Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Senator from Texas. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I get to bring you the rest of the story. I have always said you can tell a lot about a country by learning about the leaders of that country. One of the areas of leadership on which this country can pride itself, worldwide, is its leadership in small business and in retailing. And we have a Wyoming boy who has done well. I want to share with you, for just a moment, his history and the history of the company he started. I also have to tell you about a young man of 83 who has just taken up a career in writing in Wyoming. Since his retirement, he has written a book called ``Pride, Power, Progress.'' His name is John ``Ace'' Bonar. He had a distinguished career and, as I say, has now taken up writing. He has written a very short history of an important man that I want to share with you. To quote him: The year was 1902. With the blessing of President Teddy Roosevelt the Panama Canal was being built. Roosevelt, who said, ``Speak softly and carry a big stick,'' was also sending the United States Navy around the world to demonstrate its effectiveness. And back in the states an unheralded project had started. In the tiny mining town of Kemmerer, Wyoming (population 1,000), a 27-year-old man had opened a dry goods store. James Cash Penney was his name. Son of an unordained Baptist minister father in Missouri, Penny, like his father was a strict disciplinarian. He adhered to honesty, thriftiness and hard work. ``Jim,'' his father admonished, ``you have no right to make money if you take advantage of people!'' At the age of 8, the younger Penney ran errands for a nickel. The $2.50 that he saved was invested in pigs. On complaints of neighbors, he sold out. But he made $60. At 12 years old he was horse trading and raising watermelons on the family farm. He soon joined Hale Brothers Dry Goods Store in Hamilton at a $2.27-a-month salary. His income increased to $300 a year. But he left on doctor's orders. He had to go to a higher and dryer climate for his bronchial trouble. Arriving in Colorado he tried the butcher business in the town of Longmont. He soon sold out. Against the advice of people Penney borrowed $1,500 from a bank and used $500 of his own hard-earned money to start a Golden Rule Store in Kemmerer. In Mr. Penney's words, ``It was on April the 14th we opened our doors. I was assisted by my wife, a local girl, and a Methodist minister. Our sales that day were $466.59, of which $89.90 was shoes. I was warned that a cash business such as our could not succeed. The miners received pay once a month and most spent it before the next day. And then business dropped as low as $25 a day.'' ``I got new fight in my blood.'' James Cash Penney catered to the needs of a rural and ``blue collar'' clientele. Trade revived. He opened another store 75 miles away in Rock Springs, Wyoming. In 1913 the Golden Rule Stores became the J.C. Penney Company. By 1917 there were 175 stores in the United States. Penney operated on a cash basis. The coal company stores had offered only credit. He studied the market and concentrated only on necessary items for his customers. A plain and devout man, Mr. Penney, as the story goes, was waiting on a man and his family in a Midwestern store. He took great pains in getting the family a perfect fit. They liked to buy at the friendly Penney stores. ``I'd sure like to meet Mr. Penney someday!'' Whereupon the salesman smiled and said quite simply while offering a handshake, ``I am Mr. Penney!'' Mr. Penney at times would literally ``pop up'' unexpected at one of his growing chain of stores which was the nation's first chain store. There is an account of his encounters in a Milwaukee store where strolling down an aisle he noticed a display of men's corduroy pants marked $3.98. He called the store manager on the carpet. ``These pants,'' said Mr. Penney, ``sell at $2.98!.`` But Mr. Penney,'' pleaded the manager, ``they are an excellent buy at this price!'' ``You violate company policy!'' the owner exploded. ``You must give the customer the best value and make a reasonable profit!'' Penney's memory was remarkable, according to all accounts. At the opening of a new Penney store in Minneapolis in 1970, it is told that a man came up to Mr. Penney and asked, ``Do you remember me?'' Penney regarded the man for a moment, and smiled. ``Your name is Severt Tendall. I last saw you when you worked in the Cumberland, Wyoming, store in 1902.'' About the only thing James Cash Penney didn't accomplish during his lifetime was to live to be 100 years old. He came very close to his wish. He was still a board member of his company until his death in 1971. He was 95 years old. Does the Golden Rule, ``Do unto others as you would have other do unto you,'' work today? Ask any of the managers of the 2,080 JCPenney outlets in Europe and across the nation. Today the little Golden Rule Store in Kemmerer, Wyoming, stands as a National Historic Landmark. A tribute to James Cash Penney and his faith in his fellow man. Back in Wyoming we have dedicated that historic location, the start of chain store retailing in the United States and the home of J.C. Penney. The principles on which he built that store are important principles for this country, ones that keep retailing going. I am pleased to say that my dad worked as a shoe salesman for a while in the Golden Rule store in Thermopolis, WY. My mom repeated some phrases to me that were a part of that culture and are a part of my mission statement in the Senate; that is, do what is right; do your best; and treat others as you want to be treated. I want to mention in more detail the Penney idea. Here are some of the statements that are made to all employees of the company, the challenge, the mission of Penney: To serve the public as nearly as we can to its complete satisfaction; to expect for the service we render a fair remuneration and not all the profit the traffic will bear; to do all in our power to pack the customer's dollar full of value, quality, and satisfaction; to continue to train ourselves and our associates so that the service we give will be more and more intelligently performed; to improve constantly the human factor in our business; to reward men and women in our organization through participation in what the business produces; to test our every policy, method, and act in this wise: ``Does it square with what is right and just?'' J.C. Penney was the pioneer of retailing, the pioneer of chain stores, and one of the pioneers of catalogs. Catalogs were the way the West was served when distances were too great to get to stores. Some of it is still that way. His principles are just as true for business today as they are for life. Adhering to these great principles actually usually leads to great success. That is one of the lessons we learned from J.C. Penney on this 100th anniversary of the effort he started that set him apart from his competitors and made him one of America's most famous and successful businessmen, a person who gives us guidelines for ways we should operate today, ways that will keep the United States in the forefront of free enterprise. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise again, as I did a week ago when we debated derivatives, in opposition to the derivatives amendment. It offers no solutions to problems that caused either Enron or the California energy crisis. In fact, the amendment we have is a solution looking for a problem. I am glad we have had a little time to study the amendment further because we have asked a number of regulators what their position is regarding the additional regulation of this relatively new form of business. We have heard from two regulators who have jurisdiction over the trading markets. They both have come back with the same response: This is not needed at this time. CFTC Chairman Newsome has said: This amendment would rescind significant advances brought about by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. In response to a letter I sent to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Chairman Pitt responded: The Securities and Exchange Commission believes this legislative change is premature at this time. This amendment will disrupt a market that is working efficiently and providing important tools for energy companies. For instance, this amendment would require new capital requirements on electronic trading exchanges, even if they simply match buyers and sellers. These exchanges bear no risk associated with trading but this legislation could provide additional new taxes. This amendment also provides new regulation on metals. I don't know of anyone who