[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 111 (Thursday, September 5, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8246-S8250]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                            2003--Continued

  Mr. REID. Madam President, we are attempting to work out a time to 
vote on the Harkin amendment which he will shortly offer. We are very 
close to having that done. I suggest that Senator Harkin go ahead and 
give his speech. If we can work out a unanimous consent agreement, he 
can offer the amendment, and then we can vote on it. He would give the 
speech now, and we would move to the amendment, if we could get the 
approval of the Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. I have no objection to that.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Iowa be recognized for 5 minutes to speak on the amendment which 
he will offer at a subsequent time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, over 40 million Americans rely on 
Medicare for their health care security. For these Americans and their 
loved ones Medicare is a lifeline. And because of this Medicare must be 
protected and secured for today and tomorrow.

  Medicare, however, is not without its problems. Clearly, its benefits 
package needs to be updated to include prescription drugs. Seniors 
shouldn't have to make the choice between the drugs they need to stay 
healthy and food or heat. The Senate should once again try to craft a 
prescription drug plan to fill this great need.
  But there is also another problem with Medicare. And that is the 
principal subject of my sense-of-the-Senate resolution.

[[Page S8247]]

  Americans, no matter where they live, whether it is rural Iowa or 
urban Florida, are taxed at the same rate to help pay for Medicare--
1.45 percent of payroll for both workers and their employers. And 
Medicare beneficiaries--whether in Brooklyn, IA or Brooklyn, NY--pay 
the same monthly Medicare premium.
  But while they pay the same taxes and premiums, the level of Medicare 
payments received by Americans often varies greatly from State to 
State.
  For example, my home State of Iowa receives an average $3,053 per 
beneficiary, which is 45 percent less than the national average. Some 
States are much higher than that. But there is a disparity between, 
say, $3,053 and the top State, which is over $7,000. It is quite 
substantial.
  And while some of the variation may legitimately be due to cost 
differences, costs alone clearly do not explain the degree of 
differences among the states.
  Much of this unfair variation is caused by outdated and nonsensical 
reimbursement policies that penalize efficiency and conservative 
medical practices. Medicare assumes that it costs much less to provide 
health care in rural areas, and assumes that we still compete locally 
and regionally for health care professionals. Those of us in under-
reimbursed states know that neither of these is true. Rural areas don't 
enjoy the economies of scale enjoyed by their urban counterparts, and 
we are competing in a national and often global market for health care 
professionals.
  The impact is real. For example, if the same hospital in Des Moines 
providing the same services to the same seniors in Cincinnati, OH, it 
would receive $5.3 million more per year. If we put it in Ann Arbor, 
MI, it would receive $14.6 million more per year.
  What is the result of this unfair variation? Well, in Iowa, one 
substantial result is that we have a shortage of virtually all types of 
health care professionals.
  Low reimbursement equals low wages, equals health professional 
shortages. Iowa ranks 50th in Medicare reimbursement and we rank 50th 
in nursing pay. So it is no surprise that we have 3,000 unfilled 
registered nurse positions, another 728 vacancies for licensed 
practical nurses, and 2,700 openings for nonlicensed personnel. Add 
this to the fact that our nurses are getting older, not enough new 
nurses are entering the field, and Iowa has the largest population of 
any State over age 85, and what you have is a real recipe for disaster.

