Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I am pleased to respond, Madam President.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment that would permanently authorize the Livestock Assistance Program. The Livestock Assistance Program at the moment is an ad hoc program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through the Farm Service Agency. It is available to livestock producers in counties that have been declared disaster areas by the President or the Secretary of Agriculture. It provides financial relief to livestock producers that are experiencing livestock production loss due to drought and other disasters. My amendment permanently authorizes this program, thereby acknowledging that drought is a recurring situation, much like low market prices, which the rest of the farm bill addresses--usually in emergency situations for which we provide some funding in advance. The Livestock Assistance Program is one of those areas where we have not done that. We want to change it so that we recognize it and then budget for it and then later appropriate for this great need that recurs frequently in the United States. It is just good accounting when you know something is going to happen and then provide for it in advance instead of providing for it at the tail end. Let me tell you a little about the history of the Livestock Assistance Program. It began in 1999 as an ad hoc program to assist ranchers in drought-stricken areas buy feed. Until fiscal year 2002, it had been tacked onto yearly appropriations bills and funded. The outcry in my State was loud when the Livestock Assistance Program wasn't funded this year. We will be voting tomorrow on the emergency funding of the Livestock Assistance Program for fiscal year 2002. In years of drought, which seem to be every year in Wyoming lately, my ranchers depend on Livestock Assistance Program money to help pay for skyrocketing feed costs. They need to know they can depend on our assistance when they need it. This buys feed so they can keep the herd alive, which is kind of a humane thing to do. Livestock producers in my State of Wyoming have been hard hit by drought. In fact, some ranchers in my State tell about the grass in their pastures being destroyed as their cattle walk over it. There is not enough moisture to keep what grass there is rooted in the ground. 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. We need about 180 percent of our normal moisture to get to the average for the year. Unless rains of 125 to 175 percent of normal fall on my State, my ranchers will be facing a third year of drought. We are not talking about a lot of rain. Wyoming's average rainfall is only 18 inches a year. But we are not anywhere near that this year. People who are feeding cattle at this time of year during the cold weather are often finding that there isn't enough moisture in the ground. At this time of year the ground would normally be frozen, and it would be easy to get across the ground. When they dropped off the feed, the feed would still be on top of the ground and the cattle would be able to get at it. They have to move their feed every day just to get around. This last weekend I was at the stock show in Denver. It is a big national event. All of the ranchers come in for that during this time of year and hold a number of important meetings. When I left that meeting to go to Wyoming, I was in a duststorm. I was in a duststorm that was as bad as any blizzard we have in Wyoming. The visibility was extremely limited. You could only see taillights about 100 feet ahead of you because the dirt was blowing off the fields. The fields are dry. They haven't had enough moisture so it can freeze and thaw so the dirt doesn't blow away. The past years tell us that we will always fight drought. I still believe that the forward-looking solution is to provide livestock producers with livestock insurance. They have risks inherent in a business that depends on weather. Livestock producers don't have this tool. The USDA recently introduced pilot programs to explore this option, but until livestock insurance is available to manage risk, we should assist when risk becomes fact. The chart behind me displays how many states have drought problems. It is color coded. If the States are in blue, there isn't a drought problem at the moment. If the States are in red, the entire State has already been declared a disaster area. The ones in orange have been partly declared disaster areas, depending on the part of the State which submitted applications and were accepted as having the difficulty. The States in yellow have some counties that have emergency designations because of being contiguous to the other counties that have already been designated. You can see that almost the entire United States has this problem. For us to ignore it would be a tragedy. The Secretary of Agriculture designated counties in each of these States as drought disaster areas for 2001. You can see that the pattern is pretty widespread throughout the United States. If we don't pass this amendment, we are saying, yes, we have a program. It has been a great program. It has saved livestock from dying in the past. It saved people from having to sell off their herds. If we do not fund this program, if we do not put it on the books as a permanent program, if we do not show that it has some importance, then it is like a bad joke in our programs. Many of you may not realize that drought begins during the winter even when the snow is on the ground. It is born when the snowpack is too thin. It reaches its full size during the dry summers. And drought flexes its full strength in the fall when ranchers are searching for winter feed. My amendment authorizes this program so that we can consider the full impact of drought before it is too late. We are doing our country a disservice by waiting until the Agriculture appropriations bill is passed each year to garner support for assisting drought-stricken ranchers. I am not asking my colleagues to support risky ventures. The poorly managed ranches went out of business in the first year of drought. Besides, the money these ranchers receive isn't enough to save their places; it is enough to feed the cattle and sheep. I am asking my colleagues to adopt this amendment and assist dedicated livestock producers and their families who have persevered through hardship and continue to fight to stay in business. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Senator.

Mr. ENZI. Yes. My purpose is to move it from a last-minute measure to an authorized program so that it would go through the normal process and be a part of our normal planning.

Mr. ENZI. We have had the cattle industry in Wyoming since before Wyoming was a State. We have had some horrible losses before. The original losses were by people from other countries who were raising their cattle in Wyoming. They had enough money to get into business to begin with, and they had enough money to survive. We have now gotten more to the point where they are family businesses, family ranches. The reason this becomes an extreme problem is, for example, this is the third year of drought for us. The program is even set up so if you receive money in 1 year, you cannot receive money in the next year. That will create some problems. But the purpose of the program was not to pay for losses they had but to provide enough feed to keep them in business. With the cattle industry and the sheep industry, if you have breeding stock, and the weather gets really bad--really dry--and you know you are going to be in bad shape, and you sell off your breeding stock, you have just gone out of business. So mostly what this does is provide the feed supply for the breeding stock itself so that they can keep the herd going year after year. If it was only cattle they were raising on an annual basis, then they would just sell off that cattle. One of the happenings in the past in Wyoming--and in the surrounding States--is ranchers have had to go out of business, and they have had to find a way to get back in business at a later time. Of course, during a drought, the people who are buying cattle recognize there is a drought, so they are kind of fire-sale prices that people get. They do not get full compensation for their herd at that time. Part of that is because there are more cattle being sold off at that time than normal. When you have an oversupply, the price goes down. So we are trying to keep things together so there can be economic planning on the part of the ranchers as well as on the part of Government.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise to support the amendment that is offered by my colleague from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, a water lawyer. Yes, water is important enough in the West that there are people who make it an occupation. It is that complicated and it is that important. His amendment would strike section 215 of the farm bill and leave intact the current conservation programs that are administered by the Secretary of Agriculture. I commend the Senator from Idaho for his leadership in this matter and for the excellent foresight he shows in working to block the Federal Government when intervening into an area that is extremely critical to the survival of the Western United States. Now one has probably noticed how many Western Senators have come to this Chamber. That is because we have some unique problems with water. We want to make sure those fights we have been having for a long time are still fights between States, because we know that is a fair fight and a fight with the Federal Government is not. Mark Twain is the one who said in the West whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over. He was really right. The first principle that must be understood in dealing with water in the West is that availability of water has always been the West's limiting factor for development. If one looks at a map of the private and Federal lands in the West, one will see a fairly good description of the region's water sources and productive lands. Early settlers built their homes where they could get water to plant their crops and raise their livestock; at least as soon as they understood the West, they did. A lot of the homesteaders came from the East. One of my old friends, one of the first people I met when I moved to Gillette, WY, was a homesteader. He has since passed away, but I loved him telling me about his first selection of land. There were people who could be paid who would help pick the best land. But nobody who came West had much money. So rather than pay one of these people this bounty to help him select the good land, he picked good land Pennsylvania-style. He picked the hills because he did not want to be flooded out every year. After the first year, he gave up his first homestead and picked some good bottomland. Bottomland in Wyoming does not flood because we do not have that much water, and he learned that his first year. He tells about this piece of property on which he did finally homestead. He had to get water from a neighbor to drink. He had to haul the water by wagon 3 miles to get it to this place. We are talking some dry land. In fact, availability of water was so important to early settlers, when Wyoming ratified its State constitution in 1890, the State claimed State ownership of all water rights as part of the State constitution, and that was accepted as part of our Statehood. The Federal Government said: Wyoming, we will let you own your water. Later, when all the productive lands were settled, the bulk of the remaining lands were portioned out by the Federal Government mainly between the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. We also have a third category, and that is the national parks. The Bureau of Land Management and the national parks are administered by the Interior Department, and the forest lands are handled by the Department of Agriculture. There is a good reason for that. The national parks, of course, are very pristine. They are to be maintained in that condition, and I do not know of anybody who ever wants to change that. So those are not productive lands. The Bureau of Land Management lands are the lands that were left over from homesteading. That means those are the lands people found were too dry or too rocky or too steep to be usable. So those are not productive lands. Then, of course, there are the Forest Service lands. Those went under the Department of Agriculture because those were supposed to be productive. Those were usable lands, and usable for a number of activities. Besides the recreation we greatly enjoy today, there was grazing and timbering. When we created a new agency a little bit later then to develop the water resources on this public land, we had the Bureau of Reclamation to make sure there was enough water to use the vast resources found in places such as the State of Wyoming. The next principle that must be understood as to why it is so important to strike section 215 is because of the scarcity of water in the West. Western water law was built on a much different foundation than the current laws enforced in the East. We are amazed at the rain that happens out here. Washington, DC, occasionally gets more rain in a period of a few consecutive days than the State of Wyoming gets in an entire year. Almost all of Wyoming is considered desert, high desert, mountain desert. The desert definition is less than 15 inches of rainfall a year. Part of the reason we do not