[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 113 (Tuesday, September 10, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8393-S8415]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2003
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of H.R. 5093, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 5093) making appropriations for the Department
of Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2003, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Byrd amendment No. 4472, in the nature of a substitute.
Byrd amendment No. 4480 (to amendment No. 4472), to provide
funds to repay accounts from which funds were borrowed for
emergency wildfire suppression.
Daschle modified amendment No. 4481 (to amendment No.
4480), to provide emergency disaster assistance to
agricultural producers.
Amendment No. 4481
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will now be 60 minutes remaining for debate on the Daschle amendment
numbered 4481.
The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to
follow Senator Burns.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
[[Page S8394]]
Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from Minnesota. Senator Byrd will be a
little bit late this morning. If the Senator would like to give his
statement now, that is perfectly OK with me. I think there will be more
speakers on our side. I am supporting the amendment. We will make those
points at a later time.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague and I thank the Senator from
Montana for all of his support, all of his leadership on this amendment
that deals with disaster assistance for rural America.
Colleagues, the Presiding Officer comes from a State where
agriculture is not the No. 1 industry. Thomas ``Tip'' O'Neill said all
politics is local. I add, all politics is personal. For me, this is
probably the biggest priority I have right now, to get help to people.
This amendment, which started with Senator Byrd providing assistance
for firefighters working on fires in our country, and some Members
said, let's do this all together.
I come from a State where we have had massive devastation, massive
losses from flooding. Others come from States where there is drought.
Others come from States where there are fires. And, of course, since I
have been in the Senate it has been hurricanes, tornados, you name it.
This provides much needed assistance to farmers, whether they be
wheatgrowers, soybeans, or livestock producers.
In our State, the estimates of the amount of loss of dollars is $300
million plus. The people with the best of crop insurance have lost 30
percent that they do not have covered. The independent producers cannot
make it.
This is what we have, a situation that is a perfect example of there
but the grace of God go I, or we are our brother's keeper or sister's
keeper. How true.
I have never, since I have been a Senator, voted against disaster
assistance for any part of the country. I know that when people are hit
by floods or drought or tornadoes or hurricanes or fire, it does not
have a thing to do with whether they work hard or do not work hard, are
good managers or not good managers. No one asks for this.
In the original farm bill, I think we had over $2 billion for
disaster assistance for 2001. It was taken out in conference. It was
opposed, I guess, by the administration and some of the leadership in
the House. We tried to bring this disaster relief bill up, we tried to
put it on the supplemental appropriations bill, without much luck.
I think the support has built for this legislation. We are going to
have a really strong vote, and, frankly, I am not really interested in
drawing the line, as in Democrats versus Republicans. I do not think
this has much to do with that. I wish the administration would be more
supportive, but I think the President will sign this bill. I know he
will. I think if we get a strong vote on the Senate side, the House
will support it. It is just impossible for any Senator or
Representative--it doesn't really matter about party--you just cannot
turn your back on people.
All these statistics, to me, translate in personal terms. The trips I
have taken to northwestern Minnesota have been among the most emotional
experiences I have had as a Senator. You can see the damage the floods
have caused.
FEMA can help with temporary housing, and FEMA can help if there is
damage of public infrastructure. FEMA helped us build a new school in
Ada, MN. That was so important. But when it comes to farm country,
really, if we do not provide the help, it is just not going to be
there. FEMA cannot deal with these kinds of crop losses.
It is just the absolute sense of discouragement, of just being
completely beaten down, of seeing your whole life's work disappear, of
just believing there is no future. Then there has been the delay, and
the delay, and I think a lot of farmers--and not just farmers, people
in northwest Minnesota--have just lost all hope.
I make this appeal to all my colleagues to please support this
legislation. The truth of the matter is, never in the 12 years I have
been here have we hesitated to provide disaster assistance moneys to
people. We never have hesitated--never--to take it out of general
revenue. We know we are going to have to do it. As I say, if it is the
farmers in northwest Minnesota now, it could be people on the coast in
Florida who need help tomorrow. God knows, people in Colorado need it.
Certainly in Colorado we have drought; South Dakota, North Dakota;
Kansas is faced with these struggles--it is all over the country. And
then it could be something else next year and the next year. We are
talking about natural disasters. This is long overdue.
As a Senator from Minnesota, I view this as the most important vote
we could have. I appeal to all my colleagues, regardless of the region
of the country you are from, regardless of whether you are faced with
any of these catastrophes. I again pledge, one more time--I see two
more colleagues here in the Chamber, so I am not going to take more
than another minute or two. Here is what I say to you, and it is an
absolute promise I will keep. If you, as a Senator from New Jersey, or
the Senator in the chair, any Senator ever comes to the floor and says,
my God, this is what has happened, there is this devastation, there is
no way people can build their economic lives without this disaster
relief--I know it is not in the State of Minnesota--will you, as a
Senator from Minnesota, support this? I will say yes, because we are a
national community and we help people. That is what it is about: We
help people. This is critically important.
I hope we will get a huge vote for this amendment. I make the plea to
all my colleagues, regardless of the State they are from, to please
support this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from
Kansas.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding.
Mr. President, before you saddle up to ride on a new trail, it is a
good thing to take a look at where you have been. You can avoid a lot
of trouble--a lot of ditches, a lot of box canyons--that way. The
problem is that in terms of yet another expensive disaster bill for
farmers and ranchers--sorely needed--we are indeed in a box canyon. It
appears we are going to have to pay quite a price to backtrack, to get
to a responsible and reasonable farm program policy to be of assistance
to our farmers.
We didn't have to go down this trail. I would like to read a quote by
the distinguished Senate majority leader. He is doing the best he can,
as he sees it, with the disaster bill. But the majority leader said in
regard to the new farm bill when it was passed in May, according to CQ
Monitor News:
What we are doing is putting certainty back in the bill.
And I would argue, we're going to be doing it at less cost to
the Federal Government during the course and life of this
bill than we did under Freedom to Farm because you are not
going to see these disastrous supplemental requests in the
future. We'd still like to get one for 2001, but in the
future you are not going to see them. It won't be necessary.
At the same time, we also had many say that the new farm bill was the
greatest farm bill ever passed.
Here we are, only 4 months out from the passage of the farm bill, and
farmers are lined up outside the Farm Service Agency offices in great
numbers, with all of the complexities of the bill, and already these
folks and a majority of the farm and commodity organizations are also
lined up, pushing for a disaster assistance package, a bill the
Congressional Budget Office now says will come close to $6 billion. It
is a bill that faces an uphill, if not impossible, battle in the House
and a possible Presidential veto.
How on Earth did we get here after passing the so-called greatest
farm bill ever? Because in my view the new farm bill is flawed. Simply
put, it provides no assistance to farmers when they need it the most.
That so-called and much talked about countercyclical safety net we
heard so much about--well, it was not a safety net. It is a hammock. It
has holes, and it is lying on parched acres suffering from drought.
We are in, as has been said and has also been covered in the press,
one of the worst droughts we have ever seen in many parts of the
Plains. Pastures are gone. Cattle herds have been liquidated. Combines
never left the shed
[[Page S8395]]
in parts of Kansas. Parts of our great State look like the desert areas
of the southwestern United States. I have bankers telling me they
cannot cash flow a single producer who does business at their bank.
In large part, these cash flow problems are the result of a farm bill
that provides no assistance to producers this crop-year when they do
not have a crop. When the farm bill was debated months ago, I said I
would vote against the bill because it would not have provided the so-
called countercyclical assistance to wheat producers in 9 of the last
20 years. Why would you support a farm bill that did not really provide
any assistance in about half of the time in the past 20 years, with
most of those years being in poor production years caused by droughts,
flooding, freeze, insects--the years when we need the assistance the
most, 9 out of 20? I did not think that was a very good deal.
For that I received some criticism on this floor. I was told it was
OK that the bill would not have paid out in 9 of those 20 years because
that meant that prices were high and producers would not need the
assistance.
Let the record show that yesterday in Dodge City, KS, the closing
price was $4.67 a bushel on wheat. That is a tremendous price as
compared to where it has been, so prices have come up. It is about
$2.91 a bushel for corn, $4.28 a bushel on sorghum, $5.61 a bushel on
soybeans--great prices. But, with these prices, my producers are barely
hanging on. Why? They have no crops to sell. Consequently, the few who
did sold early to meet these emergency obligations.
This August, I just finished a 105-county listening tour. I wish
those ``greatest farm bill ever'' proponents would have been there. My
farm meeting in Stockton, KS, America, started out with a farmer
telling me:
Pat, thanks for voting against that farm bill. I don't
think most of us can survive this first year under it. We
were counting, under the old bill, on a supplemental payment
called the AMTA payment, or at best the equivalent of that
payment.
It was a common statement all throughout Kansas.
The difference is that under that payment, the checks would have been
there now and it would have been 60 cents for wheat as opposed to a
very small direct payment of 6 cents a bushel for wheat. And the other
three components of the countercyclical payment don't work in times
such as this.
It is true that prices are high. But it is because drought has
reduced the supplies. In many instances, my producers had no crop to
harvest. And that is true in Montana, it is true in Wyoming, it is true
in Colorado, it is true in South Dakota, it is true in Nebraska, and it
is true in Oklahoma. But due to these high prices, they are not going
to receive any countercyclical payments. There is no loan deficiency
payment, and they have no crop to put under loan.
One of the criticisms of the farm bill was that it was too complex.
Farmers would get payments in maybe one in four mailboxes. If you
looked in one mailbox, no payment. If you looked in a second mailbox,
no payment. If you looked in a third mailbox, no payment. If you looked
in a fourth mailbox, maybe 6 cents a bushel.
That is one of the major flaws of this farm bill. It is why I pushed
an alternative farm bill approach. It is also why I proposed
implementing this bill or any new bill in 2003--the next cropyear to
give us enough time to work on it--and doing a budgeted $5.5 billion
supplemental AMTA payment plus livestock feed assistance for this
year--cash payments, income protection, not a countercyclical payment
less than what we are going to spend in regard to this disaster bill.
Instead, here we are doing a disaster bill again. Every even numbered
year there is disaster assistance proposed and disaster assistance to
implement. As long as this farm bill is our current policy, we are
probably going to be back here doing one each and every year.
This ride into a farm bill box canyon is expensive. It is full of
regulatory potholes, all sorts of snakes that come back and bite the
producer and truly counterproductive--not countercyclical. Two years
ago, we made significant reforms to the Crop Insurance Program. That
was the tool under the Kerrey-Roberts bill, or the Roberts-Kerrey bill
depending on which one you want to give the credit. If you like it, it
is the Roberts-Kerrey bill. If you do not like it, it is the Kerrey-
Roberts bill.
There are significant reforms. Coverage levels are up. Insured acres
are up. Indemnities paid to producers are substantial. We spent $1
billion to address the problems caused by multiple years of losses.
Many producers are telling me they are just beginning to realize the
benefits of this change.
You can insure up to the 85 percent coverage level. However, because
of the farm bill that was passed earlier this year, which took money
out of crop insurance, we are now doing a disaster assistance bill that
works to undermine the very reforms we passed in the year 2000. Again,
it didn't have to happen this way.
We proposed a farm bill that would have provided assistance in years
of both low prices and crop losses. The other side said: No thank you.
We proposed a supplemental AMTA package and livestock assistance that
would have been paid for in the budget. The checks would be out this
month. The other said: No thank you.
It took USDA 8 months to provide disaster payments several years ago.
They are hard hit today trying to work through all of the paperwork on
the new farm bill. I am not sure that will happen in regard to
immediate assistance. Here we are again, just like the farm bill. My
minority party was shut out of any committee consideration of that
bill. And due to the parliamentary situation in which this second-
degree amendment was submitted, we have no opportunity to offer
amendments to this package.
I had a proposal to allow producers to choose between 2001 and 2002
assistance. The other side didn't like that, though it was a better
deal for taxpayers. It brought the price down. And, after all, farmers
did receive the extra AMTA payment in 2001.
Was it perfect? No. But it was a halfway point between those wanting
assistance and some in this body who want nothing at all. It worked to
protect the Crop Insurance Program by requiring the purchase of crop
insurance in order to receive disaster assistance.
Why buy crop insurance if you are going to get disaster assistance
every year?
It tried to make proper use of taxpayer dollars by keeping this
spending in check. And it was popular with my Kansas producers on my
recent tour in the 105 counties of the great State of Kansas.
We will not have a chance to debate any alternative proposals today.
This package will probably pass. I am going to reluctantly--heels
dragging--support it. I have to support it. The situation is grim--
absolutely grim. It has been hotter out in Kansas. It has been drier
out in Kansas. But it has never been as hot and as dry at the same
time--even back in dirty thirties--as is the case as of today.
But let's be honest with ourselves and the American public. These
funds are coming straight from Social Security. It is the other side
that has increased the bidding war right at the start of this
appropriations process, and we are doing this plain and simple because
we have a new farm bill that is flawed and that has created a cash flow
vacuum in rural America.
There is no question that we need--that our farmers need--this
disaster assistance. The situation in farm country hit by drought--the
drought that caused increased market prices in other commodity regions,
not the farm bill--is recordbreaking. It is severe. By passing--
``force-feeding'' is the better term--this expensive emergency disaster
package, without any chance for amendment, what do we achieve? I will
tell you what we achieve. We achieve an issue. I hope the end result is
that we achieve a bill. Right now we have an issue. This bill will not
pass the House. It will not be signed by the President. It is going to
be a little tough for the farmer, it seems to me, to cashflow with
politics and an issue at the bank.
I hope when we pass this bill--this very expensive bill that is
headed for an uphill battle in the House and with the administration--
that we can reach some accommodation in conference.
Reluctantly, I will vote for the bill. I don't like the way it has
been brought up. I have gone over all of the reasons
[[Page S8396]]
why I think we should have done it another way.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to make another note about
this process being hijacked for the last year and a half. When we
started talking about drought and disaster relief and agriculture, the
number was much smaller. In the meantime, we did pass a farm bill that
I reluctantly supported. Of course, I was a party, with the Senator
from Kansas, in offering a substitute amendment that I think would have
been better for agriculture.
We have a circumstance at this time in this particular case where the
money was taken out of agriculture and a drought where you have no crop
for sale. We have a cashflow problem. In other words, we would like to
see our agricultural producers go to the insurance program--we think it
is much better than it was, say, 2 years ago--and to assume some
responsibility in risk management. That is not the case now because of
the drying up of funds over the last year and a half. The circumstances
have changed. Thus, we have the amendment on the floor that is before
us today.
I appreciate the work the Senator from Kansas has done in providing
real help instead of getting into a position where we fall to the whims
of politics. There are circumstances that arise that make this issue a
very contentious issue. I thank him for his work.
Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Nebraska.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nebraska is
recognized.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I thank my friend and
colleague from Montana, Senator Burns, for granting me some time this
morning to speak regarding this very important legislation to assist
our farmers and ranchers across our country with the disaster which
they have been experiencing--not only this year but in many cases for 2
or as many as 5 years.
I thank Senators Baucus and Burns for their tireless work to get
drought relief to the floor. I thank Senator Daschle for moving so
quickly to get this amendment to a vote.
I think going home over the August recess certainly gave many
Senators--and all of us from the States that have been hit by drought
even more reason to move on this bill. I am glad we are having this
vote today.
This drought is a disaster. It has been a disaster for agriculture
and a disaster for rural communities which depend so much on
agriculture. If this had been a hurricane or an earthquake, we would
have already responded. If we had found a way to call a drought by
name, such as ``Drought Andrew,'' or drought this or drought that, we
probably would have been able to have it crystallized so people could
see that it is the same kind of experience as you have with any other
natural disaster. It just takes a longer time in building. It doesn't
have necessarily a beginning point or an ending point, but it expands
over a broad period of time. We would have had an aid package within a
few weeks, and assistance would already be on the way, and the
communities that have felt the hurt and the pain would already be
feeling the positive effects from this kind of support. Here we are
responding to natural disasters, and I think it is important we do
that. We can remedy that by passing this amendment today, not waiting
any longer.
I also believe that my colleagues who are not from drought-stricken
States may not have the entire picture about how bad this has been. I
know I have been kept up to date on the devastation caused by the
drought--getting reports, getting information, seeing pictures--but
visiting the drought areas during the recess firsthand was certainly an
eye-opening experience.
Going to farms that have had crops--some good, some bad--every year
for 70 years and today, this year, to see there is no crop, for the
first time ever, is an eye-opening experience. To walk across a
cornfield and find only shriveled cobs that can barely be shucked and
having no kernels is an eye-opening experience.
This is not the result of poor planning or some unfortunate weather;
this is the result of a natural disaster that has crept upon the land,
had no mercy; and it has turned upside down the hopes and the work that
went into planting this spring.
Again, for much of my State, this is a no-yield year. I would like to
give some specific examples that I heard back home. A family farmer
near McCook, NE--my hometown--Dale Dueland, whom I have known from the
days that he crawled across his family's floor, said he would have a
zero yield on his 900 acres of dryland corn. That crop is a loss this
year, despite preparation that assumes little moisture--as he always
assumes little moisture--and despite crop insurance.