can point to how metals had anything to do with Enron or the California energy crisis. The regulatory model for metals has offered no problems. In fact, if you take a look at the derivatives market, there isn't a problem with any of the markets. I will speak about that in a moment. Yet the supporters of this amendment believe we should quickly enact some new form of regulation to oversee the metals market. Enron was not caused by the trading of energy derivatives. As I said last week, Enron was not an energy trading problem. Enron was not an accounting problem. Enron was a fraud problem. In fact, when the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, was asked at a Senate Banking Committee hearing whether a nexus existed between energy derivatives trading and the collapse of Enron, he responded that ``he hadn't seen anything'' that would indicate that. Why are we rushing to regulate an emerging business when the collapse of Enron was likely caused by potentially illegal acts by executives and, furthermore, that the collapse of Enron did not cause a blip on the scope of derivatives trading? I know this is something everybody uses on a daily basis. In the example I gave a week ago, I cited some examples of things that might help to understand derivatives trading. I will not go into that again. I am kidding about this being something that everybody works with on a daily basis. In fact, we have been taking some classes in my office on how to spell ``derivatives.'' It isn't a common, ordinary thing, but it is a new market that we have looked at extensively, held hearings on, and have done work on in the past through the regular channels. Again, there was not a blip in that system when Enron went down. We recently passed the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. Most of us in the Senate worked on this legislation extensively. This legislation examined the regulation of energy derivatives. This legislation was debated at public hearings. It was negotiated. It was drafted over a significant period of time with full participation and input from members of the Clinton administration and the committees of jurisdiction. What emerged was the proper amount of regulatory oversight for the trading of energy derivatives. I also wish to comment on a letter sent to Senator Lott by Secretary of the Treasury O'Neill and Chairman Greenspan. In it they write: We urge Congress to defer action on Senator Feinstein's proposal until the appropriate committees of jurisdiction have a chance to hold hearings on the amendment and carefully vet the language through the normal committee processes. We know from history that hearings can make a difference on a bill, that working it through the committee process allows a lot more flexibility in actually working an issue and bringing it to light on the Senate floor, without some of the difficulties we have had on this particular amendment, which has been in the negotiation stage for about a week and a half. But the floor operation does not allow the kind of flexibility that could correct problems and lead to good legislation. Madam President, this is all we are asking. I haven't heard anyone say we should not examine the issue. However, we should address it through the normal legislative process so we could learn exactly the ramifications of the amendment. I don't believe anybody has come to the floor and given us a thorough accounting of what would happen to the energy trading markets, the swap markets, or the metal markets if this law were enacted tomorrow. We all want to solve the problems posed to us by Enron and the California energy crisis. But this amendment will not solve those problems. This amendment may add to those problems. Once again, I ask Members to oppose this amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to speak this morning. I will speak on a favorite topic of our area of the country, the packer concentration. It is a huge problem for our ranchers in keeping them from getting what they should be getting for raising the livestock for this country. So I rise to introduce a bill that amends the Packers and Stockyards Act to reform livestock formula price contracts. This bill aims to rid the livestock industry of pricing schemes which take advantage of hard-working ranchers. It requires contracts to contain a fixed base price and to be traded in open public markets. Currently, there are four packers that slaughter 80 percent of the cattle in the United States. They hold the supply of livestock captive in a number of ways. Captive supply is when packers either own livestock or contract to purchase livestock more than 2 weeks before slaughter. Packers use captive supply to ensure their slaughter lines have consistent inventory. I will not argue with that original goal, for that goal. Captive supply makes good business sense. All businesses want to maintain a steady supply of inputs to ensure their production and control costs. But packers go beyond good organization and business performance to market manipulation. I have been working on this problem for 5 years and, so far, all we have been able to do is prove that there is a packer concentration. With captive supply, packers can purposefully drive down the market price by refusing to buy in the open market. This deflates all livestock prices and limits the market access of producers who have not aligned with specific packers. Most of us have not signed a formula price contract to sell a load of livestock, but many of us have sold a house. To illustrate the seriousness of this problem, and make it a little easier to understand, let's explore how you would sell a house with a formula price contract in a market structured like the current livestock market. It is March, and you know you will be selling your home in July. As a wise seller, you want to have a buyer for your home before that time. Now, what if it turns out that the other people do not really buy homes from each other anymore, and what if, in fact, you found out there were only four main companies that handled over 80 percent of all of the real estate transactions? You would have no choice but to deal with one of those companies. Now, one of them would offer you a contract stating that you will receive $10,000 over the average price of what other similar homes are selling for in your area in July. Sounds like a good deal, doesn't it? To manage your risk and ensure a buyer, you have been practically forced to sign a contract that does not specify how much you will receive. It says you will receive $10,000 over the average price at that time. There should be a tingle of fear in the pit of your stomach and it will mature to full-fledged panic when you close the deal in July. This is why. The four real estate companies have been planning. They decide to pull away from the market so all the home selling in July that is not contracted to these four companies floods the market and the price for homes in your area drops $12,000. What have you done? By trying to manage your risk in a limited market, you sold your home for $2,000 less than what the average price should have been, if there would have been a normal open market such as we have in the housing market. Livestock producers face that same problem. Yesterday there were 91,906 head of cattle arriving at packing plants for slaughter. Forty- four percent of those were bought by a formula price marketing arrangement. Now you know what that means. Just like the housing example, the money that producers lose in formula price contracts adds up over a year. When totaled, captive supply costs producers an estimated average of $1 billion per year, according to a study done by an Oregon State University professor. I am sure you didn't notice when you went to the grocery store to buy your beef that the price was lower because it is not. The packer concentration controls the price at that end, too. Another Senator from Wyoming faced the same concentration of market power in the packing industry 80 years ago. A predecessor to the Senate that held the seat I hold now, Senator John B. Kendrick, said: [The packing industry] has been brought to such a high degree of concentration that it is dominated by a few men. The packers, so-called, stand between hundreds of thousands of producers on one hand and millions of consumers on the other. They have their fingers on the pulse of both the producing and consuming markets and are in such a position of strategic advantage they have unrestrained power to manipulate both markets to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of over 99 percent of the people of this country. Such power is too great, Mr. President, to repose in the hands of