get much rainfall, of course, is the mountain ranges that this water comes over before it ever gets to us drop out a lot of the moisture. I remember being in Seattle and seeing T-shirts that said: ``Here you can take your goldfish for a walk,'' or ``Kids here do not get a suntan, they rust.'' After I saw some of the rain, I realized it was a little different place than Wyoming where we are more interior and have a little less rain. While a good portion of the country, particularly the East, is trying to figure out how to drain the water off, we are trying to figure out how to save every last drop. We have come up with some rather innovative ways of doing that. We are also in a drought, so water is even more important this year than it has been. This is the third year of a drought, though. There are some complications with the Federal Government when there is a continuing drought because we really only provide for--and can imagine--one year of drought. So if people are given advantages in one year of a drought, they are not eligible in the next year. I mentioned that we are going into the third year. There are lakes in Wyoming that have dried up. Nobody gets any water out of them anymore. The streams are much smaller than usual. Wyoming streams and rivers are different than in some of the other areas of the country. We call it a creek or a stream when it is about 2 feet to 20 feet wide. Anything over 20 feet is a river in Wyoming. We do not have much water. We are the headwaters of a lot of places, but when there is a drought every last drop is important. I want to explain a little bit about the water law. Although there are variations from State to State, basic eastern water law follows a doctrine known as riparian rights. Under this doctrine, landowners who border waterways are granted certain rights that allow them to use whatever amount of water they need for any reasonable use. Because riparian rights adhere to the ownership of the land, these rights do not need to be exercised to be kept alive. By simply obtaining a water use permit, much as someone would get a building permit, landowners can initiate a new water use at any time they want and in doing so can force other users to adjust to their needs. This is more or less the main water use principle that underlies the water law in 29 States. Western water law, on the other hand, is based on a doctrine of prior appropriation. Under State law, an individual owns the right to use water based on the time the water was first appropriated and used, and then that interest is only valid for the amount of water appropriated for that particular use. Let me give an example. Say that rancher one settles along Crazy Woman Creek at the foot of the Wyoming Big Horn Mountains. We have a lot of interesting creek names. He drew enough water in his first year to water 50 head of cattle and to irrigate two pastures. The next year his neighbor moved in and used enough water to irrigate his two pastures and to water his livestock. Now in this case, rancher one, settler one, would be able to claim a prior use and his neighbor would have to guarantee enough water remains in Crazy Woman Creek to ensure the first settler can irrigate his two pastures and water his 50 head of cattle before settler two gets any water. Furthermore, if in the following year the first settler decided to irrigate a third pasture in order to feed an additional 25 head of cattle, his second appropriation of water would have to follow the appropriated rights already established by settler two the year before. To add to this confusion, once a person puts water to a beneficial use, such as irrigating land or watering livestock, and complies with the statutory requirements, that water right remains valid only so long as it continues to be used. If a water right lays dormant for too long, the right is considered abandoned and is lost. All of those rights shift. Do not worry if the system sounds complicated. After more than 150 years of more and more water users and more and more beneficial uses, the ability to sort out the rights of Western water users is a science all its own. And I have not even thrown in the complication of Indian water rights which have a historic precedent and are the subject of a lot of water law. I will say, however, if you were to talk to any of the farmers and ranchers whose families first settled areas that still apply the prior use doctrine, you would quickly begin to grasp the fact that each one of them knows what their rights are under the law now, how much water they can use, how much water they will need, and how any disruption of the use system will decimate the ecosystem and the land's ability to sustain life. What does this have to do with the amendment? It has everything to do with the amendment. As soon as the Federal Government intervenes in the State water law system and acquires the water rights under section 215, that water right under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution would suddenly move to the front of the line for when that water right would be available for use. In other words, it would trump all other uses and put people selectively out of business. The land use and water balance that had been established over the past one and a half centuries would then be completely turned on its ear. The impact would immediately be felt by family farms and ranches that would lose productivity, jobs, homes, and wildlife. Migrating birds would lose their habitat. Don't let anyone kid you that ranches and farms are not habitat for wildlife. Private ranches and farms in the West are some of the most productive and vibrant wildlife habitat you will ever find. Every time we put a ranch out of business in Wyoming it turns into rich ranchettes, little 40-acre tracts. The people are so crowded together. Forty acres may seem to be a lot in the rest of the country, but for wildlife that is not a lot of room. It is not even a lot of room for people in our State. We would lose critical wildlife habitat. They would be overrun by people. In addition, many streams in the West are currently overallocated with junior and senior water rights. Individuals with junior water rights would lose complete access to water if the Federal Government held senior water rights. Water delivery schedules would be upset; some areas could get flooded while others would come up dry at critical times. And just in case you do not believe that Federal ownership of water rights would have such a devastating impact, I will point out again the travesty that occurred in Oregon and California's Klamath Basin. Farmers, whose rights to the water were established by Federal statute, had them taken away from them through a policy that the National Academy of Sciences reports was based on speculation. It was not based on science. It was not based on good policy. It was not based on practicality. I guess it was based on bad politics. As I said at the beginning of my statement, water is extremely important to the future of the West and to Wyoming. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by my colleague, the water attorney from Idaho, and to leave in place the conservation program as currently administered by the Secretary of Agriculture. If we were to implement section 215 as it now stands, it would have a devastating impact on all the downstream water users, and it would preempt the balance carefully established in State water law. It would do so to satisfy a policy that not even the National Academy of Sciences claims is supported with adequate science. I mentioned before there are fights between States. We just finished a 25-year fight with the State of Nebraska. It had to do with how much water we have to release from Wyoming into Nebraska. It is settled by a water compact that has a few intricacies that resulted in 25 years of legal battles. That particular compact would be upset, and most of the protection that is built in there is for migrating whooping cranes. Sometimes when we make an effort, we are not sure of the unintended consequences. Once again, I remind Members what Mark Twain said: In the West, whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over. We prefer to be fighting between States than fighting with an unfair Federal Government. Please help eliminate this unfair section. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Senate's inability to pass an economic stimulus package. I, like most of my colleagues, wanted to pass an economic stimulus package. We wanted to pass such a package not only at the end of last year, but at the beginning of this year in order to jump start our economy. Finally, the majority leader allowed us an opportunity to look at an economic stimulus bill. But it wasn't a bill that came out of the Senate Finance Committee nor was it the bipartisan/centrist proposal offered by my colleagues and which the President said he would support. Instead, it was a one-man show, put on the floor with no input from other Senators. As I said on the floor almost 2 weeks ago, the Daschle substitute amendment is much like a patient needing emergency treatment. Our only choice was to patch it up. So, for the last several days, we were performing emergency surgery-- one ``amendment bandage'' at a time. Some of my colleagues have since described the stimulus package or the economy as a patient on life support. While I am not a surgeon, I do take great pride in being the only accountant in the Senate. As a result, I think I have a good understanding of what is needed to help the economy. So, I had a few amendments to offer to fix up the substitute amendment offered by the majority leader, and to really help stimulate the economy. One of those amendments would have repealed the special occupational tax on alcohol. This is an unfair tax imposed on all businesses that manufacture, distribute or sell alcohol products. It is one of the most egregious taxes to affect small businesses. My amendment would have taken a regulation and tax off the books which the General Accounting Office has concluded cost too much to administer compared to the revenues it generates. That is a bad tax. And it is unfair, too. The same tax is paid by little businesses as large ones. Let me explain. Right now, four small family-owned bait shops which sell beer pay as much in taxes as the nation's largest single site brewery--a whopping $1,000. Repeal of this tax would have helped stimulate the economy. Last year, rebate checks put $300 in American citizens' back pockets, and most people went out and spent it-on much needed back-to-school clothes and supplies; toward that new computer; and to buy groceries. My amendment would have put $250 to $500 back in the hands of small ``Mom and Pop'' businesses around the country. In turn, those small businesses owners would have used that extra money to make more needed purchases or pay expenses. I also had a couple other amendments to offer. One would have put more money into the hands of charities, who in turn could buy needed supplies, including food, clothing, shelter, blankets, medicine, and hygiene and other products. When charities buy these things they are not only helping those in need, they are helping businesses and workers who manufacture or sell those products or services. In a small, but important way, this would also stimulate the economy. How would my amendment have done this? It would have allowed those contributing their IRA's to charities to not have to pay a tax on the distribution to the charity. In other words, the government won't be skimming money off the donation. As a result, charities would have had more money, and the donors would have had the pleasure of giving more and the feeling of helping their communities and our nation. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle had good amendments to offer too. The senior Senator from Montana and I had a drought relief amendment we could have used to help ranchers and farmers. I proudly endorsed our bipartisan amendment. Wyoming really needs the drought relief contained in that piece of legislation. The senior Senator from Texas had amendments to speed up the tax rate reductions and tax cuts implemented last year. Senator Bond had an amendment that passed the Senate 92 to 0 to allow an increase in small businesses expensing. This would have given vital assistance to small businesses across this country affected by the recession we are in. The Senator from Idaho had an amendment to make the death tax repeal permanent. Well, we do have a death right now to contend with, and it's a casualty that even Senator Kyl's death tax amendment can't help. As my colleague from Georgia explained, we are now having to pull the plug on an economic stimulus bill and will be attending a funeral on its demise. Why? Because this country could have largely benefitted from a reasonable economic stimulus package, which now will not be passed. Like my distinguished colleague Senator Miller said, we are all here giving our eulogies. Those eulogies extend to those many amendments truly meant to stimulate the economy. It is extremely disappointing we will not be able to help the unemployed, or our American workers and small businesses. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, today I rise in support of the amendment offered by Senator Harkin. This amendment puts ranchers with production contracts under the same umbrella of protections the Packers and Stockyards Act provides to other livestock producers. Producers with production contracts, excluding those that raise poultry, are not included in the Packers and Stockyards Act. They are not protected from unfair and deceptive practices as other livestock producers are. In a production contract, a producer provides the labor and materials to raise livestock owned by another individual, the contractor. Until recently, the contractor could be a packer or another person. On December 13, 2001, this body passed an amendment to the farm bill that prevents packers from owning, feeding, or controlling livestock more than 14 days before slaughter. This means that packers can no longer directly enter into production contracts because they would own the livestock more than 14 days before slaughter. However, the amendment we passed in December does not prevent other individuals from production contracting with producers. These producers with production contracts need the same protections other producers receive against unfair and deceptive practices. We should not be fooled into thinking that this ban of packer ownership we passed in December will completely shrink packer influence over the market. This bill must still go to conference and the ban will face incredible scrutiny. The ban will probably go the way many similar amendments have gone in the past. Amendments that reduce the choke hold of the packers have routinely disappeared in conference. It took years of work to get mandatory price reporting into law. However, we all know the packers are still withholding a fair amount of pricing information from producers. Many of you may be wondering why these producers need protection from their contractors. A production contract entails a large capital investment to feed, shelter, and care for the livestock that the producer does not own. Many producers have suffered through unfair treatment because their contract was too large to risk contending with the unfair practices. This great pressure from the contractor was also the reason the second part of the amendment was included. The second portion of the amendment guarantees that the producers have the right to discuss the contract with their business advisors, landlord, managers, family, and State and Federal agencies charged with protecting parties to the contract. In States where producers already have this right, the pressure and intimidation from contractors is so extreme producers forego sharing the contents of their contracts. They fear retribution. Other producers are given contracts with secrecy clauses that prevent them from discussing the contract terms with individuals that could help protect their interests. This amendment offers an overlooked group of livestock producers the same protections others in their industry already have. They would be protected from unfair and deceptive acts and given the right to discuss their contracts with certain individuals. I urge my colleagues to throw your support behind this amendment.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I rise to speak on the Bond-Collins amendment and give a little explanation of what has been submitted. I am sure most of the Members of this body will want to back an amendment that supports small business in the way that this particular amendment does. Senator Bond, of course, has worked extensively on it and is the ranking member on the Small Business Committee. Senator Collins has been involved in small business most of her life. I appreciate all the thought and effort that went into this amendment. It will provide an immediate economic stimulus and will provide a stimulus for small businesses in this country. The details of this are very limited to small business. However, it is an area that will help out immediately a wide range of businesses, and I will explain how that will happen. I appreciate this opportunity to talk about what our Nation and my State of Wyoming need in the way of an economic stimulus package. I will talk on a broader issue first and then get into the details of this particular amendment. While I have a degree in accounting, you don't need to be an accountant to know that something needs to be done to kick-start our economy. We ended Congress last year with a well- crafted economic stimulus bill that had bipartisan support, which the House passed, and the President said he would sign. In short, it was a bill worked out over several months of tough negotiations involving the administration and congressional Democrats and Republicans. It included unemployment compensation and health insurance for unemployed workers. It included tax relief for hard-working individuals and families, and it included much needed help for America's small businesses. I was disappointed about the majority leader's refusal to schedule the bipartisan bill for a vote before the recess. Today, rather than having an opportunity to vote on that bill, we are suddenly faced with a vote on a totally new bill. The bill we are currently debating did not go through the normal congressional process. Instead, it was filed quickly. It was filed with little input from our Senate colleagues on either side of the aisle, and it was brought to the floor for purposes of a vote. While we finally have an opportunity to vote on an economic stimulus bill, it is much like a patient needing emergency treatment. Our only choice is to patch it up. That is what we have been doing through an amendment process. When we work bills that do not come out of the congressional committee review, it takes longer. The reason it takes longer is because there has to be more consideration of amendments here that would normally be considered in a much easier process in committee. This is one of them. Today, we are arduously going through that process. I rise in favor of the Bond-Collins amendment which increases section 179 small business expensing. I support that because it is one of the many bandages that is needed to patch up the current proposal. If we are going to stimulate our economy, and I think we all want to do that, one of the main ways to do it is to help small businesses who are suffering from recession. If we can help them, we can create more jobs. Small business has been one of the successes of this country over the last decade. We have had a great economy. Throughout that time, though, there have been what I call the megamergers. The megamergers are when a big company merges with another big company to become a huge company. We find with the megamergers that shortly after that is done, there has been a downsizing, often referred to as a ``right sizing.'' If you are an employee who is affected by that, it means you get laid off. Fortunately, during this time of the megamergers, we have had small business. Notice the unemployment for almost a decade did not rise. It went down in spite of megamergers. What does that mean? It means small business was hiring up the people that were laid off from the megamergers. They picked up the slack in the economy. Through their innovation, drive, flexibility, their ability to react to the situations, they created the success we have had. Now, they are the part of the economy that can jump-start the economy, and this amendment is designed to jump-start that small business area. The Bond-Collins amendment contains a tax relief provision that is similar to the bipartisan House bill, which calls for an increase in Section 179 business expensing for small businesses. In short, it gives small businesses relief by increasing the amount of property a business can treat as an ordinary and necessary deductible business expense. Right now a business can deduct, or write off, up to $24,000 of the cost of business equipment or assets as an expense of doing business. This type of expensing allows businesses to take an immediate deduction, rather than treating their purchases as a capital expenditure. Let's see if I can put that a little bit more clearly. If you purchase something and it is in this capital expenditure category, that means that you are only able to count that as an expense in each of several years. You have to divide it over the period of years that the capital expenditure would be useful. If you buy a computer, and deduct is as a capital expenditure, you must write that off over 7 years. Now, computers get outdated much quicker than that, so you might be able to make an argument that it ought to be written off in a shorter period of time. But under this provision you could write it off as an expense in the initial year. You do not have to do all the division and all the complicated calculations that our depreciation system leads to. I have to tell you, the toughest thing in calculating taxes is if you have to figure depreciation. I know there are a lot of individuals as well as companies out there who understand that. We have changed the depreciation schedule so many times, we have changed the methods for doing depreciation so many times, that some people have to calculate depreciation on each item they have in several different ways. It is a big part of the Tax Code itself. It is very confusing. Probably one of the reasons a lot of people have to hire accountants to do their taxes is just to figure the depreciation section. For a small business, what Section 179 allows them to do is to count their purchased business asset as a normal business expense rather than trying to figure out which depreciation table applies and then making them apply that formula and keep track of what part has been written off and what part has not been written off for a period of years. I think you are getting the idea of how complicated this depreciation thing is. I want to tell you when you actually get to calculating it, it is a lot more complicated than what I have been talking about here. But if you can call it a business expense, that means you get to write it off in that initial year. You have the revenue that comes in and you get to subtract the expenses. That winds up with a net figure that you pay taxes on. So, if you get to write off more as an expense, rather than dragging it out over a period of years and trying to remember to calculate and recalculate all of this, then in this first year, you will have more revenue because you will have less taxes. That is why this becomes a very important jump-start to our economy. Right now, if you have $24,000 worth of those purchases, you can write them off. But if you go over that, you have to keep track of it and do all the calculations. So this amendment, the Bond-Collins amendment, would give immediate relief and is preferable to treating such purchases as capital expenditures where the business purchases must be deducted over a long period of time to reflect an asset's useful life. Even calculating useful life can be difficult. There are a whole set of principles set out in the Tax Code that help you to determine ``useful life,'' but the easy part is writing it off in the year you purchase it. Direct expensing allows small business to avoid the complexities of depreciation rules and the depreciation, so to speak, is immediate rather than over the life of the asset. The Bond-Collins amendment would increase the amount of small business expensing from $24,000 to $40,000 for 2 years. What does this mean? It means small business would have an additional $16,000 in business asset costs that they can deduct, above and beyond the $24,000 that they can currently deduct, and they can deduct that expense immediately. That doesn't all become a tax break. The only part that becomes a tax break is the remainder, the revenue less this expense. The remainder will be smaller and the remainder gets taxed. So there still is a tax implication to the whole thing. We are not talking about the $24,000 or the $40,000 increase as being a tax write-off. It is a tax deduction, so it is a reduction in revenue. It is a very difficult concept, but it will only reduce the $16,000 of additional expenditure; that would actually be a tax saving of whatever they are taxed on the $16,000. But it is an immediate encouragement for the companies to purchase things that they need, and they only get to write them off if they buy them. They don't get to write them off if it is history. They don't get to write them off if it is a thought in the future. They only get to write it off if they go out and buy the equipment now. It is not everything they buy because vehicles are excluded and computer software is excluded. Computers are allowed. I will go into some other examples of some things that could be written off. I also want to point out, though, that when small businesses go out and make this expenditure, this is an expenditure in the private sector. One of the things that the economic report shows is that an expenditure in the private sector revolves money purchases around about seven times. One business buys something, the business that sold it to them receives the money, the business that sold it to them turns it around and spends it at another company, who takes it and spends it at another company who spends it. I think you get the idea. The money revolves seven times. We can get expenditures, too, by having the government just run out and buy things. But here is a very important point: Private sector expenditures revolve seven times; government expenditures, twice. So that increase of $16,000 is considerably more effective in the private sector than it is if we are spending it on government projects. Keep that in mind. That is what this particular bill does. Farmers can deduct up to $40,000 of the cost of a