|
|
|
|
SUBSCRIBE The leading Copyright |
[Congressional Record: November 19, 2002 (Senate)]
[Page S11374-S11404]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr19no02-94]
HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are postcloture on H.R. 5005.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may soon
make a unanimous consent request that the time be charged against the
pending measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Disaster Relief
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, soon, I am going to ask unanimous consent
to take up the emergency disaster relief bill that the Senate passed
earlier with over 79 votes on September 10, 2002.
The only difference between my consent request today and that
amendment is today's bill reimburses the $752 million of section 32
funds that were used to pay for the livestock compensation program
earlier this year. This all really stems from the agricultural disaster
our country has been facing for the last year and, frankly, in
preceding years.
In 1996, not too many years ago--that is the year before the drought
began in Montana--our producers earned $847 million from wheat sales.
In 2001, 4 years later into the drought--we have had a series of
droughts in Montana--producers made just $317 million from wheat sales,
a 62-percent decline.
That 62-percent decline in sales is through absolutely no fault of
Montana wheat producers. These farmers haven't been cooking the books.
This is not an Enron matter or a WorldCom matter. They have not been
taking exorbitant bonuses at the expense of their shareholders. They
have been farmers and ranchers working the soil and doing their very
best, in many cases, just to survive. They are dedicated, honest, plain
folks, raising livestock for our country and the world, raising
agricultural and grain products to try to make ends meet. They need our
help.
The drought is no longer touching only isolated pockets of our
country; it has become an epidemic that is affecting a majority of our
Nation.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 49 percent of our
Nation's counties were declared an agricultural disaster in 2001; 78
percent of our counties were declared a disaster in 2002; 38 percent of
those counties were declared a disaster in both 2001 and 2002.
So it is in many parts of the country. In fact, a map I displayed in
this body earlier showed that the western half of the United States
basically is experiencing drought conditions, and the eastern United
States as well. Now, there are also pockets. In Montana, for example,
there are some counties where farmers are devastated and other counties
where they harvested a bit of a crop.
In any event, if you are a farmer who has lost his crop continuously
and you are having a very difficult time making ends meet, I say you
deserve our help.
According to the New York Times, on May 3 of this year:
In eastern Montana, more than a thousand wheat farmers have
called it quits rather than try to coax another crop out of
ground that has received less rain in the last 12 months than
many deserts get in a year.
It is anticipated that another 1,300 wheat producers will call it
quits this year if disaster assistance is not provided.
Continuing, Mr. President, that same New York Times article--this is
an eastern newspaper, not Montana:
Those people, small businesses and rural communities have
been devastated by an unpredictable and uncontrollable
national phenomenon.
On September 3, 2002, the Wall Street Journal also printed an
article:
The United States may be looking at the most expensive
drought in its history inflicting economic damage far beyond
the farm belt.
Producers every day hope, plead, ask that Congress help them a little
bit.
I could go on at great length. I am not going to go on at great
length except to say many times we have brought up this measure. It
passed the Senate by a large margin both times, and the other body has
said no, basically because the White House has said no. That is a fact.
Nobody denies that fact. I will ask again today; we still do have time
today or tomorrow, however long we are here, to help our farmers. This
is a disaster payment; it is an emergency disaster payment. This is
what America does. If we have hurricanes, we provide disaster
assistance. If we have floods, we provide disaster assistance. We have
other natural disaster phenomena in this country, and the Government
provides assistance to help the people get back on their feet. That is
all we are asking.
If we pass this legislation today, the other body can take it up and
pass it, and the President can sign it. It is that simple.
As we near the end of this session and approach the holiday season,
the very least we can do is provide disaster assistance to our farmers
and ranchers, many of whom are either going out of business or about to
go out of business because of an agricultural disaster, in most cases,
drought and in some parts of our country it is flooding.
I see our distinguished majority leader on the floor. I am quite
certain he wants to speak on this matter as well. It is a huge issue in
many parts of our country. It is very much hoped we can take disaster
assistance up and pass it at this time. I yield now to my colleague
from South Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from
Montana. He has been at this now for over a year. The very first
conversation I had about drought assistance was with Senator Baucus
over a year ago. I believe it was in connection with the economic
stimulus package of a year ago. It has been 278 days since the Senate
acted. So he has been at it for over a year. We, as a Senate, have been
at it now for 278 days.
I must say, we can go all the way back to a year ago when Senator
Baucus made the case that if you want
[[Page S11375]]
economic stimulus in our part of the country, there is no better
economic stimulus than to provide some drought assistance.
I would use the word economic salvation. This is more than stimulus
in our part of the country. This is salvation. This is the only way we
can provide some salvation to ranchers and farmers who otherwise will
not be here a year from now. We have done everything we know how to do.
We have passed amendments. We have passed legislation in various forms.
We have offered the House an opportunity to negotiate with us. We have
suggested to the White House: Act alone. It does not matter, use
whatever vehicle you will, but get it done.
How in the name of economic stimulus can we ignore a large part of
our geographic population, a large part geographically of our country?
If these people are without this assistance, the rural communities
associated with these people simply cannot survive.
I thank the Senator from Montana for his leadership and for again
coming to the floor to remind our colleagues of the import of this
question, of the urgency that we get something done before we leave.
This may be the last day. We may not be in session after today. If we
do not do it today, we will not do it. What kind of a message does that
send to rural America, to farmers and ranchers who have been waiting
now 278 days for the Congress to complete its work?
We voted, as he said, overwhelmingly--overwhelmingly, Republicans and
Democrats. I would hope we were not doing that just for a political
cover because this is far more important than political cover. This is
economic survival. This will provide the only salvation to the farmers
and ranchers who are desperately looking to Washington for help. Let's
do it right. Let's provide this assistance. Let's agree with this
request. Let's get this assistance to them quickly. Let's save them
before it is too late. I hope we will do that this afternoon.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, there are many Senators who wish to speak
on this because it is so important. I ask unanimous consent that I be
able to yield to other Senators without losing my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield to my good friend from Minnesota.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator
from Montana for his leadership on this matter. As the majority leader
said, the Senator has been superb in his leadership on this for now
over a year and has been speaking out not only on behalf of Montana
farmers but on behalf of thousands of Minnesota farmers who have also
been devastated over the last 2 years and have not seen $1 of disaster
aid provided to our State.
The message is: If you are a pharmaceutical company and you have that
kind of political clout, you will be taken care of by the Congress. If
you are a company that has run away from this Nation to hide your tax
obligation, you get a special consideration stuck in the bill that came
over from the House of Representatives which we just voted on this
morning. If you are a farmer in Minnesota, however, Montana, or
elsewhere and you have been devastated by conditions beyond your
control, the Congress is going to turn its back on you, the
administration is going to turn its back on you.
As the Senator pointed out, this Senate has not turned its back on
farmers on disaster aid. The 2002 farm bill--and I served with the
Senator from Montana on the Senate Agriculture Committee--had
agriculture disaster assistance in that measure, but, again, the House
and the administration turned a cold shoulder and had no funding
whatsoever, and the conference report came back after many days of
negotiation with the House unyielding and the administration unyielding
in their position of not providing disaster assistance.
The farmers in my State of Minnesota have lost over three quarters of
a billion dollars in crop devastation in the last 2 years--three-
quarters of a billion dollars in 2 years, and not $1 back from the
Federal Government. That is why people lose their faith and trust in
Government because we do the wrong things for the wrong people and we
do not do the right things for the right people. By ``we,'' I mean the
collective bodies, because this Senator and the majority of the Senate
have said again and again: We want to stand with those farmers who are
suffering the greatest losses, who are being wiped out.
Over half the crops in my region have been wiped out over each of the
last 2 years.
I say let's stand with the farmers. I stand proudly with the Senator
from Montana. I thank him for his leadership. Let's make one last plea
to this body and the House and the administration to do what is right
and do what is urgently needed on behalf of farmers in my State and
elsewhere in this country.
I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator from Montana for yielding
to me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I now yield as much time as he consumes to
the Senator from North Dakota, an ardent fighter on behalf of
agriculture, I might add.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana for
bringing this issue before the Senate again and again.
It is interesting what people consider a priority in this Congress.
We have voted on this issue of drought relief and disaster assistance
for farmers in the Senate. Seventy-nine Members of the Senate voted to
do something. We passed legislation for $5.9 billion. Let me tell you
why we did that.
This map shows what happened to a major part of the country. A major
part of our country suffered a devastating drought. In my State, we had
that extreme drought in the southwestern corner. We also had extreme
moisture and therefore flooding in the northeastern corner.
Let me show a picture of two farmers in the same State. This farmer
is standing on his land that looks like a moonscape. Put seeds in that
ground and nothing grows. Is that a disaster? It is if you put all your
hopes, dreams, and capital into the ground. We had literally a
moonscape. No pasture, no crops in these areas.
In the same State, flooded land. Drought and flooding. No crop.
Now, when family farmers suffer this circumstance, they cannot make
it from one year to the next. One of my colleagues said we really ought
to name droughts. We do name hurricanes. If a hurricane came through
tomorrow and it took a portion of the country and flattened it,
immediately airplanes would leave Washington, DC, FEMA would be on the
airplane, other governmental offices would be on the plane, and they
would be rushing there. Why? Because Hurricane Andrew, Emma, or
Hurricane Myrtle hit land. We would all understand this was a disaster.
All of the mechanisms of the Federal Government racheting up to try to
deal with disasters would be on the way to help.
But this gripping, relentless drought that occurred in our country,
with flooding in some other parts, is something that happens over time.
So there are enough people in Congress--including the President of the
United States--who decided we do not want to do anything; we want to
block this. We passed disaster assistance by 79 votes in the Senate.
Bipartisan. The Speaker of the House and the President say, We do not
want it, we will not do it.
My colleague from Minnesota made an appropriate point. What did they
have time to do? As to the question of whose side are you on, at least
part of the answer this morning is we are on the side of corporations
who want to renounce their citizenship and move offshore to stop paying
taxes to the United States Government, or at least minimize those
taxes. We would like to become citizens of Bermuda, some corporations
say. So this morning the vote in the Senate was to say, at least by the
majority, regrettably, we would like to help those companies. The
Senate already voted to say if you want to renounce your American
citizenship, you ought not be getting American contracts with the
Federal Government.