any men. This great power Senator Kendrick talked about resides in the hands of the packers once again. My bill does two things to change the situation. It requires that livestock producers have a fixed base price in their contracts. It also puts these contracts up for bid in the open market where they belong. Under this bill, livestock contracts must contain a fixed base price on the day the contract is signed. This prevents packers from manipulating the base price at the point of sale and time of sale. You may hear allegations that this bill ends quality driven production, but this bill does not prevent adjustments to the base price for quality grade or other factors that are outside of the packer control. It prevents packers from changing the base price based on factors that they do control. You also may hear that this bill ends traditional forward contracting. However, contracts that are based on the futures market are also exempted from the bill's requirements because the futures market is not controlled by the packers. My bill also limits the size of contracts to the equivalent of a load of livestock, meaning 40 cattle or 30 swine. It doesn't limit the number of contracts that can be offered by an individual. This key portion prevents small and medium-sized livestock producers from being shut out of deals that contain thousands of livestock per contract. In the past I have tried to get some transparency of reporting. The packer concentration has influenced the rules so they didn't have to report on the prices they are paying. You go into a market blind. We thought we had the problem solved, and they helped to influence a little 3/60 rule so if less than three packers or contracts were sold in a day, or if more than 60 percent of the market was by one of them, they didn't have to report. It virtually wiped out reporting in the sheep industry. We have some changes in that, but some changes for transparency need to be made. There are a number of benefits accompanying this bill. It effectively increases buyer competition without resorting to increasing buyer numbers through a messy packer breakup. It gives fair access to all producers to compete for contracts on a level playing field with big producers. This bill encourages public and electronic trading of great numbers of livestock, providing greater price transparency. That is where we are trying to go on all of this. Simply put, this bill makes packers and livestock producers bid against each other to win a contract--no more secret deals. We know the packers are engaging in secret deals. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record this advertisement I have collected.

Mr. ENZI. This ad was run on February 3, 2002, in the Sioux Falls, SD, newspaper, the Argus Leader, in response to an amendment banning packer ownership of livestock that we did on the farm bill recently. It was paid for by Smithfield Foods, Inc., a large hog producing and pork processing company. The advertisement claims that the company wants Senator Johnson to understand the true impact of his ill-conceived amendment. I also supported his amendment and was a cosponsor, and I voted for it along with 50 of my colleagues. The advertisement, as you can see, from the Argus Leader, states: If the Johnson amendment becomes law, Smithfield Foods will neither rebuild the Sioux Falls plant, or build a new plant in South Dakota, nor will we make any further investment in South Dakota, or for that matter in any other state whose public officials are hostile to our ongoing operations and our industry. If the packers are dealing fairly, why would they resort to scare tactics such as this? Does this mean my State will be blacklisted, too? Let me tell you what has happened in Wyoming. When we were doing this amendment, people who had contracts were being called, saying, you are going to lose 3 cents per pound on your beef if this goes through. They are buying all the beef. They are paying the prices, and they are setting them. Packer ownership of livestock is only a small portion of the packer captive supply problem. My bill would put an end to the rest of the packers' manipulative power. What they are referring to there takes care of 5 percent of the problem. It is the best we have been able to do against the packers. What I am proposing will only take care of another 35 percent of the problem. There is a long way to go. Eventually the consumer should get the best prices and the people taking the most risk ought to get a fair price. It is important to remember why we are doing this. All producers should have a fair chance to compete against each other in an honest opportunity to get the highest price for their product. Cattle grown on family ranches in Wyoming help to feed the entire United States. I value the small and medium-sized producers' ability to provide quality products for consumers. Big business may be more efficient, but it lacks the loyalty to a locale that our small producers have. We can see this in the advertisement I have just added to the Record. The packers are threatening to leave an area that has been economically dependent upon them for over 90 years. That isn't loyalty to a community. That is the behavior of a bully. In Wyoming, we must encourage our small producers to remain in business and compete. The loyalty to small communities that our small and medium-sized businesses have ensures they will continue to enrich our main streets. Some of my colleagues may be wondering why this bill is needed after we passed the amendment banning packer ownership of livestock. The ban on packer ownership of livestock would address one small portion of the captive supply problem--about 5 years--but it would not address the large number of contracts based on the formula prices that I explained using the housing market example. Formula contracts provide the packers with monopolistic power over the livestock market. I ask my colleagues to rid the livestock industry of pricing schemes which take advantage of hard-working ranchers and farmers. I mentioned that this amendment only affects 5 percent of the market. It is a very important 5 percent of the market. It is a very important start. I am hoping the people on the conference committee will make sure this provision remains in the bill and makes a start toward fairness in the livestock industry--fairness for the small producer versus the packing concentration. We need to end the secret deals and the unfair contracts. I ask my colleagues to give your constituents the opportunity to compete on a level playing field.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to speak this morning. I will speak on a favorite topic of our area of the country, the packer concentration. It is a huge problem for our ranchers in keeping them from getting what they should be getting for raising the livestock for this country. So I rise to introduce a bill that amends the Packers and Stockyards Act to reform livestock formula price contracts. This bill aims to rid the livestock industry of pricing schemes which take advantage of hard-working ranchers. It requires contracts to contain a fixed base price and to be traded in open public markets. Currently, there are four packers that slaughter 80 percent of the cattle in the United States. They hold the supply of livestock captive in a number of ways. Captive supply is when packers either own livestock or contract to purchase livestock more than 2 weeks before slaughter. Packers use captive supply to ensure their slaughter lines have consistent inventory. I will not argue with that original goal, for that goal. Captive supply makes good business sense. All businesses want to maintain a steady supply of inputs to ensure their production and control costs. But packers go beyond good organization and business performance to market manipulation. I have been working on this problem for 5 years and, so far, all we have been able to do is prove that there is a packer concentration. With captive supply, packers can purposefully drive down the market price by refusing to buy in the open market. This deflates all livestock prices and limits the market access of producers who have not aligned with specific packers. Most of us have not signed a formula price contract to sell a load of livestock, but many of us have sold a house. To illustrate the seriousness of this problem, and make it a little easier to understand, let's explore how you would sell a house with a formula price contract in a market structured like the current livestock market. It is March, and you know you will be selling your home in July. As a wise seller, you want to have a buyer for your home before that time. Now, what if