much-needed piece of farm equipment, such as a hay baler. Ranchers have an additional tax deduction for the expense of their electric pump used to water their cattle. The local auto repair shop can deduct the cost of a much-needed welding machine or painting equipment. The local florist or dry cleaner can buy the computerized cash register it needs. The local barber shop maybe can deduct the cost of a new chair. It is a stimulus to get them to go make the purchases they need now, to make their business operate and be more competitive now. Some folks will try to argue that this applies to big corporations, and we are trying to make the rich even richer. Not so. Remember this amendment only applies to small business. In the past, section 179 applies only to those small businesses with annual asset purchases up to $200,000. The Bond-Collins amendment will simply increase that amount for 2 years to asset purchases of $325,000. As a result, section 179 will still apply to small businesses, but will allow those small businesses to buy even more equipment up front and have the small business expensing of that equipment apply immediately. If they buy more than $325,000 worth of equipment in a year, they do not qualify for this. If they buy $325,000, they are still limited to expensing only $40,000 of that amount. It is a small business proposition. There are a lot of companies that are at the $24,000 mark that will jump to the $40,000 mark because of this incentive. That extra $16,000 for thousands of companies across this country will cause other businesses to have a good year. They also will be stimulated to buy some extra equipment; and, it grows and grows. I support the Bond-Collins amendment because it gives small businesses more incentive to make investments in business assets or property immediately, causing an immediate, positive effect on our economy. With a business deduction of up to $40,000 and resulting increased purchases of business products from other businesses, many more businesses will have the money necessary to hire additional workers. In Wyoming, a $40,000 tax deduction can go a long way in providing wages for an additional or part-time worker. I should know. I owned a shoe store in Gillette, WY. Simply put, the less money I had to pay in taxes, the more money I had to invest in inventory, to maintain my building, and more importantly, to hire more people to take care of the customers. With additional small business expensing of $40,000, I could have bought that extra cash register I needed and with the tax money I saved, I could have hired an extra sales clerk to run it. I just spent a couple of weeks in Wyoming and walked down main street in places like Casper, Gillette, and Cheyenne, and smaller towns such as Sundance, Saratoga, and some that you have probably never heard of. Every business in Wyoming could use some relief. Many of these are small Mom and Pop businesses that don't want a ``hand-out,'' but could use a ``hand-up.'' The Bond-Collins amendment does just that. As a member of the Senate Small Business Committee and a small business owner for much of my life, I know we need the Bond-Collins amendment. Right now, the current economic stimulus bill we are discussing does not provide a small business expensing increase. Small businesses on Main Street America deserve more. Small businesses in this country have been the mainstay of our economy. In good and bad times, they have continued to stimulate our Nation's economy. We need to preserve this small business stimulus by providing this tax relief mechanism for small businesses. I think it is something that is appreciated across the aisle and across this building. I know on the other end of the building they have already passed this kind of stimulus. A small, short amendment like this doesn't appear to be much, but I think it will make a huge difference because things start in small business and they grow. We don't give them enough credit. But that is how it works. For these reasons, I support the Bond-Collins amendment covering small business expensing. I hope we can come together and resolve to pass an amendment that helps America's mainstay, the small businesses. I think this amendment will make a huge difference. It will make it immediately. It will grow in size more than is anticipated by anything else in the stimulus package. I hope my colleagues will take a careful and close look at this amendment, see the value of it, and join me in supporting it. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus, offering this amendment. I particularly appreciate it because it gives me an opportunity to recognize that this amendment will allocate $500 million in emergency spending for the Livestock Assistance Program. There was a lot of mention in this Chamber about things we have done in an emergency way for agriculture. The program that we have left out has been livestock assistance. The ranching folks of this country have been the ones who for years have said they really don't want the Federal Government helping them out. With the exception of the drought programs, that has been true. One of the difficulties is that they are not in line all the time for this money. Consequently, when they need it, we do not always insert it. The Livestock Assistance Program is an ad hoc program that is administered by the United States 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 the Secretary of Agriculture. It provides financial relief to livestock producers who 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. In fact, right now we are having the driest winter that any of them can remember. I was in a store and ran into an old friend of mine and asked him how things were going; and you could see the drought was at the top of his mind because that is what he brought up immediately. He did not say whether he was feeling well or his family was well. The drought was causing the problem. And it was a different problem. Usually at this time of year there is enough moisture in the ground and enough cold air in Wyoming that the ground freezes. It is pretty solid. When the ranchers go out to feed--and you have to feed when the ground is frozen solid--they usually can go to the spot where the cattle are and lay down the feed. This year, they have to go to a different place every day and move the herd because of the destruction they do to the land in raising the dust and covering the feed that has been put down because of how dry the ground is. It would not even freeze hard. So the outlook for next year is worse than last year. And the year before that was a bad year. There are some problems with the Livestock Assistance Program in getting any kind of continuing help. It actually anticipates you are only going to have a problem 1 year. We are about to go into our third year, and, of course, nobody got any payments for the second year because that never got put in anywhere last year, even though we were promised that somewhere this program, that has existed and needs to exist, would exist. It has not existed. You may not know that in the primary case of drought, producers usually suffer the loss of grazing sources. The Livestock Assistance Program commonly provides the means to buy supplemental feed for their livestock. Although Congress has made a full commitment to this program when it authorized it several years ago, the program was not funded in fiscal year 2002 in either the emergency agricultural supplemental or the agricultural appropriations fiscal year 2002 bill. I believe this program funding is critical to the continuing viability of ranches in Wyoming and the West. This amendment would provide short-term immediate economic stimulus to Wyoming's agricultural population. The program is appropriate for the economic stimulus package because it directly stimulates the agricultural sector. This money will be spent immediately in rural areas, and it will be spent to pay debt and to purchase winter feed for livestock-- primarily the latter. The U.S. Drought Monitor, presented by the United States Department of Agriculture, the National Drought Mitigation Center, and the Climate Prediction Center show that the entire Northwestern U.S. is experiencing extreme and severe drought. This is the second year of continuous drought for Wyoming's producers. In these conditions, the State's natural resources have been unable to recover. In order to conserve those resources, State and Federal Government have evicted ranchers from State and Federal leased land. Producers have been forced to find alternative grazing arrangements where pasture land is limited or sell off their herds. Many producers grazed hay fields last summer and fall that had been slotted to provide winter feed. Virtually every indicator-- precipitation, snow pack, reservoir levels--shows that the drought may get worse. In fiscal year 2001, that is the year before last, the Livestock Assistance Program was funded at approximately $430 million. In Wyoming, 933 producers received $7,752,029. That is an average of $8,000 per producer. You can see where that would just buy feed to get them by through the drought. Nationally, it provided assistance to about 186,000 producers at 88 percent of their grazing loss--that depends on how many people put in for this limited number of dollars--but at 88 percent of their grazing loss for the drought. And this year, again, the need is similar. We are looking at perhaps another year of it yet. Providing the program with $500 million for drought experienced in 2001 would ensure that producers receive assistance for 100 percent of the anticipated grazing losses due to the drought. Wyoming producers would receive approximately $9 million. Again that is about $9,000 per producer. The USDA has indicated that this level of funding would be sufficient for this year. Half of Wyoming's counties have been declared drought disaster areas for the second continuous year. The Secretary of Agriculture has already officially declared many counties as disaster areas in the livestock producing States of Montana, Idaho, Washington, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Iowa, Texas, Kentucky, and, of course, Wyoming. I ask my colleagues to take a long, hard look at the merits of this amendment. This amendment would provide the livestock producers with what everybody has been saying would be provided; that is, the opportunity to continue their operations and to stay in business for 1 more year. I ask my colleagues to support this bill and to pray for rain and snow in the West. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to put my full support behind the conference report for H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act. It has been a true honor to serve on the conference committee for this important legislation, especially as a freshman Member of the Senate. I would first thank the leaders of the conference for their hard work and determination to complete this legislation for the President's signature this year. Senators Kennedy and Gregg worked every day with great determination on this legislation without partisan rancor, and Chairman Boehner and Representative Miller showed the same determination and steadfastness. I am pleased that Congress has finally completed action on one of President Bush's top domestic priorities this year. President Bush and Secretary Paige deserve commendation for their commitment not only to this legislation, but also to the education of our Nation's children. Never before has a President shown such commitment to the issue of education. In March I addressed this body for the first time as a U.S. Senator on the topic of education. Little did I know the opportunity I would be given to be a member of the conference committee to reauthorize of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. At that time I stated the following: Our public schools are failing our children. And unless we address this problem now--today--we will bear the consequences for a generation or more. Let's not forget: today's students are tomorrow's leaders--in business, technology, engineering, government and every other field. If even the brightest of our young people can't compete in the classroom with their colleagues abroad in math and science, how will they be able to compete with them as adults in the world of business? How can we expect them to develop into the innovators America needs to maintain--and, yes, expand--her dominant role in the global marketplace? We need to make sure every single student in America graduates with the basic skills in communications, math, and information technology that are necessary to excel in the New Economy. As a nation, we simply cannot afford to accept the status quo. With the passage of this legislation I believe that our schools will improve. And if they fail, there will be consequences. This legislation states loud and clear that the status quo is not acceptable. Students will have the opportunities to be tomorrow's leaders by having access to technology and other advanced programs that are needed for continued excellence. Our disadvantaged children will be given the assistance they need, and deserve, to succeed in the global marketplace of the future. In that same speech I mentioned that my home State of Nevada faces many obstacles in obtaining title I funds for our eligible children. Title I dollars are the largest source of assistance that states receive from the Federal Government. The No Child Left Behind Act will be particularly