National Integrated Drought Information System Act of 2006

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, the chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, for the many courtesies extended to those of us who are seeking to get a vote on disaster assistance this year. My colleagues, the chairman and ranking member, Senators Bennett and Kohl, have been generous and kind with respect to allowing this amendment to be considered, and we deeply appreciate it. We certainly will not forget it.

The matter before the body is the fundamental question of whether there is going to be disaster assistance to this Nation's farmers and ranchers this year.

I also thank Senator Frist for allowing us to take up the Agriculture Appropriations bill today, allowing me to offer this amendment to provide agricultural disaster assistance for our farmers and ranchers. It took a bit of a struggle to achieve this result, to get this opportunity, but Senator Frist has been exceptionally kind throughout this discussion and willing to have the Senate discuss this matter.

Some of my colleagues may ask: Senator, the majority has already indicated they do not intend to finish appropriations bills so what is the point of this vote?

Well, that is a good question. When we sought this vote, we did not know that the Agriculture appropriations bill would then not be completed. We did not know that there was going to be an intention to stop work on appropriations bills, to leave that all until next year. We did not know that. So we were working in good faith to put this before the body as a matter that is urgently needed by tens of thousands of farm families all across America. So why go on with the debate and the vote today if this bill is not going to be completed? There is one very good reason: Depending on how close this vote is, farmers and ranchers and their bankers will at least have an idea of whether there is the prospect for disaster assistance next year. It is going to require a supermajority vote today for us to prevail because the other side is going to offer a budget point of order. That is their right. If we are close to the 60 votes, then farmers and ranchers can assume there is a pretty good likelihood of disaster assistance next year. If we are not close to 60, then they will be safe in concluding the prospects, although still possible, are certainly more remote.

Why is this important? Because literally tens of thousands of farm and ranch families will not be able to go on without disaster assistance. In my own State, the independent bankers of North Dakota were meeting in my office when Mr. Hubbard, chief economic adviser, came to see me on a separate matter. I asked Mr. Hubbard to go into the conference room to listen to these independent bankers, 11 or 12 of them from across the State of North Dakota. They told Mr. Hubbard clearly and directly: If there is no disaster assistance forthcoming, 5 to 10 percent of the farm and ranch families in North Dakota will be forced off the land. That is how serious the current circumstance is. It is why we come on an emergency basis for this funding.

Let me indicate that this disaster approach will cost $4.8 billion. That is much less than disaster packages in 2000 and 2001, about a third of what disaster packages were in those years. But it is critically important. Why? Because in 2005 and 2006, we had a series of natural disasters across this country that were not covered in any way. The last disaster package that actually went through only applied to hurricanes. Those who suffered from drought, from flooding, were excluded. They were given no help.

Let me show the headlines from my State from last year: ``North Dakota Anthrax Outbreak Grows''; ``Rain Halts Harvest''; ``North Dakota Receives Major Disaster Declaration''; ``Heavy Rain Leads to Crop Diseases''; ``Beet Crop Could Be Smallest In 10 Years''; ``Crops, Hay Lost to Flooding''; ``Area Farmers Battle Flooding, Disease''.

These are only a handful of the headlines from that year. Here is a picture of a farm. Last year I flew over southeastern North Dakota, and it looked like a giant lake because farm after farm looked like this-- water from one horizon to the other. In the southeastern part of North Dakota, there was massive flooding. A million acres were prevented from even being planted. Hundreds of thousands of additional acres were ultimately drowned out. In other words, they could plant, they did plant, and then the crops were drowned out.

This was a devastating year for thousands of farm families. I had a young farmer, one of the best in our State, come to a farm meeting I held. He told me: Senator, unless something happens, a lot of my neighbors are going to be gone, because we have had such an extraordinarily unusual weather cycle in North Dakota.

That young man told me he has not had a normal crop in 6 years. He is not alone. I don't know whether it is global climate change or this is some very unusual weather pattern, but something is happening in my State, something that is dramatic and unusual and devastating to thousands of agricultural producers. We have a lake in North Dakota called Devil's Lake. Devil's Lake has risen 26 feet in the last 8 years. Devil's Lake is three times the size of the District of Columbia, and that lake

has risen 26 feet in the last 8 years. I don't know how one would describe this, but it is outside any experience I have had to have a giant lake rise 26 feet.

Three years ago in a small town in eastern North Dakota, we had 18.5 inches of rain in a 24-hour period, in a place that only receives that amount of moisture in a year. Something extraordinary is happening. The question is, will there be any Federal response or are we going to say, Tough luck, you are on your own, you are out?

Irony of ironies, after the massive flooding of last year, after the extended flooding in eastern North Dakota of the last 7 or 8 years, this year drought struck, the third worst drought, according to scientists, in our country's history. That is what happened this year. And so instead of headlines about flooding, this is the headline: ``Dakotas `epicenter' of a drought-stricken nation.'' This is a report from the Grand Forks Herald, one of the major newspapers of our State; in fact, a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper for covering the disastrous flooding of 1997, which many will recall, when we had the spectacle of a fireman chest deep in water fighting a fire. The 1997 flood was the worst flood in 500 years in eastern North Dakota. And now that newspaper is reporting on the ``epicenter of a drought-stricken nation.''

They say here more than 60 percent of the United States is in drought. And we can see the epicenter is in South Dakota. But we are by no means alone because right down the center of the country, right down the heartland of America, is terrible drought this year, the third worst drought in our history.

``Experts say dry spell third worst on record.'' The only worse droughts were the horrendous droughts of the 1930s, which we refer to now as the Dust Bowl, and the extended drought of the 1950s. Some who are listening may ask, why haven't we heard about this? Why hasn't this been on the national news?

I think we all know why. Go back to 2005 and 2006. The disasters that were in the news were Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. That is what was in the news. And we have responded to those disasters. We have not responded to this disaster because, frankly, it has gotten very little attention.

This will be the last opportunity for the Senate to act on this important issue. Producers across the country can look to this vote today and be able to determine whether the prospects are hopeful. If we get close to the 60 votes or hopefully achieve a 60-vote hurdle, then the possibility of disaster assistance next year is brightened. If we do not come close, then tens of thousands of farm families are going to be at their bankers in the coming weeks, and they are going to be given the grim news that they are done; they are finished; they will not be able to continue.

For over a year I, along with many Senate colleagues from both sides of the aisle, have been coming to the floor of the Senate seeking to pass disaster assistance for our farmers. Today I come with a bill cosponsored by 27 of my colleagues and myself. That makes 28 of us. On a thoroughly bipartisan basis, we have joined to urge our colleagues to consider disaster assistance. Last spring, as part of the hurricane supplemental, the Senate approved an agricultural disaster package for the 2005 crop year. That measure was later dropped in conference due to opposition from the administration and House leadership. The amendment I am offering today is similar to the bipartisan disaster relief legislation I introduced on September 28 of 2006.

The need for this amendment is compelling. I think my previous remarks made clear why it is so important in my State. It is not just my State. It is North Dakota, Montana, Minnesota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado. There are many States that have been affected. In my State, in July I went on a drought tour with my colleague Senator Dorgan and our Congressman. This is my home county. This is a cornfield in July. You have heard the old saw that corn should be knee high by the Fourth of July. You can see there is almost nothing coming up. It is a moonscape. This is what southern North Dakota looked like this year, absolutely devastated.

I even went to a farm where they had irrigated corn. The farmer took me out and we started peeling the ears. And on irrigated corn, the kernels hadn't filled. Why? Because in one day, it was 112 degrees in my hometown. I am not talking about the heat index; I am talking about the actual temperature--in one day, 112 degrees.

When I say North Dakota is not alone, this is from the Drought Monitor from July 25 of this year. The yellow areas are termed abnormally dry; the tan areas are moderate drought; the darker tan, severe drought; the red is extreme drought; the dark brown is exceptional drought. You can see that we have had drought throughout the heartland of America--as I have indicated, the third worst drought in our Nation's history.

Others are communicating with us, telling us of the urgent need for this assistance. We received a letter from 32 of the major farm organizations in America saying pass this disaster assistance. Let me read you the letter:

We write to respectfully urge you to support agricultural

disaster assistance for the 2005 and 2006 production years.

While many of us are hopeful that even more can be done to

provide disaster-related assistance, we believe the

bipartisan Conrad amendment, and other such amendments that

would make disaster assistance even more inclusive, should be

approved by Congress this year.

As you may know, a large coalition has been seeking

disaster assistance for more than a year. The coalition is so

large and united because last year 88 percent of U.S.

counties were declared disaster areas by USDA. This year,

more than 66 percent have received that same designation.

With wide support earlier this year, the Senate approved a

disaster assistance package. Unfortunately, the provision was

changed in conference and the final language only assisted

rural residents who were victims of hurricanes, not those who

were victims of other natural disasters, such as drought and

flooding. While many of us believe that even more needs to be

done--and would be supportive of additional assistance--we

nevertheless want to ensure that the Conrad amendment is

approved.

Quite simply, a disaster is a disaster. We urge you to

support the Conrad disaster amendment and oppose a budget

point of order against the amendment. Congress should do all

they can to provide victims of natural disaster with the

assistance that they need and deserve this year.

My amendment incorporates many of the provisions already approved by the Senate. But I have made several modifications to address the objections raised by the administration. The economic assistance provisions to help program crop and dairy producers offset rising energy costs in 2005 have been dramatically reduced. Payments will only be made to producers who can demonstrate they suffered reduced income in 2005 compared with 2004, and the provision requires that those who wish to receive these direct payments forego the crop disaster payments the amendment makes available for 2005 and 2006.

The administration has stated that we need to wait until harvest is concluded. The harvest is over for 2006 and the losses are real and significant throughout many parts of the country. Crop and livestock production loss provisions contained in the original legislation are retained and will apply for both 2005 and 2006.

