[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 129 (Wednesday, November 15, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10950-S10954]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have agreed to have these matters 
resolved because they are urgent matters, and I certainly didn't want 
to in any way impede action on those items that are absolutely 
essential.
  I would very much like to resolve this matter so that the commitments 
that were made to me yesterday, both privately and publicly, be kept 
and we can move on. But I was assured yesterday that if I would take 
down my amendment, we would then go to the Agriculture appropriations 
bill today so that the amendment could be offered on that bill, with 
all Senators' rights reserved.
  That was fair. I did it in good faith. But it is not to me good faith 
to have commitments made and then not kept. So I find myself in the 
situation where I have no alternative but to object to other business 
being done until and unless the commitment that was made to

[[Page S10951]]

me is kept. That is why we are in this situation. I regret it. I wish 
we weren't in this situation. But I have been here 20 years, and I have 
complete respect for other Senators having the right to raise their 
objections. They can raise rule XVI. We believe our amendment has been 
drafted in a way that rule XVI will not apply. They can raise a budget 
point of order. That is completely fair. That is within any Senator's 
right. I certainly respect that. That would face then a supermajority 
vote. But we have been trying for months just to get a vote, and I 
think we have come to the point now where I was assured publicly and 
privately that it would happen today. That is why I am insisting on 
that commitment being kept.

  I want to say once again, the issue is how we deal with natural 
disasters. I have proposed that we budget for natural disasters. At 
least we could look back historically. We know that on average we spend 
about $8 billion a year on natural disasters. Perhaps that is what we 
should do, budget that amount. The problem is, none of us can predict 
very well what natural disasters are going to occur. Obviously, no one 
knows when a hurricane is going to hit or a flood or a drought. So 
historically the approach has been not to budget for natural disasters 
but to consider them outside of the budget on an emergency basis, and 
that has been done the entire time I have been in the Senate. I don't 
necessarily think it is the best way or the only way, but it has been 
the way. There was no disaster assistance last year. There is no 
disaster assistance this year for those outside the gulf region. We 
certainly appreciate that they suffered by far the worst calamity, and 
I supported generous help to them. But there were others hit by natural 
disaster as well.
  In my State last year, there were 1 million acres prevented from even 
being planted. Another 600,000 acres were subsequently drowned out, 
even though they were planted, by the worst flooding we have ever seen. 
I flew over southeastern North Dakota and it looked like Lake Agassi, 
which used to exist thousands of years ago, was reforming. I was on a 
plane and as far as the eye could see, there was water. I earlier 
referenced this letter from a young farm family telling me how 
devastating it was to them that they lost $120,000 and now this year, 
the irony of ironies, suffering the worst drought since the 1930s. In 
fact, the drought monitor, which is the scientific analysis of drought, 
said the drought that has been suffered in the heartland of the country 
is the third worst in our Nation's history.
  I was on farm after farm that looked like moonscapes. There was 
nothing growing. Nothing. It was the 4th of July. Corn is supposed to 
be knee high by the 4th of July. Well, the corn wasn't as high as your 
shoelaces. I was even on irrigated ground and I saw irrigated corn and 
the ears hadn't filled out because of the extreme heat. One day in my 
hometown of Bismarck, ND, it was 112 degrees. I am not talking about 
the heat index; I am talking about the actual temperature. This isn't 
restricted to my home State of North Dakota. South Dakota was even 
harder hit. The two Senators from that State, a Republican and 
Democrat, are cosponsors of this legislation. The Senators from 
Minnesota, a Republican and a Democrat, are cosponsors of this 
legislation. The Senators from Montana, a Republican and a Democrat, 
are cosponsors of this legislation. The Senators from Nebraska, a 
Republican and a Democrat, are cosponsors of this legislation. The 
Senator from Kansas, Senator Roberts from Kansas, the former chairman 
of the House Agriculture Committee, is a cosponsor of this legislation. 
Senator Hutchison of Texas is a cosponsor of this legislation. All of 
them have been hit by devastating drought this year.
  What does this bill do? It provides bare-bones assistance to these 
farmers. The cost is $4.5 billion over 2 years--over 2 years. So it 
averages about $2 billion a year. I will just put that in an historic 
context. In 2000 and 2001, we had disaster assistance bills that cost 1 
year over $11 billion and in another year over $14 billion. This is a 
fraction of those. The White House objected to my earlier provisions 
that included something my southern colleagues asked for--I didn't ask 
for it, my southern colleagues asked for it--and it passed in the 
appropriations bill. It was in the previous supplemental that passed 
the Senate overwhelmingly. But the administration said: No, take that 
out, because you could be helping somebody not affected by a natural 
disaster. So we took it out and saved $1.8 billion. We took out $250 
million of the assistance for small businesses that have been affected. 
I have spray pilots who have been completely wiped out. They had no 
business this year. They can't have business when there is no crop to 
spray. We took that out. We have made adjustment after adjustment to 
answer the legitimate complaints of colleagues and the administration.
  But now we are in a situation where we need to have a vote and have 
the will of the Chamber expressed. Do they support this or do they not? 
These farmers deserve at least that. They at least deserve to know: Are 
they going to have a fair fighting chance for next year?
  I would say to those who might be listening: Earlier this year I had 
12 independent bankers in my office when the President's chief economic 
adviser came to see me on another issue. I asked him to step in the 
conference room to listen for a few moments to these independent 
bankers from all across every corner of the State of North Dakota, and 
they told Mr. Hubbard, unless there is assistance forthcoming, there 
will be a loss of 5 to 10 percent of their clients. They told him that 
5 to 10 percent of the farmers and ranchers in North Dakota will be 
forced off the land and out of business. They will be done.
  That is why Senator Dorgan and I are here with such tenacity, because 
we are representing the economic lives of tens of thousands of farm 
families--thousands in North Dakota, but also thousands more in 
Minnesota, in Montana, in South Dakota, in Nebraska. Our colleagues 
from those States have come repeatedly to the floor with us to make 
this point. We have 26 cosponsors of this bill--26--lots of 
Republicans, lots of Democrats, whose constituents have been similarly 
devastated by natural disaster. Always in the past there has been a 
response and, frankly, generally far more generous than this 
assistance. But these people have not gotten the media attention. It is 
not like the kind of disaster where the national media focuses, such as 
a Katrina or Hurricane Rita, or some other devastation. But, in many 
ways, this is a slow-motion disaster. This is a disaster that unfolded 
over many days and many weeks and even months no less devastating, but 
it didn't get the media attention.