In the homeland security bill they have stuck in a little piece that
says let's make it easier for corporations that renounce their
citizenship to get
[[Page S11376]]
these contracts. That was a priority. It was a priority, for those
corporations that renounce their citizenship, to help them out. We had
the time and the will by some in Congress to help them out.
It is interesting, exactly the same people who do not want to lift a
finger to help family farmers are saying we would like to help out
these poor corporations that renounce their citizenship.
Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. I yield the floor.
Mr. BAUCUS. How many family farmers in North Dakota are able to move
offshore to Bermuda and not pay income taxes? How many would you guess
could do this?
Mr. DORGAN. The answer is zero. But the answer would be zero if every
farmer had the opportunity to do it. Do you know why? Because our
farmers are Americans. They do not want to move anywhere. They do not
want to become citizens of Bermuda. They do not want to avoid paying
income taxes. They would love to pay income taxes for a change. They
would like an opportunity to have an income to pay income tax.
There is no income with a moonscape farm or when your crop is under
water. Our farmers would not move to Bermuda for tax purposes.
Mr. BAUCUS. And that means they do not have to pay income tax.
Mr. DORGAN. Yes. They consider that unpatriotic.
The question is, why does Congress have time to help those
corporations that renounce their citizenship but it does not have time
to pass a piece of legislation that deals with disaster?
The point the Senator from Minnesota made is an important point. They
have the opportunity and the will, apparently, to help drug companies
but not family farmers.
It was Tom Paxon a couple of decades ago, when Congress gave some
financial assistance to Poland, who wrote a song that said, ``I'm
changing my name to Poland.''
Well, the question is, What is important to the Congress? Do you have
to change your name to get some help? My farmers are named Johnson,
Olson, Christianson, Larson. And they are out there and they put
everything they have in the ground in North Dakota. They do it on a
hope and a prayer that somehow it will rain enough, not rain too much,
the insects will not come, the disease will not come, and they raise a
crop and take it out of the ground and take it to the elevator for some
money. That is a hope beyond hope with a natural disaster.
We have a responsibility, if we care about rural America, care about
family farmers and care about the special culture they provide for this
country and contribution they make to this country, we have a
responsibility to help in tough times. That is what we ought to do, to
extend a helping hand to say, we would like to help you during these
tough times.
Yet, I regret, in answer to the question, Whose side are you on, too
many decided to block this. They blocked it at the White House, blocked
it at the speaker's office in the other body. The Senator from Montana
has been on the floor before--again and again and again. I am proud to
have been here with him to say this is a priority for us. This is not a
giveaway. It is not something that is not desperately needed. This is a
responsibility as Americans to say to others in this country when they
need help, here is a helping hand.
I am proud to have served in both the House of Representatives and
the Senate. In every circumstance on every occasion where someone in
this country has been injured, hurt, or disadvantaged by fires and
floods and earthquakes and tornados and so many natural disasters, I am
proud to say I have voted to provide disaster assistance to them
because I believe that is the best of what we should do in this
country.
I will never, ever vote against that kind of assistance to people who
are down and out and need help. That is why I would have expected this
Congress and this President to join us, 79 Members of the Senate,
Republicans and Democrats, to provide disaster help now when it is
needed.
I regret we may now, in the waning hours, leave this session with an
objection to the unanimous consent request, after it has already passed
the Senate by 79 votes and after the House is somewhere scattered
across America--done with their business, they will have left this
Congress and left undone a significant piece of legislation that should
have been saying to America's family farmers, beset by disaster, that
this country cares about you and this country wants to help you in a
time of need.
Again, let me say thanks to the Senator from Montana for his effort
today. I fully support him.
Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator. I notice my colleagues are coming
over. This is an important matter, and we have an opportunity and we
owe it to our people to get this legislation passed.
I yield to my friend from Michigan, Senator Stabenow.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Montana who has
been such a leader on this issue. We have all joined on the floor time
and time again to talk about the need for emergency assistance, for
disaster assistance in our States. As a member of the Senate
Agriculture Committee, I stand with my colleagues to indicate that
Michigan has been under a disaster from flooding, from drought, from
changing temperatures. We had our cherry growers this past year find
extraordinarily high temperatures in April, only to see freezes just a
few weeks later. This has stopped the ability for practically any
cherries to end up on the trees this year. It is incredible, the fact
that they have essentially been wiped out, not including what has
happened the last 2 years for our grape growers, what has consistently
been the battle for our apple growers, what we have seen from dry beans
in Michigan, asparagus.
I could go on and on. We have had harmed numerous crops in Michigan.
We have seen consistent emergencies come as a result of weather.
This is not only an issue for our family farmers but for the business
community as well. When we do not have the cherries on the trees, our
processors do not have any business. We are seeing processing plants
that are cutting back or closing. This is a ripple effect throughout
the economy in Michigan. I am sure in other States, as well.
This is truly a disaster. As my colleagues have said, if this were a
hurricane, if this were a tornado, if this were another circumstance,
we would all be joined together to help communities that find
themselves in a disaster situation because of no fault of their own.
This is no less a disaster. It is no less a situation out of the
control of our farmers and all of those involved in agriculture.
I thank the Senator from Montana again and stand, as I have
throughout this process, with the Senator. This is our last opportunity
to do this and to indicate to our family farmers, to agriculture across
this country, that we understand what you are going through; that we
support you and we will provide the same assistance we would for any
other disaster and emergency that might occur.
I strongly hope we will be able to prevail in getting some action
today.
Mr. BAUCUS. I might ask a question of the Senator. Did the Senator by
any chance vote for disaster assistance to aid other parts of the
country, such as, say, New York City?
Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely. As our leader has just indicated, we are
consistently coming together on a bipartisan basis to support important
efforts. I was proud to stand with all my colleagues in the time of
need of New York and New Jersey and all those who were affected after
9/11. We consistently have requests from FEMA that come forward, to
which it is necessary that we respond, and we do that and we step up
together. Honestly, for the life of me, I do not understand why, when
it comes to our farmers, we do not have the same bipartisan support nor
the same support from the administration. It is deeply concerning.
I very much hope as we come to the end of the session that we could
come together and stand up for those who fight hard every day against
the elements. They are in a tough job. They cannot control whether it
rains or shines. Yet they are putting food on our tables, as well as
around the world, and providing for a very important part of our
economy. I hope we stand up for them at this time.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from South Dakota.
[[Page S11377]]
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Baucus of Montana;
Senators Dorgan and Conrad of North Dakota; Senator Stabenow of
Michigan; my colleague, Tom Daschle of South Dakota; and others who
have risen on the floor to talk about the urgent need for disaster
relief to the agricultural sector of our economy. It seems
extraordinary to me that at a time when we have passed disaster relief
for earthquakes in California, hurricanes in Florida or New York or
whatever--whenever there is a natural disaster that has occurred, our
country has come together. Our colleague, Ben Nelson of Nebraska,
suggests perhaps we ought to give names to these droughts. If it was
Drought Hugo or Drought Andrew, perhaps there would be a different
perception at the White House.
I was profoundly disappointed this summer when President Bush
traveled all the way to Mount Rushmore, in fact, to announce to the
agricultural sector that there would be no relief other than what
meager amount there might be available in the farm bill. That was never
designed to address natural disasters. We have always dealt with
disasters in the agricultural sector or any other sector of the economy
on an individual basis. Some years we have them, some we do not. There
is no slush fund in the farm bill designed to be utilized for a
disaster relief. It is simply not put together that way.
Yet we know we could do a full $6 billion level of drought relief and
do it in a fiscally responsible fashion because, in fact, the farm
bill, over the course of this next year, is going to be using less
countercyclical payments, and those payments will not be required, and
that will come to around a $6 billion savings. It is not a technical
offset, we know that, but it is a fiscally responsible way we can go
about doing this.
But to single out agriculture for the first time ever in this
unprecedented way strikes me as an extraordinarily bad precedent.
Republican and Democratic administrations alike in the past have
supported disaster relief when disasters occur. It is not like we seek
relief every time we have a little shortage of rain or a little problem
of one kind or another. That is the nature of agriculture. But what we
have here is a devastating circumstance that has damaged agriculture in
a significant way in some 37 different States, at least, across the
country. Yet we have an administration for the first time ever saying
we will help tornado victims, we will help hurricane victims, will help
earthquake victims, but if you are in the agricultural sector, forget
about it. We are not going to be there for you. That is a precedent
that is of profound consequence to the agricultural sector all across
our country.
In South Dakota, the State university tells us the loss to the
economy is already in excess of $2 billion in our small State.
Obviously this ripples up and down every Main Street of every
community. Those who are the least capitalized, the younger producers,
are the first to be forced off the land at a time when we have a
demographic problem as it is in terms of keeping our young people and
young leaders in our rural communities. It has an enormous impact. We
will be feeling the effects for years and years to come. Even if we
were to have this disaster relief, as Senator Baucus well knows, this
would not make people whole. This would not make it as though the
disaster had not occurred. This would simply get people by through the
winter so they can know whether they have to continue to disperse their
herds or whether they would continue to farm at all--they would have
that knowledge. They would be in the hope next year things would turn
better.
As it is, we have had a 2001 and 2002 drought, 2 years back to back.
On top of that, we have unfair trade policy, concentration in the
agricultural sector, and all kinds of conditions at work to lower the
price that our producers get in too many cases and it simply gangs up
on our producers to the point where income is falling off a radical
level this year--down at least 23 percent this year; last year it
wasn't good. What we are going to find is a depopulation of this part
of the country.
If we were seeking something unique and special for the agricultural
sector that no other sector gets, it would be one thing, but what we
are looking for is equity, fairness. I ask my good friend, the Senator
from Montana, who has played such a lead role in helping to raise this
issue, is there any logic, is there any equity in singling out the
agricultural sector to be devoid of any kind of disaster relief as
opposed to any other sector that faces a natural disaster in America?
Why should agriculture be the one sector that is told to drop dead when
you have a natural disaster in your region?