For those who say you don't have to have a loss to get assistance-- wrong. Nobody gets a dime who has not suffered a material loss. In fact, crop producers must have a loss of at least 35 percent before they get a thing. Let me repeat that. Crop producers will have to have a loss of at least 35 percent before any of these provisions take effect for them.

The livestock compensation program will only be made to producers whose operations are in counties designated as disaster areas by the Secretary and who can demonstrate that they suffered a material loss. The provision also contains modest funding for conservation programs to help restore and rehabilitate drought and wildlife losses on grazing lands, and the provision assists small agriculturally dependent businesses that have been dramatically hurt as a result of these natural disasters.

Because of the modifications, the cost of providing disaster assistance for 2005 and 2006 has been substantially reduced, from $6.7 billion in previous provisions to about $4.8 billion in this amendment. Some have suggested that this amendment will result in farmers becoming more than whole and that crop insurance is adequate to address the losses our producers have sustained during the last 2 years.

Nothing in this debate has disturbed me more than people making that argument because it is apparent that they simply don't know how crop insurance works. They simply don't understand the formula that applies.

I wanted to provide a specific example to show my colleagues what is going to happen to a typical farmer under the provisions of this legislation. In North Dakota, the average wheat yield is 34 bushels to the acre. The average harvest price is $4.57 a bushel. So per acre, a farmer could have expected, in a normal year, to get $157.21 an acre. Now, this year, if they would have a 50-percent loss, their market income would be reduced to $78.60. With their insurance indemnity, if they bought coverage at one of the most generous levels--the 75 percent level--they would get a $27 insurance payment. Under my legislation, they would get an additional $7, for a total of $113, compared to what they could have expected in a normal year of $157. They are losing $44.21 per acre in a normal year. They are still down 28 percent, even with this disaster package. For those who suffer a 75-percent loss--let me say I have many in my State who suffered a 75-percent loss--they would get $39.30 from the market. They would get an insurance payment of $54.18.

Under this legislation, they would get an additional $19.50, for a total of about $113--still losing $44 an acre, still at a loss of almost 30 percent.

Yes.

Mr. President, we already have a unanimous consent agreement.

We have an order. As I understand it, the order is to be my opening statement, followed by Senator Dorgan for what time he will consume, followed by Senator Landrieu for 10 minutes. Is that not correct, I ask the Chair?

So we have a unanimous consent agreement in place. I think we should follow that. In terms of time, I have maybe 5 minutes left in this opening statement and Senator Dorgan needs probably 20 minutes and then Senator Landrieu is scheduled for 10, if that is of assistance to the Senator. That would indicate that we have about 40 minutes.

Mr. President, again, I want to indicate the facts. For those who have said crop insurance is the answer, crop insurance will keep these people from dramatic losses--wrong. That is not true. This bill will not prevent farmers from dramatic losses. If they have had a 50-percent loss, even with this legislation, they are going to lose nearly 30 percent. If they have had a 75-percent loss, even with this legislation, even with crop insurance, even with buying up to the level that is the most frequent level that farmers buy, they will have a loss of nearly 30 percent.

This program is not going to make farmers rich or even make them whole. But it will make the difference for thousands of farm families who otherwise may be forced off the land. Farmers and ranchers need assistance for the 2005 and 2006 natural disaster losses, and they need it now. If these emergencies are not dealt with, tens of thousands of farm families and Main Street businesses will suffer, many irreparably.

I have had farm meeting after farm meeting all across my State. Farmers and their families have told me that if assistance is not forthcoming, this will be their last year. I am not talking about a few, I am talking about thousands in my State. As I have indicated, North Dakota, unfortunately, is not alone. This is a drought that has been devastating to the heartland of America. That is why there are 28 sponsors of this legislation on a fully bipartisan basis.

Let me conclude by saying that some have said--I know we will hear this from the chairman of the Budget Committee--this is a budget buster. Now, he knows--and everyone who follows the budget process knows--we do not budget for natural disasters. There is no line item in the budget for natural disasters--none. Natural disasters are handled on an emergency basis. That is what we are seeking--emergency funding outside of the budget because there is no budget for natural disasters--none, zero. If there is going to be any assistance, it is going to have to come as it typically has, by an emergency declaration.

To uphold an emergency designation requires a supermajority vote in the Senate. It requires at least 60 percent to support that designation of emergency. So those who say it is a budget buster--wrong. There is no budget line item for natural disasters--none. The only way there is support for natural disasters is through an emergency declaration over and above the rest of the budget. Why? Because decisions have been made in the past that you cannot predict disasters by their nature. You cannot say a drought is going to happen or a hurricane or a flood is going to happen. Those are acts of God. They are acts that are unpredictable and, therefore, are not budgeted for. Perhaps they should be. Perhaps we should at least make an estimate, based on previous experience, of what natural disasters cost. But it is not done. So if there is going to be any assistance forthcoming for the tens of thousands of people who have been hurt, this is the chance this year to send a signal of help, a signal of hope, a signal that we will stand with these farm and ranch families and help them in their time of need.

Amendment No. 5205

Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I send my amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Dorgan, who has been such a leader on this issue for our farm and ranch families and who has repeatedly offered disaster legislation on the appropriations bill and has repeatedly passed it on the appropriations bill. In fact, there is, in the underlying appropriations bill of the Agriculture Committee, disaster assistance. The problem is, though, it only covers 1 year, and we now know we have had 2 years of remarkable disasters.

While we are waiting for Senator Gregg to come to the Senate floor, I thought I would just take a moment to read from some of the letters from farmers in my State, the things that they have written me. This is a letter from last year, the flood year. This is what the man wrote:

The rains began in earnest the last days of May 2005. Our

crops were in the ground so the majority of the input costs

for the crops were already realized. We received 25 inches of

rain in 33 days. The attached pictures show the result. In

our local town residents were going up and down the streets

in boats.

We did our very best to cope with expenses but with the

increased energy prices and the loss of crop income, we and

all the other producers in our area lost the battle. Our farm

had financial reversals in the amount of $110,000. We carry

crop insurance but this program does not begin to cover our

risks.

In speaking with loan officers at 2 of our local banks I

was told that First National Bank expects to restructure 60

percent of their ag loans. State Bank estimates restructuring

75 to 80 percent of their loans. This is serious business in

agriculture.

He closed by saying:

Please support disaster relief currently working its way

through Congress. If you do, you will literally be the

difference between me being able to continue to produce food

and fiber for this great Nation and not being able to

continue this production.

A second letter from a man this year:

I farm and ranch with my father and mother and this is the

second year in a row that our neighbors and ourselves have

endured natural disasters. When I say disaster, I mean 25

inches of rain in the month of June alone, and complete crop

loss. I farm approximately 630 acres myself, and I did not

harvest a single kernel of grain from any of it. The rivers

started to run the 3rd of July and pushed across 80 acres of

my alfalfa field, killing approximately 40 acres.

Enclosed are pictures to give you an idea of what the

conditions were like. The pictures look as though they could

have been taken after Katrina, but we know otherwise. Those

people need assistance for a complete loss. What we had here

was not as catastrophic on a widespread manner, but

destruction of crops was there. Please assist us. Thank you

for your time and any assistance you might provide.

This is another letter. This letter is from this year. And, remember, last year we had this incredible flooding, and now this incredible drought.

We are writing to ask for your help. We were burnt out this

week by a prairie fire on the Standing Rock Reservation. We

lost 5,000 acres of pasture. We don't know how we are going

to feed our cattle this winter, as we have lost our winter

grazing.

This, on top of the drought here in south central North

Dakota, we don't know how much more we can contend with. We

planted wheat, but have nothing to harvest this year due to a

lack of rain, and crop insurance will barely pay our input

costs, so there will not be any income from a crop this year.

As for buying feed for cattle, hay will cost approximately

$100 per ton with trucking. We will also need to purchase

supplement and corn. This is in addition to the high cost of

electricity, fuel, and propane.

We don't know how much more we can endure. We don't know

why our country helps other nations, but not our own people,

and especially the farmers. Other nations give nothing back.

Selling the cattle is not the answer either. As a result,

there will be no income. Please let us know if there is any

assistance for us.

And another letter. This is from the head of a bank, the Commercial Bank of Mott, ND, near where Senator Dorgan grew up:

Attached are six agricultural operations associated with

the Commercial Bank of Mott. Five of these businesses are

located in Hettinger County and one in Grant County. Over the

course of the last two weeks, these producers have come to

the bank to discuss their financial position. The projections

attached have been assembled to reflect accurately each

producer's current standard.

As you review each and every projection, it is apparent that all of these producers were dramatically affected by the drought of 2006. At this writing, without any government intervention or disaster aid, it appears that three of these producers will be going out of business. They simply cannot absorb losses of this magnitude.

The last spreadsheet attached shows that the six producers

have collectively lost $875,000 in this year.

Six producers losing $875,000.

We are here today because you have asked us to come. We now

ask you to support agriculture and to help provide these

producers with a fair and equitable disaster program. I might

add, the program is needed now.

I am happy to yield.

I say to my colleague, this equals about 10 days of expenditure in Iraq, based on what we are told the supplemental will be and what is already in the budget. So this is modest compared to previous disaster packages. It will not make farmers whole.

As I have indicated in the examples I have provided, farmers who had a 50-percent loss will still have a 28-percent loss in economic terms, even with this package. A farmer who has lost 75 percent, even with this package and with aggressive crop insurance, will still have a 28- percent loss as well.

This is a defining moment for thousands of people.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 402 of House Concurrent Resolution 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006,

I move to waive section 402 of that concurrent resolution for purposes of the pending amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays at the designated time.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one moment?

I am very much in sympathy with the Senator on the notion of paying for this. In fact, I spent much of the morning trying to figure out a way I could offer a pay-for which I think the Senator and I might agree with and I think most of the body would agree with. It would more than pay for this. I have been advised by legal counsel that if we offer a pay-for in the context of this bill and this amendment, we would then be subject to rule XVI. Under rule XVI, any Senator can raise it and the amendment would fall with no vote. So we are in a very unfortunate circumstance. We can't offer a pay-for.