Al Davis from Hyannis told me: ``Each day places another nail in the
coffin of many individual ranchers in Nebraska and on the Great Plains.
Many ranchers have already thrown in the towel and are liquidating
portions of their herds,'' which will have an impact not only today and
tomorrow but for the next several years until those herds are rebuilt,
if they are rebuilt.
Annette Dubas, who owns a ranch and farm in western Nance County, NE,
told me after the third year in a row of drought conditions, some
farmers in her area had already been forced out, while others work two
jobs just to be able to keep their farms going. These are not big-time
corporate farms; these are family farmers who are being driven out of
businesses that, in some cases, have been in their families for
generations--in many cases 100 or more years.
The relief package before us today is of the utmost importance to
farmers and ranchers across Nebraska and all rural America. It will
make the difference between keeping their farms or being forced out of
agriculture--to the very great detriment of all of us who depend on the
``breadbasket of the world.''
We must pass this legislation and ensure that our rural communities
are not allowed to wither under the worst conditions in over half a
century.
This is not the result of a bad crop-year or bad market price; it is
about a no-crop year. It is about a no-pasture year, a no-grassland
year on top of 2 or more for 5 years. It has been where we have been
experiencing no crops, no pasture, and no future--unless we are able to
step forward today and adopt this legislation.
Mr. President, I would like to close my statement this morning by
quoting from what Dale Dueland said at the Senate Agriculture Committee
hearing in Grand Island, NE, last month. And I quote him:
This drought is a disaster. It is as severe and as much a
disaster as any flood, tornado, hurricane, or earthquake that
you could imagine. It has been sneaky and sinister. It has
tempted and teased us for two years with moderate dry spells,
and this year just unleashed an unbelievable 90 days of
extreme heat and dry to scorch the earth. This disaster
deserves extreme measures to deal with the problems.
Mr. President, I could not have said it better than my friend Dale
Dueland.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). Who yields time?
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from New
Mexico.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for
6 minutes.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Burns, for
yielding time for me to come and speak on behalf of this amendment.
This is an amendment to provide emergency drought relief for ranchers
and farmers. The amendment is based on Senator Baucus' bipartisan bill,
S. 2800, of which I am very pleased to be a cosponsor, along with 16
other Senators.
The ranching tradition in our State--in New Mexico--goes back 400
years to the time that the Spanish settled the State. The cattle and
calf industry in our State is the single most important agricultural
product that we have, which represents close to $1 billion a year in
direct cash receipts to people in our State.
Most of the cattle industry is concentrated in rural areas of the
State, such as Union County, Chaves County, and Curry County. These are
family-owned businesses. The families in New Mexico who own these
businesses, in many cases, have ranched this same land for many
generations.
New Mexico, like much of the rest of the West, is now in the throes
of the worst drought in at least 50 years. In some parts of the State,
the drought has persisted for the last 3 years.
[[Page S8397]]
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, this has
been one of New Mexico's driest years in recent history. The lack of
normal snow and rainfall has left ranchers in our State with little
pasture for grazing livestock.
The Governor of New Mexico has declared a statewide drought
emergency. He declared that in April. The Secretary of Agriculture has
now declared every agricultural county in our State a disaster area.
Since March of this year, the USDA has rated range and pasture
conditions in New Mexico at an average of 81 percent poor or very poor.
These conditions have made it impossible for ranchers to maintain their
herds. As a result of the continuing drought, water tanks and stock
ponds in New Mexico's rangeland have dried up. Ranchers in my State are
hauling water and are supplementing feed for their herds. As grazing
conditions have continued to worsen, many ranchers have culled their
herds because of the cost of water and feed being more than they could
bear at this stage.
The drought will continue to impact producers in our State for years
to come. Without emergency support such as contained in this amendment,
the ongoing drought could very well put many of our ranching families
out of business for good.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the staff of the
USDA's Farm Service Agency in New Mexico for their fine work so far
this year in helping New Mexico farmers and ranchers deal with the
drought. They have used the limited tools available to them. Paul
Gutierrez, Scotty Abbott, and Rosalie Ramirez have worked effectively
to provide some limited economic help to producers throughout New
Mexico. As a result, many producers in our State have been able to take
advantage of low-cost loans, emergency haying and grazing on CRP land,
or assistance through the USDA's Emergency Conservation Program.
However, even with this limited help from USDA, the farmers and
ranchers of New Mexico are continuing to suffer the economic effects of
the drought. In previous years, Congress has provided emergency support
through the Crop Disaster Program, the Livestock Assistance Program,
and the American Indian Livestock Feed Program. I believe the drought
disaster in New Mexico is so severe that assistance again this year is
justified.
I first voted to support drought relief in February during
consideration of the farm bill. That amendment, which Senator Baucus
offered, was adopted by a large vote of 69 to 30. Unfortunately, the
House refused to include the emergency funding in the farm bill, and it
was dropped in conference.
Since the Senate voted in February, the conditions in my State have
continued to deteriorate because of the lack of moisture.
The emergency funding provided in this amendment will provide
payments to ranchers for the losses they have suffered from the
drought. The disaster funding is desperately needed. I hope all
Senators will support the amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Frank A.
DuBois, who is the New Mexico Secretary of Agriculture, in support of
emergency drought funding as provided for in this amendment, be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Department of Agriculture,
State of New Mexico,
Las Cruces, NM, June 6, 2002.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senator, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: As you know, our ranchers are facing
a financial hardship due to the drought. I ask your support
for funding the Livestock Assistance Program authorized in
the recent farm bill.
Pasture conditions have declined severely over the past
months. Currently, pasture and feed conditions are reported
in very poor to poor condition. As a result, ranchers are
providing supplemental feed and hauling water to their
livestock. Ranchers in the state are also culling herds to
reduce their feed costs.
Cattle and calves are New Mexico's largest agricultural
industry. The overall economic impact from the ranching
industry to the state is over $1 billion.
Please call me at (505) 646-5063 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Frank A. DuBois.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes, 15 seconds remain.
Mr. BURNS. I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Wyoming.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, Wyoming is experiencing a level of drought
that has been devastating to the ranching industry of my State. In an
effort to address a need that grows more and more desperate every day,
I am cosponsoring the emergency agricultural disaster assistance
amendment. This amendment funds the Livestock Assistance Program for
both 2001 and 2002 and responds to a call for help that echoes through
the ranching communities of Wyoming and throughout the west.
The need for drought assistance is great, but the need for
responsible legislating is just as great. As a cosponsor, I am fully
supportive of the amendment before us; however, I must serve the needs
of my State without breaking the budget. For this reason, I plan to
introduce an amendment, with the support of Senator Grassley, to offset
the emergency funding for the Livestock Assistance Program by
reinstating payment limitations in the farm bill. I plan to pay my own
way for the assistance I have advocated for over a year.
My proposed amendment does its best to work within the strictures of
a poor economy. I am not unmindful of the fact that the United States
will have a deficit this year after 4 years of surplus. Alan Greenspan
said to me a few weeks ago that one of the things this country needs
the most now is fiscal responsibility. As a fiscal conservative myself,
I plan to use an offset for desperately needed livestock assistance
funding.
Time has changed things since we voted for disaster assistance in the
farm bill. The national economic picture isn't so rosy with the thunder
clouds of the forecasted deficit on the horizon. In fact, the economic
forecast is as stark as the weather forecast ranchers are reading in my
State. This is a time for choices. The agricultural community can't
have it all, but we can do our best to act responsibly and serve their
needs. That is what my amendment would do. And it doesn't just serve
the ranching community
My proposed amendment is not an attempt to decrease the assistance
going to our agricultural communities or to thwart the emergency
agricultural amendment before us now. I have spent the last month in
Wyoming and the devastation there is imprinted in my brain. This is the
third year Wyoming and the west have been battling the effects of the
weather and suffering through a drought that has had a severe impact on
families and communities throughout the west. As an example, when I was
home in Gillette I noted that we had received just over half of our
normal level of precipitation since January. Water is so precious right
now Wyomingites treasure every drop that falls from the sky as a gift
from the heavens. Unfortunately, those gifts have been few and far
between and, at the printing of the last crop report, 80 percent of
Wyoming's range and pasture feed was rated in poor or very poor
condition. That 80 percent represents a huge increase over our 5-year
average, which was 32 percent.
At the present time, only 13 percent of Wyoming has adequate topsoil
moisture. That lack of soil moisture not only makes it impossible to
grow crops, but it also has effects that ripple throughout our entire
State.
In our Popo Agie Conservation district a fracture opened up this
summer in the ground. Soil scientists called in to determine the cause
of the fracture said that the 5-foot deep crack had opened up because
there is not enough moisture in the soil for the land to maintain its
current status and structure.
There is a good reason for that. The U.S. Drought Monitor indicates
that significant parts of the west, including Wyoming, are experiencing
an exceptional level of drought--level D4. That's the highest rating
given for the status of a drought.
As I noted, the effects of drought at a D4 level ripple throughout
our communities. For instance, the drought
[[Page S8398]]
has forced Wyoming's Governor Geringer to ban the use of fireworks or
campfires on State lands. Many of Wyoming's towns and counties have
followed the Governor's lead and banned similar activities on their
town and county lands. These stipulations have ruined some businesses
and forced others that rely on summer sales to go without their one
chance to make a profit this year. It's a sacrifice, but everyone
understands the reason for the ban. After all, in a region that has
been plagued with fires, a single spark in an area surrounded by dry
wood is a formula for disaster. Although everyone understands the need
to take drastic steps to address the drought, everyone is also
suffering from the devastating impact of a lack of water.
It may be difficult for some of us to comprehend the lack of water
out west because for so many of the fortunate citizens of the United
States a sufficient supply of water is no further away than the nearest
tap or faucet. There are even States suffering from the effects of
floods. Wyoming, however, as is much of the west, is in desperate need
of every drop of water we can find.
The best example of what the drought has meant to our tourism and
recreational industry is the Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area,
which stretches 60 miles from the beginning of Bighorn Lake to
Yellowtail Dam in Montana.
Usually boaters have a choice of three ramps to use to launch their
boats onto the lake. The lake has been dropping an average of 2 to 5
inches a day, so all the ramps have been closed. Since the drought
began the water level has dropped at least 45 feet.
The reservoirs in the rest of Wyoming are in even worse condition. If
the drought continues, the dam at Boysen reservoir will no longer be
able to produce electricity because the dangerously low volume of water
means that there will be insufficient water pressure to spin the
turbines and produce the electricity that the towns and people of
Wyoming depend on for the necessities of life.
As you can see, the drought has had an impact on just about every
aspect of life in the west especially those activities and resources we
have always taken for granted. With the drought, there will be no
campfires, no fireworks, no boating, in short, the recreational
activities of the spring, summer and fall are no longer permitted--or
possible.
True, this is a terrible problem, but for those who have to forego a
year of these activities, it has been an inconvenience. For the
agricultural community, however, the drought threatens their way of
life and their ability to provide for their families. For the ranchers
and farmers, the drought threatens to destroy the land and turn once
valuable topsoil into dry dust that will blow away and never be
restored to use again. For them, and so many others, the drought has
been nothing short of a disaster.
It's easy for me to tell you how my constituents are suffering
because of the drought which has destroyed so much of the resources
upon which they depend, but unless you hear with your own ears how bad
things have become, you still might not believe it.
Let me tell you a story about what your life would be like if you
were part of a typical family in Wyoming that is barely holding on from
the effects of 3 years of drought.
It's July on the ranch and you have 1,000 cow/calf pairs. Normally,
on a day like today, you would have paper and pencil in hand to
calculate how much you expect to make in the fall when you sell your
calves. Unfortunately, this is not a normal day or a typical year. For
on this day you are using your pencil and paper to calculate just how
bad the news will be in the coming months. Your bottom line this year
will not reflect your margin of profit, but your margin for survival.
Last year you sold 1,000 calves at an average of 600 pounds for $1.07
a pound. Your total income from your hard work came to almost $640,000.
That is before any expenses.
This year, the conditions brought about by the current drought have
forced you to sell your calves earlier and at a lighter weight.
That's the bad news.
The worse news is that you have watched the bottom fall out of the
cattle market this year. That means you'll be selling your cattle at a
lower weight and at a lower price. It's a double whammy that is sure to
destroy you this year and leave you muttering the old baseball adage to
yourself, Wait till next year.
So, you continue your calculations and note that you'll probably be
selling 1,000 calves this year at an average of 500 pounds for only 80
cents a pound. That will bring you about $400,000--before you pay your
expenses. Thanks to the drought, your total income has already dropped
from $640,000 to $400,000. Unfortunately, your expenses and your bills
have not taken a similar drop. In fact, they have increased--which you
discover when you start working on next year's budget.
After a terrible sale, you realize you have to start feeding your
cows soon. Cows come from cows--so you have to keep some. Normally,
this doesn't pose a problem because a rancher usually puts hay up all
summer to start feeding the cattle in January.
The drought ended that. You see, the drought stole the irrigation
water you would normally use to grow your crops of hay and corn on the
1,000 acres of farmland.
Adding up what that will cost you comes out like this--the cost of
buying hay, the loss of corn production, the cost of feeding your
cattle for four additional months, the cost of leasing additional
grazing land and paying full price for irrigation water even though you
only are getting \1/5\ of the water you pay for that adds up to about
$355,000, again added expenses due to the drought.
Remember, our total income came to $400,000. That means, after those
expenses, you're left with about $45,000 to pay the normal operating
expenses of the ranch, pay your mortgage, pay whatever help you have
hired, make repairs on your ranch and the equipment you need--and, oh
yes, feed and clothe your family.
Ranchers have added up those numbers in just about every way you can
imagine and come up with the same answer--they can't afford to keep
their cattle. That's why the sale rings in Wyoming are full and
overflowing--which only serves to continue to drive prices downward.
As you can see, the double pressures of drought and the current
depressed market have hit the ranchers in the West particularly hard.
Ranchers are usually an optimistic bunch, but this time nature offers
them no reprieve and little reason to hope.
Farmers are having the same problem, but they have something our
ranchers do not have--crop insurance.
Here on the Senate floor we crafted a farm bill that ensured there
would be help for our Nation's farmers. We fully funded the programs
farmers rely on and made sure they'd have a source of support when the
market turned sour. Unfortunately, we didn't do the same for ranchers.
The rancher doesn't have a safety net to keep him propped up nor does
his crop, the cattle he raises, have a price safety net. This is an
inequity that must be addressed.
As I listened to the heartfelt deliberations of the Senate on the
farm bill, I heard a plea for the provision of $360,000 a year, which
is the current payment limitation, in assistance to farmers. As the
debate progressed I couldn't help but think of the ranchers who are
struggling to make ends meet in Wyoming and throughout the west who are
set to receive next to nothing to help them.
It seems clear to them, and to me, and to anyone who reviews our farm
policy that farm bill payments were not intended to subsidize every
acre of every farm--nor every bushel produced. They were meant to help
those in need and to keep family farms in business. Shouldn't that same
logic apply to family ranchers and ranches?
The American taxpayer should not be asked to keep large corporations
or weekend hobby farmers in silk overalls and gold-plated pitchforks.
Farm assistance was intended for and must continue to be directed at
small and medium producers--family farmers who truly need help. Our
rural communities depend on farms and the farms, in turn, depend on
their communities.
Too many small farms are not receiving the assistance that is needed
while large multi-million dollar corporations continue to receive
Federal funds for
[[Page S8399]]
every acre they take over. Payments to large corporations have nothing
to do with good farm policy but good farm policy has everything to do
with family farms.
Even farmers have recognized the desperate circumstances that face
our ranchers and the inequity of their situations. Recently, we heard
from an Illinois farmer who had a ``heart for Wyoming.'' He wanted to
donate hay to help Wyoming ranchers struggling to find feed for their
herds. Don't get me wrong, we'll be glad to get it, but it will be a
drop in a bucket compared to what we need--though it will be a much
appreciated drop!
Just like the rancher with his pencil figuring out his budget, when
you add it all up, there can be only one responsible conclusion and I
have tried to present it in an amendment I plan on introducing later
today.
Only by reinstating tougher payment limitations on farm bill payments
and using the savings to offset emergency feed assistance to livestock
producers for drought disaster can we hope to save them, while also
making a stab at fiscal responsibility.
Current law has set payment limitations at $360,000, but that fails
to count the gains farmers receive when they forfeit their crop to the
CCC and keep the loan or when they use commodity certificates. These
gains are not considered against the $360,000 payment limitation.
Basically, payments are still unlimited.
If we have learned one thing this year, it should be to avoid tricky
accounting. My amendment would put in place real payment limits by
counting all gain. My amendment establishes that limit at $280,000 per
year. This should be an easy choice as the Senate has already voted its
support of farm bill payment limitations by 61-33 on February 7 of this
year.
