[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16150-16157]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                            2003--Continued

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope Senators will come to the floor if 
they have anything to say by way of debate on the pending amendment, if 
they have an amendment to the amendment. I hope Senators will come to 
the floor and exercise their right to offer amendments, or to speak. 
But we do not have the time to waste by just waiting and letting the 
clock run.
  This afternoon, the Senate will be debating the homeland security 
legislation. Take a look at the situation we are in. October 1, a new 
fiscal year, is rapidly approaching. It is staring us in the face. Not 
one appropriations bill has been sent to the President for his 
signature. Where is the other House, where is the other body, on this 
matter? I don't seek to point the finger, but the facts are the facts.
  The Appropriations Committee of the Senate, which I chair, and the 
distinguished former chairman, just preceding me, Senator Stevens, he 
and I and others on the committee, Republicans and Democrats, have 
reported out 13 appropriations bills. We did that before the recess. We 
in the committee have done our work. Where is the House? Why doesn't 
the House report? I have to be careful about criticizing the other 
body. I don't criticize. I simply ask the question, Where is the House 
in this matter?
  The House has acted on the House floor on, I believe, six bills; I 
believe I am correct. The Senate on the floor has acted on, in the 
past, three appropriations bills. One is now pending. But all the 
appropriations bills have been reported by our Appropriations Committee 
in this Senate. We did that before the recess. We need other bills from 
the House. The Constitution does not say appropriations bills have to 
start in the House. It says the revenue bills must, the revenue-raising 
bills, but not appropriations. However, by custom, the House over the 
years has generally initiated the appropriations bills. I don't have 
any quarrel with that.
  So where are the other bills? Our time is fast running. The new 
fiscal year begins on October 1. Here we are, the Nation is confronted 
with some

[[Page 16151]]

