe some can be achieved. When I came to Congress in 1995, USDA reported that the Food Stamp Program error rate was 10 percent.

Last week, USDA testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture and said that the error rate has now been reduced to 6 percent. That is because of the hard work of everybody in this body on both sides of the aisle and everybody in the House on both sides of the aisle. We have squeezed that program down to where the error rate is still at 6 percent. That is too much. But still it is coming way down.

We can probably achieve some additional savings there. Also, we have the conservation title, which has not been discussed. We are going to spend about $33 billion this year on the Food Stamp Program, about 2.5 on conservation, and projected about 18 on commodities.

Now, if we have saved $15 billion on the commodity title alone in 3 years, am I hearing this right, that folks on the other side are saying we cannot achieve $2.8 billion over the next 5 years, not just from commodities but from all three titles in the farm bill? I think that is kind of a ludicrous argument for us to say that when we are in tough times--times have changed since we passed this farm bill in 2002, where we were in surplus times. Times have changed because we are now in a deficit situation and we must be fiscally responsible in this body, just as our colleagues on the House side must be fiscally responsible.

I cannot imagine anybody saying that we cannot be treated fairly when we are going to be cutting and asked to be finding savings in Medicaid, in transportation, in education, and in other mandatory programs, that farmers and ranchers and their respective States are not going to be willing to participate when we have already saved an average of $5 billion per year, that we are now being asked to save $2.8 billion over 5 years, that our farmers and ranchers would not be willing to participate in their fair share, so long as, and I emphasize this, we do not change the policy in the farm bill.

We have entered into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee that as he goes into conference he is going to do everything within his power to make sure we hold this $2.8 billion figure because we already know the House has come in with a number in excess of that. I would again say if the requested deficit savings on agriculture are disproportionate in any way, we need to look at it and we need to rethink where we are today. But when we look at the $2.8 billion and the fact that we have saved an average of $5 billion a year, I know and understand we have not been asked to share in an amount that requires that the deficit reduction requested by the President be taken out on the backs of

farmers and ranchers. I would rather not have any, but being fiscally responsible is as important as writing a good farm bill.

I close by saying that as I have gone around the country--and I have over the last 2 weeks. I have been in the far West, I have been in the Midwest, and I have been in the Southeast, talking to farmers and ranchers, and I am very pleased with the reaction that farmers and ranchers have given to me personally when we have explained to them how we are going to approach these deficit savings. What I have told them is we are going to be fair and equitable in each and every title, and that we are going to ask all of agriculture to share somewhat in the pain, but it is not going to be disproportionate, and we are going to keep the policy of the farm bill in place and we are going to find reductions in savings that will allow the greatest patriots in America--and that is farmers--to participate once again in deficit reduction, and when we do this we want to assure, in all probability, that farmers and ranchers will have this $2.8 billion returned to them in interest savings alone, because we all know if we continue down this trail of deficit spending, interest rates are going to rise. If we act responsibly in this body and also on the House side relative to this issue of deficit spending, we can either hold interest rates in line or maybe see them reduced again, which will be of tremendous benefit to our farmers and ranchers.

I am proud to represent agriculture country. I come from the heart and soul of agriculture country in my State, and farmers and ranchers all across America are the salt-of-the-Earth people who make this country the great country it is. They have always been willing to do their fair share, and that is simply what we are asking for, nothing more.

I yield back.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk, which I do not have in my hand, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I only have a few minutes. I consider this, as my colleagues might guess--in all my years working on this, I sound a little like a broken record, but this amendment restores money for local law enforcement.

I want to make a stark point. In the past, we had an opportunity to deal with actually affecting violent crime. The way we did that was we passed a COPS bill that did a simple thing. It put more cops on the street in the Nation's cities and rural communities. It had a funny effect, a profound effect. Violent crime dropped on average 8 percent per year since the bill passed in 1994.

We began to struggle with this concept and this notion even after the former Attorney General said the crime bill has worked miraculously, and then announced the administration was eliminating the funding for the COPS Program.

