Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I do not mind. I thought I had half an hour under the rule. I do not care when I take my half hour. I can take it now or I will take it whenever. It does not make any difference to me.

I do not have to take it now if the Senator wants to do something else.

Mr. President, I understand I have a half hour of time yielded to me. I may have to yield it to another Senator, but I will take some time right now.

Natural Disaster Relief

Mr. President, the resolution I have offered is very straightforward. It simply reiterates the policy that this Senate and this Congress has endorsed repeatedly over the decades. It basically is that agricultural disaster assistance should be designated as emergency spending and not taken out of other farm programs. This is the way we have done this going back 50 years or more. In fact, I have looked and I have only found one instance in the last 50 years where we have offset, as they say, disaster assistance with some other money from the same program.

That was 2 years ago and that was corrected right away. We are now about to do the same thing.

Mr. President, one of the few uncertainties about agriculture is the uncertainty of the weather. And that is true whether it is farming or ranching, growing orchard crops or growing any other type of agricultural production. Even when a farmer has used his best practices, taken prudent steps to produce a crop, severe weather events can destroy years of work and threaten their livelihood.

Let me just quote from the USDA Web site:

Natural disaster is a constant threat to America's farmers

and ranchers. From drought to flood, freeze, tornadoes, or

other calamity, natural events can severely hurt even the

best run agricultural operation.

We have responded to these disasters through emergency legislation in the past because we believed it was essential to respond to natural disasters to lessen the financial hardship involved. We do have programs in place such as crop insurance, loans, and so forth. However, major disasters can easily overwhelm these programs, and that is why Congress has consistently responded to natural disasters by providing emergency assistance. This emergency assistance usually covers crop losses, forages--that is hay and things like that--pasture losses for livestock producers, funding for tree assistance programs, and again there is some misconception that this disaster money makes the producer whole, puts the producer where he would be if the disaster never happened. That is just not true.

Let me give you an example. It is only available, first of all, if you have over 35 percent loss of your expected production. So if you have a loss under 35 percent, you don't get anything anyway. But let's take an example of a Kansas farmer who, in a normal year, produces 100 bushels of grain sorghum per acre. Now he only harvests 80 bushels. Well, if the grain sorghum is worth $2.30 a bushel, that farmer will have an income shortfall of $46 an acre, but he will not be eligible for any disaster assistance because he only had a 20-percent loss, so he gets nothing. If the yield is only 50 percent, that means he has a 50-percent loss. His income shortfall is $115 an acre. Now the farmer is eligible for disaster assistance for 15 bushels of that loss--at a low payment rate. So, again, it is only a small fraction of what he gets. He loses $115, and receives only about $20. So some people think disaster assistance puts you back where you were if you were whole. No, it does not. It basically just kind of keeps you going, and that is about it.

Now, you will hear a lot of reference to drought relief or a drought bill or drought emergency assistance. Well, that is a misconception. It has been a misconception all along. While that may be the most common problem, disaster legislation covers the whole range of weather-related losses. The bill language covers losses ``due to damaging weather or related conditions.''

In addition to drought, the regulations that carry out disaster assistance include hurricanes, hail, floods, fires, freezes, tornadoes, mud slides, pest infestation, and other calamities--in short, just about anything Mother Nature can throw agriculture's way. It doesn't matter what weather event causes the loss. It doesn't matter if it is part of a hurricane that has a name or just a plain old ordinary storm that strikes the Midwest. It doesn't matter whether the crop loss happens in a catastrophic afternoon storm or whether it is the result of a drought that lasts 9 or 10 or 12 months. We have always included those in disaster assistance and treated them alike. That is what we passed in the Senate a few weeks ago. We passed an amendment unanimously on a voice vote to cover all types of weather-related disaster losses across the country and treated them the same.

That is basically what my resolution says. The White House and the House of Representatives decided to take a different approach. President Bush sent Congress the disaster assistance proposal that included agricultural disaster payments only for losses caused by hurricanes and left out assistance for a whole range of other disaster losses across the country. Furthermore, this hurricane disaster assistance would be designated emergency spending, meaning that it would not be

taken away from other programs. The President was adamant that if Congress is going to respond to any other disasters across the country, then the cost has to be offset from the farm bill, and that is what the House measure did. It is interesting, the States included in the House hurricane package are Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. So if you are a farmer in those States and you have a hurricane-related loss, your losses are covered without offsets. You get the emergency spending measure assistance. Here is the interesting wrinkle, Mr. President, in the President's package. If you are a farmer in one of those hurricane States that I just mentioned, but your loss was not from the hurricane--let's say you had a hailstorm. Let's say you had high wind damage from a severe storm in May. Let's say you had a pest infestation or something like that. Guess what. You get no assistance. In the House, in what the President proposed, if you suffer loss from a hurricane, your payments are under emergency spending. But if you are in a hurricane State and you have another disaster caused by a hailstorm, well, then the cost of your assistance comes out of the farm bill.