  It gets worse. Medicare payments influence Medicaid reimbursement and 
private payer reimbursement. Because of this, Iowa ranks 49th in the 
ratio of general pediatricians per 100,000 children, and 50th in the 
ratio of OB/GYNs to 1,000 live births.
  So it is no wonder we can't recruit and keep health care 
professionals. A physician performing a hip replacement in New York 
receives $1,807.25, while one in Iowa receives $1,304.09, and one in 
South Dakota only receives $1,286.46. The same amount of work, time, 
and skill goes into the same procedure. Yet there is a vast difference 
in the reimbursement to each provider.
  It takes the same amount of education, skill, and time in Iowa as it 
does in other States, and these professionals should be reimbursed 
accordingly. So there are changes that must be made to bring greater 
fairness and improve the health care systems across the States.
  There are many different proposals in the Senate that attempt to 
tackle this issue. I think people on both sides of the aisle can come 
together, as we have in the past, on this issue. I know we are very 
busy with many important pieces of legislation, including the homeland 
security bill and appropriations bills. But the resolution I am 
offering is very simple. Its resolve clause simply reads:

       Congress (acting through the appropriate authorization 
     process) and the President should act promptly to address the 
     disparity among the States in the amount of payments made 
     under the Medicare program; and
       Legislation should be passed [promptly] that reduces unfair 
     geographic disparity in Medicare payment rates and restores 
     scheduled inappropriate reductions in Medicare payment rates.

