[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 52 (Thursday, May 4, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4031-S4033]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND AGRICULTURE DISASTER ASSISTANCE
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the legislation we
have just passed and to say to my colleagues there are provisions in
the legislation for agriculture disaster that have been ridiculed in
some circles. I would say
[[Page S4032]]
that those who have ridiculed the notion of disaster assistance for our
Nation's farmers are way off base, and they really do not know what
they are talking about.
I was extremely disappointed in the Secretary of Agriculture, who has
suggested the only problem that farmers have is in the gulf of this
country. Look, we recognize that no part of the country was harder hit
by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita than the gulf region. And these
legislative proposals that are in this bill will first and foremost
help them because these are national provisions, these are not
provisions just for one section of our country.
But to suggest that nobody else in the country has had serious
problems, that reflects an ignorance that ill becomes the Secretary of
Agriculture, ill becomes a man who is supposed to be the spokesman for
this Nation's farmers and ranchers.
Yes, Hurricanes Rita and Katrina devastated the gulf, and they
deserve first-priority consideration. But they were not the only ones
hurt. Here are the headlines out of North Dakota: ``Rain Halts
Harvest;'' ``North Dakota Receives Major Disaster Declaration;''
``Heavy Rain Leads To Crop Diseases;'' ``Beef Crop Could Be The
Smallest In 10 Years;'' ``Crops, Hay Lost To Flooding;'' ``Rain Takes
Its Toll On North Dakota Crops;'' ``Area Farmers Battle Flooding,
Disease.''
Those were the headlines all across my State last year.
Shown on this chart are the number of counties in my State--they are
the counties in yellow--that were given disaster designations by the
President--by the President--last year. They are the counties in
yellow. I say to the Presiding Officer, you will notice every single
county was designated a disaster. Why? Because we had rainfall 250
percent of normal. I do not know what is happening. Some say it is
global climate change. Some say it is a weather cycle. I do not know.
But I do know the result.
The result is this, as shown in this picture: The result is farms all
across North Dakota that looked like they were in the middle of lakes
last year. This is what eastern North Dakota looked like last year,
when we had a million acres of land that was even prevented from being
planted--a million acres.
The Secretary of Agriculture said there is no problem outside the
gulf. Where has he been? Who is he listening to? Does he not do even
the least amount of homework before he makes these statements? We need
a new Secretary of Agriculture, if that is what he reports to the
President.
These are the acres prevented from being planted in North Dakota last
year--over a million acres that could not even be planted--and this
Secretary of Agriculture says there is no problem outside the Gulf
States?
Mr. Secretary, you ought to get with it. You ought to inform yourself
before making such ridiculous statements.
As shown in this picture, this is North Dakota last year. These are
tractors stuck in the mud. They could not plant. And in hundreds of
thousands of additional acres where they were able to plant, they got
dramatically reduced production. In those places they got production,
when they went to the elevator, they got dramatically discounted
prices. Why? Because of a disaster of enormous consequence--no, not as
severe as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, where there was loss of life,
which we mourn along with those who lost loved ones. We absolutely
respect that they had, by far, the biggest catastrophe. And this
legislation will primarily help them.
I am the author of this legislation. I had 27 cosponsors, on a
bipartisan basis, in the Senate. When it was offered in the
Appropriations Committee, it passed on a unanimous vote. When there was
an attempt to take out this assistance on the floor of the Senate, 72
Senators said: No, we are not going to take out disaster assistance for
our Nation's farmers and ranchers. That was the right decision. And,
yes, this should be national in scope because everyone who is an
American who suffered a natural disaster deserves some assistance.
Not only did farmers and ranchers suffer egregiously in different
parts of the country from different types of natural disasters, but
they were also hit with a second blow, and that was a dramatic runup in
agricultural energy inputs. Every part of agriculture is dependent on
inputs that are based on petroleum--whether it is fuel, with the cost
up $3 billion; fertilizer, with the cost up $1.4 billion; marketing,
storage, and transportation, with the cost up $400 million;
electricity, with the cost up $200 million--with total energy-related
costs up $5 billion in one year in agriculture.
That had a devastating effect in my State. I just had a series of
farm meetings in which farmers brought to me their operating
statements--the difference between last year and this year--and income
was cut in half--cut in half--in 1 year because of natural disasters,
because of discounted prices, because of a failure to even be able to
plant, and, on top of that, because of dramatically escalating energy
prices.
And we have a Secretary of Agriculture who says there is no problem
outside the Gulf States? Excuse me, Mr. Secretary, where have you been?
Shame on you for providing that kind of false statement to the American
people.
