[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 110 (Wednesday, September 4, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8149-S8150]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             DROUGHT RELIEF

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of an amendment 
which I have cosponsored which provides direct and immediate emergency 
aid to the nation's farmers and ranchers coping with a drought of 
devastating proportions. Mr. President, recently President Bush visited 
my home State of South Dakota at Mount Rushmore. He was met with great 
courtesy, respect, and hospitality which we always extend to Presidents 
of either political party. I was there, along with my wife, to greet 
the President at Mount Rushmore. We are proud of our State and always 
pleased to have an opportunity to show it off.
  There was a great deal that the President said in South Dakota on 
which I could agree. There are a number of areas of common ground on 
which we can work together as Americans.
  I have to say, however, that I was profoundly disappointed that the 
President chose at that time to express his opposition to emergency 
drought relief for farmers and ranchers in my State all across America. 
Some 40 States have been struck to some degree or another by this 
relentless drought.
  There are areas in my State in dire circumstances. We have lost 
almost $2 billion in the South Dakota economy over the course of this 
past year, and in our small State, that is an enormous hit. I have 
visited farmers and ranchers across my State who detail with great pain 
and emotion the problems they're being forced to cope with due to this 
drought.
  I recently was in Philip and Faith, SD. The pastures look like the 
surface of the Moon. There is no vegetation at all. I talked to Gary 
Vance, the owner of the Faith livestock auction barn who indicated to 
me that a year ago, over a 2-month period, they sold 1,200 cattle. Over 
2 months this summer they sold over 12,000 cattle as people continued 
to liquidate their herds, including breeding stock, simply having to 
get out of the business altogether. Corn cannot be cut for silage, 
soybeans are lying in the dust, and pastures are simply patches of dirt 
at this point. It is having a devastating impact.
  As the Senator from North Dakota indicated, I have always been 
supportive of emergency aid in circumstances where people have been 
struck by forces of nature, whether it is hurricanes in Florida or 
earthquakes in California. I do not begrudge providing money to New 
York and other places where we had floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes.
  I find it striking that some are arguing to set a new precedent 
whereby this one sector of the economy, the agricultural sector, is 
being asked to play by a different rule. Those suggesting this new 
precedent believe we can take money out of the existing farm program to 
deal with a natural disaster. The farm bill was never designed to 
address problems of natural disasters. By their very nature, droughts 
and floods are unpredictable. They occur some years; some years they do 
not. Some years, their scope is of one kind; others, another. I find it 
hard to believe the administration has taken this position while at the 
same time talking about an economic stimulus package.
  I can think of few things that could be more stimulating to the 
economy in our part of the country other than a drought bill to provide 
some relief to get these people through the winter. Right now, in too 
many instances livestock producers have no feed, they have no water. 
They are not going to make it through the winter. They are selling 
their herds off at a $250-a-head loss. These pastures are not going to 
recover, in some instances, for years. This is an enormous hit, and it 
is not just the farmers and ranchers, it is mainstream business. It is 
the entire fabric of the economy of South Dakota that is suffering 
mightily, as it is in so many other States.
  In the past, we have always dealt with this on an emergency basis. 
Presidents of both political parties, President Bush Sr., and this 
President, when he was Governor of Texas, asked for drought relief on 
an emergency basis in his State. So it seems hard to believe we find 
ourselves in this circumstance where the Senate passed drought relief 
for the 2001 year over 6 months ago that was defeated and pulled out of 
the farm bill by colleagues in the House. The White House expressed 
opposition to it. some 200 days ago.
  We attempted to put drought relief in the supplemental appropriations 
bill but again ran into resistance. Now we are looking at the 2003 
fiscal year beginning on October 1. Things are delayed already, I don't 
think we can afford to wait, we must enact emergency relief now. There 
are some who talk