  So, Madam President, it is a very simple, straightforward resolution. 
It just says we in the Congress and the White House, the President, 
ought to do something very promptly to address this huge disparity 
among the States.
  As I said, maybe you can have some disparity based upon rental rates 
and things like that. I understand that. But to say one State would get 
$3,000 and another State $7,000, this is just nonsensical. So the 
States that fall below the average are the ones that are getting hurt 
the most.
  All my resolution says is that we ought to act promptly, in a 
bipartisan fashion, to address this issue and to make Medicare more 
even, more fair across the States. So I urge my colleagues to support 
this resolution.
  I see my colleague in the Chamber. I did not see him on the floor. He 
is my colleague in this endeavor, Senator Craig from Idaho. He and I 
have worked together on this for a long time. He knows exactly what I 
am talking about because of the great disparity in his State.
  I thank the Senator from Idaho for working in a great bipartisan 
fashion to try to get something done to resolve this issue.
  I yield the floor, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I will speak only briefly to the 
resolution. The Senator from Iowa and I share, as I think all Senators 
who represent rural countrysides must share, a very real frustration in 
the disparity between urban and rural Medicare payment schedules and 
the reality that we are dealing with a 20- or 30-year-old concept that 
does not make sense anymore.
  We have a phenomenal nursing shortage in our country today. So if a 
nurse lives on one side of a boundary line created by this law, she or 
he can well commute to the other side and we cannot afford them.
  The Presiding Officer represents a city not far from one of my major 
cities: Spokane, WA, versus Coeur d'Alene, ID. Spokane, WA, has a 
different payment schedule than Coeur d'Alene, ID, and they are 20 
miles of interstate apart. Many people say that living in Coeur 
d'Alene, ID, because of its beauty, is more desirable than living in 
Spokane, but they work in Spokane because of the wage scale and/or this 
particular problem.
  As a result, the Kootenai Medical Center and, as a result, the rural 
medical communities of northern Idaho cannot, in effect, compete.
  It is time that we address this issue evenhandedly across all 
jurisdictions so that Medicare payments are reflective of current 
health care needs; not a 30-year-old model that is just flat obsolete 
and does not make sense anymore, but because we build up these 
political barriers or frustrations we do not want to address them. I 
think we must. I think we should.
  The resolution speaks to trying to move the Senate, the President, 
and the Congress as a whole in that direction.
  I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, time on this bill is about to expire. I am 
going to ask to extend the time for a few more minutes. Let me just say 
to everyone, the reason for this is, in good faith we thought this 
matter had been cleared by everybody. The fact is, we had not received 
a signoff from Senator Grassley and his staff. He is on his way over 
here, or staff is on their way over. I am sure, when they look at it, 
they will approve it, but it will take a few more minutes, so I ask 
unanimous consent that the time on the bill be extended until 25 
minutes to the hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  What is the will of the Senate?
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The clerk will continue the call of the roll.
  The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S8248]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, the Senator from Kansas wishes to speak on 
the underlying amendment. We have had a number of speeches today. 
Certainly we want him to do that. The problem is, within a minute or 
two we are off the bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate on the Interior bill 
be extended until the hour of 12:45, and that the Senator from Kansas 
be recognized for 5 minutes to speak on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I have no objection if by unanimous 
consent the morning business session, which was to go from 12:30 to 1, 
could be extended from 12:45 to 1:15 so that I might have an 
opportunity to deliver remarks for which I have been waiting.
  Mr. REID. I think, in fairness, we should allot the Senators who want 
to speak in morning business the full hour. The Republicans are 
entitled to half an hour and the Democrats are entitled to a half an 
hour. As soon as we get this little dust-off taken care of, I will ask 
unanimous consent at that time that morning business be for 1 hour.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I come before the Senate today to 
address the majority leader's amendment which is intended to direct 
immediate financial assistance to farmers around the country who are 
facing an historic drought. Our Kansas State motto is Ad Astra Per 
Aspera--a beautiful saying that means ``To the Stars Through 
Difficulties.'' I have always thought that it captured beautifully the 
spirit of our State. It is part of our character to tackle calamity and 
to smile at threats that have consumed lesser men. During the August 
recess I spent several weeks touring our State and meeting with farmers 
about the drought. Its impact on our crops and our rural communities is 
staggering.
  The drought in Kansas is one of the worst in a century. It is 
compared, by folks who know, to the dust bowl of the 1930's. Crops are 
withering and dying in the fields right under the watchful and woeful 
eyes of our farmers--farmers who are helpless to stop the conditions 
and helpless to prevent the circle of crisis from beginning. For what 
we all must remember is that blackened crops across the States are not 
just ``their'' problem or ``someone else's'' problem--it is our 