it turns out that the other people do not really buy homes from each other anymore, and what if, in fact, you found out there were only four main companies that handled over 80 percent of all of the real estate transactions? You would have no choice but to deal with one of those companies. Now, one of them would offer you a contract stating that you will receive $10,000 over the average price of what other similar homes are selling for in your area in July. Sounds like a good deal, doesn't it? To manage your risk and ensure a buyer, you have been practically forced to sign a contract that does not specify how much you will receive. It says you will receive $10,000 over the average price at that time. There should be a tingle of fear in the pit of your stomach and it will mature to full-fledged panic when you close the deal in July. This is why. The four real estate companies have been planning. They decide to pull away from the market so all the home selling in July that is not contracted to these four companies floods the market and the price for homes in your area drops $12,000. What have you done? By trying to manage your risk in a limited market, you sold your home for $2,000 less than what the average price should have been, if there would have been a normal open market such as we have in the housing market. Livestock producers face that same problem. Yesterday there were 91,906 head of cattle arriving at packing plants for slaughter. Forty- four percent of those were bought by a formula price marketing arrangement. Now you know what that means. Just like the housing example, the money that producers lose in formula price contracts adds up over a year. When totaled, captive supply costs producers an estimated average of $1 billion per year, according to a study done by an Oregon State University professor. I am sure you didn't notice when you went to the grocery store to buy your beef that the price was lower because it is not. The packer concentration controls the price at that end, too. Another Senator from Wyoming faced the same concentration of market power in the packing industry 80 years ago. A predecessor to the Senate that held the seat I hold now, Senator John B. Kendrick, said: [The packing industry] has been brought to such a high degree of concentration that it is dominated by a few men. The packers, so-called, stand between hundreds of thousands of producers on one hand and millions of consumers on the other. They have their fingers on the pulse of both the producing and consuming markets and are in such a position of strategic advantage they have unrestrained power to manipulate both markets to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of over 99 percent of the people of this country. Such power is too great, Mr. President, to repose in the hands of any men. This great power Senator Kendrick talked about resides in the hands of the packers once again. My bill does two things to change the situation. It requires that livestock producers have a fixed base price in their contracts. It also puts these contracts up for bid in the open market where they belong. Under this bill, livestock contracts must contain a fixed base price on the day the contract is signed. This prevents packers from manipulating the base price at the point of sale and time of sale. You may hear allegations that this bill ends quality driven production, but this bill does not prevent adjustments to the base price for quality grade or other factors that are outside of the packer control. It prevents packers from changing the base price based on factors that they do control. You also may hear that this bill ends traditional forward contracting. However, contracts that are based on the futures market are also exempted from the bill's requirements because the futures market is not controlled by the packers. My bill also limits the size of contracts to the equivalent of a load of livestock, meaning 40 cattle or 30 swine. It doesn't limit the number of contracts that can be offered by an individual. This key portion prevents small and medium-sized livestock producers from being shut out of deals that contain thousands of livestock per contract. In the past I have tried to get some transparency of reporting. The packer concentration has influenced the rules so they didn't have to report on the prices they are paying. You go into a market blind. We thought we had the problem solved, and they helped to influence a little 3/60 rule so if less than three packers or contracts were sold in a day, or if more than 60 percent of the market was by one of them, they didn't have to report. It virtually wiped out reporting in the sheep industry. We have some changes in that, but some changes for transparency need to be made. There are a number of benefits accompanying this bill. It effectively increases buyer competition without resorting to increasing buyer numbers through a messy packer breakup. It gives fair access to all producers to compete for contracts on a level playing field with big producers. This bill encourages public and electronic trading of great numbers of livestock, providing greater price transparency. That is where we are trying to go on all of this. Simply put, this bill makes packers and livestock producers bid against each other to win a contract--no more secret deals. We know the packers are engaging in secret deals. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record this advertisement I have collected.

Mr. ENZI. This ad was run on February 3, 2002, in the Sioux Falls, SD, newspaper, the Argus Leader, in response to an amendment banning packer ownership of livestock that we did on the farm bill recently. It was paid for by Smithfield Foods, Inc., a large hog producing and pork processing company. The advertisement claims that the company wants Senator Johnson to understand the true impact of his ill-conceived amendment. I also supported his amendment and was a cosponsor, and I voted for it along with 50 of my colleagues. The advertisement, as you can see, from the Argus Leader, states: If the Johnson amendment becomes law, Smithfield Foods will neither rebuild the Sioux Falls plant, or build a new plant in South Dakota, nor will we make any further investment in South Dakota, or for that matter in any other state whose public officials are hostile to our ongoing operations and our industry. If the packers are dealing fairly, why would they resort to scare tactics such as this? Does this mean my State will be blacklisted, too? Let me tell you what has happened in Wyoming. When we were doing this amendment, people who had contracts were being called, saying, you are going to lose 3 cents per pound on your beef if this goes through. They are buying all the beef. They are paying the prices, and they are setting them. Packer ownership of livestock is only a small portion of the packer captive supply problem. My bill would put an end to the rest of the packers' manipulative power. What they are referring to there takes care of 5 percent of the problem. It is the best we have been able to do against the packers. What I am proposing will only take care of another 35 percent of the problem. There is a long way to go. Eventually the consumer should get the best prices and the people taking the most risk ought to get a fair price. It is important to remember why we are doing this. All producers should have a fair chance to compete against each other in an honest opportunity to get the highest price for their product. Cattle grown on family ranches in Wyoming help to feed the entire United States. I value the small and medium-sized producers' ability to provide quality products for consumers. Big business may be more efficient, but it lacks the loyalty to a locale that our small producers have. We can see this in the advertisement I have just added to the Record. The packers are threatening to leave an area that has been economically dependent upon them for over 90 years. That isn't loyalty to a community. That is the behavior of a bully. In Wyoming, we must encourage our small producers to remain in business and compete. The loyalty to small communities that our small and medium-sized businesses have ensures they will continue to enrich our main streets. Some of my colleagues may be wondering why this bill is needed after we passed the amendment banning packer ownership of livestock. The ban on packer ownership of livestock would address one small portion of the captive supply problem--about 5 years--but it would not address the large number of contracts based on the formula prices that I explained using the housing market example. Formula contracts provide the packers with monopolistic power over the livestock market. I ask my colleagues to rid the livestock industry of pricing schemes which take advantage of hard-working ranchers and farmers. I mentioned that this amendment only affects 5 percent of the market. It is a very important 5 percent of the market. It is a very important start. I am hoping the people on the conference committee will make sure this provision remains in the bill and makes a start toward fairness in the livestock industry--fairness for the small producer versus the packing concentration. We need to end the secret deals and the unfair contracts. I ask my colleagues to give your constituents the opportunity to compete on a level playing field.