In that process, we went from spending over $400 million on hiring additional cops at the local level--not we, but local law enforcement, local mayors, local town councils, local State police hired more cops, and in the year 2001 we spent over $400 million on hiring new cops. That number is now down to zero in this budget.

All of my colleagues know, notwithstanding the fact they may subscribe to this notion of devolution of Government, meaning the Federal Government should not do anything the States can do, they have not only decimated the program that allows for hiring of law enforcement agencies locally but they have eliminated the big three, the COPS Program, the local law enforcement block grants, and the Byrne grants.

Total support for local law enforcement from the Federal Government has

gone down from $2.2 billion we were sending to local law enforcement in the year 2002 to $118 million this year. Will someone on this floor tell me how that possibly makes sense?

Local law enforcement is facing what I would call the perfect storm. First, the FBI has been taken out of local law enforcement. The FBI accounted for somewhere between 2 and 10 percent of all the enforcement done at the local level, depending on the jurisdiction, for bank robberies, interstate auto theft, and a whole range of other issues. But necessarily, the FBI has been taken out of that and put in counterterrorism. Violent crime task forces are gone. The Federal arm has been withdrawn.

Secondly, of the 46 or so major police agencies in the United States of America, 27 of them have had to cut the number of cops they have. In New York, it is 3,400 cops down; Cleveland, 250; Minneapolis, 140; New Orleans, 100. There are some 3,373 pending applications for additional cops from 3,373 jurisdictions in America, totaling well over a request for more than 10,000 additional law enforcement officers.

What is the last part of this perfect storm? The last part in the perfect storm is that State and local budgets are crunched. Now, I realize I only have 7 minutes so I will conclude with this simple point: I hear my friends say that Homeland Security is going to fill in the blanks. There is not one penny in Homeland Security allowing for the hiring of an additional local law enforcement officer, No. 1. No. 2, if anybody is going to find a terrorist about to put sarin gas into the heating system or cooling system of the largest mall in Little Rock, AR, or in Savannah, GA, it is not going to be some guy wearing fatigues and night-vision goggles who is a special forces officer in the U.S. military. It is going to be a local cop on his way from a Dunkin' Donut shop on his rounds behind that shopping center.

So we are making a tragic mistake. I do not understand the President's rationale. My legislation calls for funding the COPS Program at over $1 billion to eliminate the current backlog in applications and to meet State and local needs. We do it by cutting corporate loopholes and we provide an additional $1 billion in deficit reduction as well.

The COPS office has met its goal of funding over 100,000 cops, but it is like cutting grass. Everybody says what a great job it did. Well, when one cuts their grass this summer, the first week it looks great. Two weeks later, when one does not cut it, it looks a little ragged. Six weeks later, it is a wheatfield. That is how crime is.

The idea with an expanding population that we can use fewer resources to fight crime is absolutely mindless, and that is exactly what we continue to do.

These law enforcement officers taking this money over the years are a victim of their own success. They made it work.

I will close with a quote from the president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, IACP:

But when I first read President Bush's budget for 2006, I

felt as if someone had punched me in the stomach.

I ask any one of my colleagues to go home and ask any one of their law enforcement agencies, State, municipal, town, county, whether they need this help. I will be dumbfounded if they find anybody who says they do not. The idea that this is not a Federal responsibility is beyond me.

Where do my colleagues think the dope is coming from that is coming into their cities and towns? It is because of a failed Federal policy on interdiction at our borders. It is because of a failed Federal policy relating to all the poppy being grown in Afghanistan, a failed Federal policy of all the cocaine coming out of the Andes.

This is a Federal responsibility. To quote President Reagan--I do not know who he was quoting, but he is most associated with the comment--if it ain't broke, do not fix it.

This ain't broke. It is working. Do not try to fix it by eliminating funding for local law enforcement from in 2002 over $2 billion to in this budget less than $118 million.

I yield the floor.

Not true.