Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. With the understanding we would vote no later than July 11, we have no reservations.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for another moment, Madelyn Creedon has been on the calendar since April 13, and General Gordon has been on the calendar since May 24. We have no objection to moving to General Gordon first, even though he was just reported out a couple of weeks ago, and Mrs. Creedon has been now on the calendar for almost 2 months, with some understanding that we can move to the Creedon nomination no later than a time on which we can agree. We have no reason not to want to move to the Gordon nomination.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in response to the senior Senator from Virginia, let me say we have no objection to moving to the nomination, with the understanding that at a date no later than a date that we could mutually agree to, we deal with the accompanying nomination. I think that understanding has now been made, and I believe we can proceed to the first piece of this with that understanding.

Mr. DASCHLE. We will make it the July 12.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is acceptable, Mr. President.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 10 years ago, I met with an extraordinary group of people in the basement of a home in suburban Maryland, just outside Washington, DC. They came from all kinds of backgrounds and fields, but they were united by one common desire, and that was to try to prevent fetal alcohol syndrome and help children and families who are living with its consequences. The other night, I saw some of those same people again at a reception celebrating the 10th anniversary of NOFAS, the National Organization for Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Born in that suburban Maryland basement 10 years ago, NOFAS is now the world's leading clearinghouse for information on fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects. I am proud to say that my wife and I serve on its board of directors. At the reception the other night, I was asked to say a few words about why I support NOFAS. I could have cited its pivotal role in the significant advances in our understanding of fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effect. Ten years ago, we knew very little about fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effects, its only slightly milder version. Today, we know that as many as 40,000 children are born each year in this country with FAS and other alcohol-related conditions, costing Americans more than $3 billion a year in direct health care expenses. We know that fetal alcohol syndrome is the leading known cause of mental retardation among children. We know that FAS and FAE are both 100 percent preventable when pregnant women abstain from alcohol. And we know now that there is no safe level of alcohol use during pregnancy. That is progress, and it is possible we still would not know these things today were it not for 10 years of diligent and dedicated work by the National Organization for Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Instead, I talked about two other reasons that I support NOFAS. Those reasons are Karli Schrider and Lucy Klene. If you ever drop by the NOFAS office in Washington on a Friday afternoon, there is a good chance you will run into Karli. She volunteers at NOFAS every Friday stuffing information packets. It is one of her many volunteer jobs. Twenty-eight years ago, when Karli's mother, Kathy, was pregnant with Karli, it was not uncommon for expectant mothers to be told to ``drink a beer a day for a fat, healthy baby.'' Women who were in danger of miscarrying were sometimes hospitalized and given alcohol intravenously for 5 or 6 hours in the mistaken belief it would prevent miscarriage. Back then, it never crossed Kathy's mind that her occasional glasses of wine might be harming her unborn child. Besides, just the year before, Kathy had had another baby who was perfectly healthy, and she drank during that pregnancy, too. The first time Karli was misdiagnosed, she was an infant. A doctor attributed her developmental delays to chronic ear infections. When he was 4 years old, a psychologist offered another explanation for Karli's difficulties. He said she was being ``willfully disobedient.'' When Karli was 8, a team of specialists misdiagnosed her again with cerebral palsy. Eight years later, when Karli was 16, Kathy was training to be a substance abuse counselor. As part of her training, she attended a conference on crack babies. Sitting in the audience, she was stunned. Every characteristic of crack babies the lecturer described, Karli had. But Kathy had never used crack. She tracked down the few studies that had been done at that time on the effects of alcohol on fetuses. Again, she saw the same list of symptoms. Years later, researchers would announce that most of the symptoms they originally thought were the result of fetal exposure to crack were actually the result of fetal alcohol exposure, and that alcohol is much more devastating to fetuses than crack or any other drug. That was 11 years ago, before NOFAS was born. Learning the real cause of Karli's special challenges has not erased those challenges. FAS and FAE are lifelong conditions. But knowing the truth has enabled Kathy--and others in Karli's life to focus less on Karli's deficits, and more on her strengths. One of those strengths is Karli's extraordinary kindness and empathy. In addition to her volunteer work at NOFAS, Karli also volunteers to help people with cerebral palsy and the elderly. Two years ago, she was named one of America's ``Thousand Points of Life'' by former President Bush. She is an inspiration to everyone who meets her, and one of the reasons I believe so deeply in the work NOFAS does. Another reason I believe in NOFAS is because of a pint-sized little girl named Lucy Klene. Lucy is 4 years old. She spent the first two years of her life in an orphanage in Russia. When she was 2, she was adopted by Stephan and Lydia Klene, of Herndon, VA. The Klenes also adopted a son from Russia, Paul, who is 3 years old and has no apparent fetal alcohol