problem. The devastation brought on by persistent drought is in 
evidence all over Kansas. As I toured several affected counties, the 
widening economic impacts of this drought on our state were mostly 
overwhelmed by the urgency of the emergency. But by the end of my tour, 
I was reminded again and again that the true impact of this drought is 
not the plight of just farm families. The impact that many Kansans have 
yet to fully comprehend, is the toll this drought is having on our 
economy.
  With more than 2 years of lower than average rainfall, it has become 
clear that our towns are feeling the effects of evaporating capital. As 
fewer farmers and ranchers collect on their investments, this mean 
fewer dollars for local coffers and diminished investment in new jobs, 
our schools and economic activity.
  Leading economists in our State have estimated that just the crop 
losses alone have cost Kansans almost a billion dollars. This does not 
include any other ancillary or downstream economic costs that are sure 
to mount as this crisis deepens. It is for this reason that I will vote 
for this amendment, brought by the Senator from South Dakota. While I 
was disappointed that we were unable to work out a more bipartisan 
compromise, one that would have encouraged more farmers to purchase 
crop insurance and would have been balanced by offsets from other 
places in the budget, I will support this initiative and urge my 
colleagues to do likewise. This serious drought is a major threat to 
our Nation's economy, and we should act quickly to get relief to our 
farmers.
  This is an issue of key importance to my State. As I said, over the 
August break I traveled extensively across Kansas and witnessed the 
drought we are experiencing. We have parts of the State that have had 
less rainfall than at any time since 1895, including all the Dust Bowl 
years when we had the terrible experience of the wind blowing soil in 
dark clouds. During the day you couldn't even see the Sun because there 
was so much dirt in the air. That was due to both agricultural 
practices and lack of rainfall. Now we have better agricultural 
practices, but we have a lot less rainfall. It has been a disaster in a 
number of areas.
  There are whole counties that haven't had any rainfall at all. I 
looked at a lake near Jetmore, KS, that has a normal surface area of 
about 100 acres and is now down to less than 10 acres. It is because of 
a lack of rainfall. I saw whole fields where nothing has come up 
because of lack of rainfall.
  Fortunately, some areas of the State are getting some moisture now, 
but it is not enough. The crops have already died for the year. It will 
help, hopefully, on winter wheat planting that will now begin in some 
places.
  What compounds the problem we are having today and why we need the 
drought assistance is that the new farm bill doesn't work particularly 
well in a situation such as this. Some agree with the increased impact 
and use of loan payments. I happen to disagree with the farm bill. The 
problem is, with the loan payment, you need a crop to be able to borrow 
against to then use it and to default on it and get paid. That way, if 
you don't have a crop, you can't use the loan payments. So you are 
caught that way as well.
  There is a problem with countercyclical payments. You get in a 
drought situation, your crop reduces. The supply reduces, and generally 
where supply goes down, demand stays steady, the price goes up, and the 
price has gone up for some crops. Not enough; it should be up more. But 
your countercyclical payment doesn't help because when your price is 
going down, you get more payment. But when the price is going up, you 
get less payment.
  The farmers in Kansas, in particular, are caught in a double vice. 
They have problems with the new farm bill and its impact because of the 
drought and the lack of a crop, and then we are getting caught in the 
loan payment scenario situation we have in the countercyclical payments 
not being helpful to them.
  Overall, we need the help. It would be a much better situation if we 
were this fall getting the double AMTA payment that normally had been 
coming through this body. That would help more people. It wouldn't be 
dependent upon crop production. They are not going to have that. That 
is not going to be the situation. That is why we need this drought 
assistance.
  I think it would be better if we had an offset to it. That would be a 
wiser way, given the budgetary situation we are in today. We could find 
that in other places. Although some of my other colleagues are saying 
they don't want to go with an offset. Reaching $157 billion in deficits 
this year points to the way we should be looking for offsets to be 
prudent in future years and for future generations so that we don't 
overspend what we have.
  To sum up, we need this help. We need it because of the drought. We 
also need it because of the new farm bill. This will help our farmers 
at a time and a situation and a place that they need it. It should be 
offset. I don't know that we will have that vote to be able to move 
that side of the issue forward.
  In my State we are looking at a $1 billion loss because of the 
drought. That is going to impact our farmers and farm families. It will 
also impact our communities and our entire State. This will be an 
important measure to get passed. I am hopeful we can make it happen.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, it appears we will not be able to work 
this out so we can have a vote on the Harkin amendment. Therefore, I 
think what we will do is try to have a vote next week on the Harkin 
amendment.
  If we can't do it on Monday, we will do it on Tuesday, Wednesday. 
Sometime before we finish this bill, the Senator from Iowa is going to 
offer his amendment.
  That being the case, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to a 
period for