beneficial to title I eligible students in my home State of Nevada by recognizing that families move around and children are often unaccounted for when Federal funds are dispensed from the Federal Government to States. The State of Nevada has been particularly hard hit in the past when the most recent and accurate ``kid counts'' were not available. It is our responsibility to ensure that title I dollars are properly and fairly sent to each State. My population update provision, that is an important part of this legislation, will ensure that this happens every year. As a member of the conference committee, I worked hard to ensure that this provision I offered as an amendment during the Senate's consideration of this legislation was included in the final bill. This amendment requires the Department of Commerce and the Department of Education to produce annually updated data on the number of title I eligible children in each state so that title I dollars can be accurately allocated to the States. The annual population update provision in this legislation states: The Secretary shall use annually updated data, for purposes of carrying out section 1124, on the number of children, aged 5 to 17, inclusive, from families below the poverty level for counties or local educational agencies published by the Department of Commerce. . . . To further clarify this language, the following statement is included in the conference report that accompanies this legislation: The Conferees strongly urge the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce to work collaboratively to produce annually updated data on the number of poor children as soon as possible, but not later than March 2003. The conferees believe it is imperative that the departments use annually updated data, as produced by the Department of Commerce, as provided for in the Conference agreement. The Conferees recognize that additional resources will likely be necessary to produce annually updated data and therefore expect the Departments of Commerce and Education to submit budget requests that reflect the efforts that will be necessary to carry out this new responsibility. It is imperative that the Secretary recognizes the vital importance of this provision to children not only in Nevada, but also in every other State in the Nation. After all, these funds represent the largest source of Federal funds to states and local school districts, and it is only fair that the funds are properly and fairly distributed. I look forward to working with both the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Commerce in implementing this provision. This conference agreement that is before us today also provides States and local school districts with an unprecedented level of flexibility. States and local school districts will finally be able to spend Federal education dollars in a manner that will best suit their unique needs. The Federal Government has long been too prescriptive as to how Federal funds could be spent. School districts will now have the freedom to provide additional funds to the children that need the most help. This flexibility will come with added responsibility, but it is a challenge that I believe all States and local school districts will be willing and, quite frankly, satisfied to accept. In giving these entities increased flexibility, we are requiring a higher level of accountability for student achievement. We do not want to create another layer of bureaucracy that tells schools precisely how to measure student achievement. We simply want to ensure that all students are performing at grade-level and that their school is doing what it is supposed to do: educate students. By annually testing students, parents, teachers, and the students themselves will finally know whether or not their school is doing its job. If a school is failing to properly educate children, we do not want to immediately punish that school. We understand that change is difficult, and some years are going to be worse than others. However, we do expect to see results. If a school is failing, the Federal Government will provide technical support to assist in improving student's test scores. However, the burden ultimately lies with each school to show improvement year to year. The Federal Government cannot simply stand by and watch some of our Nation's public schools fail to educate our children. Their futures are simply too important to waste. Parents, teachers, and administrators will also benefit from the passage of this landmark legislation. Parents will be provided with annual report cards on the performance of the school their child attends. If the school is failing, parents will be given a choice of where to send their child to school, including charter schools. If a school is chronically or persistently failing, a parent will be given federal funds for supplemental services for their child. This includes private tutoring services by any entity of the parent's choice. Teachers and administrators will be given more opportunities for extensive professional development. States and local school districts will be able to use the funds provided by this section of the bill in any number of ways that they believe will most benefit their teachers. Professional development should be held in higher esteem than it has in the past. For the first time, teachers will be able to enjoy comprehensive professional development opportunities that will truly enrich their knowledge and further improve their teaching skills. Teachers will also be given legal protections from frivolous lawsuits--a provision I have championed with several of my colleagues from the very beginning. A teacher can no longer be sued for something that he or she may do in the normal course of his or her daily duties. It is time that students and parents realize the real day-to-day responsibilities that teachers have and respect them to use their best judgment to properly remedy classroom mishaps. Above all else, the real winners in this legislation are the students themselves. We are finally providing the most needy students with the support they need to get an appropriate education. We are providing their teachers with the tools they need to teach these students. We are providing their administrators with the training they need to be the most effective leaders they can be for these students. We are providing them with access to technology, arts and music, and many other important educational opportunities to ensure that they leave our public education system as well-rounded students prepared for the challenges of the global economy. I am pleased with the final product that this conference committee has produced. I can truly say that the education system in this country is receiving a much-deserved and much-needed facelift because of this legislation. Nevadans should also applaud this legislation. Federal dollars will finally flow into the State at the rate they should and will finally be utilized in ways that will most benefit the greatest number of needy students. The education of our children is one of the most important issues that will come before Congress. I believe that Congress has accepted this responsibility wholeheartedly with the passage of this legislation. This legislation ensures that current and future generations receive the education they deserve to succeed in this great country. I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio for his comments both on education and Haiti. I think he is modest in character when he is talking about Haiti. He mentioned he is going there next month. He did not mention all of the years he and his family have been going there, and not just going there on vacation but going there to work with the poor. As those of us who have traveled to some other countries know, it is a different level of poor. It actually deserves and needs another word because it is so far below the poor we recognize that it kind of defies imagination unless a person has been there. I appreciate the effort that his family makes each and every year to go to Haiti and consequently to understand that Government a little bit better. It does tie in with education because as of September 11 our world got smaller. The United States and the students in the United States did not have the tendency to notice what was going on in the other countries as much as they do now, and that is a stronger part of the education now and a more understandable part by the kids in the United States.

Mr. ENZI. These are States that see the special emphasis in the bill and want to add their congratulations and hope for approval of the conference report. We are always encouraged that those who have that direct of a hand in education are showing support for work we have done. H.R. 1 strikes a good balance between making sure that Federal funds are well spent and maintaining appropriate State and local control of education. It significantly changes accountability standards with the goal of assuring that low-income and minority students, as well as other students, are learning. Yet it also prohibits national testing or Federal control over curriculum. While States will be required to administer the National Assessment of Educational Progress, known by the acronym NAEP, every other year in grades 4 and 8, there will be no rewards or sanctions associated with the results. The use of NAEP will simply be a tool for parents to evaluate the performance of their child's school against others in the Nation. Of course, we will also provide accountability for NAEP and we will watch to see if they can get the results out faster than in previous experience--as when I was in the Wyoming Legislature. It will give a measure, a comparison, for parents to rely on and to give them some direction with what their children are learning compared to the rest of the Nation. Some of the most important provisions in this bill concern our Nation's teachers. As we know, one of the greatest educational resources is our teachers. I say this not only because my daughter is a teacher but because research has found, with the exception of involved parents, no other factor affects a child's academic achievement more than having knowledgeable, skillful teachers. Every member knows that. Every Member knows teachers who have had a tremendous influence on lives, ones who challenged us or encouraged us or disciplined us. Right now, there are Hallmark ads on behalf of teachers, in a very special way conveying a message of thanks, something we need to do to teachers in the past who have influenced our lives and made a difference. By the time we are in the Senate, a lot of the teachers are to longer around to be able to get that thanks. It is an opportunity we should not pass up. There is a Hallmark ad I particularly like where the teacher is retiring, packing up his books. A lady comes to visit, a former student. She is surprised that he does recognize her and even remembers a paper she wrote. He says: I suppose you went on to be one of those corporate, well-paid lawyers. She says: No, I became a teacher, like you. We need to be thankful we have people who are willing to teach children, educate children, and spend the time with kids, to know them well enough, to help them understand what learning is. We have those kinds of dedicated teachers in the United States. This bill will help to ensure there continue to be those kinds of teachers. There were several places where contentious negotiations took place during the deliberations on this conference report, but one area that was not negotiable was ensuring our children have high-quality teachers, especially when it comes to reading and math. H.R. 1 contains unprecedented reforms that will help to ensure that all children are taught by a highly qualified teacher. Unlike more restrictive proposals that require States and local school districts to use Federal funds exclusively for the purpose of hiring new teachers, this legislation provides maximum flexibility to States. It will allow them to develop high-quality professional development programs, provide incentives to retain quality teachers, fund innovative teacher programs such as teacher testing, merit-based teacher performance systems, alternate routes of certification, or to hire additional teachers, if that is what they believe is necessary. Despite all of these efforts to improve teacher quality, there are some who say all we really need to do to improve student achievement is to hire more teachers. For small, rural States such as Wyoming, that is not the answer. While I certainly recognize our Nation is facing a teacher shortage in the coming years, Wyoming currently has a declining student enrollment, which is forcing some school districts to eliminate teaching positions. Moneys specifically earmarked for hiring new teachers will be of little help to schools in these areas with declining enrollment. In addition, rural States such as Wyoming often have difficulty recruiting and retaining teachers--especially highly qualified teachers. We do have quite a bit of success, once we get them to come to Wyoming, at retaining them. Of course, we recognize anybody who can make a living in Wyoming usually lives in Wyoming. We do appreciate those teachers who come and stay. In this bill, money earmarked for new teachers does not help Wyoming keep teachers from leaving. Congress must provide State and local school districts with flexibility to pay good teachers more money or provide other incentives in order to encourage