Mr. BAUCUS. I thank my friend. Frankly, I was going to ask him
roughly the same question; namely, what possible reason could the
administration have, the other side of the body have, for saying no?
What possible reason? Can you even think of a reason? The only one I
can think of is, perhaps, that it costs money. That cannot be a reason
when we spend so much money in so many areas where there is no
disaster, no emergency. This is black and white. This is so easy. As
the Senator has so articulately said, in so many instances it is the
American way to help parts of the country that suffer natural
disasters, America is there. America has a big heart. We are there. We
are Americans. We work together to help other Americans who suffer
disasters.
The Senator has mentioned earthquakes. We know of the devastating
earthquakes, say in California and we were there. We know of the
devastating hurricanes in Florida or on the eastern coast, and we have
been there. We know of other floods and we have been there. All of us
together have been there. As the Senator said, it has been nonpartisan,
it has just been America.
But for some reason, and I cannot fathom what the reason is, the
White House said no to this disaster; said no. The other body, on the
other side, said no. The only possible reason I can think of, as the
Senator has suggested, for some reason they think they can get away
from it because farmers and ranchers are kind of stoic. They are good
people. They do not raise the rafters. They don't take to the streets.
They are good, solid people.
I think the Senator from Minnesota made a good point earlier. He
said, and frankly this is very poignant, it is ironic: When our beloved
late departed colleague, Senator Wellstone, often said, there are other
people--there are law firms, lobbyists, who can represent big companies
in Washington, DC. But he, Senator Wellstone, was there to represent
the people who don't have big lobbyists and well-heeled people. He,
Senator Wellstone, is there to represent the people. That is our job.
It is the job of both sides of the aisle, to represent the people. It
is the job of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to represent the people.
Now we have our nation's farmers and ranchers, down and out--there
are not better, more decent, hard-working, wonderful, people in America
than our farmers and our ranchers. They don't complain. They work
really hard. They do their very best. Yet the administration and the
other body is turning their backs to them.
It reminds me sometimes of New York. The current occupant of the
Chair from New Jersey certainly knows this phenomenon. Certainly, when
an administration or Congress says no to something New York wants, the
headlines are: Drop dead. The administration says drop dead.
Clearly this administration, the other party, to our farmers and
ranchers has said: Drop dead.
The Senator made another excellent point; namely, the farm bill is
not designed to take care of natural disasters. You must have a crop to
participate in the Farm Bill. There is no slush fund, the Senator said,
in the farm bill.
The farm bill is irrelevant to this phenomenon, this disaster, we are
facing. For the life of me, I cannot understand. Maybe drought is just
a ``silent killer,'' as some of our colleagues mentioned earlier. It is
not on the front pages. It is the silent killer in different parts of
the country. You do not see it coming slowly, but it just as pernicious
and devastating, if not more so.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his insight
because I think he is exactly right. While the damage is as great as
with any other disaster, it takes a matter of days and weeks and months
for this to occur, as opposed to the headline-grabbing earthquake or
tornado or hurricane that may take a day or two and grab headlines.
I invite my colleagues from the House who have refused to even hold
[[Page S11378]]
hearings on this issue, much less have a vote of any kind on disaster
relief, and I invite the administration to come to my part of the
country to look at what has happened to those fields, to those farms,
and to those ranches. The liquidation of herds has already taken place.
The equity built up for generations has been lost over the course of
this last year. Again, we find a stone wall relative to disaster relief
for agriculture.
I applaud the leadership of my colleague from Montana, and my
colleague from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, and Senators Dorgan,
Conrad, Nelson, and others who have done so much to highlight the
equity and the common sense of this action. It is my hope that before
we leave this place, we can in fact see to it that our rural parts of
America get the same kind of attention, the same kind of concern, and
the same kind of compassion that every other part of America and every
other sector gets when they have unmitigated disasters facing them.
I yield my time.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have the floor. Before I yield time to
the Senator from North Dakota, I see the distinguished minority leader.
I ask if he can wait for a short while so the Senator from North Dakota
can give his statement, if that is OK with the Senator from
Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would be glad to withhold. I hope it
doesn't take too long.
Mr. BAUCUS. I am giving him in a little nudge.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana. I thank
the Republican leader. I appreciate that.
As you can imagine, this is deadly serious for the people I
represent. This picture says it all. This is what southwestern North
Dakota looks like. It looks like a moonscape. Nothing grew this year.
It is the most devastating drought that many have faced since the
1930s. Many would say it is an even more devastating drought than we
had in the 1930s because absolutely nothing grew this year. It is a
devastation.
One of the newspapers in our State published this headline:
``Disaster Aid Just Common Sense.'' This is my hometown newspaper. They
said: Look, this is a circumstance that demands a response. Always
before, we have given disaster assistance to every other part of the
country in every other circumstance, but not here.
The President of the United States says take the aid out of the farm
bill. There is no disaster aid in the farm bill. That was specifically
precluded. But the farm bill can provide the funding because the
savings from the farm bill will directly provide the amount of money
necessary for disaster assistance.
Here is the circumstance we face, according to the USDA. Net farm
income is going to go down 21 percent even though prices are higher.
Even though farm program payments will be lower, farm income is going
to plunge. It is going to plunge because of natural disasters in every
part of the country. Obviously, it is very acute in the Midwest--
especially Montana, North Dakota, and Minnesota.
I end by reminding colleagues of what Senator Wellstone, who so
tragically died, said in his last days. He was fighting for disaster
aid. He said: ``Politics delays aid for northwest Minnesota farmers.''
Senator Wellstone may be prophetic in what he said because he was
afraid that politics would kill the disaster assistance that is so
desperately needed.
In my State, literally hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of farm
families will be forced off the land if we don't do what we have always
done in the past; that is, provide disaster assistance--a disaster
package that can be fully offset and fully funded by savings out of the
farm bill. Because of these natural disasters, and because we have had
drought and floods, production is less and prices are higher. That
means payments are less from the farm bill. That money could be used to
pay for disaster assistance that is so desperately needed.
I plead with my colleagues. I plead with them. Let us do now what we
have always done in the past. When any part of the country suffered a
disaster, we helped. We should do no less now.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of S. 3099, the bill to provide emergency
disaster assistance to agricultural producers, that the bill be read a
third time and passed, that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, and that any statements thereon be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, before I ask the Chair to put that question, let me
just say that I plead with my good friend, the minority leader--soon to
become the majority leader--from Mississippi. I know he is about to
object. But I urge him to not object at this point.
Maybe there is a way to work something out here. I say that because
this is not a political gesture. As the Senator well knows, Mississippi
farmers are hurt for various reasons. As a final good-faith, bipartisan
way to work something out with the White House, if he can possibly
figure it out--I don't want to put the Senator on the spot. Believe me.
I don't. I am only putting it this way because this could be the last
day we are in session, and we still have an opportunity here. I wonder
if the Senator might not object. As the Senator from North Dakota
pointed out very well, there really is no cost to this because the farm
bill costs will be about this amount less because of the way the farm
bill works; namely, with the drought we have less production and higher
prices and much less in government payments made to farmers, it works
out to be very close to the amount of disaster assistance to farmers
and ranchers who suffer from a natural disaster.
I know it is a long shot. I am still going to make the request. We
haven't given up around here trying to help our people.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have no
doubt about the seriousness of the sponsors of this effort. Also, I am
sure the administration and the Congress are going to continue to look
at this to find ways to be of assistance in every way that is possible
and that is needed.
There are a couple of serious problems with this, though. First of
all, we do not really know what the cost will be. We are being told it
wouldn't cost anything because it would come out of the agriculture
bill. I thought I heard another Senator say you can't take it out of
the agriculture bill that we passed because it is prohibited. I am not
sure exactly how that would work.
Second, this bill came straight to the floor. It didn't come through
the committee. I have a lot of faith, even though I disagree sometimes
with the leadership on the Agriculture Committee. My colleague from
Mississippi, Senator Cochran, is certainly sensitive to agricultural
disasters. He will be the chairman of the Agriculture Committee next
year. We will have a chance to revisit this. But no committee
considered it; it was just brought straight to the floor.
For those reasons and others, and the fact that the House will not
have an opportunity to fully consider it, or even take it up at this
late date, I would have to object. So I do object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am gravely disappointed that there is
objection.
Our farmers cannot wait, frankly, until next year. It looks like they
are going to have to wait now. Those who are still farming, those who
are still raising livestock are going to have to somehow dig deeper, if
you pardon the pun, to make a living, scratching off the land.
I am baffled. I am totally baffled. This case is so clear. With all
due respect to my colleague from Mississippi, he made two inconsistent
points. I heard no real reason, just an objection, as is any Senator's
right under the rules of the Senate.
But, nevertheless, we have spoken. And I will fight this in January;
that is, we will figure out some way to help our farmers and ranchers
who are suffering from these disasters, just as other people around the
country get aid when they experience disasters.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). The Senator from Nebraska.
[[Page S11379]]
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I thank you for this
opportunity to speak today regarding the importance of disaster relief
yet this year.
Now, in just the last few minutes it became fairly clear this is now
going to have to carry over. And I respectfully disagree with the
Republican leader that this should be carried over. I do understand the
rules and will have to abide by them, but I think it is important to
point out that while the legislation may wait, the people who need
these funds for their very survival are not going to be able to wait.
They are going to sell off their land. Many are selling their herds
right now. They will not wait because they can't wait. We will have to
wait for this legislation and do the best we can.
But I would like to quickly thank Senator Baucus and certainly
Senator Daschle for their tireless efforts to provide drought
assistance. And I certainly associate myself with the comments made by
Senator Conrad from North Dakota, who I think very eloquently laid out
the numbers and what the implications are relative to the need for this
disaster relief in his State.
Nebraska isn't much different. Much of our land looks like a
moonscape because the pastures have had inadequate precipitation for a
number of months and, in many cases, years, and they do not come back
quickly. Without water, without snow, without the precipitation
required, the grass simply will not grow.
This body has twice passed drought assistance--twice. We first passed
it as drought relief. Then we passed it as part of the Interior
appropriations process. We tried to include it in the farm bill.