great questions. The question of homeland security, that is homeland 
defense. That is the defense of our country, our families, our 
children, right here in this country.
  We have legislation before the Senate that deals with homeland 
security. We need to get on with it or we need to take our time. And 
here again we need to ask questions--that is what I have been doing--on 
homeland security. But where are we? Here we are with three Senators on 
the floor. Now, Senators are busy. There are committee meetings going 
on, I know, right now. However, I urge Senators to come to the floor 
and get this bill going and try to pass it.
  Tomorrow, a good many Senators are going to New York City. I am not, 
but a good many Senators are going to New York City. I don't believe I 
need to go to show my concern for what has happened. I have reacted as 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I and Senator Stevens, 
Republicans and Democrats on that committee have reacted, have 
responded to the needs of New York City. We have done the best we 
could. We have appropriated $20 billion. So we have responded. I feel 
sorrow and the need for comfort as much as anyone, but I make the point 
here that I am not going. I think we ought to be right here doing our 
work. We have plenty of it to do and not much time.
  Look at the calendar, and you will see how squeezed we are to get our 
remaining work done. We have homeland security. We have nine more 
appropriations bills to pass in this body after this bill that is 
before the Senate is acted on. Then we have to go to conference. And 
here we are, the calendar is running.
  I have taken a good bit of time on this point to say this. I don't 
want anyone to misunderstand my remarks. I have my own viewpoint. As 
Popeye used to say: I am what I am, and that's all I am. So I have my 
viewpoint. But it is not my will that should be done. We have work to 
do, and we ought to be here doing it. We ought to be here right now 
moving on with it.
  The distinguished ranking member is here at his post. He and I have 
offered amendments on behalf of the Members on both sides. Where are 
the other Members who have amendments? Where are they? The first 
question that was ever asked in the history of mankind was the 
question: Where art thou? And God, walking through the Garden of Eden, 
in the cool of the day, said: Adam, Adam, where art thou? That was the 
first question that was ever asked in the history of mankind: Where art 
thou?
  If I might just pick up on those words--that is all that I, this 
humble piece of mortal clay can do, is ask: Where art thou? Where are 
the Senators? Where are we?
  Let me say again with apologies to Senators, I know they are very 
busy. But those who have amendments ought to come. This floor is open 
and will be. I will take my chair at any time somebody comes in the 
door.
  So: Where art thou? Senators, hear me, come to the floor, offer your 
amendments; let's have votes and move on.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia makes a good 
point. We always hear about those who want to come and make their 
statement regarding any piece of legislation. Then we go at breakneck 
speed and grind to a halt. That seems to be what we have done.
  Let me just say a few words on behalf of the drought amendment that 
is before the Senate. We are concerned about the drought as it happened 
in this area that has been expanded. We have been in a drought 
situation in Montana for about 5 years. We have been, not only in a 
situation of summer drought and no summer moisture, but also in the 
area of low snowpack in the Rocky Mountains, in the areas that feed the 
irrigation water and stock water and many other amenities that have 
been provided by that wonderful element. But this year, that drought 
expanded. It expanded to our neighbors to the south, Colorado and 
Wyoming, the western Dakotas, and Kansas. Some would say that is almost 
the breadbasket of this country.
  I had an opportunity to drive through those drought areas in western 
Kansas and Colorado and western Nebraska, and I would say the stories I 
heard and the history we have studied of the great drought of the dirty 
thirties--if we were using the same farm way of doing business that we 
did then, we would probably be back in a dust bowl situation in the 
Midwest. That is how dry it has been--just no rain at all.
  So this is needed legislation. It is not just legislation that has 
come as a whim to anybody who lives in the heart of this country.
  Was all of Montana affected by drought? No. We are a large State. We 
are 148,000 square miles--not quite as big as Texas, not quite as big 
as California or Alaska. Nonetheless, if you measure in air miles from 
the northwest corner to the southeast corner of my State, it is further 
than from here to Chicago--from Washington, DC, to Chicago.
  In the northeastern part of the State, we fared pretty well with 
crops, grass. But as the rangeland has droughted out in the last 5 
years, we have seen a decline, also, in the numbers of livestock. That 
not only affects our farm income but also our tax base. It affects us 
in many more ways than just the loss of the numbers of cattle or the 
loss of a crop.
  So this is needed legislation.
  We have tried, now, for better than a year and a half to provide 
relief for those who have been affected by that weather pattern. We 
have an opportunity here to pass this legislation. The chairman of the 
subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee is right on when he 
says we should be moving on this piece of legislation. In fact, it 
should be off from the Senate tonight, to be honest, probably, if we 
had the full days to work on it. But everyone knows we move to homeland 
defense, homeland security, later and we are paralleling these two 
pieces of legislation.
  This particular appropriations bill always draws a little bit of 
attention because it deals with sensitive areas: Our national public 
lands and our parks. As many people as there are in the world, there 
are that many opinions as to how we should manage those public lands 
and those parks. So it brings diverse ideas, different ideas, and many 
of them come to this floor. However, we have been lacking that debate 
in the last 2 days, and that causes some concern, I suppose. 
Nonetheless, we should be moving along.
  I urge my colleagues, especially those on this side of the aisle, 
that if they have amendments to offer or want to speak on the issue 
that is before us now, to do it now. It will not be long before we will 
be to noon, and at that time we go into morning business and then, 
after that, homeland security.
  I stand in support of the chairman of the committee in asking our 
colleagues to please do that. I know we are working feverishly to clear 
more amendments. We have already done some of those, and the staff has 
just done wonderful work in narrowing down our work on the amendments 
that were offered by Members of the Senate.
  Seeing no other Senator standing with a request to speak, I 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. 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, we now have a number of issues pending on 
this important piece of legislation. But the one issue that is pending 
that we need to dispose of today is drought assistance. People on both 
sides of the aisle need to move this issue for their constituents. It 
is an important piece of legislation. We have been waiting--yesterday 
and today--for people to come to speak against it. We have had no one 
come to speak against this piece of legislation.
  That being the case, I am going to move to waive all points of order 
dealing with this amendment. I think that