  I implore my colleagues to give us a chance to vote. That is all we 
are asking for. We absolutely understand that Senators have a right to 
vote against it. They have a right to bring a budget point of order. 
They have a right to raise rule XVI. I don't think it applies here, but 
they certainly have the right to do it, and to give us a vote. That is 
what was promised us yesterday. That is why I withdrew the amendment 
yesterday to let business proceed. But I only did it on the basis that 
we would be given that opportunity today.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair for listening and I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, first, thanks to my colleague who states 
well the reasons we are on the floor. I think we have said most of what 
needs to be said in support of those farm families who have struggled 
and who have been hit and devastated with something they could not have 
envisioned: a natural disaster, drought and flood in both cases in our 
State in successive years.
  I mentioned earlier this is not unusual. Traditionally in our country 
when family farmers have been hit with a tough blow, this country has 
said: You are not alone. We want to help you. And we have passed some 
kind of disaster legislation. We have provided some kind of help to 
those families. They are the ones who live out on the farm alone. It is 
a tough life.
  I was looking back yesterday at 70 years ago in our region, first in 
South Dakota and next in North Dakota, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt 
did a train trip and it was a drought tour. On that drought tour he 
went out to say to people: I want to see what is happening out here and 
I want to tell you we are going to help. That was 70 years ago. This 
isn't new. We are not asking for

[[Page S10952]]

something that has not been done before. It is something that has 
always been done.
  The President has threatened to veto agricultural disaster aid when 
it has passed the Senate twice before. There were amendments I added in 
the Senate Appropriations Committee providing disaster help for 
farmers. It proceeded through the Senate. It went to conference. I was 
a conferee. The President threatened the veto and he got the House 
conferees to resist it and knock it out.
  We asked the President to do a drought tour, to go out and see the 
middle part of the country. Go to the Northern Great Plains, the 
epicenter of drought, and take a look at ground that is not growing 
anything. It is just bare ground where crops used to exist. The 
President was not able to do that.
  I want to quote Franklin Delano Roosevelt who 70 years ago on a train 
did do that drought tour. Here is what he said in Huron, SD, from the 
back platform of a train. The drought inspection trip was the occasion 
for Franklin Delano Roosevelt to be on the back platform of a train, 
speaking to the citizens of Huron, SD, and the family farmers in the 
surrounding area. He said:

       No city in an agricultural country can exist unless the 
     farms are prosperous. We have to cooperate with one another 
     rather than trying to buck one another. I have come out here 
     to find you with your chins up, looking toward the future 
     with confidence and courage. I am grateful for the attitude 
     you are taking out here. As I said, it is a question of 
     working together.