Yet as we come to the conclusion of this 107th Congress, the House
has failed to act. We must try one more time to get the point across so
that, as the year turns from 2002 to 2003, there will still be a
recollection that just because the year has changed, the conditions
have not changed; they continue, unfortunately.
We are here not to make a point, although a point must, in fact, be
made, but to get the necessary drought assistance for our farmers and
ranchers in those areas of our country that are experiencing a
continuing drought, a multiyear drought, that is devastating to their
economic well-being today and threatens to be even more devastating in
the days ahead.
Some are worried, apparently, about the cost. I, too, as a fiscal
conservative, am worried about the cost. But I must ask, what would we
do if it was a different kind of natural disaster, let's say a
hurricane or a flood or an earthquake, some other kind of disaster?
It is not that the people in this body are not worried about the
cost; it is that when we have emergencies, we respond to those
emergencies without looking for offsets because we recognize
emergencies are special situations. They cannot be simply provided for
within the current budget or in a future budget.
On disaster relief, the Congressional Budget Office has said
Government spending is down, almost enough to pay for this disaster
relief, because of this year's high commodity prices. Why cannot we see
our way clear, in some manner, before the end of the year, or right
after the beginning of the new year, to put disaster relief on the
continuing resolution or be the first order of business in the next
Congress?
If some believe this drought is really not as damaging as other
natural disasters, I invite them to come to Nebraska and visit with our
farmers and our ranchers and take a look at the landscape and begin to
understand that if our farmers and ranchers are unable to make it
financially, the lenders will require them to sell their land, to sell
their herds, to go into bankruptcy.
This damaging drought is not only a problem for farmers and ranchers,
but it devastates main street Nebraska, main street North Dakota, the
main street in any community that depends primarily for its existence
on successful agriculture. If you talk to the merchants in these small
communities, they will tell you what is happening to their business.
They are going under. They are not making it. They are worried about
not only next year but making it this year. Because if you don't have
money coming from agriculture, these communities are going to wither,
and they are not going to be able to make it.
So I only suggest, half in jest, that we begin to label droughts,
because if this was ``Drought Andrew'' or ``Drought Margaret,'' it
would have some identity that could attract emergency aid for a
disaster. We make a mistake in not having these droughts named after an
individual, as we do with hurricanes, because then these natural
disasters, these natural events, that occur over a continuing period of
time might have a substance that could attract the attention of those
who are today saying: Well, let's put it off until next year.
I can assure you, if we had another type of disaster today, it is
very unlikely it would be put over until next year. If we had had a
hurricane last month or the month before, I can absolutely assure you,
it would not have been put over until next year.
I don't think it can be any more clear to me that America's farmers
and ranchers need this effort in our Senate to go forward. We need the
House to pass disaster relief. I have seen so much of the damage
firsthand. I have been across the State. I see the reports. This summer
I was on a dryland farm that has had crops--some good, some bad--for 70
years. During the Dust Bowl years that farm produced a crop. This year
there is no crop--for the first time in 70 years, and perhaps long
before that, certainly in the recollection of the owners of that farm.
They can only go back 70 years. But they know there has never been a
year until this year where they have not had a crop.
A family farmer in my hometown of McCook, NE, Dale Dueland, whom I
have known since the days he crawled across his family's floor--he is
not going to like me saying that, but I remember when he was that
little boy in that farmhouse, and today he is a man with children, and
with a successful farming operation, except for the drought. It is not
simply because of prices but because it does not matter what the price
is if you do not have a crop.
He does not have a crop. He said he would have a zero yield on his
900 acres of dryland corn. It would not matter if corn went to $5; if
you don't have anything to sell because of a disaster of this kind, you
are not going to be able to make it. His poor crop performance is not
the result of poor planning or poor farming or nondrought-related
weather. This is the result of a natural disaster that has been going
on in some cases for over 2 years.
For much of my State, this is, in fact, a no-yield year or, at best,
a low-yield year.
Al Davis from Hyannis, NE, told me that ``each day places another
nail in the coffin of many individual ranchers in Nebraska and on the
Great Plains. Many ranchers have already thrown in the towel and are
liquidating portions of their herds,'' which will have an impact not
only today but tomorrow, the next year, and the next year, because
rebuilding herds is not a singular event that occurs in a short
timeframe. It takes years to build a herd. It takes only days to
liquidate a herd.
Annette Dubas, who owns a ranch and farm in western Nance County in
Nebraska, told me that after the third year in a row of drought
conditions, some farmers in her area have already been forced out while
others have been working two jobs just to be able to keep their farm
going. That is neither a happy situation nor is that a good thought
about what the future is going to hold. They are going to have to be
able to sell or they are going to have to be able to have a crop or
they are simply going to go out of business.
These are not big time corporate farms. Nebraska law bans corporate
farming. These are family farmers who are being driven out of business
for the first time in generations. These farms have been in their
families for many generations; in some cases, 100 years or more.
Farmers and ranchers have not only been let down by Mother Nature, they
have been let down by those in the Senate and House who have blocked
efforts to provide disaster relief despite its severity and despite
CBO's savings indications.
We can't keep denying relief to those in need. Maybe the procedure is
that it be put over for another couple months. But it must be one of
the first things, if not the first thing, that this Senate
[[Page S11380]]
and the House take up after the beginning of the year in the new
Congress. We cannot allow the House to remain idle on the issue. We
need the White House to support this bill, and we cannot allow
objections from those few who don't understand that this drought is no
different than a flood or a hurricane or an earthquake to stop us from
providing relief. We must, in fact, recognize the savings from the farm
bill are there. And if need be, we need to get it as part of this
drought assistance.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to say, before the Senator from
Nebraska leaves the floor, that the statement made by the Senator from
Nebraska, former Governor, should be a primer for someone trying to lay
out a case. He laid out a case as well as I have ever heard. He talked
about the State itself, about individual people. It is compelling.
Nevada, of course, does not have large agricultural interests. We
have some agricultural interests. But the Senator from Nebraska has
done as good a job as I have ever heard in presenting a case.
I hope the people of Nebraska know what an advocate they have in the
Senator from Nebraska. When students study how to lay out a case,
whether it is for farm aid or whether it is for anything else,
reviewing the statement of the Senator from Nebraska makes the case in
point.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Nevada.
The challenge we have in Nebraska is laid out by the fact that this is
about the present but also the future. The future will be dim if we are
not able to take care of the problems that have developed in the past
and continue today. It is about young people, the future of the State,
and the future food needs for the people of this country. Everybody
will be continually adversely affected if we don't remedy this
situation as soon as possible. If it can't be before January 7 of this
coming year, it would still be early enough.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Bay Mills Indian Community Land Claim Settlement Act
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss another bill, a
very important bill to communities in Michigan, a bill I introduced
earlier this year, S. 2986, the Bay Mills Indian Community Land Claim
Settlement Act. I also, on a personal note, thank Patty Bouch of my
staff for her excellent work on this issue. She has been diligently
focused for a number of months now in working with all those interested
in this issue.
S. 2986 provides for congressional approval of a land claim
settlement agreement reached earlier this year by the State of
Michigan, Governor Engler, and the Bay Mills Indian community of
Brimley, MI. The agreement settles the tribe's longstanding claim to
over 110 acres of land that was once deeded to the Governor of the
State to hold in trust for the ancestral bands of the Bay Mills Indian
community.
This land, now called Charlotte Beach, MI, was later sold for unpaid
taxes and without the knowledge of the bands or consent of the State.
In agreeing to extinguish the historical land claim in the area, the
Bay Mills Indian community will be granted alternative lands in the
State as outlined in the settlement agreement. These alternative lands
are located in Port Huron, MI, and would become part of the reservation
of the Bay Mills Indian community.
Furthermore, the legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to
take these alternative lands into trust as land obtained in a
settlement of a land claim under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing on S. 2986 on October
10 of this year. I am very appreciative of Chairman Inouye's
willingness to hold the hearing, particularly that week, in light of
the fact that the Iraq resolution was being debated at that time on the
floor. It was a very serious week with much happening. I am grateful
for his willingness to hold the hearing and to work with me on this
issue as we have moved through the process.
The hearing afforded me and House colleagues in attendance and my
constituents a forum to explain the merits and the need for the
legislation. I appreciate the fact my House colleagues, Congressman
Bart Stupak and Congressman Dave Bonior, were in attendance. They
testified in support of S. 2986 as it directly affects their current
congressional districts.
Before the committee, Congressman Stupak discussed his past efforts
to remedy this land claim for the Charlotte Beach landowners in his
district. He has worked on the issue for the last 8 years. He has been
trying to resolve it. He believes that S. 2986 will grant the clear
property title to the landowners in Charlotte Beach, MI who have
inadvertently been involved in an issue greater than themselves.
The settlement of this land claim will also greatly benefit a
community in Michigan. Port Huron, MI is a community that is in great
need of new economic development and jobs. The citizens of Port Huron
can look directly across the waters at a casino in Canada--right across
the bridge. There is a large bridge that goes from Port Huron to
Sarnia. They watch every day as people drive across that bridge,
citizens of Michigan and the United States taking their dollars to
Canada where there are more jobs now as a result of that establishment.
On the other side we have a community desperately in need of jobs.
This community has wrestled with economic development and what to do.
In June of 2001, they had a referendum and the voters of that
community, after thoughtful discussion and debate, voted by a 55 to 45
percent margin to show their support for potential gaming activities in
their community.
This was done, as in any community, with thoughtfulness about what
the alternatives are. I know they are very frustrated at the fact that
they can look at job loss, economic loss right across the river from
them.
Should my legislation pass this Congress, Port Huron could be the
last U.S.-Canadian border crossing in my State to have gaming, which
would provide some desperately needed economic development and job
creation for a community where the unemployment rate exceeds both the
State and the national unemployment rate.
Unemployment in Port Huron is nearly 12 percent and the community
desperately needs new economic development and jobs. They have a plan
now. Community leaders have come together and developed a plan that
will work for them. It will create jobs in the building and
construction industry, and it will create long-term jobs in the service
industry as it relates to this project. They are urgently asking us to
pass this legislation. They are ready to go to work and get it done.