What kind of nonsense is that?

A sugarcane farmer, God bless him, in Florida lost his crop because of the hurricane. That farmer gets compensated out of the emergency package. Let's say you are a corn farmer in Ohio and your crop was knocked down by a tornado. Guess what. You are not in. Whatever assistance you get has to come out of the farm bill. So why is it, why is it that if you got hit by a hurricane, you are treated one way; if you get hit by a tornado or a hailstorm or a fire or a drought, you are treated another way. It absolutely makes no sense. So, again, we draw these artificial lines. The President has drawn them. Why discriminate against certain farmers? If you are a farmer and you lose your crop, as I said, to a tornado or high winds in Ohio or Wisconsin or Iowa or Minnesota or Missouri, well, guess what. They are going to take it out of one pocket and put it into your other pocket. But if you are a farmer down in Florida, they don't take it out of your pocket. The whole country, all of us, help pay for those disasters as we have done for the last 50 years.

Now the President wants to take the money out of the Conservation Security Program. That program covers the entire United States of America. Why would you want to take money out of a State such as Pennsylvania that uses conservation money or Ohio or Wisconsin or Minnesota or Iowa or Missouri, taking money out of those States to send to Texas or Oklahoma or Wyoming or Colorado to help the farmers who had a drought? That doesn't make sense. It seems if you are going to have a disaster assistance package, the whole country ought to pay for it, all of it. When you have an earthquake in Alaska, do we take the money out of one State, just one State, and pay for that--or two States--or do we just take it out of a State that maybe--we take it out of California because they have an earthquake and we send it to Alaska? No.

The entire United States of America, all of our people contribute to make sure that anyone who is hurt by an earthquake in Alaska or California or a flood in Iowa gets compensated and gets help. We had a flood in Iowa in 1993 that devastated our State. We didn't take money out of South Dakota or we didn't take out of Missouri or another State, out of what they get. The whole country came to our assistance.

As I said, I feel sorry for the people who have been hit by hurricanes, and we should help them, but we ought to do it on a national basis and not try to take it out of one pocket, one part to help another. That is not right. It is not right to discriminate against farmers.

One last thing I will say before I yield the floor. We don't take away a community's Federal funds for highways or housing or hospitals to fund civil disaster assistance. In other words, if we have a civil disaster, why should we take the money out of the highway money? If we are going to help Florida out, why don't we take it out of Florida's highway money? Take it out of their housing money? Take it out of their hospital money to pay for their civil disaster? We don't do that. So why should we do it in agriculture, on farmers? Why should we take it out of the farmers' pockets to pay for a disaster? Why don't we take the money out of the highway money going to Florida to pay for the hurricane? Take it out of their hospital money? Take it out of their housing money? We don't do that. We don't do it because it is not the right thing to do. We should not take it from the farm bill either.

I realize those of us who represent farmers and farm States, we get hit often because they say farmers get this and that. I want to point out, as I have pointed out time and time again, since we passed the farm bill in 2002 and the President signed it in May of 2002, we have saved the taxpayers of this country over $15 billion in less commodity program spending. I think that is a pretty healthy contribution by our farmers and our ranchers to help reduce the deficit of this country. Now they want to take more money out of agriculture to pay for a disaster. It is wrong. That is why I have offered this resolution which basically says:

It is the sense of the Senate that the 108th Congress

should provide the necessary funds to make disaster

assistance available for all customarily eligible

agricultural producers as emergency spending and not funded

by cuts to the farmer.

It is very simple and straightforward.

Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam President, I don't know if anyone wants any time. I will be glad to yield to my friend from North Dakota.

How much time do I have remaining?

We all need leaders to organize us, to inspire us, to get us moving in the right direction. Our distinguished leader, Senator Daschle from South Dakota, was kind enough to say good things about me with regard to the Agriculture bill, but we would never have gotten it together had it not been for his leadership. We, on this side of the aisle, all rely on his inspiration and his leadership, pulling us together. Nowhere is that more evident than our fight for farmers and ranchers and people who live in small towns and communities all over America.