them to continue teaching. It is because of issues such as these that I am particularly pleased this legislation paid special thanks to rural school districts. H.R. 1 provides rural districts with increased flexibility in funding to enhance academic achievement while helping to ensure that students in rural areas have equal access to educational opportunities. As many folks from Wyoming are aware, rural schools often receive too little money from Federal categorical formula grants to provide meaningful services to their students. By the time the formula is broken down for the size of the school, there is not enough money to do the program. In addition, they generally do not have personnel or resources necessary to secure Federal competitive grants which many schools use to augment and innovate beyond what is provided for in formula grant programs. The Rural Education Achievement Program, also known in this bill as rural flex, is included and addresses these problems by permitting rural schools to combine funding from a number of different formula grants. This allows rural schools to better serve their students by allowing them flexibility to determine where their money can do the most good. Eligible school districts can use funds for virtually any activity authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, including educational technology, professional development, technical assistance, and teacher recruitment and retention. The conference report also makes it clear that rural districts often face unique challenges in implementing restructuring actions that result from 5 consecutive years of failure, and they should be given flexibility as long they are held to the same accountability requirements as other districts. Distance does create challenges. In Wyoming, we have miles and miles of miles and miles. We have a population of 493,000 people, and our State has 400 miles on a side. The average town that I visit is about 250 people. It is a long way between those towns. For virtually every town, you can drive outside of it and you see the whole town at once. It is not one running into another, running into another, running into another. Even Cheyenne, WY, our largest city of a little over 52,000, can be seen in its entirety by driving outside the town and looking back at it, and it is a long way to be able to see the next town. In fact, usually you cannot see a next town. What happens if you give people flexibility with schools, if they can go to the public school of their choice but is too far to go to another school? We already have public choice in public schools. Usually our schools are not failing, so this provision would not pertain to those schools anyway. But this bill will allow those rural schools that have failed to make progress but may not have the resources necessary to hire a completely new staff of teachers or find a private contractor willing to take over the school's governance, to take advantage of additional options as long as they are equally rigorous and are likely to help the school improve its performance. Under the same provision, the Secretary of Education will be required to assist rural districts that request assistance in implementing alternative governance arrangements. I thank Senators Collins, Murray, and Bingaman for their hard work on this particular language. I am also pleased the conferees were willing to recognize that schools in rural areas and small towns often require additional assistance to implement an advanced technology curriculum. Due to the isolated nature of many small rural towns, technology can offer rural students academic opportunities that they otherwise would not have. Ensuring that rural students are technologically literate is vitally important to many communities in my State of Wyoming. I am pleased the conferees have demonstrated their commitment to improve academic performance in rural areas and have helped rural students participate in the highly competitive economy of the 21st century. Wyoming has been a pioneer in distance learning. We now have the capability, in many schools--no matter how small or how rural--to have classes the kids can take through a distance learning program to give them a wider variety of choice of classes. This bill will help to enhance that. This bill also preserves the integrity of Federal educational programs that impact Native American children. As a Senator from the State of Wyoming, which was the crossroads for many of the Indian tribes and is now the home of the Shoshone and the Arapahos, I believe it is critically important that the United States continue to fulfill the Federal Government's unique and continuing trust relationship with, and responsibility to, American Indian people for the education of Indian children. I am confident that the action of this conference committee has helped to ensure the programs that serve Indian children are of the highest quality and provide for not only the basic elementary and secondary educational needs but also the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of these children. I am also pleased we were able to make improvements in the Impact Aid Program. That affects many areas of our Nation that have military bases, Indian reservations, or other Federal property districts that limit the ability to generate funds to pay for education. Then the Federal Government steps in to provide for that revenue that was lost by having that Federal facility. I am pleased we were able to come up with a compromise that allows districts and schools that are most heavily impacted to be served first through the competitive construction grants that are authorized by this bill. It is my hope the changes made by this conference committee will emphasize the importance of making Impact Aid construction grants on the basis of greatest need and maximized effort so we can continue to fulfill the Federal Government's obligation to impact districts and the children who reside there. As a strong supporter of the Boy Scouts of America and an Eagle Scout, I am glad to report that the H.R. 1 conference report includes a provision that would deny funding to any public school or educational agency that discriminates against or denies equal access to any group affiliated with the Boy Scouts. Our children are our most valuable resource and we must prepare them to face the challenges of the 21st century. We cannot do this by allowing Washington politicians to implement a one-size-fits-all approach to education. The No Child Left Behind Act allows States to decide how to best serve their students and teachers. I strongly support this conference report. I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I thank the President for his leadership on this historic legislation. If it were not for his determination to craft bipartisan reform of our Nation's educational system, we would not have this bill before us today. I also thank Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy for their tireless efforts to craft the compromises that made this bill possible and brought it to us at this time. They and their hard-working staffs deserve a great deal of credit for this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, my main purpose today is to address the education bill, which conference report we are looking at now. I am a member of that conference committee which spent nearly 6 months considering this bill, and I am especially pleased to be talking about this landmark legislation. As many of my colleagues have and will mention, this bill provides the most comprehensive education reform since 1965. The Senate and the conference committee went into this to a different level than we have done for years, and I am happy to report it lives up to its name by achieving the simple yet powerful goal of ensuring that no child is left behind, a request we had from the President. I give particular thanks and congratulations to the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, who played a very forceful role in each step of the process with this bill and was a significant contributor to the negotiations, someone who directed the negotiations, was in the negotiations, and came up with some unique compromises that made this bill possible. Senator Gregg is a person who is intensely interested in education. Part of that is from his tour as Governor of New Hampshire, which has carried over into his Senate work. He is truly a person in education that has a very strong focus and a vision for what needs to be done. I also, of course, congratulate and thank Senator Kennedy for his intense effort on this bill and willingness to come up with a solution for America. Senator Collins of Maine needs to be mentioned particularly for her efforts and particularly her wordsmanship that resulted in some of the compromises, particularly that helped on a couple of our controversial rural issues. Senator Hutchinson of Arkansas spent a lot of hours and, of course, Senator Sessions of Alabama, with his intense interest in children with disabilities, and the vast number of school visits he has made to schools in Alabama over the last couple of years has brought some insight into the classroom that has been very helpful. There are a number of us who try to get into the classrooms when we go back home on a regular basis and see what the problems are and the successes to see if we cannot overcome the problems and share the successes. Does this bill contain everything? No. But it does contain the 80 percent we all agree on, and that is since September 11 the new way we have of doing business. We are going ahead with issues on a much faster and more dramatic scale than has happened in decades probably. We have had to do bills from scratch in less than a week. The normal process is to spend 2 or 3 years working different versions of a bill, having hearings, working compromises between Members, eventually getting it to a hearing in committee and then markup in committee, which is where the amendments are made, and then bringing it to the floor for debate. Our form of government is designed to have a very lengthy process, and it works. It has worked for centuries now, longer than any other existing government. But on September 11, we had to change our operation. We had to take care of some problems on a shorter term basis than we have ever had to handle before, and we did it. We were putting out about a bill a week on topics that had not been debated extensively in committee or on the floor. Are they perfect? No. Legislation seldom is. Do they do the job? Yes. Will they be revisited? Yes. Education is not one of those emergency terrorism bills. It is a bill that has been worked on continually by Congress. We even held the debate before September 11. We were involved in conference committee before September 11. However, the bill before the Senate contains the 80 percent on which we all agree. The other 20 percent we will continue to hash out over the months and years to come. We have completed the bill and done it successfully. The conference report reflects an agenda President Bush made clear during his first days in office when he invited lawmakers to his ranch in Crawford to discuss his No. 1 domestic priority, education reform. It emphasizes accountability, flexibility, and local control, funding for programs that work, and expanding parental control. It has student access to technology, it has high-quality teachers, and safe learning environments as a priority. In addition, this legislation fulfills an important commitment to States such as Wyoming that are already heavily investing in improving student achievement by allowing them the flexibility they need to continue to innovate. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Governors of a number of States. Additional Governors, of course, will join, but this includes Connecticut, Georgia, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin, and last, but only by virtue of the alphabet, Wyoming.