Emergency Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act of 2003

Reserving the right to object.

I want the record to show I have 25 minutes of the time between now and the vote.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Madam President, this amendment arises out of the bankruptcy proceedings and reorganization of US Airways. It involves the effort by US Airways, with the agreement of the pilots, to restructure one of its pension plans. US Airways, as is well known, was very hard hit, as was the airline industry generally, by the events of September 11. US Airways was hit much harder because Reagan National Airport was closed down. In order to pare their expenses, the employees of US Airways made enormous concessions. The pilots made concessions of some $650 million a year.

In order to obtain financing to get a Federal loan guarantee, there had to be substantial modifications made. One of the proposals from US Airways was to restructure its pension plan so that instead of having a 5-year payout, it would be a 30-year payout. This was agreed to by the pilots, by the employees who are affected. And the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC, made a determination that it did not have the discretion to permit a plan termination and a reinstatement of the plan with a longer payout.

We had an extensive hearing in the subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education last Tuesday to inquire into this matter in some detail. It is my view that the PBGC has substantial discretion, but in order to make a clarification, I filed this amendment.

Two weeks ago, Senator Santorum and I sought unanimous consent to take up this legislation as a freestanding bill. I offer it on this omnibus appropriations bill because time is of the essence and all of US Airways's reorganization proceedings have to be completed by March 31, 2003.

I am well aware of the preference not to have this sort of matter on an appropriations bill, but we have no choice if we are to have this reorganization go forward.

Key testimony last Tuesday, a week ago yesterday, was given by an expert attorney, William Kilberg, who had served as Solicitor to the Department of Labor in 1974 when the relevant statute was passed. Mr. Kilberg, along with his affiliate Gary Ford, rendered an opinion that the PBGC has the authority to allow for the plan modification, as I have just articulated. The critical language of Mr. Kilberg's working opinion is as follows: The statute ``allows the PBGC to restore a plan when it is to be terminated or is in the process of termination.''

Then, referring to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the one case that interprets this matter, the LTV case, Mr. Kilberg said ``the court said that a plan can be restored when restoration would further the interest that Title IV of ERISA is designed to protect.'' He then enumerated the three points of the statutory structure: that is, to keep premiums at a reasonable level; to keep plans going; and to have the plans pay benefits.

Now, if the proposal by US Airways, agreed to by the Air Line Pilots Association, is not permitted, then the PBGC will have to pay the pensions. So it was in the financial interest of PBGC to have the plan adopted as US Airways and the pilots wanted.

Pilots who have worked for 30 years would be cut on their pensions by some 20 to 25 percent, which would be a drastic curtailment, especially inequitable in the context of the pilots giving up some $650 million a year.

When unanimous consent was asked 2 weeks ago, an objection was raised by the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, and hearings were contemplated during the month of January. We went ahead with hearings, as I said, from the subcommittee.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Clinton be added as an original cosponsor.

So the essence of it is that this would be a win-win-win situation. It would really be a win situation for the PBGC because it would not have to pay the pensions. It would be a win situation for the pilots since their pensions would not be reduced drastically, and they are the real parties of interest at risk. And it would be a win situation for US Airways, which can structure its reorganization and this way obtain financing and obtain the appropriate guarantee.

One point to be focused on with particularity is that this does not order the PBGC to adopt the US Airways proposal. All it does is say the PBGC has the authority to do so. The Secretary of Labor, who is the dominant public official in this matter, advised me that she felt bound by the opinion of the attorneys for the PBGC.

How much time remains?

I reserve the remainder of my time.

I do.

Madam President, the Senator from Virginia has articulated the situation accurately. It is permissive. They do not have to adopt the plan. But the Secretary of Labor would then be in a position to exercise her discretion, perhaps, if it was plain that the PBGC had the authority. It is permissible only.

I go into some detail with the background of the opinions that they do have the authority because the whole statutory structure has been set up to keep these plans going, to have reasonable premiums, and to have the plans pay benefits. What the PBGC has said is that it cannot do it while everyone really agrees it ought to be done.

Madam President, that is correct. The leader of the pilots association, the national president, testified Tuesday in favor of the plan and in favor of this legislation. The president of the pilots association of US Airways in Pittsburgh testified in favor. The president of US Airways, David Siegel, told me again today that he was very appreciative of my pushing this matter, that it would be very helpful to US Airways.

Madam President, the Senator from Virginia is correct. It has never been tailored to set a precedent or open any portals for any other situation in order to eliminate or obviate the argument that others can rush in.