effects. Within a month after bringing Lucy and Paul home, Stephan and Lydia began to suspect that Lucy had special challenges. Over the next 16 months, Lucy was evaluated eight times by pediatricians and other specialists. Not one of them recognized the symptoms of Lucy's fetal alcohol effects. Finally, scouring the Internet, Stephan stumbled on the truth. He and Lydia took their research to Lucy's pediatrician, who read it and confirmed their hunch. Today, Lucy is a talented little gymnast who attends special education preschool. While it is still too early to know for sure, her doctor and parents think there is a good chance she will be able to live an independent and productive life when she grows up. Together, Karli and Lucy illustrate some of the progress that has been made in the 10 years since NOFAS was born. We still have a long way to go. Today children with FAS and FAE are being diagnosed earlier. That means they are getting help earlier, which means they have a better chance at full and productive lives. It took Karli's family 16 years to get a correct diagnosis. It took Lucy's family 16 months. That is progress. Eleven years ago, when Karli was diagnosed, there was very little research on the effects of alcohol on fetuses. Ten years later, Lucy's father was able to find an enormous amount of information on the Internet. Slowly but surely, the studies are being done and the information is reaching the people who need it. That is real progress. When Karli was diagnosed, there were few, if any, people Kathy could turn to for support and advice. Today, Stephan and Lydia attend a NOFAS support group for parents of children with FAS and FAE, and they know they are not alone. That, too, is progress. At the reception the other night, we celebrated an incredible milestone, the 10th anniversary of NOFAS. But next Thursday, June 15, will mark another milestone. At the urging of Stephan and Lydia, in Fairfax, VA, the school district will hold its first ever meeting to help preschool teachers recognize FAS and FAE and help children and families living with this challenge each and every day. And NOFAS will conduct the training. That is real progress. I hope everyone today will recognize how fortunate we are--those of us lucky enough to be born healthy, those of us lucky enough to be born without fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effect. I hope everyone will congratulate those who have worked so diligently over the course of the last 10 years to make NOFAS what it is today, and to recognize NOFAS for the difference they are making in the lives of Karli and Lucy and hundreds of thousands of others who live with the challenges of FAS and FAE, and for millions of babies who have been born healthy these last 10 years because of NOFAS. May their next 10 years be even more remarkable. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I designate the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts as my designee for purposes of managing the remaining time.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me second what the majority leader has just said. I appreciate the fact that he has taken this bill to the floor under the regular order. I have indicated a desire to work with him to complete work on this bill under regular order. Again, as I always do, I thank the assistant Democratic leader for his efforts in trying to narrow the scope and the list. We have to start here. Now we know what the universe is. Unfortunately, I think the universe includes the ``kitchen sink'' in this case. I think it is important to try to eliminate the ``kitchen sink'' and other matters that may or may not be essential to take up. I think there are nonrelevant matters that could be taken up under very short time constraints, as we are about to do. We need to finish the bill as well. I certainly plan to work with the majority leader to see that we accomplish that over the course of the next couple of days.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, under the order, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this is an excerpt from the statement: Rhetoric is not enough. The Senate must do the right thing and pass the Norwood-Dingell provisions. You can't say it any more directly nor any more powerfully than that--whether it is the sponsors of the House-passed bipartisan bill, or whether it is those in the trenches on a daily basis who recognize the importance and the urgency of this issue and have asked us to address it posthaste, or whether it is the thousands of people out there being denied health care on a daily basis. The commitment we must make to those who are left in the lurch must be restated and reemphasized. The only way to restate and reemphasize our commitment to their need is to pass this bipartisan bill this afternoon as part of this vehicle. I share the view expressed by some that we don't want to slow down this bill. We just had that discussion on another amendment. I recognize that. It is for that reason that we have expressed a willingness to limit the debate on this amendment to no more than 2 hours, with an hour on each side. We want to move this legislation. But we also want to move the defense bill. We can do that by limiting the amount of time, and we have voluntarily accommodated those who wish to move this legislation quickly by allowing the time limit on this amendment. I think it is very clear why we are offering this amendment, when you look at what it does and why it is so important and the pressing need for it. Again, I emphasize it was passed on a strong bipartisan vote in the House of Representatives. When you look at this chart, it lays out in a very short and succinct manner the differences between what--on a bipartisan basis the House has supported and many of us now support in the Senate--versus what our Republican colleagues in the Senate have advocated as their response to the need for a Patients' Bill of Rights for the country today. First and foremost, protecting all patients and making sure that everybody has access to protections is a fundamental difference between the bipartisan plan and the Republican plan. We protect all patients; they don't. Holding plans