The reinstatement of payment limitations is directly in line with the
proposal the administration made to the World Trade Organization to
globally lower trade distorting subsidies. The proposal would limit
trade distorting subsidies to five percent of agricultural production.
Stricter payment limitations now would decrease the impact that this
proposal would have on our farm bill programs. As world leaders we
should set an example in word and deed for the rest of the world. We
have spoken the word with the proposal. But as we all know, actions
speak louder than words, so let us put our words into action today.
Under the terms of my legislation, a savings of at least $500 million
from the strengthened payment limitations would be applied to the
Livestock Assistance Program. The Livestock Assistance Program is
available to livestock producers in counties that have been declared
disaster areas by the President or the Secretary of Agriculture. It
provides minimal financial relief to livestock producers that are
experiencing livestock production loss due to drought and other
disasters--but only if there is money in the fund. The emergency
agricultural disaster assistance amendment before us now puts money in
the fund and my proposed amendment would prevent that money from being
another addition to our national debt.
Once the LAP is funded, producers apply for relief and a formula
splits the available monies according to their needs. It assists all
producers who qualify, but the extent of the assistance that is
available is limited by the program funding and the number of
applicants. The more applicants there are across the country, the
smaller the individual payment.
Without the assistance and provisions in my proposed amendment,
Congress is clearly picking the winners and losers of the current
climate and economic conditions facing the West. This is not only
unfair, it is unwise, too. We are continuing to slip outrageous
benefits to corporate farms that don't need assistance while the West
blows away in the wind. I'm only asking for what is fair and for what
we should have done long ago.
I urge my colleagues to support the emergency agricultural disaster
assistance amendment. If we pass this emergency amendment, the ranchers
who are suffering will know that they have been heard. I also urge my
colleagues to support my proposed amendment after this vote. If we go
on to pass my amendment, we will have made the choice to act
responsibly while providing desperately needed assistance. It will give
ranchers and our economy a fighting chance to survive. We owe our
ranchers and ourselves no less.
In conclusion, Mr. President, as I said, I am one of the cosponsors
on this drought amendment. It is of critical importance to our State.
We are in the third year of a critical drought. Each year has gotten
worse. There has been less rain each year. Our ranchers are suffering
terribly. I have tried on three different occasions to get some
livestock assistance payments included in different bills. They have
not made it through conference committee. At the same time we have
taken care of farmers, we have provided them with payments of up to
$360,000 each.
It is my intention, once this amendment is disposed of, to submit an
amendment for the body to vote on that would provide for a slight
reduction in those assistance payments where we are subsidizing every
acre and every bushel produced on every farm so that something,
anything can go to ranchers. We are talking about $360,000 to farmers,
zero to ranchers. If my amendment for livestock assistance payments
passes, they would get approximately $8,000. Does anybody see the
disparity here? Ranchers need help, too. They are having to sell off
their herds. When they sell off their herds, it drives the prices down.
They were getting $1.07 a pound. How much are you paying for beef in
the grocery store? It went down 80 cents a pound. It has been down to
60 cents a pound. Your prices went up. There is a monopoly in the beef,
but that is another issue. We will cover that at another time.
We need to do something for the producers so we can keep putting food
on the table. It is a huge part of the economy. It cascades into the
rest of the economy. When farmers and ranchers can't buy things, then
the merchants from whom they buy can't buy things. The economy implodes
on itself.
Transportation is important in this country, but food production is
more important. If we can't eat, we can't travel. We need to do
something for the ranchers. There is a way we can do it. We absolutely
need to do something on drought assistance. I hope my amendment will be
accepted to offset some of the livestock assistance payments with the
other payments so that we are not busting the budget. The best way for
us to improve the economy is to watch the spending. That would be a
cross-payment.
I ask for Members to watch for the amendment and to support the
drought amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty seconds remains to the Senator from
Montana.
Mr. BURNS. I ask the Chair if the time of those who support the
amendment has been used?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-three minutes remain on the other side.
Mr. BURNS. We used 23 of it?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-three minutes remain on the other side.
Nine seconds remain on the side of the Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I yield to my friend from Colorado. I want
to protect the opposition's time, understanding that we are starting to
run out of time totally before the vote comes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Twenty-two
minutes, 45 seconds remain to Senator Wellstone. The time is in the
control of Senator Wellstone.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to give 5 minutes out of our time
to the opponents.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BURNS. Can I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Colorado and allow
him to outline his statement?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for
being willing to yield some time to my side.
I want to follow up on some of the comments made by my colleagues
from the intermountain area, particularly the Rocky Mountain region.
Colorado is right in the center of this drought. With all the stories
you have heard about the States around Colorado, we are much more
affected than anybody else.
This is a very unique drought. It is a more severe drought than any
of the
[[Page S8400]]
people in Colorado can ever remember. In fact, if you look at the tree
rings up in some of the foothill areas, a study has been done which
suggests that maybe this drought has been the most severe drought we
have had since the 1700s. So we have a lot of individuals in rural
communities, farmers and ranchers, suffering as a result of this
drought.
I have been working closely with the Secretary of Agriculture, Ann
Veneman, to try to provide as much relief as we can with the program
moneys available. I thank the administration for being responsive, but
we have to do more than that. That is why I am a cosponsor on this
particular legislation. That is why I am pushing hard for its passage.
I grew up on a ranch in Walden, CO, spending my summers baling hay,
and tending to cattle. But this year, hay is scarce and maintaining a
cattle herd is a task of monumental proportions. I have seen the
devastation caused by the drought as I have traveled across the state,
and I have come to the very serious conclusion that farmers and
ranchers, and the rural communities that depend on them, must receive
emergency disaster assistance--before it is too late.
Those involved in agriculture have a strong tradition of lending
their neighbor a hand when they are in need, and helping those who have
suffered through a major loss. When a rancher's barn burns to the
ground, you can count on farmers and ranchers throughout the county
showing up to help rebuild. When a death or illness prevents the
harvest of a crop, you can bet that a dozen combines will show up to
bring the crop in, to salvage the season in the face of loss, and to
lend a helping hand to those in need.
Yet this type of kindness is not isolated to the farm or ranch--we in
the United States have always responded to natural disasters by
providing the needed emergency assistance. And providing the needed
assistance to those who produce our food, and sustain our democracy is
no different. Following in the great fellowship that calls Americans
together during the most challenging times, I urge my colleagues to
immediately pass the emergency disaster amendment that is now before
us.
The drought, which in some parts of my state has entered its fourth
year, has transformed large expanses of prairie landscapes, and scarred
mountain slopes and valleys to the point that all four corners of the
state are parched beyond memory. In fact, the United States Department
of Agriculture estimates that 93 percent of Colorado pasture is rated
as either poor or very poor, and subsoil moisture supplies continue to
be rated at extremely low at 86 percent very short.
Responding to the drought by developing new feed programs, working
with Natural Resources Conservation Service field offices, funding the
Emergency Conservation Program, and by responding quickly to the needs
of farmers and ranchers of my state, Secretary of Agriculture Ann
Veneman and President Bush, have provided farmers and ranchers with the
tools to survive, and for that, I thank them both.
When I first urged the Secretary to release CRP ground for emergency
grazing and haying in May, she responded by acting much more quickly
than past practice dictated. In August, when I personally called the
Secretary to urge the extension of the deadline, she responded the next
day by extending the emergency haying and grazing deadline through
November 30. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for your leadership in this
difficult time.
While the administration has provided the tools to survive up to this
point, the drought has now reached the point at which Congress must act
swiftly to ensure survival beyond today.
I recognize that the arid climate of the west means dry weather, but
I think that everyone would agree that this drought is anything but
normal. In fact, I have been told dozens of times by farmers and
ranchers--producers who have 70 plus years of experience--that this is
the most severe drought they have ever witnessed. I recently had the
opportunity to discuss the drought with scientists studying tree rings
along Boulder Creek. They told me that only by tracing the rings back
to the 1700's, could one find a period of comparable drought.
I have taken an active role in providing Coloradan's with access to
programs that provide the necessary emergency resources. Over the past
month, I have traveled across Colorado, meeting with 600 farmers and
ranchers in Yuma, CO, coordinating meetings with dozens of producers in
Las Animas, Alamosa, and Delta, and meeting with well over one hundred
producers in Pueblo, to discuss the drought and drought relief. At the
disaster forums, I brought together federal agencies that provide
drought relief with the people who need their help the most. I listened
as farmers and ranchers--some of whom had driven nearly 300 miles to
attend--told of their need for assistance.
I listened as the Colorado Commissioner of Agriculture warned that
state could lose as many as 50 percent of its farms because of the
drought, and ranchers expressed their anguish at the fact that more
than 1 million head of cattle--half the state's total--have already
been liquidated. I listened as Larry Fillmore, a rancher north of
Boone, CO, stood in a barren pasture that normally supports tall grass
and cattle, and emotionally describe that the last moisture the pasture
received was last October--in the form of a hail storm. Even the sage
brush, with roots ten feet deep, had turned brown. I listened as
ranchers told the story of mass cattle selloffs. In the proud community
of La Junta, they are experiencing drought induced traffic jams, as a
streaming line of trucks hauls cattle to the sale barn. Sale volume
records are falling, and one sale--just one sale--can last nearly 24
hours straight, running from 9 am to 6:30 am the next morning.
According to an article in the Denver Post, over 700,000 acres of
dryland winter wheat, worth an estimated $120 million, has been lost
due to drought. Production was 38 million bushels this year, compared
with a 10-year annual average of 83.4 million bushels. Sunflower
production, worth almost $20 million last year, was down 71 percent
this year, and 250,000 acres of dryland corn has completely withered
away.
Perhaps the most telling story of all is that of Ed Hiza. Standing in
the middle of his pasture, he said that 80 percent of the cattle in a
20 mile radius were gone, and that most of the remaining 20 percent
would be shipped out within a month. Mr. Hiza made it clear about what
the drought means for him, and many of his neighbors, ``We've endured a
lot of hardship in this county, and this drought is just the nail in
our coffin.'' This story is recounted in the Pueblo Chieftan.
For those who do not believe that the drought is indeed that severe,
I hope that they will pay attention to the following statistics, and
keep in mind that Colorado is the source of water for many downstream
States. According to the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, the
South Platte River flows now hover at 13% of average, and Arkansas
River streamflows are at record lows. In the San Luis Valley, many
domestic wells have stopped flowing. Citizens are seeking assistance
from Federal and State agencies for redrilling wells. The San Luis
Valley aquifer has been drawn down to the lowest level ever recorded.
On the Rio Grande, the flow is 6% of normal. Without using the flows
that are normally dedicated to a wildlife refuge, the Rio Grande would
probably be dry at the stateline. Many streams are dry and many more
may go dry. On the Gunnison River, streamflows are near record lows.
Calls on the river are occurring that have not been placed since the
construction of one million acre feet of storage--the Aspinall Unit
reservoirs--upstream. In the Colorado River Basin, reservoir supplies
are bleak. Active storage in Grandby Reservoir is less than 1/5 of
capacity. Dillon will have 75,000 acre feet out of 252,000 acre feet.
Williams Fork will be at its dead pool. Wolford Mountain Reservoir will
have 19,000 acre feet and Reudi Reservoir will have 35,000 acre feet of
its 120,000 acre feet capacity.
In the Yampa, White and North Platte basins, many reservoirs are
empty save for their dead pool storage. Streamflows are well below
normal. In the San Juan and Dolores Basins, all irrigation reservoirs
are expected to be emptied. The San Juan is flowing at 3% of normal,
and the Animas River is flowing at 14% of normal.
In short, the need for relief is real. Although there is no
legislative cure
[[Page S8401]]
for a lack of moisture, we can help ease the economic hemorrhaging
caused by the drought. As we search for new alternatives that will
provide drought relief to communities and businesses, I urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment, and support those who
have suffered from natural disaster.
I ask unanimous consent to print the following information in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Denver Post, Sept. 7, 2002]
Senate Should OK Farm Bill
A prediction that Colorado will lose 20 to 50 percent of
its farms and ranches over the next year underscores the
importance of a bill in the U.S. Senate that will give cash
and low-interest loans to help keep farms from shutting down
their operations.
The bill, a $5 billion drought emergency package, is co-
sponsored by Sen. Wayne Allard, a Loveland Republican. It is
expected to pass the Senate on Monday. We urge swift passage
of this measure that provides money for farms in dire need.
Not only would the emergency package provide low-interest
loans for Colorado farmers and ranchers severely affected by
drought conditions, it also provides cash grants for those
who are too deep in debt to qualify for other government-
subsidized loans.
Colorado's agricultural income stands to drop by one-half
due to the drought. Production is already so far down this
year that large dairy farms are losing thousands of dollars a
month, hundreds of thousands of acres of produce have died
and the prices paid to farmers for their products are
decreasing.
Because the state has received federal drought designation,
farmers also may qualify for federal loans. But many Colorado
farms and ranches can't qualify for federal funding.
Therefore, state loans and grants are of paramount importance
during this extremely dry year.
What is frightening is that if the state's snowfall doesn't
increase significantly this winter, the situation is going to
be even worse next year.
The whole disturbing situation also makes a strong case for
enhanced water storage systems during wet years.
While the government passes a measure to pump more cash
into agriculture, we also must look at being more aggressive
in planning for the state's future water needs.
____
[From the Denver Post, Sept. 6, 2002]
Senate Bill Seeks Cash for Farmers in Drought
Officials fear state will lose 20%-50% of farms in year
(By Kit Miniclier)
Cash and loans would be available to farmers in Colorado
and the rest of the country hit hard by drought under a $5
billion drought emergency package co-sponsored by U.S. Sen.
Wayne Allard, R-Colo.
Low-interest loans aren't enough help for farmers whose
worth shrank during the drought, agriculture officials say.
They predict Colorado will lose from 20 to 50 percent of
its farms and ranches over the next year.
The measure, which Allard predicted would win Senate
approval Monday, provides loans. It also offers cash grants
for those who can't qualify for low-interest federal loans,
he said.
``This is the worst drought in Colorado history,'' probably
going back to the 1700s, said Allard, the only veterinarian
in the Senate.
Agriculture, which consumes about 85 percent of Colorado's
water, earns about $5 billion as the produce leaves the farm
or ranch, ``and you can add another $12 billion at retail,''
said Don Ament, a veteran farmer, state lawmaker and
Colorado's commissioner of agriculture.
Dead and dying crops are expected to cut Colorado farm
income by at least half this year, Ament warned Gov. Bill
Owens this week.
Although a statewide federal drought designation earlier
this year cleared the way for low-interest federal loans,
many farmers and ranchers aren't eligible because they are
already deeply in debt.
``A catastrophic impact on agriculture and rural businesses
can be expected'' this fall because of this loss of crops and
income, according to a report compiled for Owens.
If Colorado doesn't get a substantial snowpack this winter,
``the situation will be tenfold worse by this time next
year,'' Ament added.
That's because there was water in the reservoirs this year,
but many are dry now.
The state could increase its water storage by 150,000 acre-
feet by simply repairing existing dams, according to Greg
Walcher, executive director of the Colorado Department of
Natural Resources.
There is a consensus--for this first time in two
generations--to store water for bad years, Walcher added.
Colorado's drought-related losses reportedly include:
More than 1 million cattle--half the state's total,
including breeder stock for hundreds of farms--sold
prematurely.
Big dairy farms losing $15,000 to $20,000 a month because
of low milk prices and rising feed prices.
700,000 acres of dryland winter wheat worth an estimated
$120 million died. Production was 38 million bushels,
compared with a 10-year annual average of 83.4 million
bushels.
Sunflower production worth almost $20 million last year,
was down 71 percent this year.
This year's 250,000 acres of dryland corn dried up before
it could be harvested. Last year's crop was worth $34
million.
Sorghum for grain, which grossed about $17 million last
year, is down by at least 25 percent this year.
``You know you've got real trouble when you drive by a
reservoir and dirt storms are blowing out of the lake
bottom,'' said Ament, who had recently driven past Barr Lake
State Park northeast of Denver.
____
[From the Pueblo Chieftain, Aug. 24, 2002]
Rancher's Lament: ``Feed and Worry''
(By Margie Wood)
With decent rain, the sandy soil on Larry Fillmore's ranch
north of Boone would support waist-high grass and a cattle
herd--and a way of life that has kept his family on the land
for four generations.
This year, a portion that's in the Conservation Reserve
Program is covered by a gray tangle of grass that saw its
last moisture in the form of hail last October. And that was
better than a 40-acre plot across the road, where two horses
and a congregation of prairie dogs have eaten pretty much
everything in sight.
``I'm ashamed of this part,'' Fillmore told visitors on a
drought tour sponsored by the Colorado Association of
Conservation Districts on Friday. ``I thought it would rain
someday.''
But it didn't rain until a little bit of moisture fell
Thursday night. By that time, Fillmore had sent most of his
cattle to Oklahoma. He still has some stock in mountain
meadows and is worrying about what to do with them in October
when they have to be moved.