Madam President, when I pressed the general counsel and the executive director of the PBGC for any public policy reason not to do this, they had no reason.

I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Kilberg's testimony be printed in the Record.

Anyone can examine the record. There was simply no public policy reason given. When I talked about this to my colleagues, the argument has been raised, well, it is complicated. Well, we have not had hearings before the other committees. We had a very extensive hearing before the subcommittee on labor in the Appropriations Committee. I say, this is win-win-win all the way around.

Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?

Mr. President, it is fine to talk about working this out this year, but that will be too late, and the pilots will then have 25 percent of their pensions remaining. We talked to the Finance Committee two weeks ago about scheduling a hearing in January. No hearing has been scheduled for the Finance Committee during the month of January, as was anticipated. When the Senator from Mississippi makes a point that the other airlines will have to pay the pensions of US Airways pilots, that is precisely what is going to happen if this plan is not adopted. The PBGC is going to have to pay the pension benefits. So, at worst, if US Airways does not succeed, in any event, PBGC will be no worse off if this is adopted than if US Airways fails.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, in response to the arguments raised by the Senator from Arizona, he points out the ``shalls'' in the pending amendment. But each of the ``shalls'' relate to preexisting obligations under which the PBGC can put this plan into effect. The two ``shalls'' in subsection (2)(A) say that ``the minimum funding requirements under this paragraph shall be the requirements set forth in Treasury Regulation.'' So it establishes the funding in accordance with existing regulations. What it does not say is that the PBGC has to put the plan into effect.

The later provision under (B)(i) says that ``the plan shall be treated as having met the requirements of Treasury Regulation,'' and specifies the technical compliance. But it does not in any way require that the PBGC has to carry this plan forward.

Let me add as cosponsors Senators Warner, Allen, Dole, Clinton, and Senator Santorum, whom I believe I should have mentioned earlier as an original cosponsor to the bill.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

I yield.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his question. The answer is they do not have any chance of losing money unless you say the competitors of US Airways stay in flight. But that is very

much in the competitive interest of the United States.

They lose absolutely nothing.

Mr. President, that is exactly correct. It is the money of US Airways paid over a longer period of time which meets the obligations to the pension. The other side of that coin is if the plan is not adopted, PBGC has to pay the pensions.

I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Pennsylvania.

Would my colleague yield for a question? How much longer is he going to take?

Take another minute.

Absolutely.

No. I don't have enough time, I regret to say. Let me make a concluding argument. If time remains, I will yield for a question from the Senator from Montana.

We have heard this business of a single shot. That is what we do around here. We fire single shots. We have a problem, and we try to structure legislation to answer the problem. We should fire single shots.

The most fascinating part about this argument today is that not one public policy argument has been advanced against this proposition. Nobody has said this is bad public policy. They have said that it is the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. Senator Santorum and I were on this floor on January 9 asking unanimous consent to take up the bill, and the Senator from Montana, then the chairman, and the Senator from Iowa, then the ranking member now reversed, said we will try to give you a hearing in January. No hearing has been scheduled. We went ahead in the Appropriations Committee. We heard from the executive director of the PBGC and the general counsel. They had not one public policy argument to advance against what we have said.

Twenty seconds.

Mr. President, has the time expired?

Mr. President, the business about borrowing from the pension plan is a purple herring. It does not even rise to the level of being a red herring. Nobody has said anything about borrowing from the pension plan.

Here we have an amendment which is a rifleshot to protect the pensions of thousands of pilots. Otherwise, the PBGC is going to have to pay out money. This jurisdictional business does not have any standing when the equities are so strong in favor of this amendment.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, in summation, I believe the arguments are overwhelmingly in favor of this amendment. I am joined by Senator Santorum, Senator Warner, Senator Allen, Senator Dole and Senator Clinton.

A beneficial question was asked by Senator Domenici. We deal in rifleshots. We deal in protecting our constituents. And Pennsylvania has a big constituent interest, but so does America. This is the country's sixth biggest airline.

I thank the Chair.

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

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 79.

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

Madam President, just for the information of all Senators, the order that has been agreed to will accommodate debate on both the Cochran amendment and the Democratic amendment simultaneously. There will be 70 minutes equally divided to accommodate Senators who wish to speak to the amendments. I am sure we will accommodate Senators on both sides of the aisle in an attempt to alternate back and forth as people wish to speak. So both amendments are pending and both amendments are subject to comment by our colleagues.

I appreciate, as always, the great willingness on the part of the chairman of the Agriculture Committee to enter into this agreement and to accommodate this debate as we anticipate it.