accountable is the second criteria by which we judge whether or not we are truly interested in solving this problem. Accountability has to be the first or second priority if we are truly going to resolve these problems and address the concerns raised by millions of Americans. The bipartisan plan holds insurance companies accountable. Unfortunately, the Republican plan does not. Definitions of medical necessity are a very complex and increasingly disturbing way with which the insurance companies eliminate access to good quality care. We ensure unfair definitions of ``medical necessity'' used by insurance companies don't prevent patients from getting needed care. Our bipartisan plan addresses that issue. The Republicans do not. Guaranteed access to specialists is also an issue that so many people believe needs to be resolved. We address it. The Republicans barely address it at all. We can go down the list. Access to OB/GYN, access to clinical trials, access to nonphysician providers, choice of providers, point-of- service, emergency room access, prohibition of improper financial incentives. On all of these issues and many more, there is a clear choice between what the Republicans have proposed and what the bipartisan plan adopted in the House requires. Time is running out. We have about 21 legislative days between now and the August recess. We have about 15 legislative days when we come back from the August recess. We have fewer and fewer days with which to resolve these differences. The time has come now to simply take what has been passed in theHouse, pass it in the Senate, add it to this bill, get it to the President, and send a clear message that our commitment to resolving these issues could not be stronger. Our commitment has not eroded. We are determined to deal with this issue this year on a bipartisan basis. We join with our House colleagues in addressing the issue in a comprehensive way. That is what this amendment does. That is why we hope on a bipartisan basis we can make an unequivocal statement about our commitment for resolving this matter first and foremost in this context today. I am deeply appreciative of the extraordinary leadership provided, once again, by the senior Senator from Massachusetts. No one has committed more time and effort and has demonstrated more leadership on an issue than he. On behalf of the entire Democratic caucus, I am extraordinarily grateful to him, appreciative of his leadership and his determination to resolve this matter in a successful way before the end of this session of Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is with some reluctance that I come to the floor this afternoon--reluctance because we had hoped that this would not be necessary. We had hoped that the action taken by the Senate--now almost a year ago--would have provided us with an opportunity to have finished by now the work begun more than a year ago. The Senate acted in a way that we felt was not as acceptable as we would have liked. The House acted in a way that met the expectations of many of us. On a bipartisan basis the House passed a bill to protect patients' rights in ways that I think lives up to the expectations not only of those of us who have advocated this legislation but of the American people and many others who care deeply about these circumstances. It was our hope that the conferees, over the course of the last 12 months, could have resolved differences and we could have sent this legislation to the President by now. That has not happened. Under the circumstances, we are left with no choice but to come to the floor and once again have the debate and press the issue--to try to say with as much definition as we can that this legislation must pass; that this legislation must be sent to the President; that this legislation must be signed into law. The urgency of our effort could not be better represented than by what we see on the charts immediately behind me. The first chart shows what is happening to patients day by day as this Congress fails to act. The Patients' Bill of Rights affects thousands and thousands of people on a daily basis--thousands of people who go into hospitals and clinics hoping that they might be able to get the care they so desperately need. This chart says it all when it comes to what happens to patients as a result of our inaction. Thirty-five thousand Americans on a daily basis fail to get the kind of care they absolutely have to have to restore their health. Thirty-five thousand people are denied specialty care in instances when doctors have prescribed it. Thirty-one thousand are forced on a daily basis to change doctors--we are not talking about what has happened over the course of the last 12 months. We are saying every single day in the United States of America that 31,000 people are forced to change doctors, against their will in many cases. Eighteen-thousand are forced to change medication. Fifty-nine thousand a day, as a result of the inaction in the Congress--a number exceeding the second largest city in the State of South Dakota--are subjected to more pain and suffering and a worsening of their condition. Those aren't our figures. Those are figures from the California Managed Care Improvement Task Force and other reputable organizations that have analyzed the cost of the inaction in the Congress over the course of the last year. A second way to look at this issue is doctors' perceptions of our inaction. The number of doctors each day who see patients with a serious decline in health as a result of health plan abuse is striking. Fourteen-thousand people are denied coverage of recommended prescription drugs as a result of our inaction. Ten-thousand are denied coverage of needed diagnostic tests. Seven-thousand are denied referral to needed specialty care. Six-thousand are denied overnight hospital stay, and 6,000 are denied referral to mental health and substance abuse treatment. One could just sit down after that and say the Senate must act. Let's vote. I think those numbers are as compelling a reason as I have heard about the importance of this body acting on this legislation, as we should have acted now more than 12 months ago. We have not acted. And tens of