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I ask that Members step back and, if there is a problem, let's address it in a responsible manner through the normal process. Let's begin to hold hearings on energy trading, and after we have had time to evaluate what we have learned, we can look forward to a reasonable solution. This is too early and takes away the opportunity to sell off risk by some other companies. I ask for you to defeat the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise to address the issue of derivatives. The name itself would almost put people to sleep; the details of it are very complicated. It is a process that is done by major corporations, which is what brings it to our attention at the moment. Unfortunately, the proposition that is before us is an answer looking for a problem. It is not a solution to what has happened. Enron has raised many concerns regarding the state of our energy markets. However, as investigations into the collapse of the company are showing, the failure of Enron was likely due to unethical and possibly illegal accounting techniques used by executives at the company. We need to make one thing clear: The trading of energy derivatives had nothing to do with the collapse of Enron. In fact, Enron's trading platform was one of the most lucrative parts of the company. Enron is not an accounting problem; it is not a business problem. It is probably a fraud problem. During debate on the Commodities Futures and Modernization Act, we examined extensively the oversight and regulation of energy derivatives. It was done the right way. It was done with hearings, with committee markup, with floor debate. This has been brought directly to the floor. It has bypassed the other processes. What we concluded using the correct process was the proper amount of oversight for a new and emerging business. We did the debate on the Commodities Futures and Modernization Act, and we examined extensively the oversight and regulation of the energy derivatives--the way it is supposed to be done. What we concluded was the proper amount of oversight for a new and emerging business had been put into law. If we start to regulate an industry that is in its infancy, we run the risk of stifling competition and reducing the possibility of it reaching its full potential. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified last week before the Senate Banking Committee. I want to echo a few of his comments regarding the regulation of energy derivatives. Chairman Greenspan said it was crucially important that we allow those types of markets to evolve amongst professionals who are most capable of protecting themselves far better than either we, the Fed, CFTC, or the OCC could conceivably do. The important issue is that there is a significant downside if we regulate where we do not have to in this area. Because one of the major--and indeed the primary--areas for regulation and protection of the system is counter-party surveillance--that the individual private parties, looking at the economic events of the status of the people with whom they are doing business. . . . We've got to allow that system to work, because if we step in as government regulators, we will remove a considerable amount of the caution that is necessary to allow those markets to evolve. And while it may appear sensible to go in and regulate, all of our experience is that there is a significant downside when you do not allow counter-party surveillance to function in an appropriate manner. I think we are glazing the eyes over here, but essentially Mr. Greenspan said it is too early to do anything based on the act that we already did. Selling derivatives is a way for companies that can't afford risk to pass it on to companies that are willing. We have done that for a long time in the insurance business. This is another form of corporate insurance. There is no indication that trading of energy derivatives contributed in any way to the collapse of Enron. However, if, in fact, Members think we need to look at legislation in this area, we should examine it in a reasonable process--not by offering on the floor amendments to a newly enacted piece of legislation. I certainly appreciate and respect Members' attention to examining the energy markets, but we should take that through the committee process so Members have a chance to hear testimony and pose questions to experts in this area. It is a difficult area; it is a complicated area. Supporters of this amendment claim that Enron has such a large market share of this business that they were able to provide undue influence over the energy trading. To the contrary, during and after the collapse of Enron, there were no interruptions of trading. Other market participants stepped in and assumed volume. There were no price swings or collapses of the energy market. This is a perfect example of market forces working the way they were intended. The CFMA provided legal certainty for commercial parties not executed on futures exchanges--legal certainty, taking away some of the risk, selling some of the risk. This amendment could be interpreted to cover all transactions between commercial parties conducted either by e-mail or over the phone. The effect of this amendment would likely be decreased market liquidity because of increased legal and transactional uncertainties. Additionally, energy companies may be discouraged from using derivatives to hedge price risks. This could result in more price volatility in energy markets, which will hurt the very consumers the legislation seeks to help. This amendment would also require electronic trading exchanges to set aside capital, even if they do not participate in trading. For instance, the Intercontinental Exchange allows buyers and sellers of energy derivatives to exchange offers through an electronic program. This exchange is already regulated by the CFTC and gives the CFTC access to its trading screens. This amendment would require the Intercontinental Exchange to set aside capital, even though it only facilitates transactions and does not trade. This requirement could force ICE to cease operations--forcing buyers and sellers of energy derivatives into the over-the-counter market. This is why CFTC Chairman Newsome has said the CFTC does not require this new authority. Because of my concern for this issue, I recently wrote to the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission to get his views regarding this amendment. Mr. Pitt responded: The Securities and Exchange Commission believes this legislative change is premature at this time. I ask unanimous consent that this entire letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2002. I am particularly grateful to Senators Snowe, Jeffords, Frist and Gregg for their leadership on the extremely important policy matter of protecting individuals from genetic discrimination. This bill would effectively and fairly protect against genetic discrimination in health insurance and employment. The group of members assembled to introduce this bill is bipartisan. We all worked together in the past on a bill that dealt strictly with genetic discrimination in health insurance, and today are introducing a bill that includes a new title to also protect individuals from genetic discrimination in employment. During the last Congress, our bill dealing with health insurance discrimination passed the Senate three times. I hope this new bill just has to pass once before the President can sign it into law. As I have previously stated, I believe there is unanimous support for enacting legislation which prohibits discrimination in both health insurance and employment. The promise that genetic information holds for revolutionary advances in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases such as cancer, Parkinson's disease, heart disease and diabetes should not be hindered by fears about the discriminatory use of this information. As a result of a lot of hard work and a hearing held by Chairman Kennedy on