It has been 342 days since the effort was first initiated to bring about meaningful disaster relief to many parts of the country. During those 342 days, I don't know how many hours we spent on the Senate floor attempting to inform our colleagues and urging the Senate to act as expeditiously as it could to address the concerns of so many farmers and ranchers.

We did it first in the farm bill itself. We attempted to provide meaningful disaster assistance within the farm legislation. It passed in the Senate. In conference, I had a number of conversations with the chair of the Agriculture Committee in the House and with the Speaker, and it was the view, almost unanimously expressed in the House, that they would not be willing to support disaster assistance on the farm bill. They said: We will come back at a later date and address it in a sufficient way. So we completed our work on the farm bill and anticipated we would have an opportunity to pass meaningful assistance later in the year.

When the Interior appropriations bill came before the Senate, we offered an amendment, and it generated 79 votes. That amendment provided about $6 billion in direct assistance to farmers and ranchers. Forty different farm organizations publicly expressed their support for the effort. Over and over again, people said: This must be urgent. You have to understand the extraordinary

urgency of what is happening and the need for this relief as quickly as you can get it to us.

Madam President, just for the record, I note that I will use my leader time to make my remarks with regard to the amendment so that I can accommodate other Senators who wish to speak.

So we adopted that amendment with 79 votes, with every expectation that we could get help to the farmers and ranchers who need it as quickly and as meaningfully as possible.

Almost from the beginning, the administration's position was that we just could not afford it; that the $6 billion was out of line; that it was too expensive; that there really was not a way to provide the resources to help farmers and ranchers with the magnitude of help we proposed in the amendment.

I must say, I find it deeply troubling that at the very time the administration says we cannot afford the $6 billion in disaster assistance, they come forth with a $670 billion tax cut, a tax cut that helps those at the very top, with very little support for anyone else-- borrowing the money, I might add.

So, on one hand, the administration is saying to the American people, somehow we can afford a tax cut, $20 billion of which will go to 226 millionaires, at the very time we do not have the resources, we do not have the will, we do not have the support for $6 billion for farmers and ranchers.

I have to say, over the course of the last 342 days, time and time and time again, people have come to us saying: We don't understand either, but we hope that however you ultimately decide to help us, you help us soon.

There are places in South Dakota that have not had rain for months. There are places in South Dakota where we had no crop at all last year. We have locations in our State where virtually all of the livestock population has been sold off.

In letters, in e-mails, in phone calls, farmers and ranchers--by the thousands--have contacted the Senate pleading for help, asking that we do so as quickly as possible. So this is our last chance. This is our last opportunity, at least for the foreseeable future. I cannot imagine when we can come back to the Senate floor and try this again.

So we are offering the same amendment that generated 79 votes last fall. The amendment provides help in the two categories where help is most needed--the crop disaster assistance program and the livestock assistance program--with one minor exception. Last fall, the administration shifted several hundred million dollars to ill- considered, unresponsive, and underfunded disaster efforts for those key or niche areas of livestock producers, a very small number of livestock producers, which amounted to about 2 weeks of assistance before it expired.

This amendment replenishes what the administration took from that important account, funding for school lunch and funding for hunger relief. I must say, I hope everyone will recognize the importance of taking this action.

As I said, the Senate is already on record; 79 Senators in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, 40 organizations, including the Farmers Union, the Farm Bureau, the National Wheat Growers, the National Cattle and Beef Association, the National American Soybean Association, 40 farm organizations have said: Help us now. Do what you were not able to do last year. Join as you did last year. Pass this meaningful assistance. We have waited too long.

I hope people recognize there is a difference between the two amendments. I have the utmost respect for the Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. He will do an outstanding job as chair of the committee itself. We don't stipulate a dollar figure in this amendment. We leave that to the administration to define. We simply say: Let's meet the need that is there, meet the need in crop assistance, meet the need in livestock assistance, but meet the need that is there.

The alternative says: We know the need is there, but we are only going to provide $3 billion to meet that need. We recognize it may only be half but, I suppose they would argue, at least it is something.

We need more than just something. We need to provide the kind of assistance that is so desperately needed in the dead of winter to ensure that at long last, those who have waited so long get the help they truly deserve.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, there are a number of our colleagues who have asked to be recognized. I don't want to take a lot of time because we have a lot of Senators who wish to be heard.

There is one difference between the two amendments of which I think all of our colleagues ought to be aware. Under the Cochran amendment, in disaster counties, counties declared disaster, every producer is eligible regardless of loss. In my State, there are counties that were declared disaster that had pockets where they had all the rain they needed, where there are livestock producers who really don't need any assistance.