thousands of people are paying a price that they shouldn't have to pay because we have not acted. I have been encouraged by correspondence that we have been sent just in the last few hours: One from the sponsors of the legislation on the House side, Congressman Charlie Norwood, and Congressman John Dingell. I will simply read an excerpt, and ask unanimous consent the entire letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the letter simply calls upon the Congress to act. It says: We are pleased that you are bringing the bipartisan compromise bill that we passed overwhelmingly in the House last October to the Senate floor today. They want us to act. That is from the sponsors of the House-passed legislation. The doctors so directly involved in our critical health care needs are also asking the Senate to act today. I ask unanimous consent that a statement released by the American Medical Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield such time as the Senator from Massachusetts desires.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent that we amend it to allow the Warner amendment to be the next amendment to be considered following the Smith amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I appreciate the distinguished chairman and his interest in accommodating the many colleagues who want to offer amendments. I think we are almost there. I don't think we are quite able to reach agreement yet on this side. I wonder if it would be appropriate, given the fact that we could not yet agree to that sequencing, if we might proceed with the amendment to be offered by the Senator from Nevada, and while that amendment was being considered, address the other parts of the unanimous consent request just propounded by the Senator from Virginia. If he would be interested in pursuing that approach, we might be able to find some final resolution to the other elements of the proposal he suggested.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senate has just spoken on one of the most important national security issues facing this Nation today--the quality of health care services we provide for those who have so selflessly served this Nation. As pointed out during this debate, we promised millions of Americans lifetime, quality healthcare as partial compensation for their service to this country. Sadly, for far too many of America's veterans, this promise remains unfulfilled. The amendments just voted on by the Senate represent efforts by their supporters to keep that commitment. These measures adopted a fundamentally different approach toward solving this problem. And although I had some reservations about each, I supported both. I would like to briefly discuss my reasons for doing so. However, before getting into the specifics of these very different amendments, I would like to commend the efforts of Senators Johnson and Warner. As a result of their hard work, we are much closer than ever before to keeping our health care commitment to this Nation's veterans. They are both to be commended for keeping this issue alive and forcing the Senate to deal with it on the bill currently before us. Under current law, military retirees under the age of 65 are eligible to enroll in TRICARE Prime or to use TRICARE's insurance programs. Those who use TRICARE's insurance may also seek care at a military treatment facility, MTF, on a space-available basis. Once retirees turn 65, they are no longer eligible to use TRICARE, though they may continue to seek care at an MTF when space is available. The same eligibility rules apply to survivors of veterans. Unfortunately, the shortcomings of the current system are well known to thousands of America's veterans. I receive letters virtually every week describing the failures of TRICARE. Senator Johnson's amendment would address some of these failures and increase health insurance benefits for retirees. Specifically, retirees who entered military service before June 7, 1956 and their spouses would be able to use military health insurance and enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, FEHBP. Those enrolling in FEHBP would pay no out-of-pocket premiums. Military retirees who entered the service after June 7, 1956 and their survivors would be eligible for increase coverage regardless of their age. They could either enroll in FEHBP or use TRICARE's insurance program. Senator Johnson's amendment clearly would provide better health care coverage for millions of veterans. My concerns with it are twofold and both are cost-related. First, I am somewhat troubled by the overall cost of this proposal. Although I believe no price is too high to keep our commitment to America's veterans--and Senator Johnson's amendment certainly represents a giant step in that direction--I wonder whether there may be a more cost effective means of doing so. Second, I am concerned that for those retirees who entered service after 1956 and who choose FEHBP, the Government would only pick up about 70 percent of the premium. Retirees and their families would be expected to pick up the remaining 30 percent. Depending on the plan chosen, this could represent an annual out-of-pocket expense of $2,000 or more--not an insignificant expenditure for many. Senator Warner's amendment also has merit as well as one fundamental flaw. Under the Warner amendment, all Medicare-eligible retirees would be allowed to remain in TRICARE. In other words, TRICARE would be a second-payer to Medicare, covering certain costs above and beyond those covered by Medicare. This change would greatly improve the quality of health care provided to our Nation's veterans. Unfortunately, in order to comply with a flawed Republican budget resolution, Senator Warner was forced to sunset this new benefit in 2003. In other words, the Warner amendment provides veterans a new health benefit with one hand and, two years later, takes it away with the other. As I said at the outset, I supported both of these amendments despite the flaws I have just discussed. I did so because I believe it is important we focus on the forest and not the trees and because both of these amendments would bring us closer to keeping this Nation's commitment to its military