  Then he was in Devils Lake, ND, on his train trip. He said:

       Today out here I don't ask you to have courage and faith. 
     You have it. You have demonstrated that through a good many 
     years. I am asking, however, that you keep up that courage 
     and especially keep up that faith. If it is possible for 
     government to improve conditions, government will do it.

  That is Franklin Delano Roosevelt 70 years ago. He said:

       I assure you, the interests of these communities are very 
     close to my heart. I won't forget the day I have spent with 
     you. We hope that nature is going to open up the heavens. 
     When I came out on the platform this morning, I saw a rather 
     dark cloud and I said to myself, Maybe it is going to rain, 
     but it didn't. All I can say is I hope to goodness it is 
     going to rain good and plenty.

  He said:

       I will tell you, my friends, I am not going to let up until 
     I can give my best service to solving these problems.

  Seventy years ago Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a man who knew family 
farmers, a man who knew America's workers, got on the train and went to 
take a look at what had happened, at the suffering in the Northern 
Great Plains as a result of that drought and said: We are going to 
help.
  This is not new. My colleague Senator Conrad and I are not asking for 
something that hasn't been done. In fact, in more modern times, the 
agriculture bill, known as the farm bill, has always included, until 
the recent decade or so, a provision called the disaster title that 
could be triggered when there was a disaster. That is not the case now. 
So each year we have to come to the Senate to ask for a separate 
disaster aid package, to try to reach out and help those who otherwise 
are going to be thrown off the farm and told they can't continue. Is it 
their fault? No, it is not their fault. Bad managers? No, not bad 
managers. Spend too much? No. It was a drought that came and destroyed 
everything they had, and where, in some parts of the country, a flood 
came and wiped out everything that existed on their farm. It is not 
their fault. It is the best of this country then to reach out and say: 
We want to help you. We think you are important to this country.
  I mentioned yesterday a fellow named Rodney Nelson from my State who 
writes prose. He is a cowboy poet. He lives near Almont, ND, and he 
wrote a piece once that I have not forgotten. He asked in that piece: 
What is it worth? I think it is important for us to ask the question, 
What is it worth? What is it worth to have a kid who knows how to weld 
a seam? What is it worth to have a kid who knows how to work livestock? 
What is it worth to have a kid who knows how to grease a combine? What 
is it worth to have a kid who knows how to fix a tractor? What is it 
worth to have a kid who knows how to build a lean-to? What is it worth 
to have a kid who knows how to teach a newborn calf how to suck milk 
out of a bucket? What is all that worth? What is it worth to have a kid 
who knows how to plow a straight line?

  There is only one university in America, only one, where they teach 
all those skills, and that is the family farm. Some people say it 
doesn't matter. It does to us. That is why we are here. This is not 
about a handout. It is about a helping hand during a time of trouble, 
during a drought and a flood. It is the best of what this country can 
do, and it is what this country should do. I hope, before this day is 
out, we will have an agreement by which we will have an opportunity to 
offer this amendment, get a vote on this amendment, after which clearly 
it will pass the Senate, and we will be on the way to getting this to 
the President.
  My hope is that the President will not block it. He previously said 
he would veto legislation such as this, but I think, since he said 
that, things have changed. My hope is that he will recognize that 
change.
  There has been a lot of discussion about change in this country in 
recent days, particularly in the last week. Change has a lot of meaning 
to it. Change is a word that we hope the President will embrace with 
respect to this issue. Twice previously he has blocked disaster aid for 
farmers who suffered a disaster as a result of weather-related 
problems. Twice previously he has blocked it. We hope he recognizes the 
change necessary to decide that now we need to help those family 
farmers.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I make a point of order a quorum is 
not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have been talking about these disasters 
of 2005 and 2006. I thought maybe it would be helpful to show a picture 
of what we are talking about.
  This is last year in North Dakota, the Southeastern part of the 
State. You can see the massive flooding. There is water everywhere. 
Only the farmhouse that is surrounded by sandbags is dry--and part of 
the barn. This was seen all across North Dakota last year.
  Now, this year, there is an incredible change. This is what we saw 
this year. This is the most wicked drought I have ever seen in my life. 
This is a cornfield in my home county. The corn should have been 2 to 
2\1/2\ feet high. You can see there is nothing here that is going to 
produce anything. This gentleman standing there, we asked him to be in 
the picture to give perspective. It is similar to a moonscape. We saw 
this all over western South Dakota. Nothing grew.
  I told the story earlier of being on a farm south of Bismarck with 
irrigated corn--160 acres of irrigated corn. We took the ears off the 
corn and stripped them and about every third row of kernels was gone. 
There was nothing there.
  I said to the farmer: How does this happen with irrigated corn?
  He said: Kent, remember, last Sunday alone it was 112 degrees here. 
It was so hot, so intensely hot, that the kernels couldn't form.
  This is the Drought Monitor. This is actually a publication by the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture that shows the severity of drought. Let 
me point out this is a scientifically designed survey. It focuses on 
broad-scale conditions. The yellow is abnormally dry; the tan is 
drought that is moderate; the darker tan is drought that is severe; the 
red is drought that is extreme; and the dark brown is drought that is 
exceptional. Those are the gradations. From abnormally dry in yellow, 
to light tan, moderate drought, the darker tan severe drought, the red 
is extreme drought, and the brown is exceptional drought.
  Look at my State. North and South Dakota--exceptional drought, 
extreme drought, severe drought. The whole State in drought.
  It was not just North Dakota. You can see Minnesota, a very big 
swatch here of extreme drought.
  Over into Montana. As I said, South Dakota, Nebraska--right down the 
center of the country, Kansas, over into