What we are doing is taking away from those who need assistance to provide resources to those who don't need it by not differentiating, by not having some qualification, by not saying they have to meet this threshold.

What our amendment says is, they have to have incurred at least a 35- percent loss to be eligible for benefits, even in those counties declared disaster. There is no discretion in that regard in the Cochran amendment.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin.

Madam President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota.

I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska.

I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Montana.

I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.

Madam President, how much time remains?

Madam President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Michigan.

Madam President, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. President, I ask the distinguished chair of the Agriculture Committee if it is his understanding that both amendments will be up-or-down amendments as they are offered to the Senate.

That is my understanding as well. I appreciate the clarification.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, in the final 3 minutes, let me quickly comment on a few points raised. First, to the point that we need to comply with the House prior to the time we vote in the Senate, as the distinguished Senator from North Dakota said, that is not usually the practice here. The Senate takes its stand, the House takes its stand, and we work out whatever differences there are in the two stands in conference. We don't say because the House has a position, we have to comply with the House position before we even go to conference. I hope our colleagues will not set that very dangerous precedent as their motivation for voting for the Republican amendment.

Secondly, we have gone through this many times. The formulation we have used as a body, as a government, is the formulation offered in the Democratic amendment. We give the administration latitude to administer it. We have created these programs, disaster assistance and crop assistance, for those relief benefits to be provided. That is what we do here. It is the Republican amendment that creates a new infrastructure, not the Democratic amendment. The traditional and accepted approach we have used in disaster after disaster is the one we offer again and the one for which we voted last fall and received 79 votes.

Thirdly, what troubles me the most is that the Republican amendment is one-half of what is estimated to be the need. Even though it is one- half of the need, it is written in such a way that everybody, regardless of whether they have a loss, is eligible. So what happens is you have situations such as the Senator from North Dakota described where those who are eligible, who may be entitled to a $45-per-acre payment, will get $6. Those who may not need any money at all will get $6. There are many of us who do our very best to maximize whatever value we get out of whatever dollars we commit in the programs we authorize. I just don't see why that nondiscriminating approach is not what we want to do especially if you cut in half the benefits to begin with. It seems to me you ought to maximize the benefits to those who need them. There ought to be some degree of need demonstrated, which is why we say that 35-percent threshold has to be realized. To say you are entitled to benefits with no loss at a time when you are cutting the overall cost to the program by 50 percent turns logic on its head.

For those reasons, I hope my colleagues will do what they have done before. I hope they will support this amendment. I hope we can show the same bipartisan support we did last fall, and I hope we can work out whatever differences we have with the House in conference as we have always done.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I hope my colleagues listen to what I have to say. We all are talking about the need for disaster assistance. That is undisputed. There are provisions in the Cochran amendment which do partially address natural disaster, particularly drought disaster, in our country. I say partially. That is wonderful. That is fine.

I am quite confident the provisions that have helped Texas producers are needed. I also understand in some parts of the country a natural disaster occurred, say, in 2002--not 2001. And the amendment before the Senate, the Cochran amendment, provides 1 year, for 2002. I can understand why some of my colleagues are in favor of the Cochran amendment because it helps them, it helps their producers.

Madam President, I can understand why there are tobacco provisions in the Cochran amendment. I am sure the producers in North Carolina and South Carolina will get significant benefit from the tobacco provisions. For all I know, it is well intended and deserved and they should have it.

We are talking here about a natural disaster. Mother Nature does not pick and choose years--2001 or 2002. Mother Nature does not choose which parts of the country it will affect or not affect. Mother Nature does not choose which farms in a certain county will be hit by disaster and which farms in the county are not hit.

I start with the good news. Fortunately, the Cochran amendment provides assistance to those parts of America that have experienced natural disasters. That is good.

Unfortunately, the Cochran amendment does not provide assistance to those other farmers who have experienced disaster in a different way, those who got hit by disaster in 2001. Nebraska is 2002. Kansas is 2002. My State of Montana is 2002, but it is also 2001. There are several years of disaster.

The amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota is designed to help fairly producers across the country who have experienced natural disasters, irrespective of where they are, irrespective of whether they are in a certain county which on average may have 35-percent loss or not.

The Cochran amendment is unfair. It helps some producers who have not experienced disasters. That is wrong. The Daschle amendment helps producers who have experienced disasters. That is fair. That is right.