``I was still feeding (rather than having grass for the
cattle to graze on) the 15th of July,'' he said. ``We did two
things all spring and summer: feed and worry. And that took
up all day and all night.''
His neighbor, J.D. Wright, has a stocker cattle operation
nearby, meaning he buys calves in the fall, feeds them in
through the winter and grazes them in the summer before
taking them to sell. This year, there was so little grass he
sold them early and figures he lost about $10 a head.
Now, after witnessing 11 lightning fires that burned
thousands of acres in the area, Wright looks at a CRP field
and sees a lot of fuel.
He agreed with Randy Loutzenhiser of Flagler, President of
the state association of conservation districts, that the CRP
land should be used periodically, maybe every third or fourth
year, to keep it healthy and reduce the fuel load.
The CRP program is run by the Natural Resources
Conservation Services, and this year the U.S. Department of
Agriculture did make some allowances for grazing and haying
on CRP land because of the drought. But there was a penalty
involved, and Fillmore opted not to pay the price to move
cattle onto his CRP land.
As the tour moved farther north in the Olney-Boone
Conservation District, district conservationist Dave Miller
of the NRCS pointed out a green field that had 4 to 4\1/2\
inches of rain this year, with grass about 8 inches tall.
Another field had a fire followed by rain in the same
lightning storm, so the grass recovered somewhat. Yet another
had a lightning fire with no rain, and the soil already is
beginning to blow, Miller noted. ``We're hoping somehow it
will get some grass on it. The only other thing to keep it
from blowing would be deep chiseling--and I mean 30 inches
deep.''
In some areas, even sagebrush looked brown and dead.
``Those plants may have roots 10 feet deep,'' Miller said.
``Still, there's no water for them.''
But the worst sight on the tour was a field that has been
farmed in a beans-milo rotation. The ground was tilled in the
spring, exposing the roots.
``He planted a crop but there was no rain, no crop,''
Miller said--and all the silt with its nutrients has blown
away, leaving a stretch of pale sand unbroken by one green
shoot.
A few miles away, rancher Ed Hiza said 80 percent of the
cattle in a 20-mile radius are gone. He expects to ship the
rest of his cattle out within a month, saying ``I can't feed
them for nine more months, and that's the earliest I can see
growing anything to feed them.
``We've endured a lot of hardship in this county, and this
drought is just the nail in our coffin,'' he said.
``Economically we find a lot of excuses about world markets
and that, but the situation is that I could be forced off
this ranch in the next few years.''
____
[From the Pueblo Chieftain, Aug. 24, 2002]
Allard: Drought More Serious in Southern Colorado
(By Margie Wood)
U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard talked about drought at a standing-
room-only meeting at the Greater Pueblo Chamber of Commerce
Friday afternoon, assembling representatives of various state
and federal agencies that can help suffering farmers and
communities.
[[Page S8402]]
``This is a very critical situation, and it's more serious
in Southern Colorado than in the northern part of the
state,'' he said. ``I've read that tree rings going back to
the 1700s show no worse drought year than this one.''
Allard said he has introduced legislation to provide direct
aid to farmers and ranchers who have lost crops or livestock,
and he is working to reform the tax code to help ranchers who
have to liquidate their herds.
He noted that Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman has
extended CRP grazing/haying permits through Nov. 30, and
said, ``That won't solve all the problems, but it has helped
some people stay in business.''
Allard's aide Cory Gardner said the Senator is working on a
federal drought assistance bill that has now reached $3
billion.
Others who appeared with Allard were Gigi Dennis, former
state senator from Pueblo West who now heads the regional
Rural Development agency under the USDA; Lewis Frank of the
Farm Service Agency; State Conservationist Allen Green; and
representatives of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
and the Small Business Administration.
State Agriculture Commissioner Don Ament noted, ``We can't
seem to get out of these crises. I hate to be so negative,
but we're here to help you survive.''
Their audience ranged from John Stencel of the Rocky
Mountain Farmers Union to a sheep rancher from Montrose to
several Las Animas County ranchers.
``We're about four years into this drought in Las Animas
County,'' said Gary Hill. ``It is kinda funny that it didn't
really get to be a drought until our city cousins couldn't
water their lawns.''
Stencel also spoke of the ``quiet tragedy'' of drought, and
said it will take the state agricultural producers years to
dig out.
Allard's staff conducted a similar meeting in Alamosa on
Thursday.
Farmer Ray Wright, who heads the Rio Grande Water
Conservation District and is a member of the Colorado Water
Conservation Board, said the area is in a water deficit and
an overdraft on the water supply will continue.
Alamosa businessman Leroy Martinez said part of the problem
is that the traditional farming area has been expanded to the
point where it can't be supplied with water.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BURNS. I don't know how much time I have to yield.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, are there other colleagues who want to
speak on the Republican side who have not had a chance?
Mr. BURNS. In other words, those who oppose this amendment have not
seen fit to come to the floor. That is the dilemma in which we find
ourselves.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, is there a question before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. At this time, the question is who yields time?
Twenty minutes remain in the control of Senator Wellstone. Twenty
minutes remain to the opposition.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that until someone
shows up to oppose this, Senator Burns be allowed to allocate time for
those in support of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. The reason I say Senator Burns, Senator Byrd is not here,
and he has the greatest confidence in Senator Burns to handle this
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Minnesota yield to
the senior Senator from Wyoming for his statement?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.
Mr. BURNS. I yield 2 minutes to the senior Senator from Wyoming, Mr.
Thomas.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I spoke some about this yesterday on the
floor in terms of it being part of the Interior bill. Certainly I
support this amendment. This is the only way we have to relieve the
kinds of economic disasters that have occurred in the West and over the
country, as a matter of fact.
One of the issues is going to be how this is administered and how it
is divided. Certainly, often you read about so much an acre for the
crops and so on. I want to make the point again, this is also for
livestock. This is for cattle, sheep, for the people who have not had
grazing either on their own lands or on the lands that are leased. As
we look at this, agriculture includes livestock. We need to make sure
that is the case and that the distribution be made fairly throughout.
I appreciate very much the opportunity for us to actually do
something. Hopefully, the expenditures, even though not a formal
offset, will be offset actually by the reduction in costs in the farm
bill, and this makes it a little more practical in terms of the
finances.
I am supportive of the bill and hope we can move forward with the
amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will just take 1 minute for an
observation, if I may.
I say to the Senator from Wyoming, this does include livestock
producers, and it is extremely important. In our State, we are talking
about livestock producers, but we are also talking about wheatgrowers,
soybeans, all of the damage to the crops.
I thank colleagues on both sides of the aisle for coming out here,
Republicans and Democrats, West and Midwest, and also Senators from the
east coast who have not sustained this kind of damage but are willing
to lend their support, knowing full well that if they need help they
will get help from the rest of us.
This is sort of a definition of community and helping people, and I
am so pleased to see the strong bipartisan support. I really believe if
we get a huge vote, we have an excellent chance of getting help to
people.
As a Senator from Minnesota, I am so pleased with the way this
discussion is going and I thank my colleagues from both sides of the
aisle for their support.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BURNS. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I strongly support this relief package
for family farmers needing immediate disaster relief in order to stay
on their land.
Let me cite a few numbers to underscore the extent of the problem in
Missouri. Just yesterday, the USDA rated 58 percent of Missouri's
pastureland in poor or very poor condition; 53 percent of Missouri's
corn is in poor or very poor condition; 49 percent of Missouri's
soybeans are in poor or very poor condition. Though any additional
rainfall would be welcomed, it will only be of limited assistance.
Much of the damage I cited is on land that was hit last year by an
army worm infestation of record proportion. Many farmers are facing 2
years of devastation because of these unprecedented natural disasters.
This legislation would provide real relief for crop and livestock
losses over the past 2 years. Much of the damage to the crops and
pastureland is irreversible. Just as we help the victims of floods,
wildfires, and other natural disasters, so we must come to the aid of
farmers victimized by Mother Nature.
Several weeks ago, I expressed my disappointment to the
administration for declaring that drought relief must be offset by cuts
to programs funded in the new farm bill. Such cuts would undermine the
farm bill's safety net that we put into place only a few months ago.
This safety net is key to farmers, bankers, and others who must make
long-term planning decisions.
Tampering with the safety net would send a message to our farmers
that the farm bill is not something on which they can rely. In essence,
the administration is proposing to rob Peter to pay Paul. This stance
is particularly troubling when recent USDA reports show farm income
decreasing by 23 percent this year. That is a $10.5 billion decrease in
net farm income. It is the wrong position. It is wrong for our farmers,
and it is wrong for our communities that rely on an agricultural
economy.
Missouri ranks second nationally for the number of farms within a
State. Agriculture is a large part of Missouri's economic lifeline.
Historically, what is good for our farmers is good for America, and I
urge my colleagues to support our farmers by providing disaster relief
that keeps the safety net intact.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask my colleague if I may have 5
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. BURNS. That would be fine.
[[Page S8403]]
I say to my friend from Montana, I am trying to protect those who
oppose, but I have no problem with yielding 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from
Montana, Senator Burns, for cosponsoring this amendment with me. I
deeply appreciate his work.
I point out this is truly a bipartisan effort to get agricultural and
disaster assistance payments to farmers and ranchers across our
country. This is not a partisan matter. This is a nonpartisan matter.
Drought does not know whether a farmer is a Republican, a Democrat, an
Independent, or whatever political affiliation he or she may have.
Drought hits everybody relentlessly. It is clear that these last
several years it has hurt a lot of farmers.
This amendment we are attempting to pass will help farmers across our
country.
I also thank the numerous agricultural organizations that have
demonstrated their support for the amendment by making an endless
number of phone calls, writing letters, and tirelessly raising the need
for agricultural assistance in the Halls of the Congress.
Drought brings the producers to their knees, not only poor producers
but the best producers. The crisis in our agricultural community has
absolutely nothing to do with poor planning. I want to make that very
clear. In fact, the farm bill has nothing to do with agricultural
disaster assistance. The farm bill we passed has to do with farmers
generally. If and when disaster hits, and if it is persistent over
several years, then there is no choice but to fold up one's tent,
leave, or cut back dramatically in a way that hurts not only the farmer
but the rest of the community.
According to the New York Times on May 3, 2002--not too many months
ago--let me quote an article in that newspaper:
In eastern Montana, more than a thousand wheat farmers have
called it quits rather than try to coax another crop out of
the ground that has received less rain over the last 12
months than many deserts get in a year.
We today have the opportunity to help mitigate these drought
conditions and keep our producers on the land. After consecutive years,
drought harms not only producers but entire communities. I would like
to share the words of Montana farmer Dan Debuff to illustrate the
impacts of drought on his community of Shawmut:
Our local John Deere dealer had sold seven combines last
year at this time. This year he hasn't sold one. School
enrollments are down 30 percent from 5 years ago and are
still declining.
Remember, this drought has been going on for 4 or 5 years.
Gross revenues for the local grain elevator and fertilizer
plant have declined 33 percent from 2 years ago and they have
eliminated two full-time jobs. The large elevator and
fertilizer plant have cut 9 full-time jobs out of a total of
25.
The letter goes on to describe the adverse effects the drought has
not only on farmers individually but also on communities.
I have a chart which shows the effect of the drought now in America.
It covers almost the entire West. If one draws a line a little bit west
of the 100th meridian, almost all of America west of that line is in
drought. The chart shows by color the worst conditions. The red and
orange are the worst, and that is almost all of the western United
States. In fact, it is almost half of the geographic United States of
America.
Without our help, without passing natural disaster assistance today,
we will change the future of rural America forever. A large percentage
of our hard-working producers will lose their land, lose their homes,
their jobs, and their way of life. They will not be purchasing clothes,
seed, fertilizer, or equipment in their local stores. They are going to
have to move, take their kids out of school, go some place else, and
try to make a go of it.
We now have the opportunity to do something about that. A vote for
this amendment is a vote for America's family farmers and ranchers to
provide us with a safe domestic food supply. A vote for this amendment
is a vote for the future of rural America. A vote for this amendment is
a vote for fulfilling our responsibility as a country to protect our
citizens from natural disaster.
Rural America is resilient. Like them, I am not going to give up. We
are going to keep trying until we get the disaster assistance we need.
We give disaster assistance to people in the country for earthquakes,
for floods, and for hurricanes. It only makes sense that we should give
disaster assistance for our farmers.
I voted for disaster assistance for Americans for flood insurance,
for hurricanes, and for earthquake disasters. I voted for those because
it was the right thing to do, the American thing to do. It is also the
American thing to do to help our farmers and ranchers.
I also ask the President to reconsider. I support the President many
times and do not support him other times. This is one time I am asking
the President to reconsider his opposition because our American farmers
need all of America to help give them the assistance they need.
I very much thank the Chair and thank my colleague from Montana and
thank the Parliamentarian. I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to express my support for an
amendment that is being offered by the distinguished majority leader. I
am a cosponsor of this amendment, originally proposed as a bill by
Senator Baucus which I also cosponsored. It now provides much needed
assistance to our Nation's farmers.
While farmers across the country have faced tremendous losses during
the past 2 years, those in my home State of Michigan have been among
those who have suffered the most. Dramatic shifts in weather conditions
throughout the growing season have devastated crops across the State.
Some farmers faced early warm temperatures followed by freezing
conditions while others saw torrential rains early in the growing
season followed by long droughts; still others have faced drought
conditions at the beginning of the crop year and heavy rains at harvest
time.
These conditions have devastated many of Michigan's prime crops. This
year, cherry farmers in Michigan lost upwards of 90 percent of their
crops, a level that threatens to devastate Michigan and the Nation's
cherry industry give that Michigan produces over 70 percent of the tart
cherries in the Nation. Additionally, 80 percent of Michigan's apple
farmers have lost upwards of 40 percent of their crop.
Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to visit with cherry growers
in Michigan and listen to them as they told me how this year's crop
losses were the worst on record. In addition, approximately 25 percent
of apple growers in Michigan and across the Nation are in danger of
going out of business in the next 2 years, and in Michigan that means
that our cherry, peach, and asparagus crops, which are often grown on
the same orchards, will be greatly decreased.
This year, USDA Secretary Ann Veneman recognized the atypical weather
conditions that affected Michigan by designating 50 of the State's
counties as disaster areas. Making matters worse, all of these counties
were similarly designated last year, when Secretary Veneman designated
82 of Michigan's 83 counties as official disaster areas. While
Michigan's farmers are some of the most innovative in the Nation, 2
years of statewide crop failure have threatened the continued viability
of agriculture in Michigan.
No one, least of all America's farmers, likes the fact that emergency
agricultural supplementals have seemingly become routine. However, we
must provide this assistance for without it many of our Nation's
farmers will cease to be able to continue farming. I thank the Senator
from South Dakota and the Senator from Montana for their efforts in
drafting, supporting, and helping to pass this amendment.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment to
provide disaster assistance for our Nation's farmers and ranchers. Over
the last several years, Congress has acted responsibly to provide help
to those producers whose operations have been adversely affected by bad
weather. I see no reason why this year should be different. This
situation truly exemplifies an emergency in every sense of the word,
and should not force us to deplete the long-term resources provided
[[Page S8404]]
by this year's farm bill in order to meet these short-term needs.
Already, this has been a devastating crop year for producers across
the country. In the most recent assessment issued by the National
Weather Service, nearly every State west of the Missouri River faces
significant crop losses as a result of severe to exceptional drought
conditions. A second region of the Eastern United States which includes
most States in a block from Georgia northward to Maine and westward to
Ohio is facing a similar situation. For many States, particularly in
the West, this is only the latest in a series of droughts.
We have only begun to assess the magnitude of this year's disaster
for agricultural producers. From late July, press reports cite losses
in the Plains States of $822 million in South Dakota, $687 million in
Nebraska, and $267 million in Minnesota from both drought and flooding.
With little appreciable rain during August in most drought-stricken
regions, it is likely that losses have increased since those estimates
were made. We have serious drought in southwest Iowa, and also
experienced uncompensated 2001 losses in Iowa, mostly from prevented
plantings.
Other regions have also been hit. In Michigan, harsh spring weather
caused USDA to declare 50 counties agricultural disaster areas,
particularly affecting the cherry and grape crops. Hordes of
grasshoppers are eating their way through pastures and fields in the
Rocky Mountain West, including Colorado and Idaho. Rampant disease
threatens Georgia and North Carolina crops. In mid-August, Maryland's
Governor sought a disaster designation for all but two counties in his
State.
As a result of field surveys in late July, USDA is now predicting the
smallest U.S. corn crop since 1995, at less than 9 billion bushels, and
the smallest wheat crop since 1972, driven both by poor yields and
reduced acreage. Although some farmers will benefit from the increased
prices, those farmers with little or no crop to harvest will not.
Western cattle producers, who have seen their pastures burn up in the
unrelenting heat, face a choice of either buying hay on the market or
selling their animals into a depressed market. There are currently no
programs to assist these producers.
It is true that many row crop farmers have crop insurance policies,
which will offer them some relief, but the gravity of this situation
demands further Federal action. These producers are facing the loss of
their crops in the wake of several years of low commodity prices, thus
pushing them deeper into a financial hole.