February 13, 2002, we are able to introduce a bill today that reflects the cutting edge knowledge about genetic science and also reflects the current regulatory state with respect to medical records privacy. Both the original Snowe bill and the alternative Daschle bill were drafted years ago. The Human Genome has since been mapped. Comprehensive medical records privacy regulations, which will cover genetic information, have since been promulgated. And, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC, has since stated the need to expressly protect individuals from employment discrimination based on genetic information. In other words, this bill provides the most informed policy to meet the goal of protecting individuals from discrimination without denying the promise of genetic science. Here are just a few examples of how our bill has been improved. First, the definition of genetic information correctly reflects the science of genetics as the best minds know it today, not 4 years ago. Secondly, the medical records privacy regulation called for under the Kennedy-Kassebaum Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, HIPAA, is nearly final. The Kennedy-Kassebaum law clearly intended that genetic information be considered medical information, and, therefore, should be equally protected under the same privacy standards. The Snowe bill we're introducing today codifies that intent. The President has also called upon Congress to pass legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of genetic information that is fair, reasonable and consistent with existing discrimination statutes when it comes to protecting individuals against employment discrimination. Consistency is mandated to protect the rights of employees and employers alike. Consistency is mandated to protect the carefully designed process for enforcing and redressing employment civil rights legislation. Therefore, I believe that federal legislation prohibiting employment discrimination based on genetic information must not deviate from other employment discrimination laws, namely Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, with regard to enforcement and remedies. Furthermore, we cannot enact new employment discrimination legislation without examining its interaction with existing laws. We must be careful to avoid enacting legislation that places employers between a rock and a hard place. That is, in order to comply with one law, an employer violates another. For example, an employer should not be placed in the impossible position of violating genetic discrimination legislation by virtue of its requirement to comply with the ADA or Family and Medical Leave Act. Nor should employers be held to conflicting standards governing the disclosure of genetic information. Let me briefly address the issue of enforcement of employment discrimination claims on the basis of genetic information. Under Title VII and the ADA, Congress gave the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission the role of investigating and enforcing complaints of violations of these laws. Under both of these laws, a claimant must first file a complaint with the EEOC before being able to file a private suit in court. The EEOC plays a critical role in the compliance with and enforcement of employment nondiscrimination laws. The EEOC's mediation activities also serve to expedite resolution of employment cases and reduce the backlog of such cases in our courts. Federal legislation on genetic nondiscrimination that would allow a claimant to bypass the vital role that the EEOC plays undermines the efficacy of such legislation. Furthermore, what is the justification for allowing an individual claiming genetic discrimination to circumvent the complaint process that claimants of other basis of employment discrimination must follow? With regard to remedies for employment discrimination based on genetic information, federal legislation should not disregard the remedy structure of other employment discrimination laws. The Civil Rights Act of 1991, which applies to remedies available under Title VII and the ADA, places a cap on consequential and punitive damages that is progressive with the size of the employer. I cannot see the justification for allowing unlimited damages for employment discrimination based on genetic information. Why should someone claiming genetic discrimination, but who is asymptomatic, be able to recover greater damages than someone who is actually disabled in the present or who is a claimant of race discrimination? We must guard against enacting legislation that, in an effort to protect individuals who have been subjected to one type of discrimination, creates inequities for individuals who have been subjected to another type. Unfortunately, I read the alternative bill sponsored by Sen. Daschle to create just such an inequity. The issue of confidentiality of genetic information in the employment context in relation to existing privacy laws might seem very complex. However, I think that the issue is not as complex as we make it out to be. First and foremost, an employer should not be held to conflicting legal requirements regarding the confidentiality of such information. The HIPAA medical records privacy regulation I mentioned before governs the disclosure of all medical information, including genetic information, by health plans, health care clearinghouses and certain health care providers. Therefore, an employer who is acting in its capacity as a group health plan will be subject to the HIPAA privacy regulation. Federal legislation that prohibits discrimination in health insurance and employment on the basis of genetic information should not create confidentiality requirements for employers acting as group health plans that conflict with the privacy regulation. Again, Sen. Daschle's bill would create this kind of conflict. On a subject as important as the use and disclosure of genetic information, we must understand and build from existing federal laws and regulations. With this foundation and the benefit of today's understanding of genetic science, I look forward to passing legislation to prohibit discrimination in health insurance and employment of the basis of genetic information.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to designate the facility of the United states Postal Service located at 2829 Commercial Way, Rock Springs, WY, as the ``Teno Roncalio Post Office Building.'' I am joined by my distinguished colleague from Wyoming, Senator Thomas in the introduction of this bill. Mr. Roncalio has served the great State of Wyoming and this Nation with honor and integrity throughout his public and private career. The Wyoming native was Wyoming's first five-term Representative to the U.S. House of Representatives during the 1960s and 1970s, and served as a delegate to four democratic National Conventions. He was also selected to serve for two years as a national Democratic committeeman. Mr. Roncalio was named to the U.S. Army Officer Candidates Hall of Fame after having served in World War II and participating in beachhead invasions in Sicily and Normandy. Mr. Roncalio also received the Silver Star for gallantry in action for his service in North Africa, Italy, France, Central Europe, and Germany. Mr. Roncalio and I have worked on some projects together, and just the friendships he has made over the years almost guarantees success. On several occasions, I have been pleased with his willingness to share his opinions with me based on his vast experience, common sense, and desire to see the ``right thing'' done. He has been a model and mentor to many. Mr. Roncalio has committed his lifetime to public service, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to support naming the Federal post office building in Rock springs, WY after Mr. Teno Roncalio in recognition of his long, distinguished career in Wyoming and national politics.