They ask that we pass this now in the final day of the session. It is
very important to them that this be passed this year and not next year.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian
Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 2986 and the
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the bill; that the
bill be read the third time, passed; and that the motion to reconsider
be laid upon the table, without any intervening action or debate.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, first, let me
say to my dear friend, the junior Senator from Michigan, I don't oppose
Indian gaming. I am responsible for writing the Indian Gaming Act. It
was done many years ago. I am still a member of the Indian Affairs
Committee. I haven't liked the way the law has gone with the Indian
Gaming Act, but I follow what the courts have decreed.
I think there have been some very good things happening in the
country in Indian gaming. They have been taken advantage of on a number
of occasions, but that is the way it is in a lot of different
businesses. I don't oppose Indian gaming, I repeat. While I had some
concerns initially, they basically have been met, and I have had some
very good relations with Indian gaming operators and operations across
the country.
I oppose this legislation that my friend from Michigan has asked be
passed by voice vote today. I oppose it for a number of reasons, not
the least of which is that the legislation would undermine the gaming
compacts that were approved by the Michigan State Legislature after
years of careful and deliberate negotiations.
[[Page S11381]]
Senator Stabenow's bill would circumvent the terms negotiated in all
11 tribal-State compacts, including the compact to which Bay Mills is a
party, which prohibits off-reservation gaming in the absence of a
revenuesharing agreement involving all of Michigan's Federally
recognized tribes.
Additionally, in recent gaming compacts, the tribes involved all
agreed to limit themselves to one gaming site for each tribe; yet this
legislation would allow Bay Mills, which already has two gaming
facilities, to open still another facility hundreds of miles from its
reservation and in direct competition with the tribes in the lower
peninsula.
Secondly, allowing a tribe to settle a land claim and receive trust
land hundreds of miles from their reservation for the express purpose
of establishing a gaming facility sets a very dangerous precedent.
This pursuit of off-reservation gaming operations should continue to
follow the procedures outlined in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act,
Public Law 100-497, which authorizes tribal gaming operations on off-
reservation ``after-acquired lands'' where the land to be acquired has
no relationship to the land upon which the claim was based.
Let me say that the first gaming compact ever approved with an Indian
tribe in the history of the country was done in Nevada. So it is not as
if Nevada is here opposing this request. The first compact ever
approved in the country was in Nevada. That is still an ongoing
operation and a very successful one.
The proposed casino would be located just north of Detroit on a major
link to Ontario that is in the lower corner of the lower peninsula. Bay
Mills is located in the upper peninsula. The legislation is
fundamentally flawed because it allows Bay Mills to establish gaming
facilities under the guise of settling a land claim.
The land claim is simply--and everybody knows this--an excuse to take
land into trust for off-reservation gaming.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted
to speak for up to 15 minutes and that the time be charged postcloture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Health Care That Works for All Americans Act
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, recently I introduced with Senator Hatch
health care legislation, the Health Care that Works for All Americans
Act. I come to the floor today because I think many Senators are
frustrated about the inability to make more progress on the health care
issue in this session of the Senate. I want to take a few minutes and
talk about what I think the key principles are for this country to make
headway with respect to health care.
The three principles that I believe are central on this health care
issue are, first and foremost, to make sure the public is involved from
the ground floor. Again and again, what we have seen is health care
legislation proposed that is attacked by special interest groups, and
then it goes nowhere. The public gets understandably confused about the
discussion, and the bill dies.
Under the Wyden-Hatch legislation, the public would get the first
crack at looking at the key issues, which are: What are the essential
services that people feel strongly about? How much would they cost? And
who would pay for them?
The second feature of our legislation is that it establishes a
process to ensure that Congress actually votes for meaningful and
comprehensive health reform. The last time Congress took a crack at
this, almost a decade ago, there were not even votes in Congress on the
legislation.
The third principle we ought to zero in on with respect to health
care for the future is that it has to be bipartisan. The Wyden-Hatch
legislation is literally the first bipartisan effort in comprehensive
health reform in a decade.
I come to the Chamber today to say those three principles--involving
the public at the outset, ensuring there will be an actual vote by the
Congress on comprehensive legislation, and that the bill be
bipartisan--ought to be the core of the Senate's effort to reform the
health care system.
Today I wish to take a couple of minutes to talk about a central part
of our legislation, and that is what to do about rising health care
costs in America.
Rising costs in American health care are a runaway train, and the
American people have literally been tied to the track. Again and again,
small businesses come up to us and say they have been subjected to 15-,
20-, 25-percent rate hikes year after year. This is all before the
demographic tsunami comes in 2010 and 2011 when we will have millions
of baby boomers, and right now millions of working families, some with
insurance, some without, that cannot afford doctor visits and disease
treatments and the drugs they need. So certainly at the center of any
effort to reform health care has to be putting the brakes on those
rising costs that are literally a runaway train in our society.
There are going to be tough choices. If resources are limited, we
have to make some tough calls about how to allocate those resources and
to focus on some of the ethical and moral questions that are inherent
in rising costs. The tough moral and ethical considerations that will
be necessary to contain them are stark realities, but they have to be
faced if this country's health care system is going to work for all.
My colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, and I have proposed in our
legislation, the Health Care that Works for All Americans Act, a
specific plan so that citizens can face those realities and fashion a
better health care system.
Under our proposal, the American people will have a chance--a chance
they have not had in 57 years since health care reform was tackled by
Harry Truman in the 81st Congress--the American people will have a
chance, before the special interest groups have at it, to talk about
the kind of health care system they believe makes sense for them.
Our legislation has two major components: A public participation
process at the outset over a relatively short period of time, and a
guaranteed vote in both Houses of the Congress on the people's
recommendations.
When it comes to health care costs, there is a lot for the public to
examine. We are now spending 15 percent of our gross domestic product
on health care. The last time it was looked at, the country spent more
than $1.4 trillion on medical care, a 10-percent increase from the
previous year.
If you divide $1.4 trillion by the number of people in this country,
it comes to almost $5,000 for every man, woman, and child. Tens of
millions of our citizens, in addition, slip through the cracks every
day, even as our Nation pours more and more money into health care.
We are going to have to take a look at where the money is going. A
study that has now been published on the Web site of the journal Health
Affairs attributes spending increases primarily to higher hospital
costs and prescription drugs. Hospitals are raising prices to make up
for declining insurance, Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement, and the
money they lose treating patients with no insurance at all. Moreover, a
backlash against the tight hospitalization controls of managed care has
clearly contributed to rising costs.
There are a host of relentless forces converging on American health
care. Technological innovations seem to be coming at us from every
area, and each miracle cure comes with a high cost. More and more
health information is available through the Internet through sites such
as WebMD and health.gov. It shows up on the ticker on all the 24-hour
news channels, and each new discovery drives up the demand for care. If
CNN runs a story on a medical breakthrough at 9:30 in the morning, it
seems that an hour or so later we will be getting calls at our offices
asking if Medicare or Medicaid or various insurance plans will pick up
that coverage.
[[Page S11382]]
We have an extraordinary appetite for health care, for new
treatments, but sometimes when we order these, we are not sure we are
getting what is medically effective. We are not sure we are getting
services that are worth the money. And most importantly, there is no
way to measure it.
This is all compounded by the baby boomer explosion. Already, elderly
people make up 15 percent of the population and spend 40 percent of our
health care dollars. Folks are not just getting older, they are living
longer. Those additional lives and the care that is necessary is going
to require more funding. Life expectancy has risen more in the last 50
years than it did in the preceding 5,000. In the last months of their
longer lives, Americans are spending more money than ever on health
care. But money does not always give the best results for a suffering
individual.
As a direct result of health spending increases in 2001, the Health
Affair Study that I noted said health insurance costs have risen
sharply, but at the same time coverage is getting harder and harder for
many to get. The costs have gone up two ways. The first is with simple
premium increases. Insurance companies are asking purchasers to pay
more for the policies. The second way is through something called
buydown. Employers who subsidize insurance reduce available benefits
and ask employees to pay a higher share of the subsidized premium.
Employees often get lower wages, even as they pay more for health
insurance, with no guarantee their insurance will meet their needs.
When you combine that significant hike in premiums--12 percent has been
one assessment by the Kaiser Foundation--with a 3-percent increase in
the number of cases of the buydown, the total cost of insurance has
risen about 15 percent this year.
Nationally, businesses are still paying three-quarters or more of
employees' premium costs, but it is harder and harder for companies and
individuals to absorb those cost increases year after year. Fully 60
percent of those who have no insurance work for small businesses. For
the self-employed or for those who have to buy their own insurance,
premium increases at this point have priced many plans out of reach.
If someone is listening today and saying, ``The health care system
works fine for me,'' let's also reflect on the fact that while it may
work for you, it is not working for tens of millions of others. The
fact is, every single day in America those who have no coverage, those
who are going without, in effect, get subsidized by those who do have
coverage.
If an individual listens today and says, ``I am in pretty good shape;
things are going well for me,'' I only point out for the millions who
do not have coverage right now, those people are subsidized by those
who think everything is fine.
The fact is, it is just not right to leave millions of Americans in
this country with a feeling of helplessness and a sense that when they
go to bed at night they can see that train, that runaway train of
health care costs I have mentioned bearing down on them.
The legislation Senator Hatch and I have proposed gives Americans the
power to put the brakes on rising costs. It offers regular citizens the
opportunity to make tough choices about spiraling medical bills. We
will be addressing, if our bill can pass, the tough questions of health
care directly related to our families: The question of what kind of
care do people believe is most essential; how much are people willing
to pay; how do you contain the costs without sacrificing quality of
care; what about the government or private business being required to
pay part of the cost.
My bottom line is pretty simple. It is time, finally, after 57 years
of trying the same thing--writing bills in Washington, DC, only to have
them attacked by special interests--it is time to try something
different, and that is to give the people of this country a chance to
make the judgment on calls with respect to what kind of health services
they want, how much those services are going to cost, and who is going
to pay. The alternative is to continue to spend more and more on a
system that, while scientifically prodigious, is flawed in many of the
administrative ways in which it is carried out.