I thank my good friend and my leader from South Dakota for what he has done for the people who live in the little towns such as my home town, Cummings, IA, with 150 people, for the farmers and ranchers of Iowa, South Dakota, and all over this country. Senator Daschle has been their voice and their leader, as he has been our leader. I daresay we wouldn't have half of the things we have for agriculture today had it not been for Senator Daschle, in making sure we had a good farm bill 2 years ago.

As Members can tell today, his passion is still there. I thank the good farmers and ranchers and rural people of South Dakota for having him here and having him as our leader.

Madam President, I ask that an editorial from the Des Moines Register of October 9 be printed at the conclusion of my remarks.

I will read one sentence from the editorial:

"The reality of the situation is that there will be no

disaster money before we go home unless we provide budget

offsets,'' said the chairman of the House Agriculture

Committee, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.

Easy for him to say; farmers in his State are covered by the hurricane disaster assistance package. He doesn't have to worry about whether it is emergency money.

What kind of selfishness is that around here? If you are from a State where you get the hurricane disaster assistance, to heck with everybody else?

The Des Moines Register editorial said:

Cutting farm programs to pay for the assistance would

amount to taking money from growers in the Midwest and giving

it to producers in drought-stricken areas of Montana, the

Dakotas and other Plains states.

I want to help those farmers. They should be helped. But as Senator Daschle said, they should not take it out of one pocket and put it in another.

I also ask that a letter from a number of different farm groups opposing the using of farm bill conservation money for disaster assistance be printed in the Record following my remarks. This is in opposition to the President's position.

I ask that a letter from a number of conservation groups be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks, asking that money not be taken out of the conservation title.

I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks a letter to a number of Representatives on the House side from a number of conservation groups also be printed at the conclusion of my remarks.

Lastly, I have heard the argument that drought is long term; there is some kind of climate change, but for the western part of the United States, which has had droughts for the last 4 or 5 years, we cannot continue to give disaster money if it is going to be a drought one year after another.

Guess what. Florida sits in hurricane alley. They have had hurricanes going back for 100 years. Guess what. Hurricanes are going to hit Florida next year and the year after and the year after. Should we say we cannot give disaster money to Florida because this is a long-term type thing? That is what I heard about drought assistance because we have had it for 5 years. Because we have been hit by 5 years of drought, that is long term and therefore we cannot help you?

Maybe we ought to take a look at hurricane alley. Maybe they shouldn't get help because they will get hit by another hurricane next year or the year after. We don't get hit by hurricanes in Iowa. They do not bother us. But we get hit by things such as tornados and hail damage and drought and, yes, floods.

Lastly, this bill, in helping the drought-stricken farmers--and my friend from North Dakota knows this very well--it only covers 1 year. We have had a drought for 4, 5, or 6 years. Farmers who suffered crop losses in both 2003 and 2004 will get to pick 1 year, either 2003 or 2004, you pick one, that is all the disaster assistance you get. It does not cover 7 years; it covers 1 year.

I wanted to clear this up. I hear rumors and misconceptions around here. I wanted to make the record clear that, yes, we have had some problems--such as tornados. Oklahoma gets hit by tornados, and Kansas and Nebraska and Iowa. We have had a lot. We will next summer because we are in tornado alley. Does that mean if a tornado strikes we should not get any disaster money because we get hit by tornados every year? No. Neither should the farmers in the Dakotas or Montana or places that have a drought right now, nor should they be penalized because they have been hit by some dry weather for a few years.

Exhibit 1

[From the Des Moines Register, Oct. 9, 2004]

Midwest Farmers May Lose Out With Disaster Aid

Washington, DC.--Farmers hit by a succession of crop losses

hoped an election year would bring some extra cash from the

government.

However, House Republicans are pushing for cuts in farm

programs to pay for a $3 billion package of farm-disaster

assistance, and agriculture groups may drop their support for

the aid.

Cutting farm programs to pay for the assistance would

amount to taking money from growers in the Midwest and giving

it to producers in drought-stricken areas of Montana, the

Dakotas and other Plains states. The prime target for the

cuts is the popular Conservation Security Program written by

Sen. Tom Harkin.

``If disaster assistance comes out of the farm bill, then

we oppose disaster assistance,'' said Mary Kay Thatcher, a

lobbyist for the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Democrats accused Republicans of hypocrisy. The White House

is pushing Congress to pass special emergency assistance for

Florida hurricane victims, including farmers there, without

demanding spending cuts. Florida is a key state in the

presidential race. ``It is not right to treat farmers in one

part of this country different than farmers in another,''

Harkin said.

The House passed legislation earlier in the week that would

pay for the drought assistance by capping the cost of the

Conservation Security Program.