retirees. And I did so because I believed it was the right thing to do. I commend Senators Warner and Johnson for their work on behalf of our veterans and look forward to working with them to fulfill the promise we made to those who sacrificed so much to serve this Nation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object. I simply again indicate my reason for objecting is not because I don't want to go to DOD authorization. I would love very much to work with our majority leader in attempting to proceed to that bill. I have no problem with calling it up and permitting the full Senate to work its will. Again, he has proposed that it be done with only relevant amendments. I remind the majority leader, Senator Hutchinson offered a forced abortions in China amendment to DOD authorization just 2 years ago, and there have been many Republican nonrelevant amendments offered. I assume I am protecting the rights of Members on both sides of the aisle in insisting we have the opportunity to offer amendments, and I will work with the majority leader to see that we can take up this bill and work through his concern about amendments. Until we can work that out, I object to moving to it.

Mr. DASCHLE. The majority leader is correct. We will be in a position--and could be in a position in the not too distant future--to agree ultimately to a finite list of amendments. I was not aware that the distinguished leader would be interested in pursuing this this afternoon. This is the first I heard of it. But we would be prepared at some point certainly during the time these amendments are being considered to offer perhaps a final list that would bring us to closure on the bill. I would be happy to work with the majority leader over the recess in an effort to finalize that list, and proceed with that goal in mind.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me simply respond to the distinguished majority leader. As he knows, in past debates on ESEA, there have been an average of 22 Republican amendments that have been considered, an average. In some cases, that number has exceeded 30 amendments. The average number of amendments in total considered during the ESEA debate has been 37 amendments. I have no objection at all to the amendment suggested by the distinguished majority leader. I note with interest that the school safety amendment offered by Senator Lautenberg was not on his list. I would ask that the Senate resume consideration of the ESEA bill, and following the two amendments previously ordered, the Senate consider the following first-degree amendments subject to relevant second-degree amendments, and they be considered in alternating fashion as the sponsors become available: Senator Santorum, Senator Bingaman, Senator Hutchison, Senator Dodd, Senator Gregg, Senator Harkin, Senator Voinovich, Senator Mikulski, Senator Stevens, Senator Wellstone, Senator Grams, Senator Reed, Senator Kyl, and Senator Lautenberg.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, ``Mother's Day''--that special day when children the world over celebrate and honor their mothers--falls during the month of May. Appropriately, the month of May is also the month when one of the most selfless and dedicated mothers I know celebrates her birthday. Today, I would like to share the story of that remarkable woman from my home state of South Dakota. I have known and admired Katherine ``Kitty'' Wilka for more than two decades. Today, as she celebrates her 70th birthday, she will be surrounded by numerous family members and friends. Kitty Wilka is the mother of 12, the grandmother of 29 and, as of last week, the great- grandmother of 3. But it is not just the size of the Wilka family that is noteworthy. It is also the quality of their character and the diversity of their accomplishments. Kitty Wilka and her late husband, Bill, led by example and instilled admirable values in all their children. Widowed for over a decade, Kitty is the heart and soul of her extended family. She is a role model for her children and grandchildren. Her life example epitomizes both the love of family and commitment to community. Kitty has raised public servants, community and church leaders and business owners. After working for 18 years at McKennan Hospital in Sioux Falls, she continues to contribute to her community, volunteering at St. Lambert's Catholic Church and its school. I must confess that I have personally benefitted from the Wilka family's belief in public service. Kitty's son, Jeff, has volunteered in my Sioux Falls office since my first election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1978. Born with cerebral palsy, Jeff grew up with a positive attitude and a determination to be involved in his community. He has been a loyal, dedicated and valued member of my Sioux Falls staff for over two decades. In fact, Jeff has become a fixture of sorts, having the second longest running tenure on my staff. With the help of his loving mother and close-knit family, Jeff has overcome many obstacles in his life, including physical ailments that required surgery and therapy, and a dependency on alcohol. He has been sober for 11 years and is an ardent worker on behalf of many civic causes, including the Children's Care Hospital and School, the March of Dimes and Easter Seals. He also has a deeply held faith in our electoral process, working in the political trenches for many years for a variety of local, state and federal candidates in whose philosophy he believes. I am proud of what Jeff has accomplished and the significant challenges he has overcome. I think he would be the first to tell you that his successes have been based upon the solid Midwestern values that Kitty and Bill Wilka instilled in him and his siblings. They taught their children to work hard, to never give up and to do their part to improve the communities in which they live. It is clear that Jeff has taken those lessons to heart. Kitty Wilka has much to be proud of in her life. And I know that her loving family is extremely proud of her. I want to join her 12 children, 29 grandchildren and 3 great-grandchildren in wishing Kitty the very best on her birthday. She deserves it. Happy 70th birthday, Kitty!