With higher crop prices now projected by USDA for the 2002 crop year,
it is clear that farm program spending will be lower than was
originally predicted by the Congressional Budget Office. It was
estimated recently by CBO that the difference could amount to $5.6
billion in LDP's and countercylical payments that will not now be made
compared to the August baseline. That difference would exceed $6
billion when compared to earlier estimates of the farm bill's cost.
Floods and drought have been particularly hard this year not only on
producers' bottom lines, but also on our soil, water, and wildlife
resources. Unfortunately, the money needed to take care of our
resources under the Emergency Watershed Protection Program wasn't
included in this package. I intend to pursue adding the money needed
for drought and flood relief through this program in conference, and
hope that we will be able to address these needs in the final
conference report.
I fear that unwillingness to act on this amendment could push many
farmers to the brink of failure, and hasten the erosion of rural
communities and small towns. If we truly want to assure economic
security to our nation, then we must start with its backbone, our farm
families and the rural economy they support.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the text of the letter
sent to the Senate leadership yesterday by Agriculture Secretary
Veneman, reiterating the President's opposition to disaster relief
legislation for which the cost is not offset by cuts in the 2002 farm
bill. I am disappointed that the letter was sent. I hope that we will
be able to bring the White House and the House of Representatives
around to the realization that assistance is critically needed and that
it cannot be funded by taking assistance out of the farm bill and away
from other producers.
The Secretary of Agriculture,
Washington, DC, September 9, 2002.
Hon. Thomas Daschle,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Trent Lott,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Daschle and Lott: We appreciate your efforts
to help farmers and ranchers who are suffering as a result of
the 2002 drought. As you know, the Administration continues
to take all action allowable under current law to assist
struggling farmers and ranchers. This includes expediting
emergency declarations and making emergency loans available
to producers, the recent release of CCC-owned milk powder in
order to provide a low cost feed supplement for cow and calf
operations, and the opening of all CRP lands nationwide for
haying and grazing. The President has consistently stated his
support for additional drought relief provided it does not
increase the deficit.
The Congress has already provided the tools for drought
relief for crop farmers through the heavily subsidized
Federal Crop Insurance Program. The crop insurance subsidy
was increased dramatically in 2000 to avoid the need for
disaster payments. The vast majority of the crop acreage in
the drought regions is covered by crop insurance. Over
seventy percent of the acreage in the U.S. is covered and
over eighty percent in South Dakota. Our goal should be to
maximize participation in this program. Additionally, we
recognize that ranchers and livestock producers who have been
severely impacted by this drought do not benefit from the
same risk management tools available to other farmers.
The recently enacted Farm Bill provides $180 billion, an
increase of $82 billion above the baseline. This $180 billion
can accommodate funding for emergencies, economic assistance,
rural development, and other purposes. One of the greatest
benefits of the Farm Bill is that it ensures farmers have the
resources they need. On May 24, Senator Daschle defended the
farm bill spending levels, stating ``we're getting rid of
those ad hoc disaster payment approaches''. The farm bill
should break the bad fiscal habit of needing to pass
emergency agriculture spending bills including drought,
flood, or other supplemental payments that make it difficult
for Congress to live within its budget.
We support providing immediate assistance to those who
don't have access to risk management tools, encouraging
greater participation in the crop insurance program and
providing relief within the resources of the current farm
bill. If legislation consistent with this approach were to be
presented to the President, we would advise his support.
In the Senate, an amendment has been offered to the
Interior Appropriations bill that would reestablish emergency
payment programs for farmers and ranchers similar to those
used for the 2000 crop year. We understand the cost of this
amendment is likely to approach $6 billion.
The Administration strongly opposes this amendment and any
agriculture spending in excess of the $180 billion in
spending provided earlier this year. This proposal would add
$6 billion on top of the already generous Farm Bill only a
few months after the bill was enacted. This is unacceptable.
The needs for the current drought must be met within the
additional resources provided for in the Farm Bill.
We hope this information gives you the guidance you need in
order to consider a prudent and fiscally responsible drought
assistance package. I look forward to working closely with
you through this process.
Sincerely,
Ann M. Veneman.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to state my
reasons for voting for the amendment offered to provide $5.9 billion in
emergency relief to farmers due to flooding, drought and other natural
disasters because I am concerned that numerous farmers across the
United States and Pennsylvania may lose their livelihoods.
The Pennsylvania agricultural community has been particularly hard
hit by natural disasters in recent years. On September 3, 2002,
Pennsylvania Governor Mark Schweiker requested a Natural Disaster
Determination from the United States Department of Agriculture on
behalf of 54 of Pennsylvania's 67 counties that are suffering due to
this drought. These counties have been and continue to be under a
drought warning or drought emergency. Due to these adverse weather
conditions, Pennsylvania farmers have and will experience significant
crop damage resulting in reduced harvests. The losses to these counties
are projected at over $321 million in Pennsylvania. I am informed that
situations similar to this are occurring across the United States. The
funding in this amendment will provide $5.9 billion in relief for
farmers for the 2001 and 2002 crop years.
During consideration of the 2002 farm bill, I opposed the
overwhelming costs
[[Page S8405]]
that came as a result of the House and Senate Conference, an increase
of $10 billion over the levels passed by the Senate and the House.
However, funds are now warranted to combat continued natural disasters
that have become an acute problem for farmers in Pennsylvania and
across the Nation.
The loss of crops that have come with these natural disasters have
left grain farmers with a low yield. This low yield not only effects
farmers producing grain but those who must use grain and account for
the increased cost of production. The rising costs of grain to dairy
farmers has created an intolerable situation where the costs of
producing are increasing without the already low price of milk rising
at a corresponding level. The addition of these increased costs to
production is too much to be shouldered by the hardworking farmers of
Pennsylvania and America.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to say a few words about the
proposed drought relief package that I have cosponsored and to urge my
colleagues to throw their full support behind this very important
measure. Utah is in its fourth consecutive year of drought, and our
farmers and ranchers have been hit particularly hard this season. If
this body does not act now to alleviate some of the damage wreaked by
this latest year of drought, many more farmers and ranchers will be
forced to sell off their assets completely, as some have already done.
At this time, adequate feed and forage is simply not available for
livestock producers in Utah. About 70 percent of Utah agriculture is in
the livestock industry, and ranchers rely heavily on public grazing.
However, in drought years many ranchers are kicked off public lands by
the BLM and Forest Service in an effort to preserve the existing
forage. Let me provide an example of how our ranchers have been
affected by the drought and resulting expulsion from public grazing.
Alarik Myrin is a rancher who I know from Duchesne County, Utah. Alarik
has 600 head of cattle and each year relies on public lands to provide
500 of them with forage. Like many others in my state, he was forced
off public lands and was not able to graze those 500 head even one day
this year. This was a devastating blow in a drought year, because the
meager harvest in the West has created a dramatic shortage of feed.
While Alarik did receive a small alfalfa harvest on his private land,
he was still forced to sell off 300 of his breeding cows along with
their calves just to cut his losses. It is important to understand
that, like most ranchers, Alarik Myrin makes his living from selling
calves. Being forced to liquidate his producing cows without a profit
was, in Mr. Myrin's words, like ``selling the factory,'' and he is now
left without the resources to purchase a new herd for the next season.
In a normal rainfall year, adequate runoff from Utah's snowpack would
help to offset drought conditions. However, this year, the lack of
snowpack has combined with almost no precipitation and Utah's largest
cricket infestation ever documented to make for an extremely difficult
year for agriculture.
Utah has some of the toughest ranchers I know but some have literally
been brought to tears by the hardships they are facing this year. Some
of these families have been farming and ranching since before Utah was
a state, and they know how to succeed in difficult conditions. But a
fourth year of drought of this severity is too much to overcome.
One more example of the extreme nature of this year's drought is
brought to light at the Salina Cattle Auction in Utah. Normally, this
auction sees 500 head sold in the entire month of July. This year,
however, the auction saw an average of 2,700 head sold per week in
July. Ranchers are liquidating their cows often at less than half the
average price. For too many, the result is complete bankruptcy.
I have gone into some detail regarding the difficulties of Utah
livestock producers, but crop losses for our farmers have been just as
severe. For instance, much of Utah fruit crop this year has been
completely ruined. The lack of precipitation and ground water has
resulted in unseasonable frosts that have wiped out many of our
orchards. Across the board, we are losing key elements of our
agriculture sector in the West. Mr. President, if we want to be a
nation that feeds itself, we must take action to allow our producers to
survive this long drought and live to produce next season.
I urge my colleagues to recognize the importance of this drought
relief package. I believe it will help to rebuild an agriculture
industry that is in dire need of assistance. It will take several years
to recover for many of our producers, but this package will help
rebuild herds and allow many farmers and ranchers to continue to
provide our nation with the invaluable resources we rely on. Again, I
urge my colleagues to support farmers and ranchers across the country
by voting in favor of this measure.
I thank the Chair.
Crop Disaster Relief
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I would like to recognize Mr. Daschle
for his efforts and concern for the farmers, growers, and ranchers of
this nation. His leadership on providing financial assistance to these
farmers who have been stricken by the wrath of Mother Nature is to be
commended.
Mr. President, my colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, and I
would like to engage Senator Daschle in a colloquy.
Mr. DASCHLE. I thank my colleague for her kind remarks, and would be
happy to engage in a colloquy with the Senators from New York State.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, spring freezes, frosts, and excessive
rains have caused severe and permanent damage to specialty crops, such
as apples, peaches, pears, grapes (including labrusca grapes),
strawberries, stone fruits, onions and cherries in New York State. This
damage will not only cause a major financial hardship for the farms,
but as my friend from South Dakota has already mentioned, the impact
will spread throughout the economy of rural communities that depend so
heavily on the prosperity of their farms.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, these weather conditions have wreaked
havoc on an industry vital to New York State. As their trees now stand,
green leaves and no fruit, it is feared that a large percentage of
these fruit farmers will be forced out of business. It is crucial that
these farmers receive assistance along with the farmers and ranchers of
the rest of the country who have suffered the devastating effects of
drought.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this season's farm losses only continue a
string of bad luck during the past few years. Last year, New York grape
farmers suffered losses of approximately $7 million due to poor fruit
set. This year, the losses are expected to be even greater--over $10
million lost because of adverse weather conditions.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, this year has been the worst year in
memory for many specialty crop farmers. In New York's Hudson Valley
region, losses on specialty fruit crops total $65 million for 2002
alone. For the communities and the fruit growers in the region, crop
disaster relief is much needed to sustain our farms through this
difficult time.
Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate the remarks of the Senators of New York,
and assure them that we intend for specialty crop producers, including
producers of the crops mentioned by my colleague from New York, to
receive disaster assistance under this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Who yields time?
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the time has actually expired, has it not?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Just under 6 minutes remain for the opponents.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S8406]]
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask the leader of the Senate if I may
speak for 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am happy to yield time from the
leader's allocation, if we are out of time.
Mr. DOMENICI. I will maybe not even take that long.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the effects of a
natural disaster that lingers across most of the West--drought. There
is not a segment of the New Mexico population that will not be touched
in some way, some form, or fashion by drought this year.
People in other parts of the country have turned on their television
sets over the past few weeks and have seen the blazes of catastrophic
wildfires that are again devastating the western United states. This
may be the only effect of the drought that many are aware of. Let me
tell you, the devastation is even more profound.
Ranchers, including ranchers on the Navajo Nation, are being forced
to sell off livestock because they can't find enough water for them and
can't afford the significant feed costs.
Other agricultural businesses are being forced to shut their doors
because the agriculture sector as a whole is hurting. But this is not
just a problem for the agricultural community.
Most of the national forests in New Mexico were closed to the public.
This resulted in a decrease in tourism.
Let me mention a couple of specific examples. First of all, there is
a small railroad, the historic Cumbres and Toltec Railroad, that takes
people through a very beautiful part of the State. The railroad
contributes to the tourism and economic stability of a very poor part
of the State. That railroad was forced to close because it was so close
to the national forest system lands that the fear that the railroad
might spark and start a wildfire is a threat too imminent to risk.
A second example is the river rafting operations that have been
forced to cease operations because of the drought conditions and lack
of river flows.
Municipal and private wells are running dry. In the City of Santa Fe,
emergency wells for municipal water use are needed because Santa Fe's
water storage is at 18 percent capacity, the spring runoff is only at 2
percent, and current wells are pumping 24 hours a day.
The City of Santa Fe is at a Stage 3 water shortage emergency, which
allows outdoor watering once a week, but the City Council is
considering going to Stage 4, which would eliminate all outdoor
watering. To put this in perspective, the last substantial rain for the
area was in late January.
Santa Fe is only one of the numerous municipalities that have imposed
restrictions on water use. These restrictions are enforced by ``water
police'' and that violators face steep fines ranging from $20 for a
first offense to $200 for a fourth offense and stay at $200 for each
repeat violation.
While most livestock sales generally take place on the reservation
during September and October, this year emergency sales were being held
almost every weekend during July and August. Hundreds of cattle, horses
and sheep have already died as a result of the severe drought
conditions.
The article goes on to describe the severity of the conditions.
``Stock ponds have gone dry, fish have died in evaporating lakes, and
grass has disappeared. Sand blows across reservation roads, and the
stiff bodies of dead cattle litter the land.''
The seriousness of the water situation in New Mexico becomes more
acute every single day. I reiterate that every single New Mexican will
feel the impact of this drought in one way or another. whether they are
selling off the essence of their livelihood--livestock, or losing daily
revenues in other small businesses, or whether they are actually having
to refrain from watering their own lawns and washing their cars, the
drought and its devastation is very real.
There is a need out west and I stand ready to do what I can. It will
be a monumental and expensive challenge, but one we cannot avoid.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know we are about to vote. I will take
whatever time I require from my leader time to make a couple of closing
remarks with regard to this amendment.
I appreciate very much the great work done by so many of our
colleagues over the course of the last several months on this issue.
The Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, and the other Senator from
Montana, Mr. Burns, and my colleague from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson,
and so many of our colleagues who have worked diligently to make the
case to report to this body the gravity of the situation we now face,
all deserve commendation.
As I traveled through South Dakota in August during my unscheduled
driving, the comment I got most from people in every situation--people
on Main Street, people in government, people on farms and ranches--was
simply this: Help us with the drought. If you want to deal with the
economy, help us solve this problem now.
The situation could not be any more grave than it is in the western
part of my State. Statistically, this situation is the worst it has
been in some counties since 1936. So, there is no other option than for
us to answer the call made to us all as we traveled our States last
month: Help us with the drought. Provide the assistance. Do what is
right. Recognize that as we have dealt with crises and natural
disasters in the past, we must now do the same. That is what this
amendment does.
We would respond with generosity and we would respond with commitment
if there was a hurricane. We would respond with generosity if there was
a flood. We would respond with generosity it there was an earthquake.
Let us respond with the same commitment and resolve in this drought as
we would with any other natural disaster. That is what this amendment
does.
We have actually saved a great deal of money because prices are
higher than projected when the farm bill passed. We don't need an
offset. We simply know these resources can be re-dedicated to rural
America without the commitment of an offset per se.
This is an emergency. We must send a clear message that, without this
help, we will lose many of those leaders in the agricultural community
throughout our country that we rely on every day.
So I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and recognize the
urgency of the need for this emergency disaster assistance, to support
it on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis this morning and send a clear
message that help is on the way.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I understand there are only 58 seconds
remaining on the side of the opposition. I still want to protect their
right to speak for some time before the vote, and we are now passed the
time limit now. If the Senators who want to speak can be allowed at
least 5 minutes, then we will go immediately to the vote.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object to an extension. We have
Condoleezza Rice and George Tenet waiting for a classified briefing.
Our time is up. People have had all morning to speak.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there are two Senators who have sought
recognition prior to the time we vote. I ask unanimous consent that
Senator Gramm of Texas and Senator Conrad of North Dakota both be given
2 minutes prior to the vote and that the vote occur immediately
thereafter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BURNS. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, those who are in opposition to providing
disaster assistance to our Nation's farmers and ranchers who have been
hit by disaster have said it will cost money. Of course, that is true.
It will cost
[[Page S8407]]
money, over $5 billion, to provide disaster assistance. It is something
we have always done. It is something we should do now.
More than that, the Congressional Budget Office informed me yesterday
that there will be savings from the farm bill of $5.6 billion. Let me
repeat that: The CBO informed me in a letter yesterday there will be
$5.6 billion of savings from the farm bill. That is not a direct offset
for this disaster assistance. I urge my colleagues to keep in mind when
we are looking at overall spending that it will be about a wash.
There are savings from the farm bill because production is down. That
means prices are higher than anticipated, meaning costs under the farm
bill will be less by $5.6 billion. That approximately pays for the
disaster package.
