[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 129 (Wednesday, November 15, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10949-S10950]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      DISASTER RELIEF FOR FARMERS

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to say to my colleagues, I hope 
very much we are able to find some accommodation to work out the 
situation. I stand ready to try to resolve this matter. I did it 
yesterday. I withdrew an amendment with the assurance that we would go 
to the Agriculture appropriations bill today. I really expected that 
commitment would be kept. I don't know how else this place can run but 
on the good faith of Members. I did my best to accommodate colleagues 
yesterday and did so on the assurance, both public and private, that we 
would go to the Agriculture appropriations bill so we could have a 
vote--we could have a series of votes, if necessary--on the question of 
whether we are going to provide disaster assistance to farmers who have 
been hit by drought, flooding, and other natural disasters, something 
we have done routinely in the past, frankly, at far greater cost.
  One of my colleagues asked me yesterday: How does this compare to 
disaster bills of the past? We looked it up. One year we had a disaster 
bill of $16 billion, natural disaster. Another bill, another year it 
was $14 billion.
  This is $4 billion for 2 years. This is not some outsized disaster 
assistance legislation; it is barebones. We recall that the bill that 
passed earlier was in the $6 billion range, when I had earlier offered 
$6.7 billion. We are down to $4.5 billion, as we have taken out things 
the White House said they would object to. We took out the energy 
provisions, for a savings of $1.8 billion. We stripped out some of the 
support for small businesses, for a savings of $215 million. We did add 
steps to reduce the cost in response to complaints from the 
administration. We now have it stripped down to the barebones, $4.5 
billion for 2 years.
  Mr. President, I thank very much those who have tried to work things 
out. I look forward to further discussions.
  With that, 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. CONRAD. 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the quorum call be rescinded.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. CONRAD. Mr. President, in line with the agreement we had reached 
yesterday, I now ask unanimous consent that we proceed to the 
Agriculture appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator, I object.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I know this is not necessarily the 
position of the occupant of the chair. He is being asked to do that on 
behalf of the other side. I regret that very much because we had what 
was to me a very clear understanding yesterday. It was very clear. We 
were going to go to the Agriculture appropriations bill today. I was to 
be given the right to offer my amendment. All other Senators would have 
their rights respected with respect to that bill. That meant they could 
call for a supermajority vote. They could try to invoke rule XVI. We 
were prepared to deal with any of those contingencies.
  I must say that this action leaves us with very little choice but to 
now object to proceeding to other matters. If good faith means 
something in this Chamber, that means commitments are kept. I regret 
very much that we find ourselves in this circumstance. The commitment 
made to me yesterday was very clear, both public and private. We were 
going to go to the Agriculture appropriations bill today. We were going 
to have a chance to vote. It is not exactly a novel idea here that we 
vote. People have a chance to win or lose. That is what I am asking 
for. That is what I was assured yesterday would happen today.
  So, again, I ask unanimous consent to proceed to the Agriculture 
appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator, I object.
  Mr. CONRAD. Objection is clearly heard. Again, I regret that very 
much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, is 
recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague has sought unanimous consent 
to bring up the Agriculture appropriations bill. I recognize, and I 
know he recognizes, that we don't have the power of scheduling in the 
Senate. That is the basis of that request. Those who observe the 
process of legislating might wonder sometimes, if you are not doing 
anything, why are you not doing something?
  Clearly we are not doing anything at the moment. We have no business 
pending. We are attempting to do a piece of legislation dealing with 
the agricultural disaster for family farmers who suffered weather-
related disasters. That is on the basis of the discussion yesterday, 
where the leader of the Senate wanted to finish the Military 
Construction bill, and my colleague, Senator Conrad, withdrew his 
amendment dealing with farm disaster help in order to allow that bill 
to be completed yesterday. So the assumption was, with the back-and-
forth my colleague read from the Record, that we would have the 
opportunity today for my colleague to offer an amendment to the 
Agriculture appropriations bill because the assumption and intent was 
to bring up the Agriculture appropriations bill first thing today. That 
has not been the case.