Let me be very direct about what the pay-for is which I would have offered today if I weren't prevented by the rules from doing so. It turns out the Interior Department failed in contracts with oil companies to provide for royalties when oil prices went above a certain amount. Oil prices are above that amount today. The loss to the Treasury, I am told, is in the range of $11 billion. That would pay for this twice over. Unortunately, we can't offer our proposal and the Senator can't offer his without being subject to rule XVI. I wanted to say that for the Record. I appreciate very much that the Senator knows I wish to pay for this as well. We have a way to do a pay-for, but I am precluded by the rules from offering it.

Will the Senator yield on that point without interfering with the Senator's time?

Mr. President, I will take this on my time.

The Senator makes a very good point. In previous disaster bills, those that did not have crop insurance got 45 percent of the prevailing price. Under this bill, we have dropped that dramatically to 20 percent. Why? The Senator asks a very good question. Frankly, the overriding reason is there are certain crops for which crop insurance doesn't work at all, largely specialty crops in this country for which the crop insurance program badly needs reform. I think most of us from farm country would agree on that. There are real problems with crop insurance. Crop insurance for specialty crops was never written in a way that makes any economic sense, or in many cases covers the crops at all. That is why we still have a provision that gives some assistance to those who do not have crop insurance.

Will the Senator yield?

On the question of paying for it, I have complete agreement with the Senator from Oklahoma. I wish the rules permitted us to offer an amendment to pay for it.

No. 1, on the question of requiring--that we have dropped the crop insurance requirement, we did because it cost money. It is the scoring rules around this place that don't make much sense to me. When we submitted it to CBO, they said if you have a crop--I submitted it with the crop insurance requirement in it, and they said if you do that, it costs $40 million.

No. 2, there is a payment limit in this legislation. It is an $80,000 payment limit. There is a gross income test in this legislation.

We tried to address some of the things the Senator is concerned about, and he is right about those things. We have tried to address it with a payment limitation--$80,000--with a gross income test, which is a little different from a net asset test, but it tries to get at the same point the Senator is making.

I say to the Senator on the question of the small business economic loss grants, the Senator cited the $300 million that was in the previous legislation. We cut that to $100 million. We left it in there for this reason. We have heard from crop sprayers all over the country, at least the drought-stricken area. In the heartland of the country, they have reported they have gone to the SBA. They told them they have suffered such devastating losses, they are not eligible for SBA, they are out. That is the reason the $100 million is left. It really is for those who are most directly affected by a dramatic falloff in acreage. This started with a company in North Dakota that called me. The acreage they were spraying was reduced 80 percent this last year. Their losses were staggering. If there is not something like this, they are out at SBA. Then we started research in other States and found the same thing. That is the reason for that.

I go back to the question of providing some assistance to those who didn't buy crop insurance because I basically agree with the Senator's point. We do have this fundamental problem of crop insurance not being practical and not being available, in many cases, for the specialty crop people. We did try to get at the point the Senator is making by dramatically reducing what they get.

Under previous disaster bills, they would get 45 percent of prevailing prices. In this disaster bill, we have dropped that to 20 percent. We didn't think it was fair to eliminate it given the fact we have not crafted a crop insurance program--especially that the specialty crop people could have available to them--that is economically viable.

I thank the Senator very much for his courtesy.

Mr. President, I have not had a chance to respond to my colleague, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget. The Senator from South Dakota has been waiting patiently, but if he would not mind if I took 2 minutes to respond to Senator Gregg.

The chairman of the Committee on the Budget said: Look, this doesn't just respond to natural disasters; this is a series of earmarks. I say to my colleague, there are no earmarks here. There is nothing individual Members put in this bill. I drafted this bill. I drafted it in broad consultation with Members of this Senate. There are no earmarks in the sense of what typically is in an appropriations bill where individual Members put in provisions that have never been on any legislation before.

One would be hard pressed to point to a single provision in this bill that has not been in previous disaster legislation. One would be hard pressed to find a single provision here that has not been in previous disaster legislation, in fact, in a far more generous way than is in this bill. In 2000, we had a disaster bill that cost $14 billion. The next year, in 2001, it cost between $11 and $12 billion. This disaster bill is for 2 years, and it is $4.8 billion. On a comparable basis to 2000 and 2001, that was a total of $25 billion for 2 years, and this is $4.8 billion for 2 years. The truth is, we have cut, cut, cut to be fiscally responsible.

I yield the floor.

How much time does the Senator require? I advise the Senator we have 23 minutes remaining on our side.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator, we have other Members who have said they are coming, but if the Senator would like to take an additional 2 minutes, I would be happy to grant it to him.

Mr. President, is the Senator from Louisiana seeking time? Not on this matter?

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both sides.

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

Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Minnesota, does he seek time?

I am advised I only have 13 minutes. The Senator from Montana is here as well. Would the Senator from Montana like time as well?

I ask the Senator from Minnesota, how much time would you like?

Mr. President, I am glad to yield the Senator from Minnesota 6 minutes.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

Mr. President, may we have a report on how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. President, I ask the Chair to advise me after I have used 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. President, we are about to have a consequential vote. The question before the body is whether the Senate believes disaster assistance ought to be provided to this Nation's farmers and ranchers-- what is now reported to be the third worst drought in the Nation's history. Right down the center of America, we have had a blistering drought. The results: farm fields that look like moonscapes and economic losses that are stunning and ruinous.

In other disasters, Congress has responded, especially disasters that have gotten more attention. Perhaps because this disaster is right in the heart of America, where most of the national news media is not headquartered, this disaster has not gotten the attention so many other disasters have.

Make no mistake, this disaster is no less devastating. People's economic lives are on the line. We understand full well that this will not be decided today because our friends on the other side, who are in the majority still, have determined not to finish work on the pending appropriations bills. They are leaving that to next year. So this work will not be complete. But this vote remains important because it will signal to the Nation's farmers and ranchers whether there is hope that help is on the way. If there is no hope and there is no help, we are going to see literally tens of thousands of farm and ranch families forced off the land. That is clear.

This is a fiscally responsible package. Some have said it is a budget buster. They know, as all of us in this Chamber know, there is no budget for natural disasters--none. That is because it is hard to predict what natural disasters will occur. So every natural disaster must be dealt with on an emergency basis. That is why it requires a supermajority vote. That is the question that is before the body this afternoon.

This bill costs $4.8 billion for relief for 2005 and 2006. It is a fraction of what disaster relief was for the years 2000 and 2001. That disaster package was $25 billion. This is less than one-fifth that amount.

In answer to the question some colleagues have raised, there are payment limitations--an $80,000 payment limitation. There is a gross- income test. On the question of those who grow the grains we consume as a nation, let me just say, you have to have at least a 35-percent loss before you get anything. Nobody with no loss gets a dime under this proposal.

I urge my colleagues to vote to waive the budget point of order so we can send a signal to the Nation's farmers and ranchers that help is on the way.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be equally charged.

Mr. President, the order is for the vote to occur at 5 o'clock; is that correct?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given an additional 4 minutes.

Mr. President, let me just point out that 32 major farm organizations have asked this body to support my amendment and also to support a budget waiver, if it is raised, against the amendment. That has already been done. So that will be the key vote. What is essential is that we get 60 votes, or close to it, so that farmers know there is a possibility of disaster assistance. There are 32 national organizations, including the National Farmers Union, American Farm Bureau, Farm Credit Council, the Sugarbeet Growers, Soybean Association, and the American Corn Growers Association. It also has the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. The commissioners of agriculture from all 50 States have come forward and said: Please pass this legislation. It also includes the Barley Growers, the Farmer Cooperatives, National Farmers Organization, Milk Producers, the Sunflower Association, the

Rice Belt Warehousers, the Fertilizer Institute, U.S. Dried Peas and Lentils Council, U.S. Beet Sugar Association, U.S. Canola Association, and Women Involved in Farm Economics. They all say unanimously that this legislation is important and it is important now.

To those colleagues or their staffs who are watching the final minutes of this debate and discussion who are wondering, Gee, does this do what the critics say; does it unjustly enrich someone; let me say that the answer to that is an emphatic no. This example I have prepared shows, in North Dakota, what a farmer would get in a typical year on an acre of wheat, which is $157. With a 50-percent loss, he gets $78.60 from the market, $27 in insurance premium, and $7 for this amendment, for a total of $113. He would still be left with a 28-percent loss. For a farmer who has a 75-percent loss of his crop, he would get $39 from the market, $54 in insurance premium, $19.50 from this amendment, for a total of $113, leaving him or her with a loss of 28 percent as well. People are not being unjustly enriched and they are not being made whole. We are simply offsetting some of the dramatic losses people have received as a result of natural disaster--the third worst drought in our Nation's history.

I don't know how much more clear I can be. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. In our part of the country, we have supported every region when they have had disasters. We were the first to sign up after Katrina for aid to them and the Gulf Coast States. We recognized their loss. We were among the first to sign up to help Florida in the terrible losses it has suffered. We were among the first to sign up when California experienced terrible losses as a result of natural disasters, whether it was wildfires, mud slides, or any of the rest. We have had a disaster in our part of the country now. We are asking our colleagues to help us. We will remember those who helped, just as we have helped others in their time of need.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, first of all, my colleague Senator Conrad has described this amendment very well. I appreciate his leadership, as do other Members of the Senate.

For those of us who care about the future of family farming, this is a very important issue for us. I am pleased to be here today to be a cosponsor of this amendment to provide disaster aid to farmers.

Bob Wills and His Texas Playboys in the 1930s in one of their songs had a refrain that I have often used on the floor of the Senate: The little bee sucks the blossoms and the big bee gets the honey; the little guy picks the cotton and the big guy gets the money.