At a time when America is becoming a nation of health care haves and
have-nots, this country can do better. We have many of our providers
and businesses already making tough choices as they try to deal with
growing costs. I know scores of small businesses in Oregon and across
this country who are dying to offer their people good coverage, and
they have had difficulty offering it without effective policies to
contain those rising costs.
Senator Hatch and I believe with a different approach it will be
possible to reign in the costs, but it all has to begin--and begin in a
fashion that has not been tried for 57 years--with the American people
being given the opportunity to make some of the tough calls. The fact
is, the options in the cost containment area do involve hard calls. The
Kaiser Commission, for example, on the uninsured, on Medicaid, recently
laid out a number of cost containment measures currently employed by
our public health programs. They range from some that I think are
progressive to some that I think would make the problems that we have
today in health care even more serious.
According to Kaiser, the main way public health programs are cutting
costs is by cutting payments to providers. Private insurers then follow
suit, paying less to providers for each patient seen and for each
procedure performed or for each bed the hospital provides. Then, in
effect, the Robin Hood approach kicks in in a dramatic way with those
who do get payments, in effect, giving services to those who lack it.
But when the cutbacks get severe, when the reimbursements continue to
go down as we have seen in so many facilities, those providers, those
health care facilities that have a great sense of community and caring,
just cannot offer the services anymore. Instead of or even in addition
to cutting provider payments, some insurers and public health programs
are cutting back on what services they will cover, reducing the
availability of some services. Unfortunately, services are often cut
with no regard to their overall effectiveness--only for their cost.
Many types of health care programs are asking patients to pay more at
the time of service--higher copayments. Higher copayments are also
becoming a regular feature at the pharmacy, as prescription drugs are
one of the biggest reasons behind rising costs. Options include those
higher copays, requiring more prior authorization for prescriptions,
requiring or covering only generics, or even limiting the number of
covered prescriptions per month.
I want to pause to note a couple of issues here--first, that
prescription drugs are on the table in the Wyden-Hatch legislation,
just as long-term care and Medicare and Medicaid and private insurance
are. Senator Hatch and I are placing no limits on what the American
people can discuss and decide to change. And second, efforts to cut
rising drug costs are perfect example of the range of choices that
folks will face in this national discussion. Some of the choices for
cutting costs seem good and fair. Some seem punitive and unfair.
Senator Hatch and I just believe that Americans have enough sense to
tell the difference.
People participating in the health care discussion prescribed in our
bill will take a look at some of the toughest cost-cutters being
employed today. In the case of private insurance, companies refuse to
cover pre-existing conditions. They deny policies to people whose care
is likely to be expensive. In the case of public insurance, States make
last-ditch efforts to cut costs by limiting the number of people to
whom coverage is available.
All across America today, mothers will tell their children that you
don't always get everything you want in this life. That's the stark
reality people are going to have to face when it comes to reforming the
health care system. The key will be to find solutions that do the best
job of splitting the difference, cutting costs and providing essential,
effective health care services.
Cost containment is not enough. Our health care dollars must buy
quality care, that not only treats disease but also prevents it
whenever possible. That's the best cost containment. Failing that, care
that manages diseases to slow or prevent their progression may be the
next best thing. Disease management is a growing component of health
care today. Instead of allowing
[[Page S11383]]
months to go by between doctor visits, patients with chronic illnesses
meet or speak regularly with nurses or other health care providers to
monitor their specific condition. Doctors have concerns about their
patients being treated or advised by others, and all the kinks aren't
worked out of this system yet. But the result, in many cases, is a
reduction in the number of expensive complications and hospital stays.
I want to see Americans educated about disease management, preventive
care, and every other option available for reforming health care.
That's why the Wyden-Hatch Act calls for the publication of a Citizens'
Guide to the Health Care System. A panel that's a cross-section of
Americans using and running the health care system today will produce
it. It will be designed so folks can be fully informed when the public
participation portion of the process begins.
To me, some of these cost containment methods seem fairer than
others; some seem more sensible than others. The American people should
have the change to decide--because what's being done now isn't working.
Benefits are usually considered in terms of cost-benefit, which
basically measures how much money you save for every dollar you spend.
Another way of looking at procedures and practices is their cost-
effectiveness, which is how much good you do with every dollar.
Let me explain why I believe it is folly to continue to address
questions of health care and health coverage as purely economic
considerations. The problem is, and families know this, it doesn't all
boil down to money. You're not just dealing with a bottom line. You're
talking about maintaining people's health and about the basic care they
have a right to expect. Sometimes you're literally talking about life
and death. It's time America started recognizing its ethical and moral
responsibilities with respect to health care, and acting on them.
This is not the seismic shift it sounds to be. Just as individual
insurers and state health administrators are making choices about how
to contain costs, American citizens are making moral choices around
their kitchen tables every day. People already have to answer questions
like, it okay to put off the colorectal screening my insurance won't
cover because I really need to pay for my mother's prescription
medicines? If we pay for Jennifer's broken arm, does Bobby have to wait
a year to get braces?
Doctors and hospitals are already making ethical choices about what
care to get and give, or how much cost the hospital is willing to
absorb before cutting services. The question that must be answered is
still the same: do Americans want these choices made as they are now,
in a back-door way? Or do they want a chance to discuss these issues at
the front door, decide on them as a community, and then ask Congress to
deliver a health care system based on the country's values?
A better way to make decisions is to look at what we are and are not
able to do on a societal level, instead of deciding what we are and are
not able to do for a give patient at a given time. If that sounds
tough, it is. But Mr. President, I'm here to urge that America tackle
these issues head on and turn them to the advantage of as many people
as possible. That's far better plan then letting back-door decisions
suck away more funds and resources and deny people decent care.
It's time to look at questions on a broader scale. Is $315,000 of
public money better spent on one liver transplant and follow-up care
for a 70-year old man with cirrhosis, or on 3,00 preventive well-baby
visits costing about $100 each? Does a woman with known risk factors
for breast cancer have a right to a mammogram every year even if I have
to help pay for it?
Because these choices are so tough, a variety of think tanks and
great minds have tackled these issues, including Arthur Kaplan at the
University of Pennsylvania, Daniel Callahan at the Hastings Center and
others. I admire their thoughtful work. Their conclusions and study
have provided valuable direction on these issues.
I believe that at the end of the day, only the citizens of this
country can make the fundamental choices that affect their health and
their well-being--and health and well-being of the society in which
they live.
Researchers shows that Americans believe that there are certain basic
rights when it comes to health care and no one should be forced to go
without. If it's been confirmed that the American people feel that way,
the key is to find out what the basics are and go from there. This
country won't get anywhere on health care reform until we do.
Let me explain a little further. Most Americans operate on the idea
that they should have the latest tests and treatments on demand. That's
possible--if America spends more of its dollars on health care and
other budget items like educations take the hit. But spending more
doesn't necessarily buy better health care. More and more people are
being let without even the essential health care services, let alone
the latest drugs and procedures.
Let me be clear. I'm not talking about keeping people from spending
their own money on whatever kind of health care they want. If someone
wants to rebuild himself limb by limb and has the money to pay for it,
I say go for it. But when it comes to the health care system as a
whole, we can't just spend money for the sake of spending money. Health
care dollars must be used in better ways, or the people of this country
must decide that it's okay to keep spending and keep leaving people
out.
I don't believe that's the way America wants it to work. As Marcia
Angell wrote in the New York Times, there are some essential services
in which we all agree the public has stake, and health care should be
one of them. For example, no one I know thinks of our country as a
place where it's okay for babies to go untreated because Mom and Dad
are in financial straits.
Postponing care sometimes places more strain on the health care
system. If a baby doesn't get treated at the beginning of an ear
infection, he may have to be treated as it goes further along, probably
in the emergency room at a much higher cost than if he'd had a
pediatrician to see in the first place. If he's not treated, and ends
up with hearing damage, the costs will skyrocket not only in the health
care system, but also in the educational system to meet his special
needs.
More than a decade ago, the people in my home State of Oregon
realized the interconnectedness of everyone in the health care system.
Folks realized that no amount of money would ever be enough to pay for
all the health care Oregonians wanted, and that too many people were
doing without health care at all. So the people of my state took on the
tough task of sitting down and deciding what the basics were, what
health care no one should have to do without.
That may sound like an easy task; if you could just sit and make a
list of all the things you'd like health care coverage to pay for, you
would be able to do that without much trouble. But there's a flip side.
The question Oregonians faced over and over again was, okay: if we want
this fundamental service covered, what do we have to give up? What
can't we afford to cover for anyone, if we want everyone to have at
least some help? Those questions sometimes translated into
heartbreaking real-life situations, where people using public health
care couldn't get the latest and greatest innovations on demand. But
lives were saved because people using public health care were able to
get the basic when they needed them. That tradeoff, for the most part,
made the tough choices worthwhile.
Now, Senator Hatch and I are not asking America to come up with a
list of 880 health procedures in order of importance. But we are
looking for a general idea of people's priorities--so that Congress can
act on them when it's time for health care reform.
I believe there are some priorities our people already agree on. I
think they agree that 18,000 Americans shouldn't have to die every year
just because they can't get health insurance and health care. I believe
280 million people will agree they'd rather cover the cost of
preventive services than get stuck with the much higher costs of
preventable diseases that go unchecked. I think with some serious
discussion, they can agree on some basic concepts of how and where our
limited health care dollars should be spent to help the most people. I
believe 280 million people can agree on a lot more than you think.
[[Page S11384]]
Some might say Americans aren't going to want to talk about this,
that the idea of not paying for someone's liver transplant to take care
of babies isn't fit talk for the public. But I believe Americans have a
right to this discussion. These choices are going to get made, one way
or the other, and I want them made in the open with the input of the
people I'm here to represent. The stakes are just too high not to
include the American people. And I believe they're up to the task.
To help Americans understand what's at stake, and make informed
decisions, the dissemination of information will be key. I believe the
Citizens' Health Guide will be a real eye-opener for most people--for
instance, when they find out this: Medicare Part A will pay for
prescription drugs when a patient is in the hospital. Part B will pay
nothing for those same drugs on an outpatient basis. Some doctors are
sticking patients in the hospital to the tune of thousands of dollars
just to get their medicine to them. That money can't be spent, then, on
preventive services or any other more beneficial health care concerns.
