Floor Statement on Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment by my colleague from Rhode Island. While I understand his desire to address the problem of unemployment, I would suggest this is neither the time nor the place to do so.

First, I would remind my colleagues that this amendment would increase mandatory spending in an appropriation bill, and therefore is subject to a 60-vote point of order.

Second, let's remember what we've already done to address this issue. Last year, Congress voted to provide more than $11 billion in federally funded benefits, and we voted earlier this month to provide an additional $7 billion on top of that. That's a total of $18 billion in federally funded unemployment benefits.

Third, I would suggest this amendment is based on a faulty premise. On one hand, my colleague seems to suggest unemployment is worse than ever before. On the other hand, he suggests this amendment is no more than we've done before.
I would suggest he is mistaken on both counts.

The truth is this amendment represents the greatest expansion of Federal unemployment benefits in history, and it is being proposed at a time when unemployment is well below historical recession levels.

Let's be clear about what this amendment does. It would provide a minimum of 26 weeks of federally funded unemployment benefits and a maximum of 33 weeks—at an additional cost of more than $6 billion.

The last—and only time—Congress provided up to 33 weeks of unemployment benefits was back in 1992 when the unemployment rate reached nearly 8 percent. Today, the unemployment rate is 6 percent.

Moreover, every other time Congress has provided federally funded unemployment benefits, they have been linked to the duration of State benefits. This amendment would provide between 26 and 33 weeks of Federal benefits without regard to the duration of State benefits. This is an unprecedented expansion of the unemployment program.

It violates the insurance principles inherent in the unemployment program by breaking the link between the time someone has worked to the time that person can collect unemployment benefits. This amendment would allow someone who worked as few as 20 weeks to collect as much as 33 weeks of federally funded benefits. This is neither the right time, the right place,
nor the right way to change the unemployment program.

Unemployment has not risen to the historical level of previous recessions. Moreover, a uniform duration of benefits would violate every historical precedent.

I urge my colleagues to sustain the point of order and defeat this amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today we have the ability to address a problem that has been neglected for the last 18 months. For 18 months farmers have been waiting for 2001, and now 2002 disaster assistance, but partisanship kept us from providing rural America with relief. Today, we will provide the remedy.

Today the Senate has the opportunity to address the issue of significant loss in the agriculture community due to natural disasters. In Iowa we have experienced both drought and flood during the last 2 years. For instance, last year the eastern side of the State—counties such as Clayton, Delaware, Jackson, Clinton, and Scott—had a disaster in 2002 due to flood. In 2001, the southern two tiers of counties in Iowa experienced drought. Turning back to 2002 again, one of Iowa's best production years ever, we saw counties such as Harrison, Mills, Adams and Cass turn up bone dry during critical states of
the growing season.

Iowa had record yields in 2002, but we did not have uniformity in state-wide averages of precipitation or production and that has made the package we are debating today very important to many family farmers in my home State.

The agriculture assistance package I have worked on with Chairman COCHRAN and other Members provides $3.1 billion of assistance to areas and individuals with the greatest need. Our proposal will give assistance to farmers who live in "primary" designated disaster counties and to farmers who have had a 35 percent crop loss outside of those primary counties. We will be able to get checks to the farmers in the primary designated counties within 4 weeks after the President signs the bill. The farmers who can account for a 35 percent crop loss will need to go to their local FSA office and sign-up for assistance.

Our program also contains an additional $250 million for the Livestock Assistance Programs—LAP provides direct payments to eligible livestock producers who suffered grazing losses due to natural disaster—and offers a sense of the Senate that encourages the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide surplus dry milk supplies to pork producers to use as feed.

Some members of the Senate will try to make "political hay" out of this by opposing our proposal. They will say the need is greater than $3.1 billion and our assistance isn't focused, but the fact is the only way the House of Representatives and the White House are going to allow us to spend more on agriculture, after we have already spent over $180 billion on the other agriculture disaster we experienced last year, the 2002 farm bill, is if we "find" the money through offsets.

Those who choose to oppose this proposal will claim that their proposal was better for rural America, but what good is a proposal that can't pass? We tried it their way; I voted for emergency funding more than once, but the Senate leadership was unsuccessful in advancing any assistance to rural America. In fact, the last time I voted for emergency spending we couldn't even get it off the floor of the Senate. Doesn't it seem reasonable that we should actually vote on something that can actually pass? Isn't tangible assistance better than empty promises?

The assistance in our proposal will get to farmers months before the assistance in the Democratic alternative. Most farmers will get help within four weeks after the President signs the legislation, instead of waiting up to eight months under the alternative approach. Family farmers that carry significant debt, or those that have been forced to arrange "bridge loans" because of the problems with farm bill payments need the assistance now to reduce their debt, not eight months from now when the debt has had plenty of time to build due to interest.

Chairman STEVENS worked diligently to find an offset that would provide funds to address the current need. I appreciate the work of Chairman STEVENS and thank him for his assistance. I would also like to thank Chairman COCHRAN for working with me and other members to fit this proposal to the need in rural America. Without Chairman COCHRAN'S dedication to developing the best proposal possible for rural America we would not have such broad support.

Mr. President, family farmers need disaster assistance, not "pie in the sky" empty promises that can't make it past the House of Representatives or the White House. It was important to make sure farmers who need assistance receive help as quickly as possible, and we've done that. I encourage my colleagues to support family farmers and support the Cochran amendment.