It hasn't changed much over 70 or 80 years. Somehow the big interests always have their day in the Congress. It wasn't too many months ago that they had their day. There was a little provision tucked in a bill that passed the Congress that said to the largest corporations in America: When you repatriate the income you have earned from abroad, we will give you a big deal. You get to pay an income tax rate of 5\1/4\ percent. I think that was worth about a $100 billion tax cut to the biggest economic interests in this country.

It was done without a lot of debate. There is plenty of money to give a $100 billion tax cut to the big interests, but now it is time to talk about working families, family farmers, small producers.

The big interests get their day. Now we are talking about the people who shower after work rather than before work. We are talking about the people

who go out and work all day. They grease combines. They plow the fields. They milk cows. They do chores. Then, at the end of the day, they take a shower and clean up because they worked hard all day. They and their families live under a yard light hoping they are going to be able to make a living. Often they plant a seed and hope it grows. They wonder whether they are going to have disease that will destroy their crop. Perhaps hail will destroy their crop. Maybe it will rain too much, or maybe it won't rain at all. Maybe if they get a crop, avoiding all those diseases and natural disasters, including weather disasters, maybe if they get a crop and they haul it to the elevator, it is worthless because that price has collapsed.

Yet that family living on the farm takes all of those risks by itself, and sometimes it doesn't work out for them.

This country for decades--for decades--has always said to family farmers who live out there alone in the country: When things happen that are tough for you--natural disasters, collapse in prices--we want to help you; we want to offer you a helping hand. We have always said that in the form of disaster aid.

It used to be that the disaster aid came in the regular farm bill because we had a disaster title in that bill. That has been changed. So now each year we have to come and plead for disaster help when a disaster occurs that hurts families living out on the farms in this country.

What has happened this year? Here is a satellite description of what happened in our country. This is July, I believe, of this year. The red in this satellite photo shows the drought. The red shows the destroyed forage. One can see the epicenter of this drought is right up in here, but the drought occurs in a wide area of this country. Look at the epicenter of this drought.

Let me read something that comes from a rancher right up here, right in the epicenter of the drought. He says in a letter dated July 12:

The grass is so dry that it breaks off when the cows walk

on it. The cricks and dams, they're all dried up. We're going

to have to sell some of the cows pretty soon so we can try to

save the rest of them. If you can do anything to help us out,

we would really appreciate it.

``If you can do anything to help us out, we would really appreciate it.'' Did anybody get an appreciative note from those who were saved $103 billion by getting a 5\1/4\-percent income tax break? Did anybody get a note of thanks? Did anybody else get to pay a 5\1/4\ income tax rate? Nobody in America gets to do that. But the biggest economic interests got to do that last year because this Congress was generous: Let me give you a big tax cut of $103 billion. Now we are talking about a few billion dollars that would reach out and help families--yes, the small producers--reach out and help families over troubled times. That is what this is about.

Let me describe a little of the history of this situation. Three times the Senate Appropriations Committee on which I serve has approved amendments to provide disaster assistance. Three times I have offered those amendments, and three times they have been accepted. Last December, 1 year ago, during the conference committee on the fiscal year 2006 Defense appropriations bill, I offered a disaster amendment. The Senate conferees--both sides, Republicans and Democrats--agreed to it and accepted it. The House conferees, at the request of President Bush, objected to it because President Bush said he would veto the bill if it was part of the bill.

In June of this year again, the full Senate approved an amendment that was on the Katrina-Iraq supplemental bill, which I included in the Appropriations Committee. Let me mention that in both cases, my colleague Senator Conrad played quite a significant role in helping to draft the amendment. He serves on the Senate Agriculture Committee, and I serve on the Appropriations Committee. We used the Appropriations Committee as the mechanism by which we have tried to get this done.

Three times the Appropriations Committee in the Senate has passed amendments that I have offered to provide disaster relief. The first two occasions were occasions in which the White House objected. The President actually said, and his advisers said, they would recommend that he veto legislation that would provide disaster help for family farmers.

In June of this year, I attached the other disaster package. It is the one Senator Conrad and a large group of us--Republicans and Democrats--put together. That is what is on the floor of the Senate right now, to be amended by the new disaster package my colleague Senator Conrad offers this afternoon, which I fully support.

So this is not a new subject. No one should come to the floor of the Senate surprised. We have dealt with this subject before. The Senate has approved it before by a fairly significant margin. We have been blocked in two conferences with the House of Representatives because the White House decided to block that help.

Let me describe a couple of pieces of history about drought. It is not a new thing to have a weather disaster wipe out family farmers across this country. One can see the epicenter up in the northern Great Plains, but one can see the destroyed forage in a wide band in the heartland of our country.

Some while ago, we saw the tracking and the description and the physical damage of Hurricane Katrina. It occurred right down here in the gulf. It hit this land with devastating force, unbelievable force, and it destroyed a lot of things. Our hearts were broken as we watched what happened in the gulf.

Part of what the hurricane destroyed was the crops that family farmers had down in these fields. They got washed away and destroyed completely. The Congress passed legislation that said to those farmers: You lost your crops due to a weather-related disaster, and here is some disaster aid. The Congress said to these farmers: You lost your crops due to weather, we are going to help you.

These farmers have lost their crops due to weather. They are just in a different part of the country. No, it is not a hurricane, it is a drought. This had a name; this didn't. Is there a difference? These farmers write to us and ask: What is the difference? We had a weather- related disaster that wiped out everything we had--all the feed, all the crops. We had to sell our cows because if you have a cow and you have no feed, that cow is going to market. We lost everything, they say.

How is it you help farmers in one part of the country who suffered an entire loss of their crops due to a hurricane and then turn a blind eye to farmers in other parts of the country who lost their crops due to drought and other weather-related disasters? How do you justify that, Congress?

The answer is there is no justification for that. When we decide we are going to help--and we should, and I have always supported that, during tough times we are going to help family farmers--then we must reach out to all the farmers in this country who suffer these devastating losses.

I am not interested in sending financial help to farmers who didn't have these losses. They are just fine. That is not what we are here about today. Today we are about the issue of trying to reach out a helping hand to those farmers who suffered a weather-related disaster and suffered losses.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt went out in the country during disasters, and he actually had a tough time traveling. He traveled by train. He showed up in my part of the country on a drought tour. Then he showed up in Huron, SD, on a drought tour. Let me read what the President said. The reason I say this is we asked the President to come out and do a drought tour this past year, or one of his underlings to come out and do a drought tour. In 1936, Franklin Delano Roosevelt did a drought tour. He stopped in Huron, SD, and here is what he said:

No city in agriculture country can exist unless the farms

are prosperous. We have to cooperate with one another rather

than buck one another. I have come out here to find you with

your chins up looking toward the future with courage and

hope, and I'm grateful to you for the attitudes you are

taking.

He was on a drought tour speaking from a platform on the back of a train.

He was also in Devils Lake, ND, August 7, 1934. Let me tell my colleagues what he said about a drought tour, this President who took a train around the country. He said:

I cannot honestly say my heart is happy today because I

have seen with my own eyes

some of the things I have been hearing and reading about a

year or more.

A growing drought that was eating the crops and destroying the crops. He said:

But when you come to the water problems up here, you are up

against two things. In the first place, you're up against the

forces of nature. The second, you're up against the fact that

man, in its present stage of development, cannot definitely

control those forces.

The fact is, the President went on a drought tour and said: We want to help family farmers. It is not much different than what we say today. This is important.

Let me show a photograph of a North Dakota family farmer. He allowed me to show this photograph on the floor of the Senate. This is a picture of one of the ranchers, these ranchers who, in many cases, had to sell their entire herds or parts of their herds because they had nothing to feed their cows. As I said before, if you have cows and you don't have feed, those cows are going to go to market and be sold. That is what has happened.

This is Frank Barnick. Frank and his wife and son raise cattle in Glen Ullin, ND. In this picture, he is walking in a crick bed that normally would provide water for his cattle. As one can see, it looks more like the surface of the Moon. There is no grass there, no water there. Frank says:

It's the worst drought I've ever seen. You do a lot of

praying wondering how you're going to get through it.

One of the issues about getting through these tough times is the issue of what is Congress prepared to do. What is the better instinct of those who serve here? I have served in Congress for some long while, and I have always been proud of being willing to vote for emergency legislation to help people in need. It doesn't matter where it is for me. If it is a hurricane that hits the South in the gulf coast, a hurricane that hits Florida, I want to be there with my vote to say this country wants to say to you, victims of hurricanes, weather- related disasters: You are not alone. You are not alone because this country cares about you. I have always been proud to cast those votes. I never had a second thought about them, and I never wondered very much whether we should. It is part of the better nature of this country to reach out to people and say: You are not alone and we want to help you.

I think of all of the things that we have done in this Congress in the last couple of years to help people. We go all around the world. It is an enormously generous country. We do a lot of things to help with everything virtually everywhere, and that is very important and I am supportive of that. But I think it is very important as well that we help people here at home and that we say to people here at home with respect to problems here at home that they are important to us, that what is happening in America is important to us as well.

Last year, we had people in the northern part of our State who woke up one morning to find that they had a million acres, a million acres of their ground--these are family farmers who had planted in grains-- washed away and gone and could not be replanted. We had another million acres that could never be planted. We are talking about 2 million acres of ground because of torrential rains that were destroyed with respect to their productivity to raise a crop, and those family farmers sitting out there with that 2 million acres were left to wonder: What next? Will I be able to continue to farm? Will I and my spouse and my son and daughter be able to continue to own this farm?

Well, we have had torrential rains and flooding that devastated a region of our State, and then we have the epicenter of the drought, as I have just shown, that is almost unbelievable.

My colleague, Senator Conrad, and I and a Congressman took several drought tours, and I have never seen anything like it. When you lose your crop or you lose your pasture and you have no capability to feed cattle or to plant a seed or harvest a crop, is it exactly the same circumstance which that family faces as the circumstance faced by a family farmer in the gulf region in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana? Of course it is. It is exactly the same.