``The reality of the situation is that there will be no

disaster money before we go home unless we provide budget

offsets,'' said the chairman of the House Agriculture

Committee, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. Friday, lawmakers were

looking into trimming things other than the Conservation

Security Program because of technical problems with targeting

the conservation payments, congressional aides said. Harkin,

a Democrat, pledged to slow some must-pass bills unless

Republicans backed off making the cuts. Friday afternoon, he

blocked the Senate from considering amendments to an

intelligence-reform bill.

The Senate passed a version of the drought aid paid for by

adding to the federal budget deficit. Farmers could get

payments for losses in either 2003 or 2004.

Iowa farmers would likely receive about $200 million to

$250 million in disaster payments, primarily to cover damage

to soybean fields, according to Harkin's staff. The Iowa Farm

Bureau has estimated damage from the 2003 drought at $750

million.

The Conservation Security Program is designed to reward

farmers for practices that prevent soil erosion and other

environmental problems.

Some 2,188 farms, including 290 in Iowa, were signed up for

the program this year. Enrollment was limited to 18

watersheds, or river drainage areas. The National Corn

Growers Association never endorsed the disaster aid package,

partly out of concern that it mean reductions in other farm

spending, said Jon Doggett, a lobbyist for the group.

How much time is remaining?

Whatever time I have remaining I would be glad to yield.

Madam President, I rise today to support the ranking member on the Senate Agriculture Committee in what he is saying. I am in my 18th year in the Senate. Only once before in that entire time have we taken money from other farmers to provide the funds to cover a natural disaster for others. That is just wrong. That is not the way we have operated. We have always dealt with natural disasters through emergency funding because none of us can know who is going to get hit by a natural disaster. None of us can know who is going to have a hurricane or a drought or a freeze.

In my State we have had three of the four. We didn't have hurricanes. We don't get hurricanes in North Dakota. But we have had drought in the southwestern part of the State. I have just taken a drought tour, and it looks like a moonscape. Nothing is growing. It is disastrous. The corn crop is about a foot high. There are no ears in the corn crop.

I go to the northern part of my State, and it is flooded. It is unbelievable. We have a lake in north central North Dakota called Devils Lake. That lake has risen 25 feet in the last 7 years. That lake is now 2\1/2\ times the size of the District of Columbia, and it has risen 25 vertical feet, taking up hundreds of thousands of acres.

We, as a Federal Government, have already had to buy out the entire town of Church's Ferry. We have had other towns that are on the brink of being swallowed up. We have spent tens of millions of dollars protecting the town of Devils Lake. We have moved over 600 structures.

All across the northern tier of North Dakota, something very unusual is happening. We have had extraordinarily wet conditions over a prolonged period. The result is 2 million acres they could not even plant this year--2 million acres. That is bigger than the size of the State of Delaware--land that couldn't be planted.

The land that could be planted is now so wet they can't drive the equipment in to harvest the crop. So you drive by the road and it looks like a fabulous crop, like there is a tremendous barley crop out there. It looks like 90- to 100-bushel barley. But you can't get into the land to take it off because the ground is soaked.

I was just at a farmer's home and he pointed up to the top of the rafters in his barn. He said: Senator, that is where the water is going to be 6 months from now, according to the State water commission, because the whole area is flooding.

In the midst of that we had a freeze in early August. Drought, flood, freeze--I have lived in North Dakota all my life, and I have never seen such

a collection of natural disasters. So while I have great sympathy for the people of Florida and Southeastern United States who have suffered hurricanes, and I am prepared with my vote to help them, we would expect the same in return. They are not the only ones who have been hurt. I have tens of thousands of farm families who are wondering now, Is Washington going to help or is Washington going to turn its back?

We have not been on the news. The networks haven't been out there covering this drought. They have not covered this flooding because this is a slow-motion disaster. This is not the kind of thing that makes good television, as the water rises in North Dakota. That doesn't make good television. It is a slow-motion disaster, but it is a disaster nonetheless. People's lives are being devastated.

Always before we have had emergency funding--with one exception in the 18 years I have been here. Always before, when an area suffered natural disasters, we have voted emergency funding to give them some help.

Let me make clear to my colleagues--I have heard some say: If you would have had preventive planning, you wouldn't have any losses because you didn't have to plant the crop. That is not the way it works. You still have your land payment, you still have all your management expenses, and in most cases people put on fertilizer in anticipation of being able to plant. This idea that they don't have expenses is just wrong.

Then I have heard they will get more help than what they have lost. That is just wrong. People have said: They have crop insurance. Crop insurance will make them whole. No.