If anyone wonders whether it is really needed, I urge them to visit
southwestern North Dakota, which has become like a moonscape. In
running a food bank in northern South Dakota, a Presbyterian minister
reported that the wives of ranchers are coming in asking for food and
they are very concerned that their husbands not find out because they
are proud. They do not want public assistance, but they desperately
need it.
Now is the time. Please help. We always have in the past.
Mr. DOMENICI. Could I ask the Senator a question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. I listened carefully to the remarks, but the Senator
did not say the Congressional Budget Office told you that a waiver is
not necessary for this bill in that it will require a budget waiver or
it will fall. Is that not correct?
Mr. CONRAD. That is absolutely correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized for 2
minutes.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we have listened as over and over again our
Budget Committee chairman, the majority leader, and others have talked
about deficits and the alarm we have for rising deficits. Yet today we
are in the process of adding $6 billion to those deficits. We have
already passed a farm bill that cost a record amount--over $80 billion
over 10 years--but that is not enough. We are now being asked to add
roughly another $6 billion to that deficit.
We have to come to a recognition that deficits do not come from
heaven. Deficits do not occur because God makes some decision. Deficits
occur because we make decisions.
We have a budget process. The chairman of the Budget Committee is not
willing to defend it, but we have it. We have a budget point of order
that requires 60 votes for the Congress to go on record as saying we
are willing to throw fiscal restraint out the door, that we are willing
to add $6 billion to a deficit which is swelling daily.
I hope, first, that we sustain the budget point of order I will
raise. But I hope those who are going to vote to waive this budget
point of order and who will give us long lectures on many subjects will
not include growing deficits among those subjects.
I think ultimately we have to start making decisions. We have to make
a choice: Do we want these deficits to go ever higher or are we willing
to make a stand now? I am not saying there are not people who need
help. I think we can focus a narrower bill which is paid for. I think a
source of paying for it can be some of the over $80 billion in the farm
bill.
Mr. President, I raise a point of order under section 306 of the
Congressional Budget Act against the pending amendment, No. 4481,
because it contains matter which is within the jurisdiction of the
Senate Budget Committee. That matter is, basically, setting aside the
budget process.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. I move to waive the relevant portion of the Budget Act,
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive. The clerk will
call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) and the
Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Torricelli) are necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr.
Gregg), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), and the Senator
from New Hampshire (Mr. Bob Smith) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 79, nays 16, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 212 Leg.]
YEAS--79
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith (OR)
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--16
Chafee
Ensign
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Hutchison
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Nickles
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thompson
NOT VOTING--5
Akaka
Gregg
Helms
Smith (NH)
Torricelli
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 79, the nays are
16. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to and the point of order falls.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion
on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Enzi
be recognized to offer a second-degree amendment to the Byrd amendment,
that he have up to 3 minutes to discuss his amendment, and that
following the use or yielding back of his time, the amendment be
withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I would further notify Senators that
following Senator Enzi, Senator Craig is expected to offer an
amendment, which would be a second-degree amendment--I have spoken to
the managers of the bill; I have spoken to Senators Dodd and Craig--and
that following the offering of the amendment by the Senator from Idaho,
he would speak for a period of time but not until 12:30, and that there
would be sufficient time for that amendment to be set aside temporarily
and Senator Dodd be recognized to offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Daschle amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4481), as modified, was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. BURNS. Madam President, reserving the right to object--and I will
not object--I need a clarification, though, how that could be disposed
of. Then would the Senator from Connecticut lay his amendment aside
after it being offered to the main bill or to the underlying bill?
Mr. REID. The purpose of this is to have the Craig amendment laid
down. As most know, we are trying to work out an agreement on this very
contentious issue dealing with fire suppression. And staff is trying to
work out a unanimous consent request that we could agree to later
today. But until
[[Page S8408]]
that happens, Senator Craig's amendment would be the matter next before
the Senate. But he has agreed to temporarily lay that aside to allow
the Senator from Connecticut to offer an amendment. And that is not in
the form of a unanimous consent request; it is just for the information
of Senators.
Mr. BURNS. I withdraw my reservation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Amendment No. 4517 To Amendment No. 4480
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 4517.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi], for himself, Mr.
Grassley, and Mr. Hagel, proposes an amendment numbered 4517
to amendment No. 4480.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide offsets through payment limitations)
At the end of the amendment, add the following:
SEC. 3__. PAYMENT LIMITATIONS.
Section 1001 of the Food Security of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ``$40,000'' each place
it appears and inserting ``$17,500'';
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ``$65,000'' each place
it appears and inserting ``$32,500''; and
(3) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
``(d) Limitations on Marketing Loan Gains, Loan Deficiency
Payments, and Commodity Certificate Transactions.--
``(1) Loan commodities.--The total amount of the following
gains and payments that a person may receive during any crop
year may not exceed $90,000:
``(A)(i) Any gain realized by a producer from repaying a
marketing assistance loan for 1 or more loan commodities
under subtitle B of title I of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7931 et seq.) at a lower
level than the original loan rate established for the loan
commodity under that subtitle.
``(ii) In the case of settlement of a marketing assistance
loan for 1 or more loan commodities under that subtitle by
forfeiture, the amount by which the loan amount exceeds the
repayment amount for the loan if the loan had been settled by
repayment instead of forfeiture.
``(B) Any loan deficiency payments received for 1 or more
loan commodities under that subtitle.
``(C) Any gain realized from the use of a commodity
certificate issued by the Commodity Credit Corporation for 1
or more loan commodities, as determined by the Secretary,
including the use of a certificate for the settlement of a
marketing assistance loan made under that subtitle.
``(2) Other commodities.--The total amount of the following
gains and payments that a person may receive during any crop
year may not exceed $90,000:
``(A)(i) Any gain realized by a producer from repaying a
marketing assistance loan for peanuts, wool, mohair, or honey
under subtitle B or C of title I of the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7931 et seq.) at a
lower level than the original loan rate established for the
commodity under those subtitles.
``(ii) In the case of settlement of a marketing assistance
loan for peanuts, wool, mohair, or honey under those
subtitles by forfeiture, the amount by which the loan amount
exceeds the repayment amount for the loan if the loan had
been settled by repayment instead of forfeiture.
``(B) Any loan deficiency payments received for peanuts,
wool, mohair, and honey under those subtitles.
``(C) Any gain realized from the use of a commodity
certificate issued by the Commodity Credit Corporation for
peanuts, wool, mohair, and honey, as determined by the
Secretary, including the use of a certificate for the
settlement of a marketing assistance loan made under those
subtitles.
``(f) Single Farming Operation.--Notwithstanding
subsections (b) through (e), if an individual participates
only in a single farming operation and receives, directly or
indirectly, any payment or gain covered by this section
through the operation, the total amount of payments or gains
(as applicable) covered by this section that the individual
may receive during any crop year may not exceed twice the
dollar amount prescribed in this section.''.
Amendment No. 4517, Withdrawn
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, this is a sorely needed offset for sorely
needed assistance. I wholeheartedly agree with the need for the
emergency agricultural assistance we just passed. It is an emergency in
Wyoming and most of the United States. Another pending emergency is the
increase in our national deficit. We have a readily available and
appropriate offset for at least part of the expenditure. I am
suggesting we use it.
By needing emergency agricultural assistance today--we have tacitly
admitted that by passing Senator Daschle's amendment--we showed that we
needed to add to the farm bill. So it has already been opened.
This is an emergency, which is why I cosponsored the emergency
amendment. However, this body already wanted payment limitations. We
voted on February 7 of this year, by 61 to 33, to include payment
limitations in the farm bill. This isn't an issue of chopping programs
to provide agricultural emergency money when we don't do that for any
other emergency. This is an issue of providing agriculture with
emergency money and helping pay for it with something on which this
body has already voted.
There has been some discussion this morning to the effect that the
lack of crops will lead to additional money anyway. The President has
said he supports drought relief that doesn't increase the national
deficit. We voted for agricultural assistance today. We should make
every effort to keep it alive, and keep it in the bill until it is sent
to the President, by showing our good will and intention to do what we
can today to keep this desperately needed assistance from increasing
the deficit.
It is ridiculous to consider that this body will reject an amendment
that provides an offset for an appropriations bill while entertaining a
host of amendments that increase spending. The arcane rule seems almost
slanted to increased spending.
However, I recognize the importance of rule XVI. I really think this
need for drought assistance, for an offset so that we aren't increasing
the national spending, is entirely critical. But I will withdraw my
amendment based on the Parliamentarian's ruling that rule XVI prohibits
offering amendments containing general legislation on appropriations
bills. I remain committed to funding a bill in which we offer my
amendment that will offset the drought spending.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4518 To Amendment No. 4480
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], for himself and Mr.
Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 4518:
(Purpose: To reduce hazardous fuels on our national forests, and for
other purposes)
At the appropriate place in the amendment, add the
following--
SEC. . EMERGENCY HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PLAN.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (c) and
notwithstanding the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior shall
conduct immediately and to completion, projects consistent
with the Implementation Plan for the 10-year Comprehensive
Strategy for a Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland
Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment, May 2002
developed pursuant to the Conference Report to the Department
of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001
(House Report 106-646) to reduce hazardous fuels within any
areas of federal land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary
of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior that are
outside of Congressionally designated Wilderness Areas and
that the appropriate Secretary determines qualifies as a fire
risk condition class three area. Any project carried out
under this section shall be consistent with the applicable
forest plan, resource management plan, or other applicable
agency plans.
(b) Priority.--In implementing projects under this section,
the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior shall give
highest priority to--
(1) wildland urban interface areas;
(2) municipal watersheds;
(3) forested or rangeland areas affected by disease, insect
activity, or wind throw, or
(4) areas susceptible to a reburn.
(c) Limitations.--In implementing this section, the
Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior shall treat an
aggregate area of not more than 10 million acres of federal
land, maintain not less than 10 of the largest trees per acre
in any treatment area authorized under this section. The
Secretaries shall construct no new, permanent roads in RARE
II Roadless Areas and shall rehabilitate any temporary access
or skid trails.
[[Page S8409]]
(d) Process.--The Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior shall jointly develop--
(1) notwithstanding the Federal Advisory Committee Act, a
collaborative process with interested parties consistent with
the Implementation Plan described in subsection (a) for the
selection of projects carried out under this section
consistent with subsection (b); and
(2) in cooperation with the Secretary of Commerce,
expedited consultation procedures for threatened or
endangered species.
(e) Administrative Process.--
(1) Review.--Projects conducted under this section shall
not be subject to--
(A) administrative review by the Department of the Interior
Office of Hearings and Appeals; or
(B) the Forest Service appeals process and regulations.
(2) Regulations.--
(A) In general.--The Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior, as appropriate, may promulgate such regulations as
are necessary to implement this section.
(f) Judicial Review.--
(1) Process Review.--The processes developed under
subsection (d) shall not be subject to judicial review.
(2) Review of Projects.--Judicial review of a project
implemented under this section shall--
(A) be filed in the Federal District Court for which the
Federal lands are located within 7 days after legal notice of
the decision to conduct a project under this section is made
to the public in a manner as determined by the appropriate
Secretary;
(B) be completed not later than 360 days from the date such
request for review is filed with the appropriate court unless
the District Court determines that a longer time is needed to
satisfy the Constitution;
(C) not provide for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order or a preliminary injunction; and
(D) be limited to a determination as to whether the
selection of the project, based on a review of the record,
was arbitrary and capricious.
(g) Relation to Other Laws.--The authorities provided to
the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior in this
section are in addition to the authorities provided in any
other provision of law, including section 706 of Public Law
107-206 with respect to Beaver Park Area and the Norbeck
Wildlife Preserve within the Black Hills National Forest.
SEC. . QUINCY LIBRARY INITIATIVE.
(a) Congress reaffirms its original intent that the Herger-
Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act of 1998 be
implemented. Congress finds that delays and obstacles to
implementation of the Act have occurred as a result of the
Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment decision January 2001.
(b) Congress hereby extends the expiration of the Act by
five years.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I have just sent to the desk a second-
degree amendment in my name and that of the Senator from New Mexico,
Mr. Domenici, and a good number of other Western Senators who have
grown extremely concerned about the fire situation in the Western
States primarily, and especially the Great Basin States, where we have
seen now wildfires raging since mid-June--some 66.5 million acres,
2,300 homes up in smoke, 28 lives lost, phenomenal wildlife habitat and
watershed destroyed. Clearly, it is a time when we need positive action
to resolve this issue.
Others have spoken to it. Our President, about 3 weeks ago, while in
Oregon, spoke very clearly to the need for flexibility within forest
policy in this country to deal with the fuel-loaded forests of our
Nation, to thin them and to clean them, to restore their health, and to
do so in an environmentally sound way.
The amendment we offer today--while we still work with my colleagues
from Oregon and California and other States that have the same problem,
but we are working with a variety of interest groups at this moment to
see if we can resolve this in permanent policy--is an expedited process
that does not lock the courthouse door, that recognizes the validity of
expression and public participation to deal with this issue.
We have reached out to incorporate what the Western Governors
proposed, along with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Agriculture, some months ago, to be a collaborative process that brings
all of the parties together on a State-by-State basis to recognize
these lands and to designate them for the purpose of cleaning up.
We have limited this approach to no more than 10 million acres. There
are over 33 million acres in the class 3 status, which means they are
severely bug-ridden, dead, dying, fuel-loaded forests. Even with that
number, we have chosen to be limited, to target the most severe, and to
deal with it directly.
We also are dealing with the wildland-urban interface, where these
homes now in the Western States are, of which we have lost over 2,300
as of today. We are also dealing with urban watersheds. Many of the
watersheds that yield the valuable water to the growing urban
populations of the West have been devastated by fire this year or are
in conditions where they are extremely fire prone. We have also set up
a variety of other prescriptions as to how these lands would be dealt
with.
I will talk no more in detail about it. My colleague from New Mexico
is here to speak about it. We are still working with our other
colleagues in the West and around the country to see if we can build a
bipartisan approach toward resolving this issue.
The President, the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, and the Chief are
directly involved with us at this moment to see if we can bind together
at least a policy that begins to step us forward into resolving what,
in my opinion, is now a critical, if not a crisis, status in our U.S.
forested lands.
We have now lost an unprecedented number of acres. We are still
burning in the States of California and in other States. That could
well go on for another month before the wet season hits. We could lose
over 7.5 million acres this year, comparable to what we lost last year.
That is the intent of this amendment--to bring parties of interest
together to resolve this, to bring Western States together to see if we
can find a course of action and the shaping of a public policy that
begins to return our great forests to a state of environmental health,
watershed quality, and wildlife habitat of the kind we would expect.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I thank Senator Craig. It is a
privilege to work with him on this entire matter. He is the chief
sponsor, and I am here to help him. I started working on it very late
compared to Senator Craig. When I say ``it,'' I mean this issue, the
terrible status of the American forests.
Everyone in this Chamber, be they staffer or Senator, Democrat or
Republican, has, over the last 3\1/2\ months, looked at their
television in absolute awe, for they have seen hundreds of thousands of
what seemed from a distance to be beautiful American forests that ought
to be enjoyed by millions of people, owned by all Americans, burning
up. Sometimes they move a little bit out of the forest and catch a
house on fire. If they are burning in California, they burn a house,
almost every time. We have fires in my State of New Mexico where they
burn and no houses are affected, but the beautiful forest is burning to
the ground.
You heard the numbers. It is absolutely incredible. What we are told
is that there are, within this great forest, 33 million acres that, if
you went and looked at it, they are not so beautiful, they are not so
great.
If you drive through them for a few miles, you will probably ask the
person you are riding with: Why are those trees still there? They may
be stark, burned trees just standing straight up, black or dark brown
from having been burned, but still standing up. If there is a big tree
in the same forest--you may see a huge amount of acreage that has blown
over. Nature knocked them over so they are not the beautiful forest
that you think it is from a distance.
Or if you go to two or three forests, you will also find that there
are infected forests with various kinds of bugs, to use a common word--
insects that have eaten a forest away and what happens? It just stands.
These dry, wooden trees just stand. Underneath all of this, or
alongside of it all, are small trees that have fallen down, leaves that
have piled up. In a nutshell, the forest is unattended and left,
obviously, for years, with nobody doing what we all did many years ago.
Nobody is cleaning it up; nobody is thinning it.
So we have acreage in America where there are so many trees growing
side by side that we were shown yesterday
[[Page S8410]]
by one of our colleagues, who is helping with this bill, two pieces--a
cut across a tree about this thick, about 14, 15 inches in diameter,
and another one was this big, about 4\1/2\, 5 inches in diameter. But
guess what. They can tell how old each one is. The little one is twice
as old as the bigger one because of poor growing conditions, because
they were all squashed up together, like you see American forests
today. Instead of being separated, where the Sun can go down through
and the forest can be happy--as we called a bill to clean up the
forests last year, we named it the Happy Forest Act, hoping that we
would start to clean up the forests.
But we have not. The American people have now heard on the local news
media and the national news media that, for some reason, the process of
trying to clean up some of these trees--I am speaking now of those
categories to which my friend Senator Larry Craig alluded--that almost
anybody would say let's get those out of the forests.