So my colleague today brings a piece of legislation to the floor that we have worked on and tried to perfect that does, as best we can, say to family farmers: Here is a package of disaster relief. No, it is not going to make anybody whole. This is not a massive package that everybody is going to be happy with, but at least it says to those farmers: We want you to have a chance to continue farming.

On a couple of occasions I have described the value of this, the cultural value of even caring about farming. Some people say: So what. Let the market system work. If a family is too small to make it and it floods and they can't get a crop and they are broke, tough luck. So long. See you in town someplace. Somebody else will farm that land.

We, over some 5, 8, 10 decades in this country have known better than to take that attitude. Rodney Nelson, a writer from my State and a rancher from out near Almont, ND, wrote a wonderful piece about farming. And he asked a question which is important for people in this Chamber to ask. He asked the question: What is it worth? What is it worth, he asks. What is it worth for a kid to know how to weld a seam? What is it worth for a kid to know how to plow a field? What is it worth for a kid to know how to hang a door? What is it worth for a kid to know how to grease a combine? What is it worth for a kid to know how to change the oil in a tractor? What is it worth for a kid to know how to teach a calf to suck milk out of a pail? What is it worth for a kid to know how to brand? What is all that worth? What is all that worth?

There is only one place in America where they teach all that. Read the history of the Second World War and see all those young men that marked off America's farms that could fix anything, drive anything, do anything all around the world. There is only one place they teach that, and that university exists on America's family farms. So what is that worth to this country? Does it matter that families live under the yard lights out in the country on our farms? Does it matter? It does to me. It does to me.

No, they are not big interests. I understand that. They are small producers. But they deserve a voice in this Chamber. They deserve their day. They deserve the debate about their value and their worth to this country. I guarantee you the big interests get their day virtually every day in these Chambers.

This is a day to talk about what it is worth. What is it worth for this country to say to family farmers: You matter and you are not alone when trouble strikes. What is that worth for this country?

That is why we offer this amendment today. It is important. In March and April as we prepare for a new year in the Congress and work on appropriations bills and so on, there will be farmers who will learn whether they are able to plant another crop or whether they are going to be kicked off the land. They and their families will learn: Does their dream continue or is it over? And it will depend in large part on what this Congress does on this issue. We should not consider this some sort of idle exercise.

It is true that amending this Agriculture appropriations bill is not going to apparently produce this product by the end of this week. But this Agriculture appropriations bill, one way or another, is going to end up in some kind of an omnibus bill in February or early March. I am an appropriator. I am on the committee. And we are going to do some kind of an Omnibus appropriations bill, and I will do everything I can to see that this kind of disaster package is included in it. Putting it in this Agriculture appropriations bill today is the first step in trying to insist that this, too, be a priority for our country.

Let me say to my colleague, Senator Conrad, I appreciate working with him on this and many others, and underscore the point that he has made repeatedly: This is not partisan, it is bipartisan. We have aggressive, strong Republican supporters and Democratic supporters to this provision. It is important to understand that. This is about our priorities. It is always about priorities, what is important and what is not important. And so I congratulate and thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member, Senator Bennett, Senator Kohl, and

thank all of those who have joined in a very substantial bipartisan amendment to once again say to this country and this Chamber that family farmers matter to this country. And when they are in trouble, we need to reach out to say to them: You are not alone. The best, most effective way to do that today is to pass this amendment, and I hope we will do that by the end of this day.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wonder if my colleague would yield for a question.

In the context of how much money is required to try to be helpful to family farmers as they struggle through this weather-related disaster period to determine whether they are actually going to be able to continue farming, I noticed a story the other day--I believe it was yesterday--which stated that we now have 100,000 private contractors we are paying in the country of Iraq. We are passing pieces of legislation here in the Congress, hundreds of billions of dollars of supplementals, emergency supplementals. My understanding is that we are going to be presented with another emergency supplemental for $120 billion.

In terms of what one spends, at least with respect to helping farmers who have gotten hit with tough times, you know what you are doing and where it is going to go.

The point I am making is, isn't it the case that in the context of all of this, we are not talking about a great deal of money, but in this case we are talking about a lot of people who will be directly helped, and it likely will determine whether many of them will be able to continue working on the family farm and operating the family farm? I understand this is an expenditure of money, but to the extent that we have emergencies bantered around here virtually all the time, it really is an emergency when a weather-related disaster hits--really hits--and devastates a region. That really is an emergency, to determine whether you are going to be able, or willing, to help families in deep trouble. Isn't it the case that this is not a substantial amount of money, given all the other things we have decided to very quickly say yes to?

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma, makes some important points. He talks about the need to have patience. One of the issues for all of us is we are about out of patience on this issue. The fact is it has been almost a year and a half trying to move this the third time--not just this but a different variation of this--trying to find a way to help those producers who are hurting. Patience is a virtue, but sometimes we run out of patience, and we are near that end.

With respect to the question of payment limits and so on, I agree with the Senator. Senator Grassley from Iowa and I have coauthored amendments--and we will again offer amendments on the floor of the Senate--to establish payment limits in the farm bill. My colleague Senator Conrad has been an active supporter of that. We don't have disagreement on those kinds of issues. I think the crop insurance program, while important, has never been sufficiently contracted to reap prices and replace disasters when a real disaster strikes. That is part of the issue here. These aren't just bad rains or high winds; these are real disasters when you see the epicenter of a drought that destroys all of the farmers. I am sympathetic. I understand what the Senator from Oklahoma is saying. I hope he understands patience is not inexhaustible when producers are wondering whether they and their family are going to be able to continue. I am talking about a lot of families who are struggling very hard.

Let me say finally the sentiments of the Senator from Oklahoma about trying to help family farmers is very much, in sync with the sentiments of Senator Conrad and others. We very much want this Congress to reach out a helping hand to those farmers who risk losing everything if we don't help them some, and say, You are not alone, we are going to help you. That is what we are trying to do here.

Will the Senator yield for a brief point?

I don't have disagreements about the issue of the pay-for here, and I think my colleague has already described he has a provision that would pay for this. There is a rule XVI against it if he puts it in this bill. I suggest perhaps we do a unanimous consent on the pay- for. If he doesn't, I know a politician who will easily pay for it. I will do a unanimous consent to pay for it. It will be objected to, regrettably.

These things ought to be paid for. The first time we suggest this is when a family is in trouble on the farm. We have had hundreds of billions of dollars come through here with hardly a blink, none of it paid for. That ought to change. I am with the Senator from Oklahoma. Let's try to change that.

The fact is, this does not have a pay-for, not because Senator Conrad doesn't want it there or I don't want it there; it ought to be there. We have the device by which this can be paid for. There is a rule against it, but we ought to do a unanimous consent to describe the fact that it will be objected to, but we want it paid for.

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

Mr. President, I understand we are, by a previous order, to vote at 5 o'clock. There appears to be 4 minutes remaining. I ask unanimous consent to speak during that time if no one else is present.

Mr. President, I only wanted to follow Senator Conrad and point out that this amendment is truly bipartisan. Those who have watched this debate will recognize we have had Republicans and Democrats come to the floor of the Senate to say this is an important amendment. They support it, and they hope the Senate will pass it.

I want to point out again that this is the third time we have brought this to the floor of the Senate. On two other occasions, it passed the Senate and had gone to conference. On both of those occasions, it was blocked in conference with the U.S. House. It was blocked by the House conferees. I believe on both occasions I asked for a vote of the Senate conferees, and the Senate conferees insisted on their position. So it is not a weak will here with respect to disaster assistance for farmers that exists. It is a very strong will, and the Senate has expressed itself previously on two occasions.

On the third occasion in the Appropriations Committee, we had a unanimous vote--by unanimous consent in the Appropriations Committee-- to add the disaster legislation earlier this year. That bill has not previously come to the floor but not because we have not tried. We have pushed and pushed to get that bill to the floor of the Senate. Only now, in what is the last week of the session, have we managed to get the bill on the floor and, by consent, offer an amendment.

So I think it is important to understand that we have been trying for a long while to get this amendment fully debated, get it through the Senate and back to conference with the House.

It appears now that, whatever may happen on the floor this afternoon, this is likely to be a part of an omnibus appropriations bill at some point in late January or, likely, mid-February. Time is very short. Someone used the word ``patience'' earlier today. Boy, we have had a lot of patience in dealing with this issue. There is broad, bipartisan support for it--or there has been at least. We have been waiting and waiting, and it has been blocked in the Senate from bringing this to the floor. Finally we are here today.

This is not an idle matter for a lot of American families. For many farm families, the decision will be a decision about whether they will be able to continue living on and working on their family farms. For those who don't know about them, those who never lived on a farm and don't know what they do on a family farm, don't understand the risks that are taken on a family farm, there are ways they should avail themselves to find out. It is an important part of this country.

The network of farm families that are spread across the prairies and lands of this country and produces the foodstuffs, raises cattle, plants and harvests crops, takes all the risks, is an unbelievable group of Americans, and in many ways they are America's all-stars, the entrepreneurs who risk everything virtually every year. When real trouble comes--a natural disaster--the best instinct of this Chamber has always been to say to them: We want to help you. That is all we are saying with this amendment. We want to help family farmers have a chance to continue to stay on the lands. My hope is we will give broad, bipartisan support for this legislation today.

Mr. President, on October 4, 1957, an object the size of a basketball shot into space. And history changed.

The Soviet Union had launched Sputnik. And Americans reacted with fear. That fear quickly turned to determination to win the race to space.

Just one month later, the Russians launched Sputnik II with one precious passenger: a Russian mutt named Laika. Laika became the first living being to orbit earth. Today, a dog in space might seem like a good start for a Disney film. But in 1957, American scientists worried that these events foreshadowed Soviet military and strategic advantage.