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to designate the facility of the United states Postal Service located at 2829 Commercial Way, Rock Springs, WY, as the ``Teno Roncalio Post Office Building.'' I am joined by my distinguished colleague from Wyoming, Senator Thomas in the introduction of this bill. Mr. Roncalio has served the great State of Wyoming and this Nation with honor and integrity throughout his public and private career. The Wyoming native was Wyoming's first five-term Representative to the U.S. House of Representatives during the 1960s and 1970s, and served as a delegate to four democratic National Conventions. He was also selected to serve for two years as a national Democratic committeeman. Mr. Roncalio was named to the U.S. Army Officer Candidates Hall of Fame after having served in World War II and participating in beachhead invasions in Sicily and Normandy. Mr. Roncalio also received the Silver Star for gallantry in action for his service in North Africa, Italy, France, Central Europe, and Germany. Mr. Roncalio and I have worked on some projects together, and just the friendships he has made over the years almost guarantees success. On several occasions, I have been pleased with his willingness to share his opinions with me based on his vast experience, common sense, and desire to see the ``right thing'' done. He has been a model and mentor to many. Mr. Roncalio has committed his lifetime to public service, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to support naming the Federal post office building in Rock springs, WY after Mr. Teno Roncalio in recognition of his long, distinguished career in Wyoming and national politics.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr President, I rise to speak in support of the President Bush's Clear Skies proposal that he announced earlier today. The president's proposal is a plan that would use our nation's greatest resource, the ingenuity of our private industries, to ensure our children and grand children can inherit, not just a healthy environment, but a healthy economy as well. The President has made this possible by giving industries a clear target to reduce emissions but will allow them to find the means and the method to reach those targets without following the traditional command and control environmental policies that have proven to be such a big failure in the past. The goals are not going to be easy to reach. His proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 18 percent over the next ten years is going to require Industry stretch if it is going to measure up to the President's yardstick. But the goals are attainable, and, more importantly can be reached without bankrupting rural communities that rely on energy development, or by hurting those people who will suffer most by rising energy prices--people like seniors or low income families who could be forced to chose between paying their heating bills or buying food. I also want to applaud the President for his willingness to reach out to developing nations to help work with them in developing a truly global effort to address global warming. I have had the privilege of representing the United Senate at a number of Global Warming Conferences, starting with Kyoto, Buenos Aires, Seattle and more recently at the Hague. Those meetings provided me an opportunity to meet with global warming experts and representatives from other nations to discuss the role of the U.S. Senate in ratifying any treaty signed as a result of the United Nations negotiations. Based on a 1997 Byrd-Hagel resolution, that passed the Senate on a final vote of 95 to 0, my message at each conference has included two important mandates that the Senate feels must be present in any global agreement affecting the United States. First, developing countries currently excluded from the framework protocol must be included in any final agreement; and second, the agreement could not result in serious harm to the United States' economy. This is an issue that I have also been privileged to work on in my new capacity as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where last year we passed an amendment proposed by my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, to the Department of State Reauthorization Act that encouraged the President to do exactly what he has done today. The President's new proposal reengages the United States as major player in the international global warming debate, this time not as the country that will bank roll all of the programs, but as a leader that will show other nations the way to improve the environment without destroying the economy. Under the President's proposal, US companies will be able to invest in technologies to offset greenhouse gas emissions without fearing that they will not get credit for their innovations, or that they will have even greater or more difficult requirements imposed on them because of their voluntary effort. They will no longer have to worry that they will be penalized for having done the right thing. Once again, Mr. President, I applaud the President Bush for his proposal and for his vote of confidence in the people of the United States. American know-how and ingenuity has fueled the technological advances we are already using today to make steady improvements in air and water quality. The President hit the nail right on the head when he said that it is our strong economy that makes it possible for us to make those necessary technological advances.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank everybody who has been working with me on these two very important issues. One of them is an accounting issue. That is to do with an authorization to have some drought assistance for livestock. We have had a livestock assistance program. It has been kind of a last-minute, put-it-on-the-budget effort every year. But the amount of money that gets spent on it every year is a very consistent amount, a good amount. It calls for us to recognize that upfront, provide for it upfront, and give our ranchers some assurance that they are going to have some help. This morning we passed a very important measure, and that actually provides for last year's drought assistance for livestock payments. People have been through last year's drought. They know they were already heard. One of the fascinating things about this is, it doesn't pay them for their losses. It pays them so they can buy a little feed so they can keep their base stock alive until they can produce again and have a crop. I know that Wyoming's portion of that turns out to be about $15 million. That comes to about $8,000 per rancher, and $8,000 doesn't even buy much feed. But it will get some people through the winter. So I appreciate the concern of everybody and their willingness to accept it. Amendment No. 2846 Mr. President, the other amendment, of course, is a pet pilot project which will put lamb in Afghanistan and will solve a problem there. It is so small a project that it can be nonexistent. I know the Department of Agriculture will look at it, and I think it will be one of the things that will solve some problems for people who grow lambs in the West and will build up a herd in Afghanistan so they can be self- sufficient. It is the old story--and I have heard a variation--give a man a fish and feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and he will buy an ugly hat. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I will refrain from most of my debate until later. I will give a brief explanation of what the bill does. It is a pilot project to provide lamb to Afghanistan. Wyoming has the Air National Guard that has the capability of moving livestock from the United States to Afghanistan, and there are several other units in the United States. It provides the USDA, from among current funds, to purchase a pilot project in lamb and ship it by way of military transport to Afghanistan. We have heard the story, give a person a fish, it will feed them for a day; teach a person to fish, it will feed them for a lifetime. This is in that category. This is the opportunity to build up their herds. They do not have much refrigeration. They can use the herd, grow the herd, and the production from the herd can be used for food, and it can be butchered at the time they need it, so there is no refrigeration problem. We think it will solve a lot of problems. The amendment is wide open for how extensive the pilot project could be. It does call for a report in January of 2004 to explain whether it worked or did not work, whether it was implemented or not, and if it was not implemented, to explain why it was not implemented. The idea is very simple. We should ship live lamb to Afghanistan not only to assist the numerous tribes in rebuilding their flocks of sheep, but to provide immediate protein to their diets. My amendment would authorize the President to study the feasibility of sending live lamb to Afghanistan. My amendment requires the President to report to Congress on the feasibility of a pilot live lamb program. The report would include information on the cost and the logistics of the program. A favorable report could begin a series of shipments to Afghanistan, while an unfavorable report would lead us to re-evaluate how the program could succeed. Because this program only mandates a report, it is budget neutral. The continued need for food in Afghanistan is great. We are all well- acquainted with the unique problems facing food aid