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. It is difficult to envision a better qualified person for the Solicitor of Labor than Eugene Scalia. He is a nationally recognized expert in the field of employment and labor law. I sat through the hearings in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Some very penetrating questions were asked. Some excellent answers were given. A record was built. We know this is a man who will follow the direction that was given during his hearings and was intended by the nomination of the President of the United States, a person who is excellently qualified. In fact, there was no question of his qualifications. As Professor Cass Sunstein from the University of Chicago wrote in support of Mr. Scalia's nomination: In terms of sheer capacity to do a fine job, he's as good a choice as can be imagined. However, this exceptionally qualified nominee has not even been afforded a vote on his nomination. In the meantime, the absence of a Solicitor significantly harms the Department of Labor's operations as well as those who are protected by the Nation's labor laws. The Solicitor enforces the laws under the Department's jurisdiction and advises on the legality of the actions the Secretary and others at the Department want to take. Without this crucial position, the Department cannot effectively perform its important mission. I do not see any justifiable explanation for failing to bring the President's nominee for the Solicitor of Labor to the floor. He deserves a vote. What I do see is an attempt to hold up Mr. Scalia's nomination because he took a position consistent with a majority of both Houses of Congress. In previous articles, he had some opposition to ergonomics, and I am talking about the repealed ergonomics rule that was put forward by OSHA, a rule that was seriously flawed both in its process and in its substance. Congress rejected the ergonomics rule for the same reason Mr. Scalia and many other experts have articulated. There is simply no justification for now denying Mr. Scalia a vote because he is opposed to a rule this Senate also rejected. There is also simply no justification for opposing Mr. Scalia's confirmation because of his last name. I hope my colleagues will not allow any antipathy they have for Mr. Scalia's father to cloud this body's solemn responsibility regarding confirmation of Presidential nominees. The President has selected Eugene Scalia to be the Solicitor of Labor. Our task is to evaluate whether the President's choice is, in fact, qualified for the position. In Mr. Scalia, the President has chosen someone with the credentials and character to make an outstanding Solicitor. Mr. Scalia's nomination has been reported out of committee, yet he remains in limbo, as I mentioned, 231 days since his nomination, 2 months since he was successfully reported out of committee. Mr. Scalia's nomination should be brought to the floor of the Senate. Mr. Scalia is entitled to that. The President is entitled to that. The Secretary of Labor is entitled to that. Everyone who is served by the Department is entitled to that. I urge the majority leader and my colleagues to ensure this happens. I ask my colleagues to read the letter from the former Solicitors to see how important the position is and how important it is to have the President's choice installed in that position. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak about the nomination of Eugene Scalia as the Solicitor of Labor. On previous occasions, I have had the opportunity to speak about Mr. Scalia's outstanding qualifications for this position. Today, unfortunately, I must also speak about the failure of the majority party to bring his nomination to the floor. On April 30, 2001, President Bush nominated Eugene Scalia as the Solicitor of Labor. That was 231 days ago. On October 17 he was reported out of committee. That was 2 months ago today. A lot of time has elapsed since his nomination. Time has also elapsed since his successful reporting out of committee. This is a longer confirmation period than any Solicitor of Labor in the past 20 years. Each day that passes without a vote on his nomination is an injustice not only to Mr. Scalia but to the President, the Department of Labor, and all those who are served by the Department as well. I have with me today a letter to Senator Kennedy, who is the head of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. The letter adds emphasis to what I have just said, that this is the longest time in 20 years that it has taken for a Solicitor of the Department of Labor to be considered. It also talks about how important this position is and how important it is to have it filled right away.N O T I C E Effective January 1, 2002, the subscription price of the Congressional Record will be $422 per year or $211 for six months. Individual issues may be purchased for $5.00 per copy. The cost for the microfiche edition will remain $141 per year with single copies remaining $1.50 per issue. This price increase is necessary based upon the cost of printing and distribution. Michael F. DiMario, Public Printer Probably the most important and most interesting part of this is who signed it. We have Thomas Williamson, who was the Solicitor of Labor under President Clinton; we have Robert Davis, who was the Solicitor of Labor under President George H.W. Bush; we have George Salem, who was the Solicitor of Labor under President Reagan; and William Kilberg, who was the Solicitor of Labor under Presidents Nixon and Ford. I ask unanimous consent a copy of this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri. This amendment gives the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to review any proposed Federal agency action to determine whether the action is likely to have a ``significant adverse economic impact on or [could] jeopardize the personal safety of agricultural producers.'' Federal actions and regulations seriously impact the way the Wyoming agricultural producers operate. The regulations are proffered by agencies that do not often consider how their actions could harm small and medium sized agricultural operations. These are the operations that are facing the most risk in the marketplace. These are the operations that need more protection. This amendment is important because it forces accountability before the fact. The Secretary of Agriculture would have the option of consulting with the head of the agency proposing an action and could offer advice on how to make the action less onerous to producers. Agencies realize that their actions will be scrutinized for their impact on agriculture. Actions that could have a significant adverse economic impact on or jeopardize the personal safety of agricultural producers could be overturned or amended by the President. This amendment does not place the needs of agriculture above human health, safety or national security. It merely gives agricultural producers an advocate to represent their interests. I ask that my colleagues support this most important advocacy for agricultural producers and support this amendment.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Gregg amendment which is to phase out the sugar program. The goal of U.S. sugar policy is for our producers to provide a consistent supply of inexpensive sugar to consumers. We have met that goal. Sugar is an important part of almost every food product. The U.S. sugar policy has provided food manufacturers with an unwavering supply of sugar without cost fluctuations. All consumers have benefited from this steady supply. The U.S. sugar policy has allowed producers in Wyoming and other States to provide for the country's sugar needs without going out of business. The Senator from New Hampshire claims the U.S. would be better served if we purchased our sugar from the world market. I will not deny the prices for sugar on the world market are less expensive than the current U.S. sugar prices. It is important to note that the world market is a dump market. It is comprised of surplus sugar from subsidized countries. Countries such as Mexico supply the world market. Mexico now has an average overproduction of 631,000 pounds. Even though 250,000 pounds of that surplus production is accepted into our market under the NAFTA side level, the Mexican Government recently bought and paid the debts on almost half of the sugar refineries in Mexico. If that is not subsidization, I don't know what is. I met with the folks from the Mexican senate yesterday. They were in the United States to talk about sugar. I had to remind them of their overproduction, and if the world market opens up it will grow even greater. I had to talk to them about the NAFTA side letter so that our high fructose corn syrup can go to Mexico and eliminate some of the overage we have here. I know for a fact some of the people who served in this body at the time that NAFTA came up only voted for NAFTA on the basis of that side letter. That side letter is now not being recognized by the Mexican Government. They are creating a crisis in America, a crisis in Wyoming. The sugar beet growers in Wyoming are working desperately to make their product work, to make sure there is an even domestic supply. We shifted all of our energy supply overseas--not all, but a good deal of it. You can see the crisis that this is causing at the present time in this country. Should we do that to sugar too; get rid of our local producers and have those countries in the other parts of the world ban together to control the price of sugar and make us pay through the nose for sugar? I don't think that is a very good idea. Our sugar producers in Wyoming are coming up with alternate ways to make their production work better. One of the ways they are doing that is to buy the refineries. They are not asking the Federal Government to buy the refineries. They are buying the refineries. They are forming co-ops and putting their land up against the refinery. Why? They get a little bit of profit off of the sugar, off of the production of the sugar. They will get another little bit of profit off of the refining of the sugar. If they can put together enough of the different layers that are presently going to other people, they will be able to make a living from the sugar. Don't be fooled by the glut of sugar in the world market. The price may be low now, but I guarantee that will change. As soon as the U.S. accepts this amendment and begins buying from the world market, the price for sugar in that market will rise. We will be left at the mercy of the world market because our growers will no longer be in business. In Wyoming alone, the Main Streets of at least four rural communities would become ghost towns. They will no longer be able to meet the needs of our own country. While sugar beets remain the No. 1 cash crop in Wyoming, the price farmers receive for their sugar is at a 20-year low. That shows the dire situation all agricultural producers are in this year. The companies that refine the sugar beets into sugar in Wyoming can no longer afford to remain open. The farmers in my State and others have banded together to try to purchase the refineries. They are attempting and fighting to do everything they can to remain viable and competitive. These are not farmers waiting for the U.S. Government to bail them out; they are fighting for their own future. The Senate should defeat this amendment. We should continue to support sugar beet and sugarcane farmers just as we support all farmers who produce agricultural commodities in the United States. The sugar program portion of the total net outlays for all commodity programs from 1996 to 2001 was only .19 percent, a small cost to maintain a steady supply of sugar to our consumers and to provide for communities that rely on the sugar community. This becomes a domino effect. We talked about the problem with airlines and how people rely on airlines. If you are in a small community, one of the four small communities in Wyoming that rely on sugar beets, when the industry goes down, the whole economy goes--I don't care how well the airlines are flying. They are not asking for the United States to buy the sugar refineries as they have in Mexico. They are just asking for a fair chance at their economy and a little longer to develop these co-ops. I hope Members stick with us on the sugar amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wanted to share a very interesting story with my colleagues today. It is about a very special Distinguished Alumnus of the University of Wyoming who has compiled a remarkable record and reputation as one of our most dedicated and hardworking public servants. His 90 plus years of life--and still going strong!--are the perfect showcase of Wyoming's pioneer spirit and the patience and persistence with which the people of the West have always pursued their dreams. His name is Floyd Dominy, and he has carved quite a niche for himself in the history of Wyoming, the West and the United States. Floyd Dominy has always been a man with a dream, a unique vision of how things ought to be that has helped him to set goals and develop a plan to achieve them. He is also a man of his word, someone who saw a problem and knew how to use his unique talents and abilities to find the best solution to fix things. He has amassed quite a record of achievements and I am sure he is as proud of it as we are proud of him. He earned his fame and reputation and it's good to know he's enjoying life in the Shenandoah. It isn't Wyoming, but it's still a nice spot to relax and take a break to do some fishing and enjoy the beauty of some of God's finest handiwork. Floyd Dominy's story begins with his graduation from the University of Wyoming in 1932 and his arrival in Gillette to find a home and start work. He found a simple home and began his employment as a County Agent. As a matter of fact, his home was so simple, the owner didn't charge Mr. Dominy and his wife any rent because he couldn't believe anyone would want to live there. The ``fixer upper'' Mr. Dominy and his wife called home was without every convenience you could imagine, both modern and old fashioned--even for its time. As an Agriculture Extension Agent, one of his responsibilities was to buy cattle for the Government from ranchers who were devastated by the Great Depression. They used to trail cattle on foot back then and Floyd realized there were no places to water the cattle on the way. That is when he began working on his idea of constructing dams to hold the water to make it available where it was needed. He visited with then Wyoming U.S. Senator John O'Mahoney about his ideas and Senator O'Mahoney was able to obtain Federal emergency aid to help out the farmers of Wyoming. As a result, Wyoming's farmers got some much needed work and three hundred dams were built. Then came his service in World War II after which he joined the Bureau of Reclamation. His talents, abilities and ingenuity were soon noticed and it wasn't long before he had landed the top job at the Bureau. He served for quite a while as the Bureau of Reclamation's Commissioner, a job he held longer than anyone else. Remarkably, he served under four Presidents. Mr. Dominy's friends would probably call him ``90 something'' years young--because he is still living a full life and enjoying every day as he always has--with an independent streak a mile long and a yard wide. He lives the code of the West--he says what he means, and he means what he says. In an interview for an article, he was asked about his career and his philosophy about his line of work. He made it clear that he was never afraid to stand up for what he believed in and to stand up to whomever he had to so that things got done. Thanks to his determination, drive and dedication to making a difference, a lot of things got done. Floyd Dominy had much to look back on with a great deal of pride and the satisfaction that comes from a job well done. As the Commissioner of the Bureau or Reclamation during the Administrations of Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, he left a legacy of service in that office that will probably never again be matched. We owe him a debt of gratitude for his vision and his ability to make his dreams a reality. Thanks to him, we in the West had our access to water--one of God's greatest gifts and our most prized and precious resource--greatly enhanced.