[[Page 16152]]

should be done. I intend to do it very shortly.
  Some people may not like it, but the fact of legislative life in the 
Senate is that we are going to have to vote on this legislation. We 
should move forward on it. Once we get it out of the way, we can move 
further down the road.
  The two managers of the bill have acted on a number of amendments 
today. We could complete this bill very quickly. We only have an hour 
left today.
  The amendment now pending before the Senate is the drought assistance 
amendment offered by Senator Daschle.
  Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the pending amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, at this time, I move to waive all points of 
order relating to this amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield before he makes that 
motion?
  Mr. REID. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator has the floor and certainly has 
the right to make that motion. Would he mind, now that he has announced 
his intention, to go through a quorum call and get consent that once 
the quorum call is completed he retain his right to the floor? 
Certainly before he makes the motion other Senators may come; they will 
know. They will know from having heard this that business is moving and 
that we can't continue with the luxury of waiting until next week.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the experience and wisdom of my friend from 
West Virginia has prevailed in the past and will this time. I think his 
suggestion is a wiser choice. I withdraw my motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is withdrawn.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I indicate to all assembled here that we 
need to move this amendment along. I have had a number of people 
indicate to me that they do not like this amendment, but they can come 
and talk about it. This isn't just going to go away. I hope we can do 
that very shortly.
  I would also indicate that Senator Harkin is here wishing to offer a 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
  I ask unanimous consent that I retain the floor when the quorum is 
rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I 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. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, we are in a Senate kind of situation here. 
We have both managers of the bill who support the amendment offered by 
the majority leader. I believe we have a significant majority of 
Senators who support the Daschle amendment. But we are in a posture 
where we have people--unknown, unnamed--who do not like this amendment.
  As I indicated earlier, we are going to move to waive points of order 
on this amendment. We are not going to do it now, as Senator Byrd 
suggested; we will do it at a later time. To get people to come over 
who oppose this amendment would be the most appropriate thing to do.
  In the meantime, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, be recognized for up to 10 
minutes to speak on the underlying legislation and that the Senator 
from Montana be recognized for up to 10 minutes to speak on the 
legislation. Following that, I ask unanimous consent that, after 
calling off the quorum call, Senator Byrd be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I would therefore ask we go forward with 
the 10 minutes, and the 10 minutes, and then, if there is a quorum 
call, the Senator gets the floor. I think it might be better if he just 
got the floor after this. Let's do it that way. After they finish their 
speeches, Senator Byrd gets the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, the amendment before us is critically 
important to many parts of the country. It is certainly critically 
important to my State.
  This has been a year of extremes. In southwestern North Dakota, it 
has been the worst drought since the 1930s. If you went to southwestern 
North Dakota, what you would find is it looks like a moonscape. We have 
had wildfires, the most extensive in my lifetime.
  We had, in one part of south central North Dakota, a wildfire that 
burned 35,000 acres. That burned an entire town, the little town of 
Shields, ND. Hundreds of buildings burned up. The only two buildings 
that survived were the bar and the church. It is amazing what happens 
in these circumstances.
  I was there the morning after that dreadful night, and I met with the 
ranchers. One rancher had been up fighting fires for 72 hours.
  As he slumped in a chair, he told me: Senator, if there isn't 
assistance coming, I have to liquidate my herd and I am out of 
business.
  Of course, he would have to liquidate his herd at the time prices are 
plunging; ranchers all over the region are liquidating their herds 
because there is not feed for their cattle. It is happening in Montana, 
North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas, right down the 
heartland of the country.
  At the same time the whole southwestern quarter of my State is hit by 
the worst drought since the 1930s, in the northeastern quadrant of the 
State, we have had hundreds of thousands of acres that couldn't be 
planted because it was too wet. What a remarkable set of circumstances.
  In northeastern North Dakota, in a 24-hour period, we got 12 inches 
of rain--12 inches of rain in a State where we average 18 inches of 
rain in a year.
  Hundreds of thousands of acres were destroyed, much of it never 
planted. Some 3 million acres in my State were never planted. This is a 
disaster by any description.
  What we do here determines whether or not people go under or survive. 
Some have said: Look to the farm bill for your assistance. There are no 
disaster provisions in the farm bill. I was one of the conferees on the 
farm bill, along with the distinguished chairman of our committee, the 
Senator from Iowa. We had disaster provisions in the farm bill that 
passed the Senate, but when we went to conference, those who 
represented the House told us there were two issues they could not 
discuss in the conference. Those two issues: Opening up Cuba for trade 
and disaster assistance.
  They said those had to go to the Speaker of the House. And when the 
majority leader called the Speaker of the House, he said unequivocally: 
No disaster assistance, period, in the farm bill.
  The conferees from the House side said that later on in the session 
it would be possible to consider disaster assistance, but it was not 
possible in the farm bill.
  So when the White House says to farmers in this country, look to the 
farm bill for disaster assistance, there is no help there for 
disasters. It was specifically precluded by the speaker of the House of 
Representatives, supported by the President of the United States. There 
is no disaster assistance in that farm bill.
  I just held a hearing in my State on this issue. The Governor of the 
State, a Republican Governor, the commissioner of agriculture, a 
Democrat, the leaders of the farm organizations--some Democrats, some 
Republicans--were present. What unified them was the dire emergency 
that exists, the urgent need for aid. Every single witness at the 
hearing, and everyone in the crowd who spoke, delivered the same 
message: Unless there is help coming, thousands of farm families are 
going to be forced off the land.