to Afghanistan. The country's northern terrain is mountainous. Few roads traverse the area. The number of roads is even smaller when you consider that food, typically grain, is hauled in large trucks. These trucks require passable roads. Lastly, we have to consider the high altitude of Afghanistan. Much like my own State, winter in Afghanistan shuts down passage on all mountain roads. The only option is to consider moving food aid through the gentler southern landscape. After a brief glance at the countries on Afghanistan's southern border, we know that we couldn't depend on them as ports of entry to ship food aid to Afghanistan. The idea to ship live lamb to Afghanistan originated when I was considering the great obstacles that prevented trucks from delivering food aid to the interior of Afghanistan. But, if we couldn't move the food, why couldn't the food move itself? Live lamb was the natural answer. Lamb has been a traditional part of the diet for the people of the region for many years and has no religious prohibitions. Once the lamb arrives at the edge or in the region, it can easily be distributed to the needy area on foot or by truck. Sheep are well known for their agility and ability to adapt to mountainous regions. Once the lambs are distributed, the families, themselves, can decide how and when to slaughter the lambs or even use the lambs to build up their family stock. Now here in America, most parents wouldn't be comfortable slaughtering a lamb in the back yard. Most families in Afghanistan don't receive their meat on a styrofoam platter in Saran wrap from the grocery store. They are very comfortable slaughtering their own livestock for sustenance in very traditional ways. In an effort to ensure this program would be handled correctly, I did give USAID, United States Agency for International Development, an opportunity to view an earlier version of the amendment that mandated the program. USAID raised a few concerns to the amendment. One concern is that lamb would not provide the same caloric value per dollar as grain. In response to this and other concerns, I scaled the amendment back to a study. I realize the importance of getting as many calories as possible across the ocean and to the Afghan people today, but my amendment looks ahead to the future. While we address the immediate needs of the Afghan people, we cannot ignore the fact that the people need long-term assistance. Mr. President, this is a simple idea with a great possibility of benefits for the Afghan people. Congress, and all Americans, are working to assist the Afghan people in the development of a stronger and long-lasting stable government. As we are all too aware, the people of Afghanistan have suffered over two decades of turmoil, nearly 4 years of drought, and the oppressive rule of the Taliban regime. Even before 2001, Afghanistan had the worst nutrition situation in the world and the highest maternal mortality rate. Nearly one-fifth of Afghans depend on humanitarian aid for survival. In the last year, the situation has gotten even worse. I am pleased that the United States has been a staunch supporter of the Afghan people and a large contributor of humanitarian aid. In fact, since 1979 the United States has contributed more than $1 billion in humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people. The United States has represented about two-thirds of the total contribution of the international community. I believe this amendment continues our history of providing aid where it is needed. The uniqueness of sending live lamb could open the doors for other areas of aid as well. My amendment does not require the program to be carried out, nor does it put additional burdens on the budget, it simply calls for a study. The study of a program that could have an impact on so many people should be supported. I know my colleagues are aware of the amounts of aid we are already sending to Afghanistan. I am aware that there remain some concerns about how we can send live lamb half-way around the world. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment in order to explore new strategies of providing a long-term aid to the people of Afghanistan. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the current amendment and I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of an amendment that would allocate $500 million in emergency spending for the Livestock Assistance Program. The Livestock Assistance Program, LAP, is an ad hoc program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, through the Farm Service Agency. It is available to livestock producers in counties that have been declared disaster areas by the President or Secretary of Agriculture. It provides financial relief to livestock producers that are experiencing livestock production loss due to drought and other disasters. Livestock producers in my State of Wyoming have been hard hit by drought and the drought outlook for this year isn't optimistic. Recently, Wyoming's State climatologist reported that a third year of drought is possible. After Wyoming's warmest summer in 107 years, a normal year would be a relief, but it wouldn't be enough. Unless rains of 125 to 175 percent of normal fall on my State, my ranchers will be facing a third year of drought. You may not know that in drought, producers usually suffer the loss of grazing sources. The Livestock Assistance Program commonly provides the means to buy supplemental feed for their livestock. Livestock usually require supplemental feeding in the winter. The program was not funded in fiscal year 2002 in either the emergency agriculture supplemental fiscal year 2002 or the Agricultural appropriations fiscal year 2002 bill. This program should be funded every year that disaster occurs. For 2001, the funding is long overdue. This is a situation where there is no light, just an endless tunnel. I believe this program funding is critical to the continuing viability of ranches in Wyoming. This amendment would provide short- term, immediate economic stimulus to Wyoming's agricultural population. The program is appropriate for this bill because it upholds the basic purpose of the Farm bill: to support American agriculture. This money will be spent immediately to support purchases of winter feed for livestock. In my own State, 2002 is shaping up to be the third year of continuous drought. In these conditions, the State's natural resources have been unable to recover. In order to conserve these resources, the State and Federal Government have evicted ranchers from State and Federal leased lands. Producers have been forced to find alternative grazing arrangements where pastureland is limited. Many producers grazed hay fields last summer and fall that had been slotted to provide winter feed. Virtually every indicator, precipitation, snow pack, and reservoir levels, show the drought may get worse. The Secretary of Agriculture designated counties in my State as drought disaster areas months ago, but my producers still haven't seen the assistance that should accompany that designation. This amendment provides assistance. I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Yes, a permanent program.

Mr. ENZI. Yes. Our hope is definitely that it becomes a part of the normal planning process, that it becomes a part of the appropriations through that mechanism rather than always coming in as an emergency, an emergency after the fact. It would be before the fact. So I appreciate the question and the attention that is being given to it to make it a full-fledged program.

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

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, at the present time, we are in the third year of a drought. We normally do not have it every year, although we may have a county or two that would have it--not the same county even-- but it is usually on a county-by-county basis. One county may have a drought this year; another county might have a drought next year. But at the moment, our entire State is having a drought, as is Montana. They have already gotten their designation. We have not gotten our full State designation yet, and it probably would not even be necessary because of some of the surrounding county designations that we pick up that same way. But ever since I got to the Senate, I have been concerned that we have come in with emergency proposals for things that happen on a very regular basis and what we know will happen. We do not know where it will happen, but we know it will happen. Wherever it happens in the United States, we ought to take it into consideration, plan for it, budget for it, and prepare for it before it happens so we can do what we said we would do.