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today we address two issues vital to our Nation's farmers and ranchers: the need to reform the Federal Crop Insurance Program, and the need for financial relief to help producers deal with the third year in a row of low prices. I support this Crop Insurance conference report, and I will vote for it. But I must also express my deep concerns about the farm relief provisions of the bill. Half of this bill represents Congress at its best. Last year Congress was given a mandate to improve the federal crop insurance program--both by the strength of public support for reform, and by the Budget Committee's allocation of $6 billion last year and $8 billion this year expressly to implement that reform. Half of this bill responds to that call, and offers increased benefits to farmers. Those benefits are well-conceived, and they are equitable. The program invests public resources in a system that effectively leverages funds in the private sector, and empowers producers to use their own best judgment in managing their production risk. I want to thank my colleagues and their staffs, who have dedicated long hours over the past year, for their excellent work in reforming this vital program. However, I believe that the other half of this bill represents a low moment for Congress. The other half of this bill represents, for the third year in a row, Congress' stubborn refusal to address another significant risk of farming: price risk. Across the country, and for numerous commodities, poor prices have dogged producers for three years now. The $7.1 billion in this bill that will go to producers as ad hoc emergency relief is critically needed in the countryside. We should be providing resources to struggling farmers and ranchers. But I am deeply disappointed with the way the funds are distributed. Clearly, it would have been impossible to perfectly match resources to need--particularly under the time constraints we face. But we could have done better than this. This year could have been different than the past two years. Producers pleaded with Congress to make it different, and it should have been different. First, by including the relief allocation in the Budget resolution, the Budget Committee allowed Congress to avoid the rancorous fight over emergency spending authorization that has plagued us in the past two years. Second, in contrast to the previous two years, this year the Agriculture Committee was made the arbiter of how the funding would be allocated. This should have resulted in hearings and the kind of substantive, constructive debate that yields good policy. Third, Congress was given a deadline of June 29 by which to determine how to spend this money, which provided more than adequate time for such a debate to occur. Despite all of these advantages, here we are, a month early, with a bill produced in the very same way as the two emergency relief bills that preceded it--behind closed doors, without the free and open exchange of ideas, and without the opportunity for amendments by members on behalf of their constituents. So, we are left with farm relief that I and many of my colleagues believe is deeply flawed. Once again, our assistance fails to target family farmers. Once again, it wastes public dollars on the biggest operators, who have little or no need for emergency relief. Once again, it wastes public dollars on some people who do not farm at all. Most importantly--once again--it fails to meet critical needs in farm country. With over $7 billion at our disposal, Agriculture Committee jurisdiction, and time for debate, not one hearing has been held to assess the scope of need. A flawed process has produced a flawed bill. But because farmers and ranchers are in need of relief, I intend to vote for the conference report. For the third year in a row, I urge my colleagues to acknowledge the failures of current farm policy, and come together to change it. We need policies that better address the interests of family farmers and ranchers. In addition to crop insurance, fair trade, and competitive opportunities for all producers, farmers and ranchers must have an income safety-net that can offset severe price fluctuations, and that can help manage uncertainties in the marketplace. Such policies are critical to long-term survival in an industry in which the majority of producers operate on margins of less than 5 percent. I believe there is a lot we can agree on. And by working together, in the spirit of the crop insurance portion of this bill, I am certain that there is a lot we can accomplish.