Don't you think when people see the connection, they will insist on
making a change?
Health care works like an ecosystem in this country. The consequence
of every decision, and every reform effort, snakes through the system
as a whole. Addressing health care properly, that, means addressing it
as a system entire. Ad hoc is not going to work.
Just as a good doctor wouldn't prescribe a medicine that would treat
one symptom but leave the disease to run rampant, it's time to stop
with the piecemeal reforms that put a Band-Aid on the sucking chest
wound of the health care system. To be most effective, you can't just
make decisions on broken bones one day, organ transplants the next and
something else the next day like they don't have any effect on each
other. This country needs a way to consider the moral and ethical
choices already being made that affect not just one person or one
family, but the entire health care system. As hard as it's going to be,
it must be done. The Wyden-Hatch bill provides a path to do that.
Yes, there are economic choices to be made about health care in this
country. The runaway train of rising costs must be stopped somehow. And
there are moral questions underlying every economic decision. The
Wyden-Hatch proposal is built around the idea that these questions are
simply too important to duck any longer. People deserve the chance to
discuss their own moral and ethical priorities when it comes to health
care, and to decide what's best for them and for our society as a
whole. Only then can Congress deliver health care reform that truly
works for all.
That's why our bill, the Health Care that Works for All Americans
Act, centers on that public participation portion, and then guarantees
the people a vote in both houses of Congress.
Perhaps the people of this country will choose one or more cost-
containment measures being used today. Perhaps in examining their own
ethics, they'll come up with new ideas. What Senator Hatch and I want
to guarantee is that their voices will be heard--and that this Congress
will act, with a mandatory vote in both houses--to make the people's
vision for health care come to pass. I believe that if Congress chooses
to put the people in charge, Americans will choose to fight rising
costs, make tough moral choices, and direct this country toward better
health care for everyone.
That is the point at which we have reached. That is why it is not
right to leave so many underserved in so many communities without
adequate health care.
I urge, finally, that as we leave and reflect on what is needed to
reform the health care system in the next session, that the three
principles in the Wyden-Hatch legislation of involving the money,
forcing a vote in the Congress on the reforms that come from the
people, and making it bipartisan guide our work in the next session.
I yield the floor.
Order of Procedure
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time,
postcloture, be considered expired except for the following: 60 minutes
under the control of Senator Byrd, 70 minutes under the control of
Senator Lieberman, 70 minutes under the control of Senator Thompson or
their designees; that 20 minutes of Senator Thompson's time be under
the control of Senator Specter; that 15 minutes of the time of Senator
Lieberman be under the control of Senator Dodd; 15 minutes be under the
control of Senator Sarbanes; 10 minutes under the control of Senator
Carper; and 10 minutes under the control of Senator Clinton; leaving
Senator Lieberman, I believe, 20 minutes.
Again, it will be 70 minutes under the control of Senator Lieberman;
Senator Dodd would have 15 minutes, Senator Sarbanes 15 minutes,
Senator Carper 10 minutes, Senator Clinton 10 minutes, leaving Senator
Lieberman 15 minutes, with Senator Daschle having the final 5 minutes
to close the debate.
That upon the use or yielding back of all time, the bill be read the
third time, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill;
provided further that the 10 minutes prior to the vote be controlled by
the two leaders, with the majority leader controlling the final 5
minutes, without further intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could further ask the Chair to consider
this unanimous consent request.
I ask unanimous consent that upon the adoption of the conference
report to accompany H.R. 3210, the terrorism risk insurance bill, the
Senate then proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 762, H.J. Res.
124, the continuing resolution; that no amendments or motion be in
order to the joint resolution; that there be up to 3 hours for debate,
with the time equally divided and controlled between the chairman,
Senator Byrd, and the ranking member, Senator Stevens, of the
Appropriations Committee, or their designees; that upon the use or
yielding back of time, with no intervening action or debate, the joint
resolution be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the
joint resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the only thing I would ask is I hope,
because I did move quite hurriedly here, that the time, the 70 minutes
that Senator Lieberman has adds up to 70 minutes. I am quite sure that
it does.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It does.
Mr. REID. I appreciate everyone's cooperation. I ask unanimous
consent that the time I have just enunciated not start running until 4
o'clock so people have time to get over here. But at 4 o'clock, I ask
that the time I have outlined here would begin to run and that anyone
who has the floor at 4 o'clock, they would have to yield to one of
these individuals who control the time at that hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator might speak for up to 8 minutes.
Honoring the Generosity of Andre Agassi
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, when I was first considering a run for
office almost 10 years ago, I found a quote from Chaplain Lloyd John
Ogilvie to be especially inspirational in helping me make my decision.
Chaplain Ogilvie once said:
You may only make a small difference, but that does not
relieve you of the responsibility to make that difference.
I want to tell you today about a constituent of mine who continues to
raise the standard for how much difference one person can make.
The world knows this man as a top-ranked tennis star whose
personality and success of the court have made him an American
favorite. In Las Vegas, however, he's admired for his generosity and
dedication to making a difference in the lives of our children.
Andre Agassi was born and raised in Las Vegas. Although he started
playing tennis as a toddler, he won his first professional title in
1987. He has won at each of the four major professional tennis
tournaments, and he holds a gold medal from the 1996 Olympics. As much
as Las Vegans love to watch their ``son'' winning on the court, our
hearts hold a special place for his devotion to underprivileged,
abused, and at-risk children in Las Vegas.
You see, a top-ranked tennis player who has won as many tournaments
as
[[Page S11385]]
Andre has accumulates a good amount of wealth. Throw in a few lucrative
endorsement deals, and you have someone who could live extremely
comfortably for the rest of his life. He could become his own island
with very few cares in the world. Unfortunately, many successful people
do just that.
Andre Agassi, on the other hand, created the Andre Agassi Charitable
Foundation. Its Board of Directors is impressive and is led by another
son of Las Vegas, Andre's best friend and president of Agassi
Enterprises, Perry Rogers. I can't think of many other organizations
that have made the impact that this one has. Its goal is simple:
To assist those underprivileged, abused and abandoned
children who may be deprived of basic options in life. The
foundation funds a combination of emotional, physical and
academic programs designed to enhance a child's character,
self-esteem and career possibilities.
Among the programs funded by the Andre Agassi Charitable Foundation
are the Agassi Center for Education and the Andre Agassi Cottage for
Medically Fragile Children at Clark County's public shelter for abused
and neglected children. The Agassi Boys and Girls Club, which sees over
2,000 members during the year and features a tennis team and a
basketball program, provides a safe after-school facility and a
wonderful learning environment.
The Foundation, through the Assistance League of Las Vegas, provides
the means for new clothes for well over 2,000 destitute and homeless
children; helps to send 20 physically challenged or disadvantaged
children to camp for a week each summer; and introduces fourth and
fifth graders to symphonic music.
There are many more programs funded by the Andre Agassi Charitable
Foundation, but I want to tell you about the Andre Agassi College
Preparatory Academy, known in Las Vegas as Agassi Prep, and located in
the heart of an at-risk community.
Agassi Prep is a charter school that focuses on technology, college
preparation, cultural activities, and expanded involvement in community
affairs. It also seeks to enhance character, respect, motivation, and
self-discipline.
While HUD and the State of Nevada contributed significantly to the
school, the core funding came from Andre Agassi's Foundation. The
school's principal, Wayne Tanaka, is a distinguished educator who, in
line with the goals of the Foundation, will truly impact the students
who are fortunate enough to benefit from Andre Agassi's generosity and
dedication.
I also want to share with you the reach of Andre Agassi's deep-seated
concern for Las Vegas' at-risk children.
Since 1995, the Foundation has held the Grand Slam for Children
concert benefits. The yearly event continues to draw some of the
biggest names in entertainment, hundreds of volunteers, and crowds of
almost 10,000. As someone who looks forward to this event every year, I
can assure you--there is no better show on earth. This year's benefit
featured Elton John, Martina McBride, Carlos Santana, Robin Williams,
Babyface, and Rod Stewart. And that's just the entertainment.
A live and silent auction before the show included sports items from
Shaquille O'Neal, Wayne Gretzky, Greg Maddux, Muhammed Ali, and tennis
lessons from Agassi and his wife, Stefanie Graf. I share these names
with you because they are a testament to the respect that Andre Agassi
and his Foundation have earned from so many different people.
When I tell you that Andre Agassi continues to raise the standard for
how much difference one person can make, I mean it literally. Since its
inception in 1995, the Foundation has raised $23.6 million to help at-
risk children. That includes $5.6 million from this year's Grand Slam
for Children--$1.4 million more than last year.
That's $23.6 million over 7 years, with every penny going to assist
children. All administrative and overhead costs are funded through
contributions made by Andre Agassi or Agassi Enterprises, Inc. When you
step back and think about the enormous impact that this man has had in
Las Vegas, it is incredible.
I share the story of Andre Agassi's impact on Las Vegas with the hope
that it will challenge and inspire other successful people to make
their own difference in this world. We all have a responsibility to
leave this world a better place, even if--as Chaplain Ogilvie stated--
we make only a ``small difference.''
Words are not enough to thank Andre for the way he has changed the
lives of so many children. But Andre, your acts of loving kindness will
touch not just the children you help today. They will make a difference
for generations to come. Thank you for making a difference in our
community and for setting an example for us all.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Might I inquire of the business before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes remaining on general
debate.
Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent that the time I use be a part of
the Thompson amendment of the homeland security bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Homeland Security
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today after talking with staff and
going through what we are going to do with homeland security. This
legislation provides the framework of the largest reorganization of
Government in many, many years; in fact, going all the way back to the
Depression days in the 1930s. But it is done because we are facing one
of the greatest security challenges that this country has faced in its
26-year history from an enemy that identifies with no specific nation,
an enemy that has shown us that fear is really something that erodes
our freedoms--and we learn how fragile they are and how fragile our
economy is.
Is it a perfect piece of legislation to leave the Congress and go
downtown to be signed by the President? It is legislation that he has
wanted and it has taken us too long to pass.
There are parts of this piece of legislation that concern most of us.