I only wish the Senators from Mississippi, North Carolina, and other Senators would come to the high plain States and see what a disaster we have. It is sad. It is stunning. It is despairing. It is so sad, looking in people's eyes. Thousands are leaving their places; they are drying up. It is worse this year even than last year, thus far. It may rain some more; we do not know.

We, across America, have a big heart. We help Americans who need help. We have helped those who have experienced hurricane losses. We helped those with earthquake damage, say, in California or New York in the Trade Towers. We knew intuitively that is what you do.

I say to my colleagues and all those who are helped, remember those who are not sufficiently helped.

To sum up in one sentence, we are talking about a few billion. That does not affect the outyear budget deficit. We can always make adjustments. We are all concerned about the deficit. Help our people who need help. In many parts of our country we need help desperately. I urge colleagues to put aside the partisanship and do what is right for America and vote for farmers who need the help, help offered in the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. President, last week, I saw that $3.1 billion was included for drought assistance in the omnibus funding bill. It was a good way to start the day, until I started to dig deeper. Montana producers will not receive meaningful relief from these funds.

I am fighting today for full funding for both 2001 and 2002 for the crop disaster program, livestock assistance program, and the American Indian livestock feed program that 79 Members of the Senate agreed to on September 10, 2002.

I have spent a lot of time visiting producers on their farms and ranches in Montana. And each time I am stunned by the desperation in their voices and in their eyes, stunned by the way the winds are blowing away their topsoil and their herds are getting smaller and smaller.

I cannot stress how important it is that we quickly pass meaningful drought disaster assistance. The unrelenting drought in Montana has brought economic hardship to our agriculture producers and our rural communities.

The same way we use emergency funds to rebuild communities hurt by tornadoes and hurricanes, we should use emergency funds to rebuild our communities hurt by drought. There is no reason that a double standard should apply to agriculture.

And the situation has become even more devastating, since many of these regions are suffering their third, fourth, or fifth year of consecutive drought conditions.

According to the New York Times on May 3, 2002, ``In eastern Montana, more than a thousand wheat farmers have called it quits rather than trying to coax another crop out of the ground that has received less rain over the last 12 months than many deserts get in a year.''

It is anticipated that another 1,300 Montana wheat producers will call it quits if disaster assistance is not provided.

The effects of the drought have gone beyond our farmers and ranchers. Businesses are closing their doors, employees are being laid off, and main streets are literally drying up.

According to Dale Schuler, past president of Montana Grain Growers and a farmer in Choteau County, MT, nearly 2,000 square miles of crop in his area of central Montana have gone unharvested. That is an area the size of Delaware. ``Farmers and our families have not had the means to repay our operating loans, let alone buy inputs to plant the crop for the coming year.''

Dale added, ``Chouteau County is the largest farming county in Montana, and yet our last farm equipment dealer had no choice but to close his doors, our local co-op closed its tire shop, one farm fuel supplier quit, and the fertilizer dealers and grain elevators are laying off workers. I believe that we are set to see a mass exodus from Montana that has not been seen since the Great Depression of the 1930's.

On September 3, 2002, the Wall Street Journal printed an article that stated that, ``the U.S. may be looking at the most expensive drought in its history, inflicting economic damage far beyond the Farm Belt.''

Loans have been made with the understanding that Congress was going to provide disaster assistance because as a country and a Government that is what we as Americans do. We rush to provide assistance to victims of hurricanes and tornadoes. As we all know, that is not what has occurred with the drought.

Now we have bankers who are desperately trying to not call loans due and producers who are desperately trying to scrape enough together to make the bank hold on just a little longer.

Producers are considering selling parcels of land or pieces of equipment that they have considered vital to their operation. They will do it if it means that they can keep the farm or ranch that their family has been working for generations. Scraping that money together has never been more difficult as most of the potential buyers are in similar financial straits.

The devastation of this drought does not end at the front door of our rural homes. The enormous economic toll of this relentless drought on our communities will take years to recover.

However, the toll on our rural families is irreparable. Incidents of domestic abuse, suicides, and alcoholism have increased significantly in the past 2 years. We must not continue to let our inability to uphold our responsibilities cripple rural communities any longer.

We cannot and must not continue to ignore the impacts of drought and the effect it has on our agricultural producers and our rural communities. Agricultural producers are every bit as

deserving of assistance for their suffering from the drought as the small business owner in Louisiana suffering from a hurricane.