The process of cleaning it up has been held up by a procedure that
gets almost every desired cleanup into a court of law, into a NEPA
statement, regardless of how little or ineffective it is against the
forest. In fact, the process got so bad that, while most of us were
totally unable to get a change so we could do fix it, the distinguished
majority leader saw it coming. Senator Daschle saw it coming in his
State. He must have gone there and saw what we see. He saw it in his
forest in the Black Hills. In other words, he saw some acreage where
his constituents must have been showing him and saying: Senator, why do
we have to leave that here? It is just a target that will burn our
whole forest down. Why are you not able? Because environmental groups,
which are particularly concerned--rightfully so--with the forests of
America, won't let you take it up?
So everyone should know that Senator Craig, Senator Domenici, and
many other Western and Rocky Mountain Senators--hopefully, before we
are finished we will be joined by many others--looked at the urgent
supplemental that passed not long ago, and we noticed that the
distinguished majority leader had put in language exempting fuels
reduction projects on the Black Hills National Forest from NEPA appeals
and litigation.
So from a distance, we said, thank you, Mr. Majority leader, you
really did for us what ought to be done--except that you only did it
for your State. No criticism. That is fine. We say if it is good enough
for the majority leader in his State, then it ought to be good enough
for us. We have many, many times more acreage of this kind in our
respective States--Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and I can go on.
We have much, much more of that broken down, knocked over timber,
burned but still standing, wind blown, bug-infested. We would like to
have the same thing, or as close as we can, that Senator Daschle, quite
correctly, gave to the citizens of his State. He did that a month and a
half ago, or less, when we put amendments on an appropriations bill.
Again, I have no objection to his having done that. I praised him
because the time had come when NEPA had to be changed. We were all
operating under a blanket that said you can't do that, no matter what.
When we read this, we said, if you cannot do it, it has just been done
because the distinguished majority leader did it for the Black Hills in
his State. And now I walked, during the last 25 days in my State, into
about six or eight meetings with cowboys and people who used to work in
lumber mills, with people who have farms up alongside the forests; they
are at meetings and all they want to know, why can't we clean forests
so they won't burn down. Anybody coming to see Senator Domenici puts up
his hand and he wants to know why can't New Mexico do what South Dakota
can do. All we can do is say Senator Daschle is a fair man. He did this
for his constituents. We believe when he sees what should be done for
ours, he will be helpful.
We do hope the amendment that we put down--the Craig-Domenici, et
al--that many Senators will be on it. I have talked to Senators on the
other side whose names have not yet been mentioned--even by Senator
Larry Craig, the prime sponsor. I am talking to all of them now,
Democrats and Republicans. We can put a bill together that will work in
California, where there are many houses and they are very valuable and,
therefore, you need to clean up around each of them--all the way over
to New Mexico where you have very open spaces and some houses. But you
have to make sure the cleanup is not going to just be around buildings
and houses. Some of it will have to be in other open spaces where the
forest itself will be the victim, not necessarily a house in the fire's
way.
So I urge that--as is the usual manner when we have a situation such
as this--we not end up with one group calling the other group names--
that one is pro-environment, or that one is pro-forest. I submit that
we have a big problem. Senator Daschle tried to solve it for his
constituents. We have observed that carefully. We would like to solve
it for our constituents. We do not believe the distinguished majority
leader is going to say: I got it but you cannot have it. It is fair and
it must be done. Our forests will burn down before we ever get to clean
them up.
Having said that, we worked very hard--not just Republicans, but a
number of Democrats, and not just Republican staff, but a number of
Democrat staff who know what they are talking about. We crafted this
bill. We think from the standpoint of doing away with some of the
litigation that environmentalists like to be in place so they think
their interests are protected, we have left more court proceedings in
our measure than the majority leader left in his. We have streamlined
the process, no question about it. We have taken less of a proportion
of the class III gambling acreage and put it in our bill.
Senator Craig said, out of 33 million acres that are so polluted as
we described, they are going to burn down and carry all kinds of other
trees with them. Ten out of 33 is what we provide for in our bill. We
are willing to say, if they cannot do 10, because they don't have the
equipment or the time, it can be altered. We are also in favor of
adding the new money that the President pledged, and that can go to
this. If there needs to be more, we can talk about it on the floor of
the Senate.
I rose today not to speak of technicalities. We will do that. Our
amendment is there and there are plenty of copies for the technicians
to look at. In a nutshell, we have seen the forests of America and they
are burning.
We think over time we must have a new forest plan. I have heard my
good friend, Senator Craig, speak of a new forest plan, a new horizon
for maintenance and upkeep that will keep these forests beautiful. We
also speak of preserving these forests where they are subject to being
burned down because of our failure to maintain them. We want to go in,
within the next 18 months, and do as much maintenance as we can. In the
process, we are not interested in lumber.
As soon as we decided we were going this way, 10 or 15 Senators got
on television and we heard opposition: We do not want to do that,
because they are all for big lumber.
What we are for is saving our forests. We do not have any new lumber
contract language, that I am aware of, in this bill. I am not an
expert, but I see the experts saying that is true. We have provisions
that will permit the managers within the Forest Service and the BLM to
proceed to maximum cleanup, and to do it now.
We do not have any new roadways, as I understand it. We do not have
new roadways where there are none, because we are not interested in
that; that is not our goal.
So once again, I say to our friends, Democrats and Republicans, these
are days when we seem to try to come together as Senators. We are not
getting a lot done because 9/11 is hovering over us. But I do think it
would permit us, also under that attitude we have generated of being
more friendly and more congenial, to consider what those who oppose it
say; we will consider it to be a legitimate objection, if the other
side will consider what we propose to do as legitimate and let us
explain it carefully.
Let's see if we can get a bill so we can go home this year, whether
we are running or whether we are just going home because it is our time
to go home, and we can go to those meetings I described and say,
Democrat and Republican, joined by our President, we
[[Page S8411]]
put more money into cleaning up the forests that you live by, live in,
work with, and recreate in; we put money to do some real fixing up; and
we also have agreed we do not have to take so long to go from weighing
that forest and saying it is one of those that ought to be cleaned up
to getting it cleaned up.
Should it take 5 years? Of course not. Should it take so long that
everybody gives up? Of course not. We have provisions as to how fast it
must go in terms of the events that occur in the courtrooms and other
places.
This is one chance to make some real changes. They will be temporary,
but we will be able to look at them and say we can now continue to do
them; the forests may come out clean in 10 or 15 years, not next week,
not next month.
I am hopeful our amendment, which obviously can be changed, will be
looked at from the standpoint that we are not here to blame; we are not
here to criticize; we are here to commend the distinguished majority
leader for seeing that NEPA, the approach of the National Environmental
Protection Act to cleaning up the forests, has to be modified in terms
of its imposition of delay.
We ought to be able to do that in writing, where it is easy for
everybody to understand and will not destroy, will not cause our
forests to be logged in some way that is not good for America. We hope
the public can look openly at our work in the next 3 or 4 days. And we
want it to be open. We have nothing to hide. We want to be able to say
within the next 6 weeks, across the United States on the nightly news
and the newscasts of the day, the bipartisan Senate has decided to fix
up the forests before they burn down, clean them up before they are no
more. That is essentially what our bill is all about.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I am going to be very brief because I am
imposing on the time of Senator Dodd. As chairman of the Senate's
Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands, I regret to say this morning
I have to oppose the amendment that has been laid down by my
colleagues.
I have enormous respect for both Senator Domenici and Senator Craig.
I want to take a couple of minutes to talk about my concerns. I want to
be clear, having lived this issue constantly with my constituents
through the summer months, I am totally committed to the concept of
expedited treatment when we are dealing with areas that are fire prone,
when we are dealing with areas that are at risk for fire, as so much of
the West is. I am committed to expedited treatment.
I will say, and I regret to have to do so this morning, I believe
this amendment is an overreach. The history in the West, because things
are so polarized, is that the surest way to taint an effort to try to
bring the parties together is to overreach. Particularly, this analogy
to South Dakota, I would say to my good friends, simply does not wash.
The South Dakota example involved 800 acres. We are talking about
millions and millions of acres in this debate. If there is one thing
that we westerners have learned, it is that one size does not fit all.
I hope we can continue to talk about ways to really ecologically
improve the health of fire-prone forests, work together to tailor our
approach to deal with areas that are at risk for fire. I have made it
clear I support expedited treatment there.
Let us not lock the doors to the courthouse. I believe people have a
constitutional right to access the courts, but they do not have a
constitutional right to a 5-year delay. Let us make sure all the
stakeholders have a place at the negotiating table.
Senator Craig and I have an experience that has worked with the
county payments bill, a bill that the Forest Service called the most
important bill in 30 years.
Finally, it seems to me we ought to be sensitive to the ecological
importance of the big old-growth trees.
So I am saddened that I have to oppose this amendment. I plan to
continue to keep talking to my colleagues.
I thank Senator Dodd again for his graciousness in giving me this
time, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I will only take a minute.
I say to my good friend from Oregon, I thank him for his remarks. I
am very hopeful that whenever we vote on this bill, the Senator will
vote aye, because whatever it is the Senator thinks does not fit the
bill in this amendment can be rectified.
I also say that my mentioning of the distinguished majority leader
was with praise, with congratulations, and stating that he showed us
how. I did not say we have to do it the same way, but he did change the
effect of NEPA for his State once and for all on these forests. I am
very proud he did. I want to do something close to that when we do it.
I do not want to close the gates of the courthouse. In fact, we did
less of that in this than with other bills. I think the Senator knows
that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. I say to my friend, Senator Craig, who is in the Chamber,
in conversations with the distinguished majority whip a moment ago the
suggestion was that we might temporarily lay aside the Craig amendment
so I could offer an amendment. I am not going to take a lot of time on
this, I would say to the ranking member on this bill. I will lay down
this amendment and explain briefly what I would like to do.
Since this involves the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Senator Inouye, the
chairman of the committee, is looking at the amendment, but I want to
at least discuss this by taking a few minutes.
I ask unanimous consent that the amendment offered by the
distinguished Senator from Idaho be temporarily laid aside for the
purposes of offering an amendment I would propose, with the full
understanding that, obviously, the amendment by Senator Craig would
preempt any consideration of my amendment, at least under the present
circumstances.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 4522 to amendment No. 4472
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] proposes an amendment
numbered 4522 to amendment No. 4472.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To prohibit the expenditure of funds to recognize Indian
tribes and tribal nations until the date of implementation of certain
administrative procedures)
On page 64, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
SEC. 1__. FEDERAL RECOGNITION.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, and subject to the availability of funds and
subsections (b) and (c), the Bureau of Indian Affairs may not
use more than $1,900,000 of the funds made available by this
Act to carry out functions and activities associated with the
Branch of Acknowledgment and Research.
(b) Limitations.--None of the funds made available under
this Act shall be used to approve or deny a petition from any
person or entity for recognition as a federally-recognized
Indian tribe or tribal nation (referred to in this section as
a ``petition'') until such date as the Secretary of the
Interior (referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'')
certifies to Congress that the administrative procedures
described in subsection (c) have been implemented with
respect to consideration of any petition submitted to the
Secretary.
(c) Procedures.--The administrative procedures described in
subsection (b) are that--
(1) in addition to notices provided under any other
provision of law, not later than 30 days after the date of
receipt of a petition, the Secretary shall provide written
notification of the petition to--
(A) the Governor and attorney general of--
(i) the State in which the petitioner is located as of that
date; or
(i) each State in which the petitioner has been located
historically, if that State is different from the State in
which the petitioner is located as of that date;
(B) the chief executive officers of each county and
municipality located in the geographic area historically
occupied by the petitioner; and
(C) any Indian tribe and any other petitioner that, as
determined by the Secretary--
(i) has a relationship with the petitioner (including a
historical relationship); or
[[Page S8412]]
(ii) may otherwise be considered to have a potential
interest in the acknowledgement determination;
(2) the Secretary--
(A) shall consider all relevant evidence submitted by a
petitioner or any other interested party, including
neighboring municipalities that possess information bearing
on the merits of a petition;
(B) on request by an interested party, may conduct a formal
hearing at which all interested parties may present evidence,
call witnesses, cross-examine witnesses, or rebut evidence
presented by other parties during the hearing; and
(C) shall include a transcript of a hearing described in
subparagraph (B) in the administrative record of the hearing
on which the Secretary may rely in considering a petition;
(3) the Secretary shall--
(A) ensure that the evidence presented in consideration of
a petition is sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner
meets each of the 7 mandatory criteria for recognition
contained in section 83.7 of title 25, Code of Federal
Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this
Act); and
(B) consider a criterion to be met if the Secretary
determines that it is more likely than not that evidence
presented demonstrates the satisfaction of the criterion; and
(4) the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register,
and provide to each person to which notice is provided under
paragraph (1), a complete and detailed explanation of the
final decision of the Secretary regarding a documented
petition under this Act that includes express findings of
fact and law with respect to each of the criteria described
in paragraph (3).
Mr. DODD. Madam President, let me emphasize, I am offering this
amendment now with the full understanding that my dear friend and
colleague from Hawaii, the chairman of the committee, is reviewing this
amendment to see whether it might be accepted. If it is, obviously we
will deal with it in a different manner.
Since we have some time and we are about to leave the Interior bill
to go back to homeland security, it may be another day or two before we
get back to the Interior appropriations bill. So I thought I would take
advantage of this pause in the consideration of the Craig amendment to
lay out what this amendment is, why I am offering it, and why it is so
terribly important that we adopt it, or something like it, if we can.
It is with some reluctance that I offer this amendment to address the
process for recognizing Indian tribes in this country. I would have
preferred to have the matter addressed at a different time and under
different circumstance, but I raise it now because the matter has
considerable urgency and importance in my State and other States.
Currently, there are 200 petitions pending at the Bureau of Indian
Affairs by groups throughout our country seeking Federal recognition as
Indian tribes. Nine of the petitions are in my State of Connecticut, a
State 110 miles by 630 miles square. There are in addition to the two
tribes that have been recognized in our State, with which I have a very
close and warm relationship, the Pequot Tribe and the Mohegan Tribe,
both of which have played a significant role in our State and with our
citizens and have contributed to the well-being of our State. The two
tribes have generated thousands of jobs in Connecticut and have
provided much revenue for the State.
I offer this amendment which in no way deals at all with tribes that
have been recognized. I strongly support them and have been deeply
involved in both the Mohegan and Pequot issues, sometimes going back to
my days when I served in the other body, when the Tribes were first
considered for recognition. We went through an extensive process.
My concern has to do with the fact that the recognition process, by
the admission of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, has broken down
entirely. I will quote the former head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Kevin Gover, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs:
I am troubled by the money backing certain petitions and I
do think it is time that Congress should consider an
alternative to the [existing] process. [Otherwise,] we're
more likely to recognize someone that might not deserve it.
That was the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs.
We are reviewing petitions that are almost hard to imagine. We just
had a situation in our State where two tribes opposing each other
sought recognition by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Bureau of
Indian Affairs did not approve either application but rather came up
with a third choice--no one asked for it--and recognized the third
choice.
If that is not a system that is broken down, I don't know what is.
All we are asking in this amendment is that communities, leaders,
Governors, and the various States where the petitions are pending be
notified of the petitions; that other tribes be notified as well as the
petitions; that there be improved notice of petition to key persons who
may have an interest in the petition, including the Governor and the
attorney general of the State where a tribe seeks recognition;
consideration of all relevant evidence submitted by a petitioner and
other interested parties, including municipalities; require that a
petitioner meet each and every one of the seven criteria for Federal
recognition spelled out by the current Code of Federal Regulations; and
require that a decision on a petition be published in the Federal
registry that includes express written findings of fact and of law with
respect to each of the seven mandatory criteria.
We had a case not long ago where the criteria of showing a continuity
of relationship had been broken by more than 70 years. The Assistant
Secretary, despite the findings of the technical staff that said this
gap would be enough to deny recognition, overruled the technical staff
and approved it anyway. So what we are doing is not writing new
criteria. These criteria are part of the Federal Registry. We want to
codify them to say if these criteria are important, they ought to be
adhered to. If you go through the recognition process, you must meet
the criteria, as well as inform affected communities.
Many States in the country have petitions pending. There are 200
pending. My State has nine. That is why there is a sense of urgency.
Other States have petitions pending, as well. This is not about denying
petitions. I happen to believe if criteria are met, these tribes ought
to be recognized. In fact, I suggest the present process, as flawed and
as broken as it is, devalues federal recognition so those that have
been recognized, under stiff criteria, those who have gone through the
process that took years in some cases, will see their recognition
undermined in some sense if the future recognitions are granted where
the criteria have not been met. That is what we are trying to avoid.
This amendment imposes a moratorium on any new recognitions until the
Bureau of Indian Affairs applies these criteria. They can do it quickly
and move forward, or they can delay it. And in that case, we hold up
here.