[[Page S8150]]

about finding the money within the farm bill, within the LDP and the 
countercyclical payment money that will not be used. The Congressional 
Budget Office indicates to us there is no such fund, there is no such 
$5 billion lying around in the farm program waiting to be used, and we 
would not know what the scope of the funding for those programs would 
be until September of 2003 in any event.
  Frankly, we have producers who needed help months ago who have to 
make wrenching decisions right now relative to whether they are going 
to make it through the winter. They will have to liquidate everything 
they have in order to survive in too many instances. Too many young 
producers are being chased out of the business altogether. Those most 
vulnerable, those least capitalized, tend to be among the youngest. We 
are at risk of losing an entire generation of farmers, ranchers, school 
board members, and church leaders in rural America if something is not 
done to provide meaningful and immediate relief.
  There is great urgency to this, and I hope we can find the bipartisan 
support to pass the comprehensive drought relief bill in these comings 
days.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 
2800 to say that during the August break, when we all went home, what a 
pleasant experience it was to go home, except that some of what I saw 
during those days in August in Nebraska were not pleasant experiences. 
The message from our farmers and ranchers in Nebraska is that the 
drought is driving them out of their business and running them out of 
agriculture.
  As a part of my trip back to Nebraska, I hosted a Senate Agriculture 
Committee hearing in Grand Island, and I thought it might be important 
to report back what I heard from many of our farmers and ranchers in 
Nebraska.
  Al Davis, a rancher from Hyannis, NE, in the middle of the sand 
hills, told me his ranch has not had any measurable precipitation since 
July 6--a month and a half earlier.
  For 60 days, Art Duvall's farm in Ord had no measurable rainfall, and 
the McCook Daily Gazette, my hometown paper which I delivered as a 
young boy, reported that as of the date of the hearing, that area had 
had only 8 inches of rain this year and that there will be 35 days this 
summer with temperatures of 100 degrees or more, approaching the record 
set during the Dust Bowl years.
  I visited Randy Peters' farm, a farm that has been in the Peters 
family since 1921, where on many occasions as a young boy, with my 
father, I hunted pheasants. So I am familiar with the farm. Since 1921, 
they have had a crop every year--some good years, some bad years, but 
they had a crop. This year, there will be no crop. The corn will be 
left standing, not even good for silage, not having any value except 
maybe if we get any kind of snowfall this winter, maybe to catch a 
little snow and keep it for moisture for the future.
  When we had TV cameras to take a look at how bad the ears of corn 
were, we had to walk halfway through the field to find an ear of corn 
big enough to shuck so we could peel back the husks and have people 
take a look at the fact that there were no kernels of corn on that ear.
  I also heard during the hearing the details regarding the sale of 
livestock. As the Senator from South Dakota stated about selling off 
herds and recognizing that next year may not be any better, farmers may 
need to sort of hedge their bet a bit and get rid of their herds in 
case the high cost of hay--if it is available--will drive up the cost 
of production to the point where they lose more on every head of cattle 
that they sell rather than recouping any losses.
  Witnesses testified that much of the nonirrigated crop in large 
sections of the State would be a total loss this year, after 2 previous 
years that had been bad crop years in their own right. Witness after 
witness testified that they need the kind of assistance the Federal 
Government would not think twice about giving if Nebraska had been 
struck by a hurricane.
  As Merlyn Carlson, the director of agriculture for the State of 
Nebraska, said, agricultural producers, farmers, need two things: Rain 
and money.
  Well, we cannot do anything about the rain. Even if we could, the 
rain will come too late this year to protect against the problems that 
are currently being experienced. It will be great for next year but not 
for this year.
  At this point, I am sure some of our colleagues would bring up the 
subject of offsets. That certainly has been raised by the 
administration and by many of our colleagues. There are those who 
believe that any disaster relief should be funded only by cuts in 
future farm bill programs. I disagree. There is no reason to treat 
disaster relief differently for rural areas struck by drought than we 
would in other areas struck by another kind of natural disaster. 
Moreover, if we wait for offsets, we will delay relief.

  One thing I have learned during my short time in the Senate is that 
every program and every idea has a constituency, and if one Member of 
Congress attempts to defund a program for the benefit of another, there 
will be a fight. We cannot afford to waste time having a floor fight 
over offsets.
  Throughout the hearing, witnesses asked for relief without delay. At 
one point, I asked a panel, consisting of representatives of the 
National Corn Growers Association, the American Corn Growers 
Association, the Nebraska Wheat Board, the National Grain Sorghum 
Producers, and the Nebraska Corn Growers Association, if they favored a 
delay in relief if offsetting costs could be found. Without exception, 
they did not. They recognized that, in fact, if aid will be of any 
assistance, it must be delivered as soon as possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I urge our colleagues to move forward on this 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. How much time does Senator Kennedy have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes, 20 seconds.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy be recognized 
as in morning business for an additional 5 minutes and the minority 
also have an additional 5 minutes for morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.

                          ____________________