We have been around here long enough to know that once we pass a piece
of legislation--no matter what the subject might be--we find that the
administrative rule writers interpret it differently than we do.
Sometimes the net result is not exactly how we envisioned it, and maybe
not even how the President envisioned it.
There are sections in here which I am very concerned about. I think
as legislators in this body we must pay attention to how the
administrative rules are written and how some of the Departments are
moved into one called Homeland Security.
Drought Assistance
I was interested a while ago in the statement on the floor about
drought assistance to our farmers. No State has been hit harder than my
State of Montana. No one can argue that there is a need. In fact, we
have worked for over a year and a half with our colleagues here in the
Senate, in the House of Representatives, and with the administration to
get relief to our farmers and ranchers. We have been unsuccessful to
date for a variety of reasons.
There is drought assistance already in the appropriations process
that this Senate this year did not get passed--some $500 billion in
rounded figures. But it wasn't allowed to move because of the debate on
forest health.
Maybe this is the wrong place to talk about forest health.
Nonetheless, I could see no logic at all in every night turning on the
television, looking at the news, and watching America's forests go up
in flames, and then denying the money and the change in policy--a
change in policy that would have allowed us to prevent or at least take
away some of the possibilities for such catastrophic fires as we have
experienced in the last 2 years.
We were denied that--commonsense things, the relatively minor
commonsense things that we have to do to our forests in order to make
them healthy and productive and beautiful, as America envisions its
national forests.
I am reluctant to raise false hopes for our farmers right now and say
this is going to be done in the closing hours of the 107th Congress--
unless it is done in January, or whenever we take up the appropriations
bills. We have 11 more of them to pass. I imagine we will again try to
develop some drought assistance for those States that have been hit
hard this year by drought, and to help my farmers who are in the fifth
year of drought in that part of the country.
[[Page S11386]]
We see a little bit of posturing going on here on the floor today. I
do not like it. That wasn't the reason I was going to stand up here and
talk in the first place. Nonetheless, I had to discuss this topic.
I notice that my friend from Kansas has come to the floor, and he has
a problem, too, in Kansas. I think his State was probably the hardest
hit this year of any State.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, would the distinguished Senator from
Montana yield for a question?
Mr. BURNS. I will.
Mr. ROBERTS. The Senator really alerted me to this. And I apologize
for not watching on our closed-circuit television. Apparently some of
our distinguished colleagues across the aisle are thinking about
resurrecting the $6 billion emergency disaster relief package and
putting it on the continuing resolution. Is that the case?
Mr. BURNS. That was the case, plus I think there have been a couple
of suggestions made by our colleagues across the aisle. That is part of
it. With the House being gone and not coming back, it would seem that
this would be an exercise that could not be successful.
Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I would like to ask if the Senator
would yield for another question.
Mr. BURNS. I will yield.
Mr. ROBERTS. How on Earth do you take a $6 billion disaster relief
bill, which I happened to vote for, that was part of the Interior
appropriations bill, as I recall--and, as I recall, the majority
leadership filled the legislative tree and basically prevented this
Senator from introducing an alternative to the $6 billion package that
this Senator thought might stand a chance of approval from the
administration, might stand a chance in regard to the hurdle that any
disaster bill faces to get through the House Agriculture Committee.
I am going to be very candid. There were certain farm groups and
certain commodity organizations that did not want to consider any
disaster legislation for fear of opening up the farm bill and having
something happen to their payment limits. So you had the leadership of
the House Agriculture Committee saying no. You had the administration
saying no in regard to further expenditures over and above the $180
billion we spent on a 10-year farm bill. You had the emergency
assistance bill--not on Agriculture appropriations but on Interior
appropriations.
Then, all of a sudden, we couldn't get any action on the Interior
appropriations bill because there was a controversy in regard to forest
management. Is that not the case?
I know the Senator worked very hard, because of the State he
represents, in regard to forest management as part of that Interior
appropriations bill. But the disaster relief money was attached to the
Interior appropriations bill, and then we couldn't move it. We couldn't
get any action on this floor.
Is that about correct?
Mr. BURNS. Madam President, the Senator is correct. I am ranking
member on that Interior Appropriations Committee. There was money to
replenish the U.S. Forest Service for the moneys they had expended on
firefighting. That was also in there and needed, and would have passed.
But we got into a situation on forest health, and the other side would
not budge on some very commonsense recommendations to the Forest
Service on how we go about cleaning up our forests. I am sorry it
happened that way.
I would say to my Agriculture leaders, to my farmers, and to the
farmers in Kansas who, by the way, are not really interested in inside
baseball here in Washington, DC--a 17-square-mile logic-free
environment--they are interested in not only what the farm legislation
that we passed late last spring would do for them but also how we deal
with disasters. None of those issues were covered.
But the Senator from Kansas is right on. We have all voted for
disaster assistance until we have just run our little fingers to the
bone only to find it blocked by other legislation or parliamentary
procedures.
Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I would like to ask the Senator to
yield for several additional questions. I am a little confused about
this.
Mr. BURNS. I yield.
Mr. ROBERTS. I have a bone to pick. I want to see if the Senator from
Montana shares the same bone.
Let us go back to the original problem of why in the Great Plains and
the great States of Montana, Wyoming--and move over into South Dakota,
Nebraska, Kansas, which, yes, this year was the hardest hit State. Many
other States incurred bad weather and disaster conditions. But why did
this happen? The Good Lord was not willing. The Good Lord sometimes
doesn't have the creeks rise too much, or there is too much water in
terms of the creeks. From time to time we have disaster bills. They
tend to come during even-numbered years, by the way.
We have made a lot of progress in crop insurance. There has been crop
insurance reform. But when you have a total disaster, and you lose your
grain crop throughout the grain-producing areas, you would think you
would have a disaster bill.
Now, let me back up. I know one Senator from Kansas--this Senator
from Kansas--who said, as we go through the consideration of the new
farm bill, $180 billion--make that $200 billion really over 10 years
because the budget was 10 years long--that you would at least think
there would be some provision in there for a farmer who had no crops,
no crops to harvest. The Senator knows that. You have gone through that
up in Montana, how many years--1, 2, 3, 4, 5 years maybe?
Now, what did the new farm bill, I would ask the Senator, have? We
had four different components, four different payments, four different
ways to invest in agriculture.
We changed the old farm bill, which was a direct income supplement,
to a price support farm bill, and there were four ways your farmers
could be helped. No. 1, we increased the loan a tad. We decided the
loan rate would become an income protection device but--guess what--the
prices over the loan rate do not do you any good.
Then you had something called a loan deficiency payment. That means
if the price were below the loan rate, you would get that amount.
Well--guess what--the price is above the loan rate, so you don't get
the loan deficiency payment.
Then you also had a target price deficiency payment. It is a little
confusing, all this gobbledygook, with all the agricultural acronyms
and everything to do with farm bills.
But--guess what--the price was above the target price, so he did not
get or the farmer did not get or she did not get or that person did not
get any help from the target price deficiency payment. So we are zero
for three.
Then we had a direct payment.
Now, in the wisdom of the farm bill conference, of which this member
did not serve--I am not going to get into that, as to how that ratio
came down, and who was prevented from being on the conference, and who
was not; I could, but I will not--but in the wisdom of the conference,
they said: We are going to keep a direct payment just to make sure that
if these other things don't work, and the farmer still wouldn't have a
crop, the price is increased. We are going to have a direct payment.
That was 6 cents a bushel in regard to wheat. And the corresponding
numbers were true in regard to corn and other crops--6 cents.
Why do I mention that? Because all the way through this, both you and
I said--Senator Cochran said, most of us on this side said--don't go
down this road with this new farm bill and apply it to the 2002 crop
year because any farm bill is too complex to really figure out, with
all the fishhooks and all the saddle burrs, to try to get it in place
for 2002.
What we would have had under the old farm bill--much maligned by the
other side, constantly, day after day after day, for 4 or 5 years--the
Freedom to Farm Act was a direct payment called an AMTA payment. Then
we were going to double that because of the problems we were having.
That was 60 cents a bushel. Now, there is a big difference between 6
cents and 60 cents.
I have given this speech to my farmers. Why do I give it to my
farmers? Because they are desperate. We had the worst drought since the
1930s. It may have been hotter in some years, and it may have been
dryer in some years, but it has never been hotter and dryer in the same
year. So they lost all their
[[Page S11387]]
crops. Now, we were able to get some livestock assistance, but disaster
assistance, as compared to the old farm bill, which would have provided
them 60 cents a bushel, it did not happen.
So all the critics on our side of the aisle, and some on the other
side, who say, well, we have a new farm bill, we are going to give the
farmer four mailboxes to open--the loan rate; nope, nothing there. The
loan deficiency payment; nope, nothing there. Are we going to have the
target price deficiency payment? No, nothing there. We are going to
have a direct payment--6 cents, as compared to the 60 cents we would
have had if we applied the new farm bill to 2003.
Now, that is my bone to pick because my farmers are hurting. And now
after having a $6 billion emergency disaster bill that I voted for, in
regards to the Interior Appropriations Committee, we have those with
the temerity and chutzpah who will come to the continuing resolution
and say, we are going to do it now, unless we shut down Government?
You know the administration is not going to support that. You know
the House has already left town. You know the House Agriculture
Committee, representing certain interests in agriculture, does not want
to mess with the payment limitations. This is a horse going nowhere--
nowhere.
The handling of this has been highly political. The election is over.
There are some who wanted an issue and not a bill. They got the issue.
And I guess the result in South Dakota proved that. OK, it is over. But
why you bring up this particular effort for disaster assistance during
this particular time is beyond me. It is not going anywhere. People
crawl out of train wrecks faster than this bill will ever get passed
and signed and provide real relief. And the farmers are not interested
in this.
The Senator pointed out a long time ago, our farmers are not
interested in politics or agriculture gobbledygook or legislative
parliamentary gobbledygook as well.
I urge my colleagues who are thinking about this, don't do this. Now,
when can we do this? We can do it in the omnibus bill.
We had some indication from the administration they will be a little
bit more forward thinking. I don't want to leave them out of my tirade
here. I am n |
Add to del.icio.us