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today I join with Senators Gramm, Bunning, and Bennett in introducing legislation that provides a temporary public-private partnership for terrorism insurance in the wake of the September 11 attacks. This bill provides a joint partnership between insurance companies and the Federal Government for the next 3 years in cases of terrorist attacks. September 11 has proven to be the most expensive disaster to ever take place on American soil. With cost estimates ranging from $40 to $60 billion, the attacks have drained the capital reserves of some of the largest insurance companies in the world. In addition, as we know all too well, the risk for future attacks is very high. In the absence of this legislation, the insurance industry would be unable to pay the potentially extraordinary costs, and the Federal Government would likely be responsible for the entire costs. This is preemptive legislation. I believe this legislation strikes the right balance between what the responsibilities should be between the insurance industry and the Federal Government. In each of the first 2 years, the insurance industry is responsible for the first $10 billion of any attack. By placing a $10 billion initial retention for the insurance industry, we ensure that the Federal Government does not get involved unless it is absolutely necessary. After that, we agree the Federal Government should pay 90 percent of the remaining costs up to a $100 billion threshold. After the first 2 years, the Secretary of the Treasury will decide whether the industry is prepared to once again begin offering this type of coverage. If he believes they are not prepared, he may extend the program for 1 additional year. This legislation also includes special provisions for small businesses which might be affected by terrorist attacks. A small business that is located in a building that is destroyed requires different treatment than a global corporation. Whereas a large, multinational corporation has offices all over the world with different lines of revenue, a small business could be eliminated by a single incident that would likely destroy all their equipment, possibly kill personnel, and virtually make it impossible for the business to continue. This bill allows for small businesses to recover lost profits and receive funding for business interruptions due to an attack. I am sure that many of my colleagues have heard from their State insurance regulators the same as I have. My State insurance commissioner informs me that few, if any, of the new policies being submitted for next year's coverage offer terrorism insurance. With insurance being primarily regulated by the States, this has caused a backlog of filings from being approved and paperwork is quickly accumulating at the State level. We must act quickly to alleviate this backlog that will lead to uncertainty in the marketplace. The legislation also includes very targeted liability provisions. These provisions are extremely narrow and directed only at this specific program. Without these limitations, we would open the Federal Government's checkbook to every trial lawyer in America, and the American taxpayers would have unlimited liability. The trial lawyers were committed to not pursuing frivolous claims that resulted from September 11, and I certainly hope that they would continue their commitment if America is attacked again. In closing, I would only like to add that I believe the insurance industry should be commended for the way in which they've handled the September 11 crisis. Despite losing many employees in the bombing, they were one of the first groups at the front of the line offering their assistance and support for the victims. To my knowledge, not a single company has attempted to withhold payment from this disaster. They have been most cooperative in working through the myriad proposals that have been circulated and their support has expedited this process. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this legislation before we adjourn.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today I join with Senators Gramm, Bunning, and Bennett in introducing legislation that provides a temporary public-private partnership for terrorism insurance in the wake of the September 11 attacks. This bill provides a joint partnership between insurance companies and the Federal Government for the next 3 years in cases of terrorist attacks. September 11 has proven to be the most expensive disaster to ever take place on American soil. With cost estimates ranging from $40 to $60 billion, the attacks have drained the capital reserves of some of the largest insurance companies in the world. In addition, as we know all too well, the risk for future attacks is very high. In the absence of this legislation, the insurance industry would be unable to pay the potentially extraordinary costs, and the Federal Government would likely be responsible for the entire costs. This is preemptive legislation. I believe this legislation strikes the right balance between what the responsibilities should be between the insurance industry and the Federal Government. In each of the first 2 years, the insurance industry is responsible for the first $10 billion of any attack. By placing a $10 billion initial retention for the insurance industry, we ensure that the Federal Government does not get involved unless it is absolutely necessary. After that, we agree the Federal Government should pay 90 percent of the remaining costs up to a $100 billion threshold. After the first 2 years, the Secretary of the Treasury will decide whether the industry is prepared to once again begin offering this type of coverage. If he believes they are not prepared, he may extend the program for 1 additional year. This legislation also includes special provisions for small businesses which might be affected by terrorist attacks. A small business that is located in a building that is destroyed requires different treatment than a global corporation. Whereas a large, multinational corporation has offices all over the world with different lines of revenue, a small business could be eliminated by a single incident that would likely destroy all their equipment, possibly kill personnel, and virtually make it impossible for the business to continue. This bill allows for small businesses to recover lost profits and receive funding for business interruptions due to an attack. I am sure that many of my colleagues have heard from their State insurance regulators the same as I have. My State insurance commissioner informs me that few, if any, of the new policies being submitted for next year's coverage offer terrorism insurance. With insurance being primarily regulated by the States, this has caused a backlog of filings from being approved and paperwork is quickly accumulating at the State level. We must act quickly to alleviate this backlog that will lead to uncertainty in the marketplace. The legislation also includes very targeted liability provisions. These provisions are extremely narrow and directed only at this specific program. Without these limitations, we would open the Federal Government's checkbook to every trial lawyer in America, and the American taxpayers would have unlimited liability. The trial lawyers were committed to not pursuing frivolous claims that resulted from September 11, and I certainly hope that they would continue their commitment if America is attacked again. In closing, I would only like to add that I believe the insurance industry should be commended for the way in which they've handled the September 11 crisis. Despite losing many employees in the bombing, they were one of the first groups at the front of the line offering their assistance and support for the victims. To my knowledge, not a single company has attempted to withhold payment from this disaster. They have been most cooperative in working through the myriad proposals that have been circulated and their support has expedited this process. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this legislation before we adjourn.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Railroad Retirement and Survivor's Improvement Act of 2001. As a Senator from Wyoming, I represent a State that bears the undeniable mark of the railroads. Many of the towns across the southern corridor of my State were established on the sites of old railroad shanty towns. These shanty towns were constructed to house the workers that built the railroads. The railroad workers brought diversity to Wyoming. Many of my constituents with Chinese, Irish and Italian heritages call Wyoming home because their ancestors moved there with the railroad. The railroad is still an integral part of Wyoming today. It transports one of our greatest energy resources, low-sulfur coal, to States that lack our power supply. And today's railroad workers are still an important part of the Wyoming population. I support this bill because I support providing the survivors of railroad employees with the benefits they require to live out their days in my State and other States. I support this bill for another reason; it is a viable option to provide solvency to the railroad retirement fund and increase retirement benefits and while lowering employer taxes. These two results may sound mutually exclusive, but I assure you that they are not. The bill authorizes the newly created Railroad Retirement Trust Fund to invest the current Railroad Retirement Account in securities, including stocks and bonds. Even a conservative estimate places the rate of return on these investments as greater than the current rate of return in government accounts. This is the mechanism that allows retirement benefits to increase while taxes decrease. As an accountant, I refrained from sponsoring the bill until I reviewed the actuarial report. After examining the report, I determined that the Railroad Retirement Trust Fund would remain well-capitalized and able to pay benefits under this legislation far into the future. The actuarial report indicated that this would occur even during mediocre economic conditions. This bill would directly benefit Wyoming railroaders and their spouses by allowing 100 percent benefits for survivors of eligible retirees. It would lower the retirement age from 62 to 60 years for employees that have worked at least 30 years for the railroad. Some of my colleagues have asked why we should lower the railroad retirement age when the Social Security retirement age is increasing from 65 to 67. It is important to make a distinction between Tier I and Tier II benefits in this plan. Tier I benefits are comparable to Social Security benefits, and they do not start paying until the equivalent Social Security benefits are payed. Currently, that is at age 65. Tier II benefits, which are funded by taxes to the railroad employers and employees, pay the early retirement benefits for eligible workers. This is very similar to the ``bridge plan'' offered by private pension plans. This is important because railroading is a physically rigorous profession that ages a body prematurely and is still considered hazardous. This legislation includes an automatic tax trigger that initiates an increase or decrease of the employer's taxes if the trust fund's amount moves outside of preset barriers. The barriers would ensure that a cushion of 4 to 6 years' worth of benefits payable remain in the account. A number of my colleagues have been presenting graphs that show benefit levels falling and employer taxes increasing 20 years after the program is initiated. I do not dispute this. In fact, it shows the fund's ability to manage itself and respond to decreases in its cushion. As a Wyoming Senator and an accountant, I support the Railroad Retirement and Survivor's Improvement Act. I support it as a responsible way to manage the funds entrusted to us by the railroad workers. I support it as a way to fully care for the individuals that have contributed so much to our nation's infrastructure. I ask that my colleagues do the same and pass this bill.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I yield back the remainder of my time.