[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.
____________________