[[Page S10953]]

Colorado, over into Wyoming, down into Texas and Oklahoma. These are 
States, all of which have had drought conditions and quite severe 
drought conditions.
  The disaster assistance that we are seeking has been endorsed by all 
of these farm groups--34 different farm groups saying that we need 
drought assistance and we need it now, everything from the National 
Farmers Union to the Barley Growers, the Cotton Council, the Wheat 
Growers, the Peanut Producers, the Farm Credit Council, the Soybean 
Growers, the Sheep Industry, the American Farm Bureau--all of them 
saying:

       We urge you to schedule a vote before the October recess on 
     emergency agriculture disaster assistance legislation.

  They were asking for it to be done before the October recess. And it 
is not just the farm groups, but it is also the agriculture 
commissioners from around the country. Here is what they said in a 
letter to the Senate back in September:

       The State Commissioners, the Secretaries of Agriculture and 
     the Directors of Agriculture of the National Association of 
     State Departments of Agriculture urge you to support 
     emergency disaster assistance legislation for farmers and 
     ranchers suffering losses and damages in 2005 and 2006.
       NASDA believes that emergency agriculture disaster 
     assistance is a high priority requiring action by Congress 
     this year.

  This year is swiftly running out. They went on to say:

       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.

  Some of my colleagues have said: Doesn't crop insurance cover this? 
No, crop insurance doesn't cover it. Why not? Because crop insurance is 
not designed for repeated loss. It is designed for periodic loss. That 
is what most insurance is designed for. Fire insurance on your home is 
not designed to deal with a situation in which your house burns down 
every year. What we have is a situation in which we have had repeated 
different disasters--flood last year, drought this year--a bizarre set 
of circumstances. But crop insurance is not designed for that kind of 
situation. With crop insurance, what happens when you have repeated 
disasters, the way the formula works is your coverage level diminishes 
automatically so that if you have had repeated losses, crop insurance 
does not provide much assistance. That is the hard reality. That is the 
way it works.
  Some have said: Gee, we ought to fix that. Well, that is a good idea, 
but that is the way it works right now. So if you do not have a 
disaster program to offset some of these losses, you wash people right 
out of business. And that is what is going to happen, not just in my 
State but right down the center of the country. That is why you see 
these farm organizations coming forward--those that are Republican 
oriented, those that are Democratically oriented, unanimously saying 
this is needed. That is why you hear the agriculture commissioners and 
the secretaries of agriculture of the States together, in unison: This 
is needed.
  I respect those who say: I am against that. My State is not affected. 
I will oppose it. They have a right to oppose it. They have a right to 
come and vote against it. But it seems to me it is only fair that 
people at least be given a vote. Let's let the body here work its will. 
If somebody wants to say there is a budget point of order against this, 
that is fair. You can have a budget point of order and require more 
than 60 votes to pass. I respect anybody offering that.
  I respect somebody saying rule XVI ought to apply. We have been to 
the Parliamentarian. Rule XVI doesn't apply because this is on an 
agriculture bill, it is agricultural disaster, so we are told rule XVI 
does not apply. There are other ways of writing this to further assure 
rule XVI does not apply.
  I say to my colleagues, a commitment was made, publicly and 
privately, that we are going to go to the agriculture disaster bill 
today. Today is here. Today is fast fleeting. In fact, as I look out 
the door there toward the direction of the Supreme Court of the United 
States, I can see the dusk is falling.
  I know the Senate often does its work at night. I have never quite 
understood that, I say to the occupant of the chair, but for some 
reason this place often doesn't get around to voting. I think it is 
because Senators have appointments all afternoon. The reality of the 
work is they are in committees all morning and they have appointments 
every 15 minutes or every 30 minutes all afternoon, so by the time they 
get to come and offer their amendments and offer legislation, it is 
often in the evening. But the evening is fast approaching, and I hope, 
I say to my colleagues, I hope we have a chance to vote. Let's give 
these farm families at least an indication of where they stand. Is 
there going to be assistance forthcoming or not?
  Some have said it is fiscally irresponsible. I understand there is an 
editorial in the Wall Street Journal, criticizing me, saying I am known 