I cannot urge more strongly my colleagues in the House and Senate to work together to pass full funding for natural disaster assistance for both 2001 and 2002. I, again, ask the President to live up to the words he spoke almost a year ago when he said that the agriculture economy is vital to the national economy. It is vital that we pass agriculture disaster assistance immediately to help our producers, to help our economy, and to help our Nation.

Mr. President, this is the same issue which the Senator from Arizona raised not too long ago. It has serious deficiencies: No. 1, that it only applies, as I understand it, to one carrier and not to other carriers, which on its face raises many serious questions.

No. 2, I said to the Senator from Pennsylvania at that time, if I were in the position to influence whether we would have hearings on this subject in the near future, I would certainly do so. Time has passed. We have a new chairman of the Finance Committee. But I still hold the same view; namely, that we should have a good opportunity to address this issue more broadly and more fairly and deal with other airlines that face, to some degree, the same issues; otherwise, this is a single-shot amendment. It is unfair to other airlines. We should have more time to consider the right way to deal with this issue.

I respectfully urge Senators not to adopt this amendment so we can more appropriately deal with the matter at an appropriate time.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that very point about the public policy argument?

Will the Senator agree, strong public policy, which this body has adopted, is that a company does not borrow from their pension funds for their own corporate purposes? That is a strong public policy point.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment by my colleague from Rhode Island. While I understand his desire to address the problem of unemployment, I would suggest this is neither the time nor the place to do so.

First, I would remind my colleagues that this amendment would increase mandatory spending in an appropriation bill, and therefore is subject to a 60-vote point of order.

Second, let's remember what we've already done to address this issue. Last year, Congress voted to provide more than $11 billion in federally funded benefits, and we voted earlier this month to provide an additional $7 billion on top of that. That's a total of $18 billion in federally funded unemployment benefits.

Third, I would suggest this amendment is based on a faulty premise. On one hand, my colleague seems to suggest unemployment is worse than ever before. On the other hand, he suggests this amendment is no more than we've done before.

I would suggest he is mistaken on both counts.

The truth is this amendment represents the greatest expansion of Federal unemployment benefits in history, and it is being proposed at a time when unemployment is well below historical recession levels.

Let's be clear about what this amendment does. It would provide a minimum of 26 weeks of federally funded unemployment benefits and a maximum of 33 weeks--at an additional cost of more than $6 billion.

The last--and only time--Congress provided up to 33 weeks of unemployment benefits was back in 1992 when the unemployment rate reached nearly 8 percent. Today, the unemployment rate is 6 percent.

Moreover, every other time Congress has provided federally funded unemployment benefits, they have been linked to the duration of State benefits. This amendment would provide between 26 and 33 weeks of Federal benefits without regard to the duration of State benefits. This is an unprecedented expansion of the unemployment program.

It violates the insurance principles inherent in the unemployment program by breaking the link between the time someone has worked to the time that person can collect unemployment benefits. This amendment would allow someone who worked as few as 20 weeks to collect as much as 33 weeks of federally funded benefits. This is neither the right time, the right place, nor the right way to change the unemployment program.

Unemployment has not risen to the historical level of previous recessions. Moreover, a uniform duration of benefits would violate every historical precedent.

I urge my colleagues to sustain the point of order and defeat this amendment.

Mr. President, today we have the ability to address a problem that has been neglected for the last 18 months. For 18 months farmers have been waiting for 2001, and now 2002 disaster assistance, but partisanship kept us from providing rural America with relief. Today, we will provide the remedy.

Today the Senate has the opportunity to address the issue of significant loss in the agriculture community due to natural disasters. In Iowa we have experienced both drought and flood during the last 2 years. For instance, last year the eastern side of the State--counties such as Clayton, Delaware, Jackson, Clinton, and Scott--had a disaster in 2002 due to flood. In 2001, the southern two tiers of counties in Iowa experienced drought. Turning back to 2002 again, one of Iowa's best production years ever, we saw counties such as Harrison, Mills, Adams and Cass turn up bone dry during critical states of the growing season.

Iowa had record yields in 2002, but we did not have uniformity in state-wide averages of precipitation or production and that has made the package we are debating today very important to many family farmers in my home State.

The agriculture assistance package I have worked on with Chairman Cochran and other Members provides $3.1 billion of assistance to areas and individuals with the greatest need. Our proposal will give assistance to farmers who live in ``primary'' designated disaster counties and to farmers who have had a 35 percent crop loss outside of those primary counties. We will be able to get checks to the farmers in the primary designated counties within 4 weeks after the President signs the bill. The farmers who can account for a 35 percent crop loss will need to go to their local FSA office and sign-up for assistance.