Crop insurance will not come anywhere close to making them whole; nowhere close. First of all, you have to have a 35-percent loss before you get anything. Then you only get a percentage of your loss over 35 percent. That is not going to make people anywhere close to whole-- nowhere close. Even if you take disaster assistance and crop insurance, you are nowhere close to whole. You still have significant losses. That is the fact of the matter.

The disaster assistance we pass in the Senate is desperately needed, and it should not be taken away from other farmers in order to pay for it. We shouldn't take from what they need in order to try to provide assistance for those who have suffered natural disasters. That is not right. It is not fair. It has not been done before, with one exception in the 18 years I have been in the Senate. I had my staff go back and research the whole history. We have never done things that way with one exception.

We should not go down this path of turning our back on people who have suffered natural disasters, whether it is a hurricane, whether it is a flood, whether it is a drought, whether it is a freeze, or some horrific outbreak of disease. We need to stand ready to reach out with a helping hand.

I thank the ranking member from the State of Iowa, Senator Harkin, for standing up, fighting back and being very clear about what is at stake here; and to our leader, Senator Daschle. The truth is without Senator Daschle as our leader, we wouldn't have a prayer of getting the assistance our area desperately needs. That is a fact.

Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator in Nevada for his comments. He is exactly right. For anybody to suggest Governmental Affairs has had their jurisdiction reduced here, I mean, come on. Governmental Affairs has had their jurisdiction dramatically increased.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the amendment from the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Nickles.

Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio just got it wrong, what the amendment of the Senator who is the chairman of the Budget Committee does. We do not take the jurisdiction of Governmental Affairs on management issues at all, not at all. That is not what the amendment does.

What the amendment does do is end the duplication of the jurisdiction of the committees on budget process issues. I would submit to my colleagues, it does not make any sense any longer, after 30 years, for Governmental Affairs and Budget to have joint jurisdiction on budget process issues.

The reason they have that joint jurisdiction is because Governmental Affairs wrote the Budget Act. There was no Budget Committee, so at that time they had expertise that the Budget Committee simply did not have, so they were included on jurisdiction on budget process issues.

Well, 30 years have passed. The expertise on these issues is on the Budget Committee. It makes no sense in any management sense to have joint jurisdiction on budget process issues--not on the management issues. The management issues are retained by Governmental Affairs, as they should be. But budget process issues, as the chairman of the Budget Committee has suggested in his amendment, ought to be the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee.

Second, it makes no earthly sense for the nominee to be the Budget Director only to go before the Governmental Affairs Committee. That is what happens now. I think my colleagues would be stunned--I must say, I was very surprised, serving on the Budget Committee--that the Director of the Budget does not come before the Budget Committee. What sense does that make?

The amendment of the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Nickles of Oklahoma, does not expand the jurisdiction of the Senate Budget Committee. It simply eliminates the overlap in jurisdiction between the two committees on the narrow issue of budget process issues.

The expertise on budget process issues, on pay-go, on discretionary caps, on oversight of budget agreements, does not reside with the Committee on Governmental Affairs; it resides in the Budget Committee. We ought to clean up this overlap that has existed for 30 years that started for a good reason--because the Committee on Governmental Affairs wrote the Budget Act because there was no Budget Committee. But now there is a Budget Committee. It has been in existence 30 years. It ought to have jurisdiction over budget process issues. That just makes common sense.

Who could possibly defend the notion that a Budget Director should not come before the Budget Committee for confirmation? It makes no earthly sense.

The amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma is entirely reasonable. It is rational. It improves the operations of both committees. It does not take jurisdiction to the Budget Committee; it simply reduces the common jurisdiction that currently exists between Governmental Affairs and the Budget Committee on the narrow issue of budget process.

I would be happy to yield after this statement.

And it gives to the Budget Committee the right to hear from the Office of Management and Budget, the man who is named or the woman who is named Budget Director in the confirmation process. That just makes common sense.

I would be happy to yield.

I believe the answer simply has to be yes. It makes no earthly sense for the person who is named to be the budget director of the United States not to come before the Budget Committee. What sense could that possibly make?

Madam President, later on today we will be discussing an amendment submitted by Senator Nickles. The amendment's alleged purpose is to clarify the shared jurisdiction of the congressional budget process between Governmental Affairs and the budget situation that grew out of the Budget Committee and the modern budget process of 1974.

Senate committees rarely share jurisdiction, and joint referral of legislation is accomplished by unanimous consent. Today, anything that deals with the budget either coming out of the Governmental Affairs Committee or coming out of Budget has to be referred to the Governmental Affairs Committee and within 30 days some action has to be taken so there is a joint referral.