as somebody who wants to see a return to fiscal responsibility and yet 
I am offering this amendment.
  That is true. I think one of the greatest threats to this country is 
the massive debt we are accumulating. I am extremely worried about it. 
But I also know the Government has an obligation to help those who are 
affected by natural disasters. This is a very modest package, $4 
billion over 2 years. In 2000 and 2001 we had disaster assistance 
programs that were approaching more than $10 billion: $14.8 billion 1 
year and $11 billion in the next.
  This is a very tightly written, constrained disaster relief program 
in which we have responded to the criticisms leveled by the 
administration by taking out those things to which they objected.
  I will conclude with this thought.
  Agriculture is far under the projections that were made for its costs 
when the farm bill was written in 2002. Agriculture is below by about 
$15 billion what was projected at the time the farm bill was written. 
Some have said the farm bill was a huge increase over the previous farm 
bill. No. What they are missing is if you combine the disaster 
assistance and the farm legislation with previous bills and compare it 
to what we are doing now, spending is not up; it is down and down 
significantly.
  As I have indicated, we are $15 billion below what the projections 
were when the farm bill was written.
  That is the circumstance we face.
  I have very much riveted in my mind the drought tour we took earlier 
this year with the leaders of our State going from community to 
community listening to farm families describe the magnitude of the 
disaster facing them. I remember being in one farm yard and having one 
of the most respected farmers in our State take me aside, and say: 
Kent, this is my last year. I can't continue.
  This is a man who has won virtually every farm award in the State of 
North Dakota. He said to me: You know my family has been on the land 
for over 100 years in North Dakota. We have a ``legacy farm.'' But we 
have not had a normal crop in 5 years.
  This is in the Red River Valley of North Dakota.
  When I grew up, my grandfather would drive through and say: There has 
never been a crop failure in the Red River Valley. It is the richest 
farmland in the world outside of the Nile Valley. In the Red River 
Valley of North Dakota, until the last 6 or 7 years, there has never 
been a crop failure. We have had the most bizarre set of weather events 
of my lifetime. We had 18 inches of rain in 24 hours in a town in the 
Red River Valley, in an area that only gets 18 inches of rain a year. 
Two years later, they had 14 inches of rain in 24 hours.
  We have a lake called Devils Lake that has gone up 26 feet in the 
last 9 years. This lake is now three times the size of the District of 
Columbia.
  There is something very odd going on. I don't pretend to know what it 
is. Some say global climate change. Some scientists who have studied it 
say my part of the country would be most severely affected by a global 
climate change, that these extremes would be made more extreme. I do 
not know about that. I do know that in my lifetime I have never seen 
anything like this.
  Can you imagine a lake, a giant lake, going up 26 feet vertically in 
9 years? It is an awesome thing to see 18 inches of rainfall in a town 
in 24 hours where the average rainfall is about that a year.
  This is what has been happening. Now this incredible drought which 
the

[[Page S10954]]

Drought Monitor says is the third most extreme drought in the history 
of the United States. I do not know how they measure drought. I do not 
know how they make that determination. These are scientific experts. I 
trust that they know what they are doing.
  I say to my colleagues that I have seen firsthand land that looks 
like a moonscape which would normally be lush.
  These people are hanging by a thread. The question is, Do they have 
the chance to survive until next year or are they done? Many of them 
are going to be out of business. But many more will be, if there is a 
failure to act, if there is a failure by Congress to do what it has 
almost always done in the case of natural disaster, which is to provide 
disaster relief on an emergency basis.
  We don't budget for natural disasters. There is no line item in the 
budget for natural disaster. Perhaps there should be, but there is 
none.
  I, frankly, think it would be a wise thing to do. At least we could 
take the average for some period of time and reduce it by 25 percent 
and put that in so we would have some way of having additional 
discipline in the budget. But we don't have that. That is where we are.
  Again, I hope we are able to reach some agreement today.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
DeWine be recognized for such time as he will consume and that I then 
be recognized following him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Ohio.

                          ____________________