Our program also contains an additional $250 million for the Livestock Assistance Programs--LAP provides direct payments to eligible livestock producers who suffered grazing losses due to natural disaster--and offers a sense of the Senate that encourages the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide surplus dry milk supplies to pork producers to use as feed.

Some members of the Senate will try to make ``political hay'' out of this by opposing our proposal. They will say the need is greater than $3.1 billion and our assistance isn't focused, but the fact is the only way the House of Representatives and the White House are going to allow us to spend more on agriculture, after we have already spent over $180 billion on the other agriculture disaster we experienced last year, the 2002 farm bill, is if we ``find'' the money through offsets.

Those who choose to oppose this proposal will claim that their proposal was better for rural America, but what good is a proposal that can't pass? We tried it their way; I voted for emergency funding more than once, but the Senate leadership was unsuccessful in advancing any assistance to rural America. In fact, the last time I voted for emergency spending we couldn't even get it off the floor of the Senate. Doesn't it seem reasonable that we should actually vote on something that can actually pass? Isn't tangible assistance better than empty promises?

The assistance in our proposal will get to farmers months before the assistance in the Democratic alternative. Most farmers will get help within four weeks after the President signs the legislation, instead of waiting up to eight months under the alternative approach. Family farmers that carry significant debt, or those that have been

forced to arrange ``bridge loans'' because of the problems with farm bill payments need the assistance now to reduce their debt, not eight months from now when the debt has had plenty of time to build due to interest.

Chairman Stevens worked diligently to find an offset that would provide funds to address the current need. I appreciate the work of Chairman Stevens and thank him for his assistance. I would also like to thank Chairman Cochran for working with me and other members to fit this proposal to the need in rural America. Without Chairman Cochran's dedication to developing the best proposal possible for rural America we would not have such broad support.

Mr. President, family farmers need disaster assistance, not ``pie in the sky'' empty promises that can't make it past the House of Representatives or the White House. It was important to make sure farmers who need assistance receive help as quickly as possible, and we've done that. I encourage my colleagues to support family farmers and support the Cochran amendment.

I will yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Mississippi.

Yes.

Mr. President, I yield 1 minute of my 2 minutes to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. President, I yield myself the 1 minute remaining. At the end of the time being used up, I will make a motion to table. I will not do that yet.

But I want to reiterate what my colleague from Montana said; that this is a problem bigger than USAir and requires the time of our committee to work on it. The statistic the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee gave me is that there are about 125 companies in one shape or another that are working in unison to try to find a global solution. So taking care of the situation for US Airways ought to be taken care of in conjunction with the issues that other companies have before the Congress instead of using a rifleshot. This is within the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee. Nothing has been said about those left, but the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee is trying to write an appropriations bill that would avoid the blue slip problem with the House of Representatives.

So this has a lot of problems. We have to deal with it in the committee.

Mr. President, I move to table this amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, we did have a meeting with the President yesterday. It was one where we talked about the things that need to be done. The people who were at the meeting are experienced and understand the legislative perils we face on a daily basis. But we also recognize there are things that need to be done for the country, and we have to work toward that.

I want to just briefly mention today that Senator Daschle introduced, on behalf of the Democratic caucus, bills that we believe are extremely important to pass. These are not necessarily in the order of importance, but the first bill introduced was S. 6, the Comprehensive Homeland Security Act.

Basically, this bill builds on legislative initiatives that were passed in the 107th Congress. It would authorize funding for important programs. We have big holes in our security blanket. We have to do something about chemical security, domestic nuclear plants. We have to do something about rail security, security of water treatment works, and border security efforts to combat terrorism generally. This legislation is, in my opinion, a must-do piece of legislation.

Prescription drugs has been talked about endlessly, with nothing having been done. It is so important that we pass legislation that makes Medicare a more meaningful, modern piece of legislation for our senior citizens.

When the Medicare legislation passed in 1965, there was really no need for prescription drugs because they were not used as they are today to make people more comfortable, to save lives, and to prevent disease. But now that is part of the basic treatment that seniors have.

The average senior has 18 prescriptions filled every year. As a result, they pay large amounts out of their pocket for prescription drugs. What we have to do is provide a prescription drug benefit as part of Medicare. We need to do that and also in the process preserve Medicare. Medicare is not a perfect program, but it is a good program. People are saying it is about to go broke. Medicare is not about to go broke. And always remember that Medicare is a pay-as-you-go program. We continually have to refund and figure out ways to finance Medicare. That is the way it is. It is different than Social Security.