[[Page 16153]]

  They made it very clear. The commissioner of agriculture said the 
losses in North Dakota so far are over $800 million. In Washington, 
$800 million is not a lot of money. In North Dakota, $800 million is a 
huge amount of money. It will condemn to failure thousands of farm 
families if there is not assistance coming from here.
  Every time there has been a natural disaster in any part of the 
country for as long as I have been in the Senate, this Nation has 
responded. We have declared an emergency. We have provided the money. 
We should do no less here.
  It is not just North Dakota. It is the flooding in Minnesota, the 
worst floods in their history. It is disaster in our neighboring State 
of Montana, our neighboring State of South Dakota, and, as I indicated, 
right down the heartland of the country. We have seen the worst 
wildfires in history in Colorado and Arizona--all of this because of 
overly dry conditions. But there are parts of the country that have had 
flooding and, as a result, crop failure.
  This bill costs over $5 billion. We know that. We acknowledge it. But 
what has not been discussed is the substantial savings in the farm bill 
because of these same conditions. There are billions of dollars of 
savings in the farm bill because prices are higher than were 
anticipated at the time the farm bill was written. Why? Because of 
these disasters, there is less production. Therefore, prices are higher 
than were anticipated. As a result, there will be substantial savings 
in the farm bill.
  I have asked the Congressional Budget Office to reestimate the farm 
bill based on these most recent prices. I can tell you, it will mean 
billions of dollars of savings in the farm program itself. But those 
dollars are not available for the disaster program unless we pass one.
  This is an emergency. Always we have responded to natural disasters. 
Whether it was hurricanes in Florida, earthquakes in California, 
flooding in Missouri, or drought in other parts of the country, this 
Nation has rallied as one to provide assistance.
  I was very interested to see the President supporting disaster 
assistance for eastern Europe at the very time I was home in North 
Dakota going community to community. We saw the President declare his 
support for U.S. assistance for disasters, flooding, occurring in 
eastern Europe. Well, he has a plan for eastern Europe. He has no plan 
for the heartland of America.
  That cannot be the result. That is not fair. It should not be what we 
do. We ought to declare an emergency just like we always do. We ought 
to understand there are substantial savings under the farm bill because 
prices are higher than were anticipated because of these very 
disasters. And we ought to reach out a hand of help and hope to the 
hundreds of thousands of families across this country hit by the 
various natural disasters. That is the American way. It is what we have 
done consistently for others. We ought to do no less now.
  I urge my colleagues to join to pass this urgently needed 
legislation. We have helped you when you needed assistance. We are 
asking now for the same consideration. At a time of devastating natural 
disasters, our region of the country needs help. We are not alone.
  Even with higher prices than were anticipated, it is very important 
to understand that because production is dramatically reduced, USDA, 
just 2 weeks ago, indicated that net farm income would decline by a 
stunning 23 percent. That is what is going to happen because of this 
series of natural disasters.
  That is a hit no part of our economy can afford to take. It is time 
to act. It is time to vote. We ought to have that opportunity. I thank 
the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, first, I thank my colleague from North 
Dakota. He made a very good point that I don't think has been 
emphasized enough; namely, the farm bill that this body passed and 
enacted into law because of the recent disastrous conditions occurring 
in America will result in fewer Federal payments, fewer dollars paid 
out than was anticipated under that bill. As my friend from North 
Dakota pointed out, it is billions of dollars in savings which largely 
will offset the cost of this bill.
  My good friend further pointed out that farmers will receive payments 
under this legislation, disaster assistance, but will not receive it 
until this legislation is enacted into law. I thank my good friend from 
North Dakota for making that valid point. Some think that, gee, if we 
passed a farm bill, why do we have to pass agricultural disaster 
assistance which, for the 2 years--2001 and 2002--crop disaster program 
and the livestock assistance program scores at $5 billion. Crop 
Insurance is an important risk management tool but provides declining 
coverage in years of successive disasters. Emergency haying and grazing 
on CRP acreage is important. These are all pieces to the puzzle. The 
piece that is still missing--that producers are counting on the most--
is emergency natural disaster assistance. I thank my friend from North 
Dakota for pointing that out.
  Madam President, this is really pretty basic. Without our help, 
without passing agricultural disaster assistance for farmers and 
ranchers, this body will accomplish change in the future of rural 
America forever. We are at that point. After successive years of 
disaster, drought in Montana, we are at the breaking point.
  If agricultural assistance does not pass, I can tell you that my 
State of Montana, and probably other States in the Nation--particularly 
the high plains States, and perhaps even the State represented by the 
occupant of the Chair--the rural American landscape is going to change 
forever. Small towns are going to die. People are going to leave. There 
is not going to be much left. We are going to be destroying a way of 
life.
  It is that basic, that simple. It has been said this is a real 
emergency, a real disaster. That is an understatement. It will be 
changing the landscape of rural America if this legislation does not 
pass.
  I want to read from a letter from Wells Fargo Bank, a national 
lending institution which has banks in Montana. This is from Alan 
Pearson, district manager:

