[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.

                          ____________________