So a prescription drug benefit is important for Medicare. Also, it is important we get ahold of prescription drug prices generally for everybody. Prescription drugs in this country are tremendously expensive, more expensive than in any other country, even though we develop and manufacture and produce most of them. It is not fair we spend more on prescription drugs than other countries. It is not fair they are cheaper in Canada and cheaper in Mexico than they are in the United States.

The Leave No Child Behind Act is something that is an important piece of legislation, but the problem now is that it is not funded. We have to provide full funding for this No Child Left Behind Act. We have to hold States accountable for ensuring that all students have access to educational resources.

We have to guarantee full funding of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.

The Senator from New Hampshire has been a loud advocate for doing something to fund that program. We have to, as part of S. 8, help communities modernize public schools, and there are other things we need to do included in S. 8 that we need to debate and pass this year.

S. 9 is the protection for pensions. This is a buildup of last year's corporate scandals and the 3-year stock market decline. They have simply highlighted the need to strengthen pension protections. That is what S. 9 is all about.

S. 10 deals with the more than 40 million people who have no health insurance. There are many other people who have inadequate health insurance. We have to do something to provide some way of these people getting decent medical care. Over 40 million people with no health insurance says it all. That is what S. 10 is all about.

As to the Equal Rights and Equal Dignity for Americans Act, we believe that we have to expand hate crimes protection, strengthen enforcement of existing civil rights laws, support legal representation for indigent Americans, and respond to the injustice of racial profiling. That is what S. 16 is all about. It is important legislation that needs to be passed.

Global warming is S. 17. There is no question, there is no debate-- sensibly, logically, intellectually--that global warming is taking place. It is. The question is, what are we going to do about it? That is the key.

We as Democrats talk about the minimum wage. We do it because most people have the stereotype that people who draw the minimum wage are kids flipping hamburgers at McDonald's. That is not the case. In fact, 60 percent of the people who draw the minimum wage are women; for 40 percent of those women, that is the only money they get for them and their families. So it is really important that we do something to increase the minimum wage. The minimum wage act would in two steps raise the minimum wage by $1.50: 75 cents when we pass the legislation; 75 cents after that. It is important we do that.

Many people who work two and sometimes three jobs, most of them part time, are paid the minimum wage. We need to increase that. That is the right thing to do.

I was very happy the leader included in his package of must-do legislation for the Democratic caucus this year the Veterans and Military Personnel Fairness Act. Among other provisions, this includes expanding full concurrent receipt of military retirement. We have made a little bit of progress over the last couple years. Last year we made the most progress, but we are still lacking.

If you retire from the military and have a medical disability, you cannot draw both pensions. Prior to last year, no one could. Last year we provided that people who are Purple Heart recipients basically can. We need to expand that. I was very happy the leader included this legislation that I authored and have worked on very closely with Senators Levin and Warner. It has taken years to get where we are now. We will continue to try to expand until people who retire from the military and have a disability can draw the same pension as somebody who retires from Sears and Roebuck and the Department of Interior and has the military disability. They should be able to draw the pension just the same. We want that to happen.

S. 21, the Emergency Disaster Assistance Act, addresses severe drought and floods, natural disasters farmers and ranchers face all over the country. We need to do more to take care of these desperate people. Time magazine had their pictures of the year. I looked at that last night before going to bed. It is interesting to note that a number of those pictures deal with the drought that has taken place. One picture is of a 67-year-old farmer. For the first time in his career, he has nothing. He said: Farmers know what to do when it rains; we don't know what to do when it doesn't rain.

That is what this legislation is all about. I hope in the spirit of what the majority leader talked about today and the President talked about at the White House yesterday we can work together to pass this legislation.

The majority has pieces of legislation that they believe are important to pass. What we should do is work together. They have pieces of our legislation. Maybe we can work together. That is what we should do to pass the legislation. I don't think there would be many who would disagree that this legislation is important. They may not agree with every part of it, but that is what legislation is about. Legislation is the art of compromise. I hope we can move forward and do some compromising and some legislating.

Before the Senator takes his 40 minutes, I would say to my friends on the Democratic side, prior to their arriving, Senator Gregg asked for 40 minutes of the hour that the Republicans have set aside. He will do that now. Do you want to lock in a time for the two Senators now?

You are entitled to 10. So following the remarks of the Senator from New Hampshire, the Senator from Arkansas will speak. The Senator from Minnesota?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the statement of the Senator from New Hampshire, the Senator from Arkansas be recognized for up to 10 minutes and the Senator from Minnesota for up to 15 minutes.