This amendment would eliminate that and say that all of the budgetary process is within the jurisdiction only of the Budget Committee and would also require that instead of the nominations for the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the deputy director being the sole jurisdiction of the Governmental Affairs Committee, that would be a joint jurisdiction. In other words, the Presidential appointee to Director of Budget and Management, Deputy Director, and other people, would have to come to the Governmental Affairs Committee and also go to the Budget Committee for their approval.

I think one of the things we are trying to do here is to streamline that whole process, that we have too many people who are being, frankly, nominated, and too much advice and consent.

One of the things in an amendment to the Homeland Security Act that we were able to get done was the provision that says we are going to ask the administration to come back with recommendations on how they can reduce the number of people who are sent to the Senate for advice and consent to streamline the process.

This amendment would make this Presidential appointment process in regard to the Director of Budget and Management and the Deputy Director much more complicated than it is today. I would also argue--with due respect to the expertise that is on the Budget Committee--that this process has not been looked at since 1974.

As a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee and the oversight of Government management in the Federal workforce, I have been concerned that we have not looked at that process since 1974--that we have discussed the feasibility of going to a 2-year budget. There are many things, in my opinion, that this body should be doing, and if it were solely within the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee, it might not get done. The Governmental Affairs Committee looks at the big picture.

I would also argue that too often in the Office of Budget and Management, there is no ``M'' in OMB. I am pleased to say that this administration has undertaken some very aggressive management responsibilities. I, quite frankly, think they would not have undertaken those management responsibilities had it not been for the fact that they had to be confirmed by the Governmental Affairs Committee of the U.S. Senate.

I know the relationships that I have built personally with the Director of the Office of Budget and Management; Sean O'Keefe, who was the Deputy Director, and now Director Josh Bolten, have really accrued to the benefit of our country in terms of improving the management of Government.

So what I am trying to say is the budget process is important not only to the Budget Committee but the budget process is important to the entire country and to the operation of Government because it has such a large impact on the whole operation of Government.

I respect the chairman of the Budget Committee, but as one who has been concerned about modernizing our procedures, I believe this would not promote what is in the best interest of the Senate or, for that matter, our country.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the human capital changes that have occurred since 1999 that have come out of the Governmental Affairs Committee.

I would like to emphasize for my colleagues how important it is that this jurisdiction in terms of the Director of Budget and Management and the Deputy Director remains in the Governmental Affairs Committee.

I would like to make one other point; that point is, the jurisdiction of our committee has been stripped out for the last couple of days. So I just urge my colleagues--I am going to ask for a vote. I think it is important to the management of our country.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak and yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

The question I would like to ask is, Has the procedure that we now have in terms of the appointment--and this has been for 30 years--diminished the effectiveness of the Budget Committee, because of the fact that they have not participated in the nomination of the Budget Director?

Mr. President, I would just like to emphasize again that the current situation is one that is working. Unless one can show that it is not working in terms of the authority or the jurisdiction of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I would argue, why change it.

Secondly, this amendment would then subject the appointees of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Deputy Director, and other people to jurisdictions in two committees, which would make the appointment process longer than it is today in an area that is particularly important to the President. What he wants to do immediately is to get his director of budget on board.

Secondly, I think we need to point out that the budget process is not just the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. Under this amendment, if I want to put a bill in, for example, to reform the budget process to 2-year budgets, to require that the budget include a presentation on the accrued liabilities of the United States and, for that matter, go back and look at the Budget Act of 1974, which should be updated, that bill would have to go to the Budget Committee. If the members of that committee were unhappy with that, if they like the process of 1-year budgets because of the fact that they like to take a bite out of the apple each year, that bill would be dead.

Under the current situation, if someone has an idea of improving the budget process that impacts not only the budget but the entire operation of Government, they can bring it to the Governmental Affairs Committee. We could handle that legislation, and then that legislation would have to be referred to the Budget Committee for their consideration. The fact is, this is too large a responsibility just to put it within the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. I argue that it makes a lot of sense to leave the situation as it is unless somebody can tell me that it is not working.

I will say one other thing: Our Government's biggest problem today is management. Having jurisdiction of the Office of Management and Budget in Governmental Affairs has given this Senator a lot of leverage to get this administration to do some things that are important for the country.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 22, 2003, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on ``Counterterror Initiatives in the Terror Finance Program.''

Mr. President: I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, October 22, 2003, at 9:30 am on the Federal Involvement in the Regulation of the Insurance Industry.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing Anti-Semitism In Europe.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 at 10:30 a.m. to hold a business meeting to consider pending Committed business.