By the following summer, Congress had created NASA. Sputnik's launch had provided the catalyst. For years before, scientific organizations and even the White House had declared the exploration of space as a priority. It took Sputnik to move us to action.

Half a century later, we find ourselves waiting for the next Sputnik. Report after report has outlined the risk that America runs by not doing more in research and education. A recent report entitled ``Waiting for Sputnik'' cautions that our workforce must include a greater percentage of ``knowledge workers''--including scientists and engineers--if we are to maintain our technological lead in defense capabilities. And another recent report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' expresses fear that America's lead in science and technology can be abruptly lost and difficult or impossible to regain.

What these reports and others are telling us is one thing: We cannot wait for the next Sputnik. We must recognize that our advantage is fleeting. We must begin today with more science, more education, and more commitment to research to prepare for the future.

Asia has recognized this. Asia is plowing more funding into science and education. China, in particular, understands that technological advancement means security, independence, and economic growth. Spending on research and development has increased by 140 percent in China, Korea and Taiwan. In America, it has increased by only 34 percent.

Asia's commitment is already paying off. More than a hundred Fortune 500 companies have opened research centers in India and China. I have visited some of them. I was impressed with the level of skill of the workers I met there.

China's commitment to research, at $60 billion in expenditures, is dramatic by any measure. Over the last few years, China has doubled the share of its economy that it invests in research. China intends to double the amount committed to basic research in the next decade. Currently, only America beats out China in numbers of researchers in the workforce.

Over the last few months, I have offered a series of proposals to improve America's competitiveness. Today, I am pleased to introduce the Research Competitiveness Act of 2006. This bill would improve our research competitiveness in four major areas. All four address incentives in our tax code. Government also supports research through Federal spending. But I am not addressing those areas today.

First, my bill improves and simplifies the credit for applied research in section 41 of the tax code. This credit has grown to be overly complex, both for taxpayers and the IRS. Beginning in 2008, my bill would create a simpler 20 percent credit for qualifying research expenses that exceed 50 percent of the average expenses for the prior 3 years.

And just as important: The bill makes the credit permanent. Because the credit has been temporary, it has simply not been as effective as it could be. Since its creation in 1981, it has been extended 10 times. Congress even allowed it to lapse during one period.

The credit expired again just last December. And another short-term extension is pending in both tax reconciliation bills in conference. Last year, the experts at the Joint Committee on Taxation wrote: ``Perhaps the greatest criticism of the R&E credit among taxpayers regards its temporary nature.'' Joint Tax went on to say, ``A credit of longer duration may more successfully induce additional research than would a temporary credit, even if the temporary credit is periodically renewed.''

Currently, there are two different ways to claim a tax credit for qualifying research expenses. First, the ``traditional'' credit relies on incremental increases in expenses compared to a mid-1980s base period. Second, the ``alternative incremental'' credit measures the increase in research over the average of the prior 4 years.

Both of these credits have base periods involving gross receipts. My bill replaces these with a new credit, known as the ``Alternative Simplified Credit,'' based on research spending without reference to gross receipts. The current formula hurts companies that have fluctuating sales. And it hurts companies that take on a new line of business not dependent on research.

The Senate has passed this alternative formula as an optional credit several times. It is now pending in both versions of the tax reconciliation bill. It has not yet been enacted, though, even on a temporary basis.

I support the 2-year extension of the R&E credit contained in the Senate version of the tax reconciliation bill. That is why this new simpler formula in my bill would not start until 2008. That start date would give companies plenty of time to adjust their accounting.

The main complaint about the existing credits is that they are very complex, particularly the reference to the 20-year-old base period. This base period creates problems for the taxpayer in trying to calculate the credit. And it creates problems for the IRS in trying to administer and audit those claims.

The new credit focuses only on expenses, not gross receipts. And is still an incremental credit, so that companies must continue to increase research spending over time.

A tax credit is a cost-effective way to promote R&E. A report by the Congressional Research Service finds that without government support, investment in R&E would fall short of the socially optimal amount. Thus CRS endorses Government policies to boost private sector R&E.

Also, American workers who are engaged in R&E activities benefit from some of the most intellectually stimulating, high-paying, high-skilled jobs in the economy.

My own State of Montana has excellent examples of this economic activity. During the 1990s, about 400 establishments in Montana provided high-technology services, at an average wage of about $35,000 per year. These jobs paid nearly 80 percent more than the average private sector wage, which was less than $20,000 a year during the same period. Many of these jobs would never have been created without the assistance of the R&E credit.

My research bill would also establish a uniform reimbursement rate for all contract and consortia R&E. It would provide that 80 percent of expenses for research performed for the taxpayer by other parties count as qualifying research expenses under the regular credit.

Currently, when a taxpayer pays someone else to perform research for the taxpayer, the taxpayer can claim one of three rates in order to determine how much the taxpayer can include for the research credit. The lower amount is meant to assure overhead expenses that normally do not qualify for the R&E credit are not counted. Different rates, however, create unnecessary complexity. Therefore, my bill creates a uniform rate of 80 percent.

The second major research area that this bill addresses is the need to enhance and simplify the credit for basic research. This credit benefits universities and other entities committed to basic research. And it benefits the companies or individuals who donate to them. My bill provides that payments under the university basic research credit would count as contractor expenses at the rate of 100 percent.

The current formula for calculating the university basic research credit--defined as research ``for the advancement of science with no specific commercial objective''--is even more complex that the regular traditional R&E credit. Because of this complexity, this credit costs less than one-half of 1 percent of the cost of the regular R&E credit. It is completely under-utilized. It needs to be simplified to encourage businesses to give more for basic research.

American universities have been powerful engines of scientific discovery. To maintain our premier global position in basic research, America relies on sustained high levels of basic research funding and the ability to recruit the most talented students in the world. The gestation of scientific discovery is long. At least at first, we cannot know the commercial applications of a discovery. But America leads the world in biotechnology today because of support for basic research in chemistry and physics in the 1960s. Maintaining a commitment to scientific inquiry, therefore, must be part of our vision for sustained competitiveness.

Translating university discoveries into commercial products also takes innovation, capital, and risk. The Center for Strategic and International Studies asked what kind of government intervention can maintain technological leadership. One source of technological innovation that provides America with comparative advantage is the combination of university research programs, entrepreneurs, and risk capital from venture capital, corporations, or governments. Research clusters around Silicon Valley and North Carolina's Research Triangle exemplify this sort of combination.

The National Academies reached a similar conclusion in a 2002 review of the National Nanotechnology Initiatives. In a report, they wrote: ``To enhance the transition from basic to applied research, the committee recommends that industrial partnerships be stimulated and nurtured to help accelerate the commercialization of national nanotechnology developments.''

To further that goal, the third major area this bill addresses is fostering the creation of research parks. This part of the bill would benefit state and local governments and universities that want to create research centers for businesses incubating scientific discoveries with promise for commercial development.

Stanford created the Nation's first high-tech research park in 1951, in response to the demand for industrial land near the university and an emerging electronics industry tied closely to the School of Engineering. The Stanford Research Park traces its origins to a business started with $538 in a Palo Alto garage by two men named Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard. The Park is now home to 140 companies in electronics, software, biotechnology, and other high tech fields.

Similarly, the North Carolina Research Triangle was founded in 1959 by university, government, and business leaders with money from private contributions. It now has 112 research and development organizations, 37,600 employees, and capital investment of more than $2.7 billion. More recently, Virginia has fostered a research park now housing 53 private-sector companies, nonprofits, VCU research institutes, and state laboratories. The Virginia park employs more than 1,300 people.

The creation of these parks would seem to be an obvious choice. But it takes a significant commitment from a range of sources to bring them into being. To foster the creation and expansion of these successful parks, my bill will encourage their creation through the use of tax- exempt bond financing. Allowing tax-exempt bond authority would bring down the cost to establish such parks.

Foreign countries are emulating this successful formula. They are establishing high-tech clusters through government and university partnerships with private industry.

Back in 2000, a partnership was formed to foster TechRanch to assist Montana State University and other Montana-based research institutions in their efforts to commercialize research. But TechRanch is desperately in need of some new high-tech facilities. It could surely benefit from a provision such as this. I encourage my Colleagues to visit research parks in their States to see how my bill could be helpful in fostering more successful ventures.

A related item is a small fix to help universities that use tax- exempt bonds to build research facilities primarily for federal research in the basic or fundamental research area. Some of these facilities housing federal research--mostly NIH and NSF funded projects--are in danger of losing their tax-exempt bond status. Counsel have notified some state officials that they may be running afoul of a prohibition on ``private use'' in the tax code, because one private party has a superior claim to others in the use of inventions that result from research.

The complication comes from a 1980 law. In 1980, Congress enacted the Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act, also known as the Bayh-Dole Act. The Bayh-Dole Act requires the Federal Government to retain a non- exclusive, royalty-free right on any discovery. In order to foster more basic research through Federal-State-university partnerships, we need to clarify that this provision of the Bayh-Dole act does not cause these bonds to lose their tax-exempt status. And my bill directs the Treasury Department to do so. I understand that the Treasury Department is aware of this significant concern. Whether or not Congress enacts my legislation, I hope that the Treasury Department will clarify the situation later this year.

The fourth major area that my bill addresses is innovation at the small business level. Recently, representatives of a number of small nanotechnology companies came to visit me. They told me that their greatest problem was surviving what they called the ``valley of death.'' That's what they called the first few years of business, when an entrepreneur has a promising technology but little money to test or develop it. Many businesses simply do not survive the ``valley of death.'' I believe that Congress should find a way to assist these businesses with promising technology.