       Wells Fargo has always had a number of tools at its 
     disposal, recognizing that farmers and ranchers have cyclical 
     years. As lenders, we have made all efforts to ensure that 
     credit needs are met by providing operating lines of credit 
     and equipment and real estate financing. In addition, where 
     applicable, Wells Fargo is the principal provider and 
     underwriter of Federal Crop Insurance.
       However, it is our sense that, without significant Federal 
     assistance for our region, many farmers and ranchers will not 
     make it. Private insurance and easing of credit requirements 
     only go so far.
       A principal reason why the situation warrants Federal 
     assistance is that surface and groundwater resources have 
     depleted to a level that requires successive above-average 
     periods of precipitation to bring water reserves back to 
     normal levels.

  I will repeat that. The situation has deteriorated so much that only 
with ``successive above-average periods of precipitation to bring water 
reserves back to normal levels'' will farmers begin to recover.
  Continuing:

       These conditions have worsened over the last 3 years, and 
     our analysis shows that farm income will suffer unless 
     Government assistance is available.
       As you are aware, without specific and timely Federal 
     emergency disaster assistance, many producers will face 
     daunting challenges in their operations.

  Unfortunately, a natural disaster is not only a condition in just a 
few States, as of July 22, 49 States are impacted by drought, and 36 
percent of our country is currently classified at some level of 
drought. More than 40 percent of our Nation's rangeland is currently 
rated as poor or very poor. This is an issue that cannot be ignored.
  The Senator from North Dakota mentioned the problems in conference, 
trying to get the other body to agree, and the Speaker has basically 
said no. I hope very much the Speaker reconsiders, that the White House 
reconsiders and realizes that there is such an

[[Page 16154]]