Agenda

Legislation

1. S. 129, Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2003.

2. S. 1741, National Women's History Museum Act of 2003.

3. S. 1267, District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act of

2003.

4. S. 1522, GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 2003.

5. S. 1561, a bill to preserve existing judgeships on the

Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

6. S. 1567, Department of Homeland Security Financial

Accountability Act.

7. S. 1612, Homeland Security Technology Improvement Act of

2003.

8. S. 1683, Federal Law Enforcement Pay and Benefits Parity

Act of 2003.

9. H.R. 1416, Homeland Security Technical Corrections Act

of 2003.

10. H.R. 3159, Government Network Security Act of 2003.

post office naming bills

1. S. 1405, a bill to designate the facility of the United

States Postal Service, located at 514 17th Street in Moline,

Illinois, as the ``David Bybee Post Office Building.''

2. S. 1415, a bill to designate the facility of the United

States Postal Service, located at 141 Weston Street in

Hartford, Connecticut, as the ``Barbara B. Kennelly Post

Office Building.''

3. S. 1590, a bill to designate the facility of the United

States Postal Service, located at 315 Empire Boulevard in

Crown Heights, Brooklyn, New York, as the ``James E. Davis

Post Office Building.''

4. S. 1659, a bill to designate the facility of the United

States Postal Service, located at 57 Old Tappan Road in

Tappan, New York, as the ``John G. Dow Post Office

Building.''

5. S. 1671, a bill to designate the facility of the United

States Postal Service, located at 10701 Abercorn Street in

Savannah, Georgia, as the ``J.C. Lewis, Jr., Post Office

Building.''

6. S. 1692, a bill to designate the facility of the United

States Postal Service, located at 38 Spring Street in Nashua,

New Hampshire, as the ``Hugh Gregg Post Office Building.''

7. S. 1718, a bill to designate the facility of the United

States Postal Service, located at 3710 West 73rd Terrace in

Prairie Village, Kansas, as the ``Senator James B. Pearson

Post Office Building.''

8. S. 1746, a bill to designate the facility of the United

States Postal Service, located at 339 Hicksville Road in

Bethpage, New York, as the ``Brian C. Hickey Post Office

Building.''

9. H.R. 1610, to redesignate the facility of the United

States Postal Service, located at 120 East Ritchie Avenue in

Marceline, Missouri, as the ``Walt Disney Office Building.''

10. H.R. 1882, to designate the facility of the United

States Postal Service, located at 440 South Orange Blossom

Trail, in Orlando, Florida, as the ``Arthur `Pappy' Kennedy

Post Office Building.''

11. H.R. 1883, to designate the facility of the United

States Postal Service, located at 1601-1 Main Street in

Jacksonville, Florida, as the ``Eddie Mae Steward Post Office

Building.''

12. H.R. 2075, to designate the facility of the United

States Postal Service, located at 1905 West Blue Heron

Boulevard in West Palm Beach, Florida, as the ``Judge Edward

Rodgers Post Office Building.''

13. H.R. 2254, to designate the facility of the United

States Postal Service, located at 1101 Colorado Street in

Boulder City, Nevada, as the ``Bruce Woodbury Post Office

Building.''

14. H.R. 2309, to designate the facility of the United

States Postal Service, located at 2300 Redondo Avenue in

Signal Hill, California, as the ``J. Stephen Horn Post Office

Building.''

15. H.R. 2328, to designate the facility of the United

States Postal Service, located at 2001 East Willard Street in

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as the ``Robert A. Borski Post

Office Building.''

16. H.R. 2396, to designate the facility of the United

States Postal Service, located at 1210 Highland Avenue in

Duarte, California, as the ``Francisco A. Martinez Flores

Post Office Building.''

17. H.R. 2452, to designate the facility of the United

States Postal Service, located at 339 Hicksville Road in

Bethpage, New York, as the ``Brian C. Hickey Post Office

Building.''

18. H.R. 2533, to designate the facility of the United

States Postal Service, located at 10701 Abercorn Street in

Savannah, Georgia, as the ``J.C. Lewis, Jr., Post Office

Building.''

19. H.R. 2746, to designate the facility of the United

States Postal Service, located at 141 Weston Street in

Hartford, Connecticut, as the ``Barbara B. Kennelly Post

Office Building.''

20. H.R. 3011, to designate the facility of the United

States Postal Service, located at 135 East Olive Avenue in

Burbank, California, as the ``Bob Hope Post Office

Building.''

Nominations

1. Jerry S. Byrd to be an Associate Judge of the Superior

Court of the District of Columbia (Family Court).

2. Joseph Michael Ryan to be an Associate Judge of the

Superior Court of the District of Columbia (Family Court).