We have also in this amendment provided some $1.9 million if funds
are made available to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. There are some
wonderful people working in this agency. But they do not have the
resources needed when you have 200 applications pending, a relatively
small staff, and if you are trying to do the historical research, the
checking, all of the investigation that needs to be done, considering
all the information that comes to you, you have to have the people who
can help you do that.
I don't require this spending because that might subject the
amendment to a point of order, but I merely point out that these funds,
if available, should be made available to the Bureau of Indian Affairs
to allow them to do the job they would like to do.
Again, I don't write anything new in terms of new criteria, new law,
new hurdles. We take the existing criteria, we do say you must notify
people and affected communities where this is going on so they can be
heard and people have an opportunity to discuss what will happen if
recognition is approved and we end up with a sense of community. I wish
every single community could go through what we went through with the
Mohegan Tribe in Connecticut when that Tribe was seeking recognition.
The relationship with the surrounding communities that developed was
not done under law. It was done because the leadership of the tribe and
the leadership of the communities worked so closely together. As a
result of that, today we have a wonderful relationship between a Native
American tribe and the communities in which they reside.
Recently, I participated in the opening of a new hotel at the Mohegan
facility, and had dinner with the tribal council. The tribal council
invited
[[Page S8413]]
leaders throughout the State. Everyone was there to celebrate the
remarkable event, this wonderful relationships that have emerged, and
the contribution this tribe has made. With the Pequot Tribe, we have
had a more difficult relationship with some of the communities, but
they are working at it. There are still issues to be resolved and they
are struggling to sort them out.
We need to bring some sanity and some sensibility to a recognition
process that is just not working. I wish there was some other way to
deal with this. I don't ever want to support legislation to undo
recognition where recognition has been granted. We are not talking
about anything that would undermine the recognition of existing tribes
in the country. It merely says for those petitions that are pending,
the criteria should be met; that notice should be given; that
opportunity to be heard should be made. We do not think that is a
tremendous amount to be asking. We are looking at, in some cases,
tremendous additional burdens on surrounding communities, on
transportation, housing, and the like. We need to take that into
consideration with Federal recognition as part of the process.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Dodd's
proposed amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, to reform and strengthen
the Federal tribal recognition process for American Indian tribes and
their governments.
I am pleased to join with my respected colleague on this amendment,
and concur with his sentiment that this amendment will further
constructive dialogue on establishing a more fair and open Federal
tribal recognition process. In 2001, I joined him in introducing S.
1392 and S. 1393, which were similarly designed to reform and improve
the process by which the Federal Government recognizes the sovereign
status of American Indian tribes and their tribal governments.
The Federal tribal recognition process has greatly affected the State
of Connecticut and its local municipalities from a financial and
physical infrastructure standpoint. Connecticut is one of our nation's
geographically smallest states. However, Connecticut already has three
federally recognized tribes, one of which is being appealed, and nine
more recognition petitions are in the Bureau of Indian Affairs
pipeline. That is why Connecticut has been so keenly impacted by the
federal recognition process.
This Federal recognition process has been fraught with controversy.
We shouldn't recognize additional tribes until the process is fixed and
credibility in the BIA recognition process is reestablished. It is
widely recognized that the process is both extremely lengthy and that
towns and other interested parties feel that their views have been
ignored.
I want to stress that this amendment does nothing to affect already
recognized Federal tribes or hinder their economic development plans.
Nor does it change existing Federal tribal recognition laws. What this
amendment does, consistent with those laws, is ensure that recognition
criteria are satisfied and all affected parties, including affected
towns, have a chance to fairly participate in the decision process. It
assures a system of notice to affected parties; that relevant evidence
from petitioners and interested parties, including neighboring towns,
is properly considered; that a formal hearing may be requested, with an
opportunity for witnesses to be called and with other due process
procedures in place; that a transcript of the hearing is kept; that the
evidence is sufficient to show that the petitioner meets the seven
mandatory criteria in Federal regulations; and that a complete and
detailed explanation of the final decision and findings of fact are
published in the Federal Register. Under the amendment, funding
available under the Interior Appropriations bill to the Bureau of
Indian Affairs for the recognition process becomes available when these
fundamental due process procedures are implemented by the Secretary of
Interior. The amendment dictates no outcomes, it simply tries to assure
a fair process, accessible and more transparent to affected parties.
Mr. DODD. I see my wonderful friend, Ben Nighthorse Campbell. He and
I have talked about this on numerous occasions, and he is aware of what
I am doing with this amendment I drafted many months ago.
I have gone through it and have had numerous conversations with
Native American tribes about this amendment, as to what I wanted to do
and why I thought it was important. I am very grateful for the
responses I have had, the understanding here that this in no way
derecognizes--in fact I would vehemently oppose any effort to
derecognize any tribe in this country that has received Federal
recognition.
The point I am trying to make here is that the Bureau of Indian
Affairs needs resources and it needs to follow a process so there is
clarity; so everybody understands what happens and how it happens; so
there is the information the people need; so there is an opportunity to
respond; so the criteria will be met.
You have great technical staff, great professional staff at the BIA.
It is disheartening for them to go through a process and make
recommendations and have an Assistant Secretary veto their hard work,
and that has happened in too many instances.
We have 200 applications pending--in my State nine of them--and a
number of them are going to be decided in the next 7 or 8 months. If I
could wait for the next Congress, wait for an authorization bill to
come up, I would rather go that way. But next year the amendment I am
offering would do little or nothing if recognition is granted in places
it is not deserved.
What heightens this more than anything else are some of the most
recent applications. I know my friend from Colorado is aware of this,
but we actually had two tribes seeking recognition. They opposed each
other's recognition. The Bureau of Indian Affairs essentially rejected
both applications and approved a third application that was never
filed. You can understand the utter amazement of my constituents under
those circumstances. That is like two people applying for a Federal
grant, both being rejected, and a grant being awarded to an agency that
never sought it. My colleagues who think the system is not broken: Look
at that example.
While your State may not be affected today, it could be, so we need
to bring some order to this, provide the resources, make sure the
criteria are met, and then we ought to accept and endorse and applaud
when recognition occurs and not to undermine the recognition process
when problems such as this arise.
Again, I will take some additional time if necessary. I am hopeful my
colleagues can just accept this amendment. I am not interested in going
through a unnecessary process here, a lengthy process of debate on
this. I would like to see if we could agree. I am not adding anything
new. I am just taking the criteria and codifying them, and setting a
moratorium. The moratorium could last a month or less if the criteria
would be applied, so it need not delay things inordinately.
I have tried every which way; I know of no other way we can get BIA's
attention. We cannot get a bill up. We can't get things done, and the
process goes on, and if a recognition comes through--I don't want to
undo a recognition when it occurs. That would be outrageous. That would
put in jeopardy every single recognized tribe, which would have to fear
an act of Congress might somehow derecognize them. That is not the way
to go. But if we don't bring in some sanity and we end up with
circumstances such as those that happened in my State, I can see
somebody passing legislation that might just do that, and it would not
be because they are evil or bad but it would be because they see a
system that is flawed and is providing recognition where it is not
deserved, or worse, denying recognition where it was deserved because
other financial interests objected to them reaching that status.
So both the petitioner that deserves recognition and the neighbors of
petitioners that do not are in jeopardy as a result of the present
process. It's unfair and wrong.
I am hopeful we can, as I say, adopt this and then convince the
administration, convince the BIA to improve the process and go this
route and straighten this out before we end up with a firestorm across
the country that I
[[Page S8414]]
think could do great damage to our Nation and to those that deserve
recognition that might otherwise be adversely affected by it.
I have not gone into the whole casino deal because I don't think that
is the issue. If a tribe in my State deserves recognition and they go
through the process, my State allows for Native American tribes to
operate casinos. If a tribe deserves recognition and they open up a
casino, if they deserve the recognition, then they deserve to go ahead
with that. I may not be enthusiastic about it, but I don't believe we
ought to be opposing recognition because Native American tribes all of
a sudden have discovered a way to accrue some wealth. So my objection
to this process is not grounded in the casino debate. I understand it.
I am sympathetic in some ways.
Mine is a small State, smaller than Yellowstone National Park. It is
smaller than some counties in California or Montana, geographically.
When you end up with two of the largest casinos in the world and the
possibility of nine more in a little State, you can understand some
frustration being felt. But my argument is not grounded on that point.
If recognition is deserved, it ought to be granted. My concern is that
the recognition process is so broken and so flawed that even the
Assistant Secretary has described it as such. It is incumbent upon us,
it seems to me, to try to do what we can to straighten this out.
So this amendment is designed to impose a moratorium, take existing
law, existing regulations, codify them so there is clarity in the
process, there is a clear roadmap, so those petitioners seeking
recognition and those opposing it for whatever reason can have a higher
degree of expectation of what is expected of them and what the hurdles
are that have to be met before recognition is granted or denied.
With that, I have taken more time than I said I probably would. I am
grateful to Senator Craig and Senator Domenici for laying aside their
amendment so I could lay this down for the purpose of letting my
colleagues know my interests. Hopefully we can find some common ground.
My colleague from Colorado has an alternative idea. My concern is, if
we don't get that done in the meantime, the recognition goes forward
and obviously he is not going to offer a bill that is going to undo
anything that has occurred already.
For those of us who sense urgency on this issue, I am looking for
some temporary filler here until we get to a more elaborate, more
established process. My concern is by the time we get that done, the
horses may be out of my barn, in a sense, and there will be nothing
more than a historical tragedy in a way where I have nothing more to
say to my colleagues except we missed an opportunity.
It seems to me, if I do not try to do something here, then we are
subject to the criticism that we knew a system was broken and we didn't
make an effort to try to do something about it.
With that, let me sit down, yield the floor, and listen to the good
words of my friend.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The Senator from Colorado is
recognized.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I ask a couple of minutes of time from Senator Burns,
if I can get some.
Let me tell my friend, Senator Dodd, I think he has brought something
forward that we have long neglected. We have dealt with it in the
Indian Affairs Committee several times and have not been able to find a
solution.
I know, as you said, the casino issue may not be the central focus
point, but clearly it has driven the debate over the last few years.
There are probably 60 or 70 or more on the drawing boards right now
throughout America. In fact, there is a good number in California.
We have seen the advent of huge amounts of money. Actually it ended
up dividing families, about who was going to control the tribe. We are
dealing with that now in California, where part of the family has
literally disenfranchised some other parts through some local decisions
made by the agencies in California rather than even going as far as the
Secretary's office or the Under Secretary's office. So we know there
are some real problems with it.
I wanted to mention that I may very well join you. But right now I
understand this is going to be laid aside for a while anyway. I tried
to call Senator Inouye, the chairman. I am the ranking member, as the
Senator from Connecticut knows. He is not in yet, but we are going to
sit down and talk about this.
I might say, in the past, my own feeling about codifying anything--in
other words, taking regulations and turning them into law--without
people whose lives are going to be affected, I have always been very
careful about that, particularly in the Indian community. We hear very
often in committee when Indians come in to testify, tribes come to
testify, people say: We didn't even know you were going to do this. We
had no opportunity to study it, to deal with it. I know, at least in my
view, I do not think any of the national groups, for instance, the
National Congress of American Indians, any professional group or any
particular tribes, have had a chance to review this and try to be in on
the discussion about how we fix something that is rapidly causing a lot
of problems.
Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield, I have, going back a number of
months now, specifically transmitted this language, or language like it
anyway, to one of the national tribal councils to get their input. I
don't want to bring anything to the floor that in any way they would
feel hostile about or toward.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I tell my friend, their national convention is going to
be in San Diego after we get out, in November, with only 17 or 18 days
of actual working time here. It might well be too late to do anything
this year. But if we don't, and even if it does have the support of
Indian tribes, it is certainly something we ought to review next year.
I tell my friend I will be looking forward to trying to find a solution
to this very difficult problem.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, will the majority whip yield for a second?
Mr. REID. I would be happy to yield to my friend for a question.
Mr. BURNS. Will he allow me to ask unanimous consent that the Dodd
amendment be laid aside so the pending business would be the Craig
amendment?
Mr. REID. Absolutely.
Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent that the Dodd amendment be laid
aside and that we return to the Craig amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senator.
Amendment No. 4518
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to take just a few minutes to talk
about the statements given by my friend--I say my dear friend from New
Mexico, the former chairman of the Budget Committee, and someone I have
worked with for many years on the Appropriations Committee and the
Energy and Water Subcommittee--regarding the South Dakota forest
settlement that was initiated and accomplished just a few months ago.
The amendment that was offered by my friend from Idaho simply doesn't
meet the Black Hills test. There are others who can probably explain
that better than I. But I think I have a pretty good knowledge of what
happened in South Dakota.
First of all, the amendment offered by the minority doesn't offer any
new wilderness in exchange for protecting the timber from appeals. In
addition to the 10 million acres of trees that my friend from New
Mexico wants to have the Forest Service and BLM cutting down and doing
things of that nature, if my friend wants to include a wilderness part
of that, that would be something maybe a lot of us could take a look
at. As we know, wilderness comes in this body by inches. It is very
difficult to accomplish.
Anytime we talk about what is happening in South Dakota, understand
that a component of that was creating wilderness--in fact, about 4,000
acres of wilderness. I think that is something we have to understand.
We have to also understand that the amendment offered by my friend
from the minority is sweeping in its scope, covering, as I understand
it, about 10 million acres. The South Dakota proposal dealt with 8,000
acres.
The terms and conditions of the individual projects under this
proposal that we have from our friend from
[[Page S8415]]
Idaho will not be subject to negotiations by environmental groups,
States, and the industry. It also does not protect wilderness areas
from new road construction. It will not retain large, green trees and
snags--something that was in the South Dakota proposal.
I know it is an interesting ploy to say we want to do just exactly
what South Dakota did. No one really means that. It is a totally
different situation involving not 10 million acres but 8,000 acres.
There have been longstanding negotiations in South Dakota. It has
been involved in the court system for a considerable period of time.
I think we have to get off that, and get off the fact that we only
want to do what the majority leader wants. We want is to make sure that
places such as beautiful Lake Tahoe, which is a lake surrounded by the
States of Nevada and California are protected--a lot of people are
living there. We are really afraid of a fire taking place there because
lots of people now live in that basin.
During one of the trips that I remember taking with the supervisor of
the forests in that area, he said: Senator, the thing we are worried
about is fire, because of the downdrafts and updrafts that occur every
day. If a fire starts in here, we will not be able to control it. We
came very close this summer to having a fire burn into that basin. We
were very fortunate. Nature was kind to us. It burned the other side
toward Carson City. That was extremely important.
But what we want and what we hope to be able to have at a subsequent
time is the Craig amendment and the amendment we will offer here. We
will debate those two amendments and, of course, recognize that because
we have the 60-vote threshold here in the Senate, we have been jumping
through all of the hoops dealing with cloture. We would simply have the
60-vote threshold on both. We are in the process of seeing if we can
work something out in that regard. That proposal was given to me by the
Senator from Idaho earlier today. The staff is working to see if they
can come up with the unanimous consent agreement.
What we want--and I will just lay out the broad outlines of that--is
to protect Lake Tahoe.
What does that mean? We think 70 percent of the money should be spent
protecting urban areas--not 70 percent creating new places to cut down
trees where there are no people. Lake Tahoe is a perfect example of
that. If we could have the trees thinned and, in effect, urban areas
protected there for a quarter to a half mile, then it wouldn't matter
what happened; we would be able to protect those properties and those
people in that basin. The same applies around the rest of the country.
We have to protect these urban areas.
We are not asking that 100 percent of the money be spent on these
urban areas, but 70 percent. Now it is turned around. Now only about 30
percent is spent in urban areas and 70 percent spent outside these
urban areas.
As I indicated, the Black Hills settlement agreement creates
thousands of acres of new wilderness in the Black Elk Wilderness Area.
The Black Hills settlement is an environmentally responsible thinning
in two areas in the Black Hills National Forest. The Black Hills
settlement has conditions of sales negotiated among various parties,
including environmental groups. The Black Hills settlement agreement
allows negotiated sales to go forward without further appeal or
lawsuits. The Black Hills settlement agreement contains large green
trees and snags, and it protects endangered species and habitat.
We can get into more debate in that regard with this amendment
offered by Senator Craig and the one we will offer at a subsequent
time. But I just wanted to outline the two basic proposals and how we
can't keep harping on the fact that we want to do what was done in
South Dakota. Nobody really means that. It is just an effort to try to
create an atmosphere where the rules we play by and have been directed
by for so many years dealing with forests be done away with. It wasn't
done in the settlement in South Dakota. We don't expect it to be done
here.
It is my understanding we have a number of amendments that have been
cleared and that have been approved by both Senator Byrd and Senator
Conrad. I suggest the absence of a quorum so we can make sure that is
the case.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I apologize to my friend from New Jersey. I
sat right by him for 6 years, and it was always hard for people to see
me. I apologize. I thought Senator Burns was the only Senator on the
floor.
Mr. CORZINE. I appreciate that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. CORZINE. Thank you, Mr. President.
____________________