Here, shown on this chart, are the agricultural groups that endorsed
the legislation, the disaster assistance that we passed--22 groups--the
broad spectrum of American agriculture saying: Yes, disaster assistance
is essential.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this material printed
in the Record listing the 22 groups.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
April 25, 2006.
Hon. Saxby Chambliss,
Chairman, Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Thad Cochran,
Chairman, Appropriations Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Ranking Member, Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
Ranking Member, Appropriations Committee, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Chambliss and Chairman Cochran, Senator
Harkin and Senator Byrd: On behalf of the below signed
organizations, we are writing to urge you to oppose any
efforts to delete the agricultural disaster assistance
provisions from the FY06 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations bill when it is considered by the full Senate.
Virtually every state in the nation has been impacted by
significant weather related and disaster losses. About 80
percent of U.S. counties were declared disaster or contiguous
disaster counties last year due to devastating hurricanes,
fires, floods, excessive moisture and severe drought. Besides
heavy crop and livestock losses and increased production
costs associated with rapidly escalating input costs, many
producers also face contaminated fields and infrastructure
losses that pose serious, long-term challenges to economic
recovery.
We appreciate recent supplemental assistance offered to
help some of the victims of the 2005 hurricane season.
Unfortunately, this assistance is not available to all
farmers and ranchers who suffered devastating losses due to
hurricanes. Furthermore, none of the supplemental assistance
is available to producers who suffered significant economic
losses to crop and livestock operations as a result of fires,
flooding, drought, excessive moisture and the record-high
energy costs brought on by natural disasters.
Because of the urgent need for disaster assistance and the
widespread losses which span the country, we believe the
provisions in the supplemental appropriations measure are
crafted in a manner that offers producers the combination of
supplemental direct assistance and production loss assistance
that is both timely and tailored to meet all disaster-related
losses. Many producers need assistance within weeks to repay
loans and secure new financing in time for spring planting,
so prompt action on this measure is vitally important given
that traditional production loss assistance can take up to
six months.
Thank you for your consideration of our views.
Sincerely,
Agricultural Retailers Association.
Alabama Peanut Producers Association.
American Beekeeping Federation.
American Farm Bureau Federation.
American Sheep Industry Association.
American Soybean Association.
American Sugar Alliance.
Farm Credit Council.
Florida Peanut Producers Association.
Georgia Peanut Commission.
Independent Community Bankers of America.
National Association of Wheat Growers.
National Barley Growers Association.
National Corn Growers Association.
National Cotton Council.
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.
National Farmers Union.
National Sorghum Producers.
National Sunflower Association.
Southern Peanut Farmers Federation.
USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council.
USA Rice Federation.
[[Page S4033]]
US Canola Association.
US Rice Producers Association.
Western Peanut Growers.
Mr. CONRAD. Maybe the Secretary of Agriculture might want to inform
himself of what has been said.
Finally, I have a letter from the State agriculture commissioners
telling us, unanimously, disaster assistance was necessary and needed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The National Association of
State Departments of Agriculture,
Washington, DC, April 20, 2006.
Members of the U.S. Senate.
Dear Senator: I am writing on behalf of the state
commissioners, secretaries and directors of agriculture to
express our strong support for emergency disaster assistance
for farmers and ranchers as agreed to by the Senate
Appropriations Committee in H.R. 4939, the FY 2006 Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War
on Terror and Hurricane Recovery (report 109-230) Assistance
is necessary to help farmers, ranchers and their communities
recoup from financial losses due to-hurricanes, drought,
fires, tornadoes, floods, and other natural disasters.
Nearly all states have been affected by natural disasters
and in turn many farms and ranches across this country have
suffered losses and damages. About 80 percent of U.S.
counties were declared disaster or contiguous disaster
counties in the last year. While there are risk management
programs, such as crop insurance, disaster loans, and
emergency grazing; the relief needed greatly exceeds the
levels these programs can provide. Supplemental assistance is
being offered to farmers and ranchers harmed by the 2005
hurricane season, however, not all producers will be able to
attain the necessary levels of assistance to return to viable
production levels.
In addition, the weather-related damages and losses in
agriculture have significantly affected specialty crop
producers and nursery businesses. States appreciate the
provision that also provides grants to states that can be
used to provide economic assistance to agricultural
producers, and gives priority to the support of specialty
crops and livestock. This section demonstrates how the
federal government and states can partner with one another in
directing assistance to those who need it most.
We understand that the Senate will consider this
legislation when they return from the Easter Recess NASDA
strongly urges your prompt action and support of this
emergency assistance. We look forward to working with you and
your staff on this issue so important to agriculture.
Sincerely,
J. Carlton Courter, III,
Commissioner, NASDA President.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I hope the Secretary of Agriculture gets
the message--gets the message--disaster assistance is needed in this
country.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I would like to speak in morning business
and ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________