[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 89 (Thursday, June 24, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7453-S7454]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 2592. A bill to provide crop and livestock disaster assistance; to 
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am joined by my colleague from 
North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, in introducing legislation intended to 
address the twin natural disasters that are threatening the livelihoods 
of farmers and ranchers across our State.
  For much of North Dakota, the year began with great promise. Record 
high crop and livestock prices offered the potential for much needed 
improvement in farm income for producers throughout the State. The 
stage was set for increased returns from the marketplace, and a 
corresponding reduction in current costs under the 2002 Farm Bill.
  Then Mother Nature intervened.
  In early May, just as fieldwork was set to begin in earnest, many 
farmers in the northern part of the State were hit with a late snowfall 
and continued, unseasonably cool weather. That was followed by weeks of 
repeated rains, sometime several inches at a time. The deluge, and 
continued low temperatures, left fields soggy or underwater, and 
delayed and eventually prevented the planting of crops across huge 
swaths of the northern and northeastern part of the state, generating 
numerous reports of farmers being forced to abandon one-third, one-
half, and even more of their crop ground.
  As one hard struck farmer described the situation to me:

       Our 2004 crop is late again, due to cold wet ground since 
     May 10. Heavy snow on May 11 and 12 and continuous rain is 
     delaying all field work. If we don't get some help we will be 
     forced to sell out. Input costs--fuel, fertilizer, and 
     repairs never end. We haven't been able to seed a kernel of 
     grain yet for 2004 due to too much water.

  In the southwestern corner of North Dakota, the problem faced by 
livestock producers is just the opposite. Conditions are bone dry, and 
even though it's relatively early in the season, the land is parched, 
thanks to virtually no moisture since the start of the year and the 
lingering effect of a drought that has robbed the land of subsoil

[[Page S7454]]

moisture and that, for many producers, goes back two years or more.

  Here's how one rancher explained what he's up against:

       I am a registered Angus Producer in SW North Dakota. Our 
     moisture situation is bad. We have had approximately 1" of 
     rain all spring if you count all the little showers together. 
     The cool weather is the only thing that has saved what little 
     forage there is in the pasture. There will be no hay crop and 
     that includes trying to hay the ditches.

  Another one wrote me:

       I live in rural Sioux County North Dakota. I am a rancher. 
     The drought situation is getting very serious. I am looking 
     for options as far as feed & pasture for my cattle, but 
     haven't found any yet. I have sold nearly half of my cattle 
     since the dry conditions started in 2002. We appreciate any 
     and all help that you can give us. This is cow country & I 
     think we need to retain as much of our cattle numbers as we 
     can.

  These producers need real help and they need it urgently. That's why 
the bill I am introducing today follows closely the outline of disaster 
assistance legislation enacted in recent years, all in an effort to 
speed the delivery of crop and livestock assistance to those who 
livelihoods hang in the balance.
  The essential provisions of the ``Agricultural Assistance Act of 
2004'' are as follows:
  First, in the case of crop losses, eligibility for assistance would 
be triggered by production losses exceeding 35 percent of normal 
yields. Under the bill, producers who had purchased crop insurance--
which under the best of options covers only a portion of normal 
yields--would receive a payment equal to 50 percent of the 
``established price'' for the crop. Those who did not purchase crop 
insurance would receive a payment equal to just 40 percent of the 
established price, and would be required to purchase crop insurance for 
each of the following two crop years. Assistance to individual 
producers would be limited as provided in previously-enacted disaster 
bills.
  In the case of ranchers suffering grazing losses of 40 percent or 
more during three consecutive months, they would be eligible for 
payments to help defray the cost of purchasing feed. Payments under 
this program would similarly be limited as provided in past 
legislation.
  Finally, I think it is important that in providing this assistance, 
we reinforce crop insurance as the foundation for agricultural risk 
management. This bill would do that. First, by not penalizing--as 
previous legislation did--those who had purchased crop insurance at 
higher coverage levels, and second, by decreasing the payment to those 
who purchased no crop insurance at all.
  The natural disasters facing our farmers and ranchers demand 
immediate attention, and I urge the Congress, and the President, to 
act.
                                 ______