3. Dale Cabaniss to be Chairman, Federal Labor Relations

Authority.

4. Brian F. Holeman to be an Associate Judge of the

Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

5. Craig S. Iscoe to be an Associate Judge of the Superior

Court of the District of Columbia.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, October 22, 2003, at 10 a.m., on ``Judicial Nominations,'' in the Hart Senate Office Building room 216.

Witness List:

Panel I: Senators.

Panel II: Janice R. Brown to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President: I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oceans, Fisheries, and Coast Guard be authorized to meet on Wednesday, October 22, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., on Fisheries Oversight to be held in SR-428A.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for his very kind words. There are a number of people who deserve great credit, beginning, of course, with our distinguished ranking member on the Senate Agriculture Committee. He has been the most forceful, the most passionate, the most articulate voice for agriculture and I am proud to call him my leader.

He and I were in the room when we wrote this a couple of years ago. I remember so vividly. It was in the room across the hall. This legislation wouldn't even exist were it not for what Senator Harkin did in the room across the hall as we negotiated these issues and got the commitment from this administration and from our Republican friends that this conservation program would be fully funded. We got a commitment. Almost before the ink was dry, that commitment withered away. It disappeared.

I can understand the frustration of the distinguished Senator, the anger and the disappointment that after being given the commitment over and over again it was virtually the last thing we decided. Only because he held out as aggressively as he did, we finally said yes. OK. If this means getting the farm bill, we will agree to this and we will commit to funding. I was there in the room. I heard it myself, and here we are.

This isn't the first time. This is now the second time he has had to come to the floor.

I know a lot of Senators are inconvenienced, but I must say nobody is more inconvenienced by the doubletalk and the lack of commitment and the willingness to keep their word than our ranchers and farmers who are so desperate for the help Senator Conrad and Senator Harkin have so eloquently described.

Senator Johnson and I have the same situation in South Dakota. I talked to a rancher in the southwest near Edgemont. He broke down in tears, telling me that he is now going to be forced to sell his herd--a herd he has had all of his life. He said, I have never seen anything like this. His lips curled and he choked up. I felt so sorry for him. He said, But I am not alone. I am at the end of my career.

I worry about those young farmers and ranchers who are just getting started. What are they going to do?

This assistance is critical. But the double standard is so outrageous that I can understand why Member after Member representing farmer and rancher after farmer and rancher is coming to the floor to express their outrage and indignation.

You talk about heroes. I thank my colleague from South Dakota for making the effort he did so gallantly. Senator Johnson offered an amendment to say let's treat this disaster assistance the way we are treating all other disaster assistance. I understand it is about $11 billion. Let us treat it exactly the same. He made a passionate defense of that argument and lost on a 6-to-5 vote, as I understand it. It was a party-line vote.

I would be happy to yield for a question from the Senator from South Dakota.

I thank my dear friend from South Dakota for his question and for his kind words.

I simply say there is no logical conclusion one can draw from this except

that there are those in the administration and apparently here in Congress who believe farmers and ranchers ought to be subject to a double standard; that they aren't as poor as other victims and the other people who have experienced disasters of other kinds.

For some reason, this administration has minimized the losses in agriculture almost from the beginning. As the Senator so well knows, because he was right in the middle of the fight 2 years ago, we tried to persuade the administration to help farmers and ranchers with $6 billion disaster assistance. That was actually passed here on the Senate floor. They sat on it. They stalled it. They did everything they could to prevent it. Ultimately, all we got before the end of the year was about $1 billion--$5 billion less. It is no surprise. This isn't something new for this administration or some of our colleagues in the Congress.

This is yet another illustration and pattern of demonstration of how minimally they are prepared to support agriculture and our farmers and ranchers. It is a double standard. It is a shell game. They are telling farmers and ranchers we are going to take money out of your right-hand pocket and put it in your left-hand pocket, and we want you to feel good about it. There is no net additional revenue to be provided to agriculture as a result of this disaster relief. We are simply taking it out of their right pocket and putting it in their left pocket.

I can't imagine--and Senator Conrad and others have noted how a rancher or a farmer could be anything but offended--that somebody would insist farmers and ranchers pay for their own grass and drought assistance, disaster assistance and flood assistance, when at the very same time, simultaneously, we are providing meaningful new assistance to the victims of hurricanes, which we all support.

The double standard, the shell game, the extraordinary intransigence on the part of those who are opposing the Johnson amendment and opposing our efforts to make farmers and ranchers whole is inexplicable. There is no logic. I appreciate very much his words.

I yield the floor.