Nanotechnology, for instance, shows much promise. According to one recent report, over the next decade, nanotechnology will affect most manufactured goods. As stated in Senate testimony by one National Science Foundation official earlier this year, ``Nanotechnology is truly our next great frontier in science and engineering.'' It took me a while to understand just what nanotechnology is. But it is basically the control of things at very, very small dimensions. By understanding and controlling at that dimension, people can find new and unique applications. These applications range from common consumer products-- such as making our sunblocks--better to improving disease-fighting medicines--to designing more fuel-efficient cars.

So, to help these small businesses convert their promising science into successful businesses, my bill would establish tax credits for investments in qualifying small technology innovation companies. These struggling start-up ventures often cannot utilize existing incentives in the tax code--like the R&E tax credit--because they have no tax liability and may have little income for the first few years. They need access to cheap capital to get through

those first few research-intensive years.

The credit in my bill would be similar to the existing and successful New Markets Tax Credit. The New Markets Credit has provided billions of dollars of investment to low-income communities across the country. In my bill, entities with some expertise and knowledge of research would receive an allocation from Treasury to analyze and select qualifying research investments. These investment entities would then target small business with promising technologies that focus the majority of their expenditures on activity qualifying as research expenses under the R&E credit.

In sum, my bill would boost both applied and basic research. It would boost research by businesses big and small. And it would foster research by for-profit and non-profits alike.

There is no clear answer to how to address the concerns raised in the ``Waiting for Sputnik'' report. But the answer is clear that we must try--and soon.

A noted environmentalist once said: ``Every major advance in the technological competence of man has forced revolutionary changes in the economic and political structure of society.'' From telephones to rockets to computers, I believe that this is true.

Let us work to see that the next big technological advance is discovered here in America. Only through continued commitment to research can we ensure that it is.

Mr. President, first, I compliment my colleagues from North Dakota. They have described a very real problem in farm country. Western Oklahoma and north central Oklahoma have been plagued by drought. Much of the wheat crop could not be planted last year because there was no soil moisture in which to plant it. The problem they are describing is a very real problem. The emotional context in which they put it is a very true indication of the plight of some of the farmers from Oklahoma and throughout the country.

When you look at agriculture in our country, what we find is it is basically undercapitalized. If the average farm was about 1,800 acres, the average farmer could take 2 terrible crop years and still be OK, still have his assets, still have the ability to come back and earn again. We have great commodity prices right now. The problem is there were no crops to take advantage of those great product prices.

The idea that we ought to be about helping our farmers is a correct idea. I applaud both Senators from North Dakota for their persistence in bringing up this issue. As a matter of fact, I think this issue is so important to the real problems that are out there because I don't see how we can leave here on Friday, which everyone is planning on doing, and not address this issue.

There is a lot I disagree with in this bill. The Senators from North Dakota know that. I have expressed it. I am going to outline some of those.

If this election taught us anything, it is that the American taxpayers want us to put good value with what we do.

A couple of facts: This bill can be paid for. It is not. This amendment is not paid for. But it could be. As a matter of fact, I would bet that after this election we have a consensus within the Senate to pay for it. Let me give you some examples how we pay for it.

I know the Senator from North Dakota has another which I didn't think of, but I know several on this side would probably agree it is a great pay-for. There is $8.13 billion in unobligated balances in the Agriculture Department right now. That money could be used to pay for this, and then in the reappropriations process that we start in February we could come back through, recognizing that we are using $4.8 billion of that money to pay for this.

One of my problems with the Agriculture appropriations bill that this amendment is going to be attached to is there is $800 million worth of earmarks, most of which come out of the very services the farmers are dependent upon to grow a good crop. A lot of it comes out of ARS, the very thing we shouldn't be taking money out of, but yet we have $758 million worth of earmarks that aren't necessarily a priority for our country or the farm communities but are a priority in terms of the political benefits that it gives the Members of this body and the House.

This is a fine-print page of all the earmarks in this bill. Most of the American public, when they look at it, 50 percent of these projects they would have trouble stomaching saying this is a priority at this time. There is no attempt to eliminate the earmarks to pay for this, which would pay 20 percent of this Agriculture bill disaster amendment we have before us.

I would be happy to.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I reclaim the floor.

Let me talk again about some of the problems that are behind the bill as it is presently written. We are never going to have a crop insurance program in this country that will ever work if we keep bailing people out who fail to buy crop insurance. Granted, there is a change in this bill from what it was. It was 35 percent or 40 percent available to those who didn't buy crop insurance. Now we have cut it to 20. But we are still sending a signal that you don't have to buy crop insurance, because even if you do not, we are going to be there with the money. That is exactly the wrong signal. If we want to have a crop insurance program to work, we have to have the discipline to say if you choose not to buy it and we had this available to you, then in fact you are not going to get the benefit.

I am happy to.

Mr. President, reclaiming the floor again, the point is had we not given 45 percent before, many of these would have bought crop insurance. The very fact that we are going to go out and give money to people who had an opportunity to protect their losses and chose not to, we are sending a signal that we are going to get less participation in crop insurance, not more. What we want is a crop insurance program that will work and which has the incentive so that many farmers say, Uncle Sam isn't going to come; I have an opportunity to protect myself and I am going to buy it. Does it cost me something? Sure.

The second point I was going to make relates to the chart which the Senator from North Dakota showed which showed the amount of losses. What he didn't say is that farmers also had the opportunity to buy a much higher level of coverage which they chose not to do. But it is out there. Had they done this, their losses would have been far less than they are today. Economically, they have to make a decision. I am not against helping those who are in need today. But I think there are things which could perfect the amendment which I hope the Senators from North Dakota would consider. We have had two great production years in this country where net farm income has been as high as it has been except this last year. We are going to be calculating off a base of the highest that we had. That is number one.

Number two, there is nothing in this that looks at net assets of a farmer because farmers who in fact are capitalized to the degree that they can take a

tough year--we are going to pay them, too. The American people have kind of spoken in November. Use common sense. Give us value for our dollar. The very well-to-do farmer who is very well capitalized we are going to bail out as we are going to bail the guy who is not, and he is the one who doesn't need bailing out.

What I want to see us at some point go to in the future with our farm programs is how we increase the capital of the individual farmers where they are capitalized to the level where they can in fact hit a bump in the road and still make it; can in fact hit 20 bumps in the road, and we know what that is. I have the studies. It is a minimum of 1,800 acres and the capital to supply the equipment to farm such 1,800 acres.

The other thing in this bill is the duplication of programs that are already out there. That is $300 million to help small businesses who supply the farm community. That is what the Small Business Administration is all about. We are going to turn around and give $80,000 to small businesses. We have a program for that. Yet we are going to turn around and create another Government program that is going to say you didn't have to be a good businessman if there is a little bit of a dent in the crop year; all you have to do is come and be bailed out, too, instead of taking a program that we need to make better, that sends a signal to the farmers, saying we are going to help you when you need help, but you have to be responsible in terms of crop insurance. We will let the other branch of the Government that has these areas covered be made available and we will help nurture the staff there.

One other area that kind of drives me crazy with this amendment is we are adding staff to the Department of Agriculture. They have 95,000 employees. Not all of those are in agricultural production. They have several thousand contract employees, and we are going to add employees to implement this.

I tell you that from my visits around Oklahoma, there are more than enough people at FSA and all the different branches and all the different organizations associated with the Department of Agriculture to implement this now. We don't need to add people. What we need to do is get the money to the people who need it. And we can do that. All we have to do is have good management and good direction.

I abhor the fact that we steal money from ARS for earmarks to help us politically but hurt the very people that we say we want to help with this amendment.

I think it is also wrong to take money from AFS which deals with bovine encephalitis and bird flu. We are taking money and time away from that agency to pay for earmarks. That is wrong. We shouldn't be doing that. If we are going to have earmarks, let us take it from some place that is not going to undermine the very farmers we say we are trying to help.

We have a ton of cattle in Oklahoma, and I know we do all through the central Midwest and in the upper plains, that have been markedly harmed by the drought.

We need to be careful with the precedent we set here. We are slowly moving in a direction to make all production agriculture similar to what we have done with crop insurance agriculture. I think we need to have the patience to say how do we do this in a way that does not create another expectation of bailing someone.

The Senator from New Hampshire was very correct when he talked about what this bill is going to do in terms of busting the budget. I am going to be voting to sustain the point of order because I don't think we should be doing it that way.

I want to be very clear. That doesn't mean I think we should not be doing something to help farmers. I also will say very insistently that if this Congress goes home without addressing this issue on a freestanding bill for agriculture assistance, I think we will have let down the American people. I know we will have let down the American farmer and rancher.

I think we ought to consider looking at the adjournment resolution and mount an opposition to this if this issue is not addressed before we go home. I think we can work behind the scenes to pay for this. I think we can work behind the scenes to change it where we can build the support for it, and I think we can work behind the scenes to give something to the President that he can sign and start implementing the month of December into January, and farmers will know whether they are going to plant a corn crop in March or a wheat crop next fall if they haven't been able to plant one this year.

Certainly.

Mr. President, the overall point of all this is we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way. The hard way is what the American people expect us to do--and the hard way is paying for this. The easy way is not to pay for it. The easy way is to walk out of here this Friday having maybe passed your amendment or not. It is not going to make any difference in terms of the farmers because it isn't going anywhere. We have already been told that. The hard way is to make the tough choices about the priority of the Government spending of this country and say the farmers ought to be prioritized at this point in time. We are going to do the hard work to make the cuts somewhere else to pay for it.

Let me make my point. I will yield in a minute.

What we are doing, if we pass this without offset, we are taking out the good old politician credit card saying we don't have the guts to do it the right way, we don't have the stamina to do it, we don't have the courage to do it. By the way, grandchildren, here you go. Back in 2006, we couldn't do the right thing, we didn't have the courage to do the right thing, and we are charging it to you. And besides charging it to you, we will charge the interest from the time now until you are 40 years of age, so you are paying 40 percent or 50 percent regular, middle-income-America taxes because that is the only way we will get out of this.

Three points, and then I am finished.