[[Page S8249]]

morning business, under the previous order----
  Mr. HARKIN. If I may ask the leader to yield, I have been here all 
morning. I thought there was no controversy on the sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution that the Senate and the Congress and the President act 
promptly to address these inequities on the Medicare repayment, of 
which the Senator from Idaho has been a very strong proponent for a 
long time. I thought we were going to have a vote on it. I don't 
understand why we are not voting on this today.
  Mr. REID. As I indicated, we had a sign-off from Senator Baucus, 
chairman of the Finance Committee. I thought we had a sign-off from the 
ranking member, but that didn't happen. It is my understanding that the 
Senator from Iowa and his staff are looking into the amendment now. 
They have had the opportunity for a long time now, and they haven't 
given us a sign-off. Therefore, because of the ranking member of the 
committee, Senator Grassley, not giving consent to move forward, 
Senator Burns has not allowed us to go forward.
  Mr. HARKIN. It is my understanding that the Finance Committee people 
had this for some time and look at it.
  Mr. REID. I don't know about that.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the assistant majority leader. I hope we can vote 
on this next week sometime.
 Mr. GRASSLEY. The Assistant Democratic leader and my colleague 
Senator Harkin of Iowa have claimed that I withheld my consent to 
moving to a vote on a Sense of the Senate Resolution directing Congress 
to promptly address inequities in Medicare payments across states.
  The author of the Sense of the Senate resolution, Senator Harkin, has 
said ``it was my understanding the Finance Committee people had [his 
amendment] for some time and had looked at it.''
  This was not the case, because I was not given the courtesy of 
knowing about or even seeing the resolution in advance. No one talked 
to me about it at all. In fact, my staff and I did not learn of the 
resolution until we saw it raised on the Senate floor. By the time my 
staff had the resolution in their hands, the Senate had moved on to 
other business, claiming that I was withholding my consent.
  I believe the resolution, and all legislation to improve Medicare 
fairness in rural areas, deserves our attention and support. And I 
intend to support the resolution when we vote on it next week.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I offer for the record the Budget 
Committee's official scoring of S. 2708, the Interior and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003.
  The committee-reported bill provides $81.936 billion in nonemergency 
discretionary budget authority including an advance appropriation into 
2003 of $36 million, which will result in new outlays in 2003 of 
$11.901 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are 
taken into account, discretionary outlays for the Senate bill total 
$18.330 billion in 2003. Of that total, $1.442 billion in budget 
authority and $1.075 billion in outlays are classified as conservation 
category spending.
  In addition, the committee-reported bill provides new emergency 
spending authority of $400 million for wildland fire management, which 
will result in outlays of $400 million. In accordance with standard 
budget practice, the emergency spending is not counted against the 
appropriations committee's allocation until after conference.
  Mr. President, the Appropriations Committee voted 29-0 on June 27 to 
adopt a set of non-binding sub-allocations for its 13 subcommittees 
totaling $768.1 billion in budget authority and $793.1 billion in 
outlays. While the committee's subcommittee allocations are consistent 
with both the amendment supported by 59 Senators on June 20 and with 
the President's request for total discretionary budget authority for 
fiscal year 2003, they are not enforceable under either Senate budget 
rules or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act. While I 
applaud the committee for adopting its own set of sub-allocations, I 
once again urge the Senate to take up and pass the bipartisan 
resolution, which would make the committee's sub-allocations 
enforceable under Senate rules and provide for other important 
budgetary disciplines. With the new fiscal year starting in 26 days, it 
is important that we act now.
  For the Interior Subcommittee, the full committee allocated $18.926 
billion in budget authority and $18.804 billion in total outlays for 
2003. The bill reported by the full committee on June 27 is above its 
sub-allocation for budget authority by $10 million and is below its 
sub-allocation for outlays by $280 million. An amendment by Chairman 
Byrd, however, at the outset of the bill's consideration lowered the 
bill's total budget authority by $10 million, making it consistent with 
its sub-allocation. In any event, the appropriations committee's sub-
allocations are not enforceable under Senate rules; thus, a point of 
order did not lie against the bill for exceeding its sub-allocation as 
reported. However, by including emergency funding for wildland fire 
management, the committee-reported bill does violate section 205 of H. 
Con. Res. 290, the concurrent resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 
2001, by designating nondefense spending as an emergency.
  Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that a table displaying 
the budget committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record at 
this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                  S. 2708, INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES, 2003
                     [Spending comparisions--Senate Reported Bill (in millions of dollars)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      General
                                                                      purpose  Conservation  Mandatory    Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
  Budget Authority.................................................    17,494       1,442           64    19,000
  Outlays..........................................................    17,255       1,075           77    18,407
Senate committee allocation: \1\
  Budget Authority.................................................    18,926           0           64    18,990
  Outlays..........................................................    18,610           0           77    18,687
House-passed:
  Budget Authority.................................................    18,292       1,438           64    19,794
  Outlays..........................................................    17,800       1,052           77    18,929
President's request: \2\
  Budget Authority.................................................    17,632       1,321           64    19,017
  Outlays..........................................................    17,524         971           77    18,572
 
                 SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:
 