[[Page S10950]]

  We came into session at 2:15, I believe, and we essentially are doing 
nothing. So someone watching these proceedings might want to ask the 
question: If you are not doing anything, why aren't you doing 
something? Are you not doing anything because there is nothing to do?
  That is not the case. We are not doing anything, despite the fact 
that there are things to be done, because people object to doing 
things. That is a strange situation. What should be done? The 
Agriculture appropriations bill should be brought to the floor. That 
was the intention yesterday.
  That bill is one I worked on last spring. I am a member of that 
agriculture appropriations subcommittee. I offered an amendment that my 
colleague Senator Conrad and many others worked on on a bipartisan 
basis. That amendment, dealing with farm disaster aid to farmers, was 
agreed to. It went through the entire process. But the bill has not 
been brought to the floor. It needs to be modified now because we have 
had a devastating drought in the middle of 2006. My colleague would 
modify, with his amendment, the original amendment and provide the 
disaster aid we want to provide to family farmers.
  This is not some notion out of left field. It is what this country 
has always done. If you have a devastating drought--and tens of 
thousands of farmers have seen their crops dry up in the field, and 
they have lost everything--the Congress has always said: We want to 
help you.
  It is interesting to me that we go all over the world helping. I am 
proud that our country is there to say we want to help. But what about 
here at home, in the middle of our country, in the northern Great 
Plains in North Dakota, where farmers and ranchers had to sell their 
entire herds because there was nothing to eat? You cannot run a farm 
and you cannot keep a cow if you don't have feed. What about those 
folks who lost everything? Do we want to help them? I think so. It is 
what we have always done. But we have been blocked from bringing it to 
the floor of the Senate. We have things to do right now, and yet we are 
doing nothing because we have people blocking the attempt to bring up 
legislation we should be working on.
  So my colleague, Senator Conrad, asked unanimous consent to go to the 
Agriculture appropriations bill, which we thought we were going to as 
of yesterday, and we believed that was the intent. If we cannot reach 
an agreement on that, let me ask consent of a different nature. My 
understanding today was they could not go to the Agriculture 
appropriations bill, or would not, or whatever, and they wanted to go 
to the India nuclear agreement.
  Let me ask this: I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately 
proceed to the Agriculture appropriations bill pending the disposition 
of the Indian nuclear agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator, I object.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the point is to say the following: We are 
not doing anything at this moment. There is much work to be done, some 
of it very important. We have a lot of farm families wondering: Will we 
be able to have money to run our farms, for spring planting, or are we 
going to be told by our bankers and lenders that we cannot continue?
  There is an urgency to this. If it cannot be the case that we move to 
that this afternoon, then OK. If it is the case that there are 
objections to moving to the Agriculture appropriations bill today and 
someone says let's bring up the India nuclear deal, the question I 
raise is, Can we get an agreement following that, so that we have 
certainty? We are not asking for the Moon here. All we are asking for 
is certainty to be able to bring to the floor of the Senate and to have 
a vote on a disaster relief package that is supported by almost three-
fourths of the Senate.
  My hope is that the majority leader and others will agree with us 
that we need to find a time. Perhaps the time cannot be today. Can it 
be at a future date? As my colleague indicated, the Presiding Officer 
is constrained to object on behalf of the majority leader. I understand 
that. That may not even be his position. I know he has farmers and 
agricultural folks in his State as well. My hope is that, with the 
cooperation of the majority leader, we can lock in a determination of 
when we have business on the floor of the Senate that will allow 
Senator Conrad and I and others to offer the amendment to provide 
disaster aid. That is what we are asking.
  This is not a puzzle for which there is no solution. This is very 
simple. We just need to understand, will there be an attempt to 
continue to block this or will there be an obvious opportunity for us 
to offer the amendment? If there is an opportunity, at that point I 
think we can lock in a time. My colleague, Senator Conrad, and I and 
others would be satisfied with that and we would know we will get to 
the point to pass this for the farmers in the Senate. That would be an 
enormous and beneficial thing to do on behalf of thousands of families 
who work very hard in this country. They get up in the morning and do 
chores. We don't use the term ``do chores'' around here. Nobody does 
chores in the Senate; that is, getting up in the morning, feeding 
cattle, dealing with the hogs, chickens, and the horses--doing chores. 
These are people who work very hard. I think it is important for us to 
recognize that this devastating drought hurt a lot of families very 
badly. We helped those families as a result of the loss of crops in the 
Gulf of Mexico as a result of Hurricane Katrina. I am pleased we did 
that. We should not limit help in the form of disaster aid to just 
those folks who lost crops due to a disaster named ``Hurricane 
Katrina.'' That is the point we are making.
  I regret that we have not been able to get consent. My colleague has 
indicated--and I join him--that he would be constrained to object to 
moving on other issues until we get an agreement. When we get an 
agreement on when we are going to be able to vote on this amendment, at 
that point, then we can move on.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________