emergency that we must pass this legislation.
  I am pleased more than a fifth of the Senate has cosponsored this 
amendment. I will read some of the organizations that proposed this and 
endorse it: National Farmers Union, American Farm Bureau Federation, 
National Cattlemen's Beef Association, American Corn Growers, American 
Sheep Industry, American Soybean Association, National Association of 
Wheat Growers, National Barley Growers, and a number of others.
  I want to make another point that has not been made enough. There 
have been many references to the Dust Bowl years in the thirties. Some 
farmers tell me--very respected farmers whose operations have been in 
families for years--that this is even worse than the thirties for two 
reasons: Basically, in the thirties, there was 1 year with a little 
precipitation that broke the drought a little bit. But, more important, 
in the thirties, we did not have something called CRP. We did not have 
the Conservation Reserve Program. Many producers in my State have put 
their land in the CRP. What is CRP, for those who don't know? The CRP 
is the program the United States provides for farmers so they can take 
their land out of production and put it into grassland, in reserve. 
That is the Conservation Reserve Program. It helps the environment and 
helps game and birds and so forth. It is also a way for farmers to cash 
flow during years of drought.
  Because of better farming practices today, we do not have the Dust 
Bowl situation. If we continued to use the same farming practices 
today, we would be back to the situation of the thirties. You would see 
wind blowing dust across the Nation. It is because of our better 
farming practices that we don't have quite the Dust Bowl situation that 
all Americans at that time knew about.
  That leads me to another point. If a major U.S. company loses 20 
percent of its income, which is in the quarterly reports, the stock 
goes down, it is in the newspapers, and everybody knows about it. Or if 
an industry loses a huge percentage of its income, or people go 
bankrupt, such as Enron and WorldCom and others, everybody knows about 
those bankruptcies because they are in the newspapers. People do not 
know about the individual farmers and ranchers who have to sell out 
because they, in effect, go bankrupt because of Dust Bowl situations, 
because of lack of income, and because of successive years of drought. 
Producers in my State have lost more than 20 per cent of their income 
for 4 consecutive years. There isn't another industry in America that 
could do that and still be standing. We should all be grateful that 
they are still in business because they are the ones who ensure that we 
have food on our plates.
  So it is our responsibility, as representatives of our States, to 
make this known to the world--particularly to the country and the 
Senate--so that our colleagues have an appreciation of what we are 
experiencing in Montana and in other Northwestern States. It is that 
serious.
  As has been pointed out, this body has responded to other 
emergencies--floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, the Trade Towers, and it 
was more than appropriate; everybody rushed to help. But we have the 
same emergency, the same disaster conditions today, but it is not as 
well known because it is a slow disaster. Mother Nature sometimes rains 
in parts of our State and not in others. Drought disaster is not as 
visible as, say, a WorldCom bankruptcy or an Enron bankruptcy; but it 
is just as important--in fact, even more important to those people who 
have to leave those communities and to those communities and towns.
  I plead that Members of this body vote overwhelmingly to help people 
who are facing disaster. I ask the body to also recognize the disaster 
we are facing. I ask the President of the United States to reconsider 
and agree and recognize that we have a disaster in the heartland of 
America, and we have a responsibility collectively, as the people's 
representatives, to help the people we represent and support disaster 
assistance. It is the only thing we can do.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I will be glad to yield to my good friend from North 
Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I say to my colleague, we deeply 
appreciate the information he has provided on this issue. It was the 
Senator's amendment that prevailed in the Senate farm bill to provide 
disaster assistance in the first place. Nobody has understood better 
than he the consequences and the magnitude of this disaster. Perhaps no 
State has been harder hit than his own.
  I want to stand and acknowledge the leadership of the Senator from 
Montana on this issue and thank him publicly on behalf of the people I 
represent and the other people affected in other States for the 
diligence of the Senator from Montana. He has been relentless in 
getting disaster assistance for our people, and I want to thank him for 
it.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I thank my good friend from North 
Dakota. We are all in this together. This is teamwork. By working 
together--both sides of the aisle--representatives and the people, we 
are going to get this passed because it is so necessary and so 
important. I thank my good friend, as part of the larger team.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
West Virginia is to be recognized at this point.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I do not wish to have the floor at this 
moment. It may be the distinguished Democratic whip will have need for 
the floor, or any other Senator for that matter. I yield my time back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, we have a number of people who wish to 
speak this morning. We have some who I understand want to speak against 
the amendment. They have not shown up yet in 2 days, but I assume they 
want to speak.
  I indicated to the staff of the minority that we would like to extend 
time on this bill until 12:30 p.m. today. I will not put that in the 
form of a unanimous consent request until I hear from the minority. 
That is what I would like to do.
  It is my understanding the Senator from North Dakota wishes to speak 
on this legislation for up 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator from North Dakota be recognized to speak, and that following 
his statement, I be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I listened attentively to my colleague 
from North Dakota and my colleague from Montana. Their remarks about 
this issue describe how important it is for us to enact legislation 
dealing with this disaster.
  I thought I would bring a poster that shows a picture of two parts of 
North Dakota: One State, two extremes. This top picture shows a farmer/
rancher down in the southern part of our State standing in an area that 
looks very much like a moonscape. There is no vegetation left. This is 
completely dry and pretty well dead. This is a drought area that has 
consumed a significant portion of the southern part of our State, and 
it has been devastating to those farmers and ranchers trying to make a 
living down there.
  This bottom picture was actually taken on the same day in the same 
State, but this is a different part of the State. This is an area that 
received 12 inches of rain in 1 day. This is a farmer who lost 
everything.
  These pictures are representative of a wide group of producers in our 
States. We call them producers, but they are family farmers. They risk 
all they have to try to raise a crop and have a livestock herd that can 
make it through good and bad times, and then try to take the crop or 
the livestock to market and make some money.
  They are discovering this year, as is much of the country, that 
trying to tend a herd of livestock or raise a crop is very difficult in 
the circumstances that exist. We have a disaster that has occurred over 
a substantial portion of