Senate committee allocation: \3\
  Budget Authority.................................................        10           0            0        10
  Outlays..........................................................      -280           0            0      -280
House-passed:
  Budget Authority.................................................      -798           4            0      -794
  Outlays..........................................................      -545          23            0      -522
President's request:
  Budget Authority.................................................      -138         121            0       -17
  Outlays..........................................................      -269         104            0      -165
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Senate has not adopted a 302(a) allocation for the Appropriations Committee. The committee has set non-
  enforceable sub-allocations for its 13 subcommittees. This table compares the committee-reported bill with the
  committee's sub-allocation to the Interior Subcommittee for informational purposes only.
\2\ The President requested total discretionary budget authority for 2003 of $768.1 billion, including a
  proposal to change how the budget records the accrual cost of future pension and health retiree benefits
  earned by current federal employees. Because the Congress has not acted on that proposal, for comparability,
  the numbers in this table exclude the effects of the President's accrual proposal.
\3\ The Appropriations Committee did not provide a separate allocation for general purpose and conservation
  category spending. This table combines the general purpose and conservation category together for purposes of
  comparing them to the Interior Subcommittee's sub-allocation.
 
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with scorekeeping
  conventions, including removal of emergency funding ($400 million in budget authority and $400 million in
  outlays) and inclusion of 2003 advance appropriation of $36 million (budget authority and outlays). By
  tradition, emergency spending is not counted against the Appropriations Committee's allocation until after
  conference.
 
Prepared by SBC Majority Staff, 9-5-02.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to support an important program 
funded in the fiscal year 2003 Interior Appropriation measure. The 
Advanced Microturbine Program is a Department of Energy effort to 
support and develop clean and efficient power technologies for the 21st 
century. The program's goals are to improve energy efficiency, reduce 
environmental emissions and expand fuel choices for the next generation 
of microturbines.
  As I mentioned in the past, we must produce more energy, but we also 
must conserve more energy. Conservation of energy is simply another way 
of producing energy. Energy efficiency is also integral to any energy 
plan. Electrical systems can and should be made more efficient. 
Finally, we must utilize renewable energies. Employing fuels such as 
ethanol and using them to extend our energy supply makes good sense.
  The Advanced Microturbine Program goes a long ways towards those 
ends. The ultimate aim of the program is to produce ultra clean, highly 
efficient microturbine product designs by 2006 that are ready for 
commercialization. The machines will utilize several fuel options, 
including landfill gas, industrial off-gases, ethanol, and other 
biobased liquids and gases.
  The Advanced Microturbine Program is a good example of how 
partnerships with industry, including one from my home State, and 
government can deliver advanced technologies and practices to assist in 
meeting challenging

[[Page S8250]]