There are things that need to be changed in the bill that send the wrong message, especially on crop insurance. We will never get crop insurance fixed if we keep sending the message we are sending with this amendment.

No. 2, there are other organizations within the Federal Government designed to help small businesses. We ought to use them rather than create another one.

The third point, we ought to pay for it. We as a Congress do not have the courage to stand here and fight and say we are not going home until we have taken care of this problem for the farm community in America and done it right--not limiting payments but looking at payments as a percentage of your net assets rather than having a fixed dollar amount. We don't have the courage to do that for the American people.

That is what the American people rejected in this last election. They want Congress to stand up and fight courageously for the values they use every day in their homes and their jobs when they have to make decisions. They have to decide on priorities. We will walk out. There isn't going to be any aid for the farm community. Come back in February. When we do it again, it probably isn't going to get paid for--either the Agriculture bill, for $4 billion in the original Agriculture bill, or this one probably won't get paid for, and we will slip them a credit card and say: Timeout; we will not make the tough choices; we did not have the courage to fight for your future.

By the way, the exit polls at the last election show that 57 percent of Americans do not believe their kids will have it as good as we have it today. If we keep doing this, they won't. It is our obligation to start acting and doing what we say on the campaign trail. We are interested in securing the future for the next generations of this country.

I yield the floor.

I agree with the Senator. He knows my record. I have not voted to not pay for anything in this body. I don't believe we borrow the future of our children to take care of our present-day needs.

I am happy to yield.

Mr. President, I thank the Senators from North Dakota for their effort.

This bill coming to the floor, the underlying bill--not this amendment--the emergency money could have been offset when it came through the appropriation process, and it wasn't. It was just put in. We don't want to make the hard choices. We don't want to pay for them. That has to change in the future.

My hope is we will give some consideration because as things stand and look now, we are not going to have an emergency bill with which the agricultural community that has been so hurt by the drought this past year and year and a half is going to have something to hang their hat on come the first of the year. I look forward to working with the two Senators from North Dakota to try to accomplish that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague, Senator Christopher Bond, to introduce the Dam Safety Act of 2006. This legislation is designed to help prevent such tragic failures as the collapse of the privately owned Ka Loko Dam in Kauai last March in which seven people died. The legislation complements legislation that I introduced with Senator Inouye, S. 2444, the Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act of 2006, which assists in securing and repairing publicly owned dams. Both of these bills are critical to preventing the type of devastating collapse which occurred on Kauai.

This legislation is vitally important not only to my State but to every State. There are approximately 79,000 dams registered in the National Inventory of Dams. However, there are many more dams that are small and unregulated. This bill provides funding for State dam safety programs to enhance their oversight and support abilities.

The Dam Safety Act of 2006 reauthorizes the National Dam Safety Program, NDSP, which was first established as part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 Public Law 104-303. In 2002, the NDSP was reauthorized for another 4 years by the enactment of the Dam Safety and Security Act of 2002 Public Law 107-310. It expires at the end of this fiscal year, so its reauthorization is imperative.

The National Dam Safety Program delivers vital Federal resources to State governments to improve their dam safety programs by providing funds for training, technical assistance, research, and support. Federal incentive grants are awarded to States to enhance their dam safety programs. In addition, funds have been used to hire staff for inspections, pay for specialized training, and develop specialized mapping in the event that a dam failure necessitates evacuation.

Of the approximately $12 million authorized for each fiscal year, $8 million is divided among the States to improve safety programs and $2 million is allocated for research to identify more effective techniques to assess, construct, and monitor dams. In addition, $700,000 is available for training assistance for State engineers, and $1 million is used for the National Inventory of Dams.

The costs of failing to maintain dams properly are extremely high. There have been at least 29 dam failures in the United States during the past 2 years causing more than $200 million in property damages. The failure of the Silver Lake Dam in Michigan in 2003 caused more than $100 million in property damage. A December 2005 dam collapse in Missouri injured three children and destroyed several homes. People caught in the path of a dam collapse are often helpless to escape.

Such was the tragic situation in Hawaii when, in March, the Ka Loko Dam, a 116-year earthen dam, on the island of Kauai suddenly collapsed during heavy rains, killing seven people. When a dam collapses, destruction is often swift and uncontrollable. In the case on Kauai, local, State, and Federal officials quickly responded to the tragedy, assisting citizens while engineers from both the State Department of Land and Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers inspected the over 50 dams on Kauai. Neighbors worked together to help neighbors, and our Governor quickly requested more funds, which the legislature approved, for cleanup and additional inspections.

While most of the responsibility is at the State and local level, there is a role for the Federal Government in supplementing State resources and developing national guidelines for dam safety. The funds Hawaii receives under the program help the State's staff to acquire and maintain equipment and software to assess dam safety. It is a small amount but vitally important to my State and to every State.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Bond and me in supporting the reauthorization of the National Dam Safety Program.

I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record at this point a letter from the Dam Safety Coalition endorsing this legislation.

Mr. President, today I rise with my good friend and colleague, Senator Craig from Idaho, to introduce legislation to establish at least five Amputation and Prosthetic Rehabilitation Centers within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Through progressive and specialized expertise in the area of prosthetics and rehabilitation, the visible reminders of the sacrifices made by our wounded warriors will become less evident and hopefully less of a factor in their everyday lives.

Specialty care for amputees has become an even more pressing concern because of the types of injuries our brave soldiers have sustained in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Many would agree that this is not the same kind of war that other generations of veterans have fought. The use of body armor and improvements in battlefield medicine have saved more lives, but in many cases have left our soldiers with traumatic injuries. Servicemembers in the current conflicts have suffered from twice as many amputations as those who fought in past wars. Unfortunately, the incidence of multiple amputations from bomb blasts is higher in this war.

The VA health care system has only begun to see the men and women from Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom who are in need of long-term rehabilitation. Indeed, these veterans are young and plan on being active for a long time. VA is well poised to take on this challenge. An ongoing study at the Providence VA hospital is looking at ``biohybrid'' limbs which are implanted into tissue and later become an integral part of the patient.

We cannot, however, forget about the war our current veterans continue to fight everyday against time and their health. Veterans struggling with diseases such as diabetes are often faced with amputation. The establishment of the Amputation and Prosthetic Rehabilitation Centers will provide advanced care to those who have endured the loss of a limb, which will help them regain full function and a better quality of life.

The centers will provide VA regional clinical facilities with cutting edge expertise in prosthetics, rehabilitation with the use of prosthetics, treatment, and coordination of care for a veteran with an amputation. By placing these centers in locations with the highest concentrations of veterans, those in need will truly benefit from these specialized services.

VA has always been a leader in progressive treatment and care. These centers will maintain VA as a leader by providing the tools and staff necessary to do so. The legislation requires that the centers must have a well-equipped and appropriately certified laboratory facility necessary to provide the most state-of-the-art and complex prosthetic devices.

With experienced prosthetists trained and certified in the area of new techniques, an accredited Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation service with trained staff in the most current prosthetic services, and a permanent modern gait laboratory located within each center, veterans are sure to receive the most advanced treatment and care.

A critical part of this legislation is that these centers will serve as resources for smaller VA hospitals which may not have all of the expertise but will certainly have the patients.

As Ranking Member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I urge my colleagues to join Chairman Craig and myself in support of providing treatment to those in need so they can stand on their own.

Mr. President, I rise proudly today to introduce legislation that would provide assistance to those who care for our Nation's veterans. These caregivers provide a great service to our country and play a vital role in providing non-institutional long-term health care for veterans.

There is deep concern regarding the anticipated number of veterans that will need long-term care by the year 2010. In 2005, there were almost one million veterans age 85 and over, and by 2010, it is anticipated that the number of veterans in this age category will grow to 1.3 million. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will be faced with a crisis related to the demand for care of this population, and we must help VA prepare for this situation.

VA has been disturbingly inactive in instituting the long-term care provisions of the 1999 Millennium Health Care Act. The General Accounting Office has been the most critical, citing major inconsistencies across the VA system in the implementation of non- institutional care. During the Committee on Veterans' Affairs' oversight work in Hawaii, we found that the Kauai clinic lacked a home care specialist and the Maui clinic was arbitrarily limiting non- institutional care. Caregivers are crucial in bridging these gaps in non-institutional long-term care services.

With more veterans returning from combat with severely debilitating injuries, young spouses and parents have been forced to take on an unexpected role as caregivers. Many have interrupted their own careers to dedicate time and attention to the care and rehabilitation of loved ones. These caregivers do not plan for this to happen and are not prepared mentally or financially for their new role. Therefore, we must protect, educate, and lend a helping hand to the caregivers who take on the responsibility and costly burden of caring for veterans, both young and old.

This legislation serves to provide comprehensive assistance to these caregivers. By providing such services as respite care, caregivers can have time to run errands and attend to their own health concerns. They can rest easier knowing that there is someone there to care for their disabled veteran while they are out. Another service provided through this legislation is adult-day care for veterans. This serves a dual purpose in that it provides short-term supervision and also gives veterans a place to go for some camaraderie.

The last years of a veteran's life can be difficult for both the veteran and for the caregiver. This legislation would also provide hospice services so that this period is one of peace and comfort.

Other services that would support caregivers under this legislation include education, training, transportation services, readjustment services, rehabilitation services, home care services, and any other new and innovative modalities of non-institutional long-term care.

I cannot try to quantify the invaluable service that caregivers provide.

What can be done is to make funds available to carry out programs to assist them. The legislation authorizes $10 million to be allocated to individual medical facilities within VA, especially to those in rural areas without a long-term care facility, based upon the proposals submitted by the facilities. In efforts to evaluate the improvements made in caregiver assistance services, a report shall be submitted to Congress by the Secretary no later than a year after enactment of this bill. The report should include information on the allocation of funds to facilities and a description of the improvements made with the funds.

Let us meet these caregivers halfway by giving them the assistance they need to care for the veterans that depend on them. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.