goals in the areas of renewable resource development and environmental 
protection. For this efficient technology to reach its full potential, 
I am told that the Advanced Microturbine Program should be funded at 
$14 million for fiscal year 2003. At the minimum, I encourage my 
colleagues to recede to the higher House level of $12 million as we 
move this bill to conference.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to express my support for an 
amendment that has been introduced by our distinguished majority 
leader. This amendment, which has taken a variety of forms in the past 
several months, was originally proposed as a bill by Senator Baucus. I 
cosponsored this bill previously and support it now as it provides much 
needed assistance to our Nation's farmers who have suffered significant 
crop losses during the past 2 crop years. Farmers throughout the Nation 
have suffered great losses, and farmers in my home State of Michigan 
have been among those who have suffered most.
  Two years of statewide crop failure have threatened the viability of 
Michigan's farmers, and this amendment strives to address the losses 
suffered by growers in the 2001 and 2002 growing years. Over the past 2 
years, some farmers faced early warm temperatures followed by freezing 
conditions. For others, torrential rains came early in the growing 
season and were followed by long droughts for some farmers. Still other 
farmers faced drought conditions at the start of the crop year and 
heavy rains at harvest time.
  This year, USDA Secretary Ann Veneman recognized the atypical weather 
conditions that greatly diminished crop production in Michigan by 
designating 50 Michigan counties as disaster areas. If that was not bad 
enough, Secretary Veneman designated that 82 of Michigan's 83 counties 
as official disaster areas last year.
  Michigan is one of the Nation's most diverse states in terms of the 
sheer breadth and number of crops grown in it, and growers of many 
crops have been affected by adverse weather conditions.
  This year, cherry farmers in Michigan lost upwards of 95 percent of 
their crops--a level that threatens to devastate Michigan and the 
Nation's cherry industry, given that Michigan produces over 70 percent 
of the tart cherries in the nation. Earlier this year, I had the 
opportunity to visit with cherry growers in Michigan and listen to them 
as they told me how this year's crop losses were the worst that the 
industry had ever suffered since crop records have been kept. 
Additionally, all apple growers in Michigan have had at least 20 
percent of their crops damaged this, and 80 percent of all Michigan 
apple farmers have lost upwards of 40 percent of their crop this year.
  Last year, farmers in just one area of Michigan, which is one of the 
leading dry bean producing regions in the Nation, lost 85 percent of 
their bean crop. Across the state, in the southwest corner of Michigan, 
labrusca grape growers lost 80 percent of their crop, and they suffered 
similar losses this year. While the losses suffered by bean and grape 
growers are particularly severe, they are not the only crops to have 
suffered drastic losses.
  Approximately 25 percent of apple growers in Michigan and across the 
Nation are in danger of going out of business in the next 2 years, and 
in Michigan that means that our cherry, peach and asparagus crops, 
which are often grown on the same orchards as apples, will be greatly 
decreased. Orchard communities around the country have been devastated. 
As farmers have left the business, small businesses and cooperatives 
that have been around for generations have also gone out of business, 
and local governments have lost significant tax revenue. This 
assistance will allow many growers to reduce debt and get private bank 
or USDA loans for the next growing season. This assistance for will 
give farmers the shot in the arm they need to recover from several 
years of low prices.
  Our Nation's farmers have not shared in the prosperity which many 
Americans have experienced over the past decade. No one, least of all 
America's farmers, likes the fact that annual emergency agriculture 
supplementals have seemingly become routine.
  Yet we must provide this assistance if we are to address the problems 
facing farmers throughout the Nation. Several growers have told me that 
the crops losses they suffered this year were so severe that without 
emergency assistance they will most likely lose their farms. This 
assistance is not the answer to the problems facing our farmers and 
rural America, but it is an important part of an effort to keep 
families on their farms. I thank the Senator for South Dakota and the 
Senator from Montana for their efforts in drafting, supporting and 
offering this amendment.


                          Hay and Fescue Crops

  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I wish to enter a short colloquy with 
my good friend, the Senator from Montana, one of the chief authors of 
this amendment, and ask him if losses to hay and fescue crops due to 
armyworm infestation qualify for assistance under amendment 4481 to the 
Interior Appropriations Act.
  As the distinguished Senator might know, farmers of forage crops in 
southern Missouri, and across the country, were devastated by a recent 
armyworm infestation. The Secretary of Agriculture declared sixty-two 
Missouri counties as natural disaster areas due to damage caused by 
severe armyworm infestation. Last year Senator Leahy and I introduced 
legislation, S. 1354, to provide emergency relief for these farmers.
  Mr. BAUCUS. In response to my distinguished colleague, we have 
consulted with the Department of Agriculture and these crop losses 
would indeed qualify for assistance under this amendment.
  I know that the armyworm infestations have caused massive damage to 
crops throughout the Midwest and Northeast and I am pleased that this 
legislation will provide some assistance to these farmers.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. I thank the Chairman of the Finance Committee for his 
assurances that this important legislation will provide much needed 
relief to so many farmers and farm communities in Missouri.

                          ____________________