[[Page 16155]]

this country. This is the Palmer Drought Index. One can see over a 
substantial portion of the country where there is massive drought.
  Some people say: So what? So what about family farming? Will Rogers 
many years ago said: If one day in this country all the lawyers and the 
accountants failed to show up for work, it would not be a very big 
deal. But if on that same day all the cows in America failed to show up 
to be milked, now that would be a problem.
  He was, in his own way, trying to describe the importance of family 
farmers, the importance of production agriculture. Production 
agriculture, from our standpoint in North Dakota, is families out there 
living under a yard light trying to make a go of it by planting seed in 
the spring and having every hope perhaps that seed will grow into 
something they can harvest and take to the market and be able to 
recapture their living expenses. They live on hope.
  We have seen now over recent years weather patterns that have 
devastated large groups of family farmers. These clearly are disasters. 
When you have a drought of the type we have had, it is truly a 
disaster.
  If tonight 1,000 tornadoes spring up and move relentlessly across the 
prairies or the western part of the United States and destroy all the 
structures and the vegetation, that is a disaster. Tomorrow we would 
have FEMA, we would have trucks, we would have armies of people moving 
because the headlines would be: This is a disaster, and we have to move 
and deal with it.
  It does not matter whether it is drought, flood, earthquake, fire, or 
tornado. The devastation and destruction that occurs to the crops of 
tens of thousands of family farmers is a disaster, and we need to 
respond to it.
  I am proud to say that in every set of circumstances in my service 
both in the Senate and the House of Representatives, when there has 
been a disaster and a proposal on the floor of the Senate to respond to 
that disaster, I have said yes. It does not matter to me where it is in 
this country. If there are cities, counties, States, groups of people 
in this country who have suffered a disaster, then I want to be a part 
of the voice of this Congress that says to them: You are not alone. 
This country wants to help.
  I want to be, and have always been, a part of a group in this 
Congress who says we want to extend the helping hand of America during 
a time of disaster.
  That needs to be the case now with respect to the disaster that 
occurs on family farms in this country because of this relentless, 
gripping, devastating drought in some parts of the country and, in 
other parts of the country, flooded lands.
  There are a good many ways to deal with disasters. Some disasters 
might be just a single farm disaster. When I was a young boy, a good 
friend of ours named Ernest died. His crop was still in the field. He 
died of a heart attack one evening. The neighbors gassed up the 
combines and the trucks and went over and harvested the crop and took 
it to the market for Ernest's widow. That is just the way it works. 
That is what neighbors are about. That is what communities are for. But 
that is a disaster of one farm where neighbors can solve the problem.
  In a disaster of this type where you have this relentless drought 
that has destroyed so many acres, so many crops, so much pastureland, 
neighbors are in the same shape. They are all devastated by this 
drought and all losing the opportunity to make a living.
  Some say: All you do is talk about farmers. This is not just about 
farmers. It is about those communities and small towns, medium-size 
towns across the heartland of our country. It is about rural 
businesses. It is about the local grain elevator that does not have any 
grain to handle. The local feedstore that is not going to sell any 
feed. It is about the machinery dealer who is not going to sell 
machinery. It is about jobs in the manufacturing plants that produce 
that machinery to process that feed. So it is much more than just 
family farms.
  This is a circumstance where we need to take action now. I happen to 
think family farmers are America's economic all-stars. They produce, 
produce, produce in a prodigious way. It has always baffled me that 
farmers are accused of being guilty of overproducing. We have a world 
in which a half a billion people go to bed every night with an ache in 
their belly because they are hungry, and our farmers produce food and 
are told the food they produce has no value.
  Are they nuts? Of course, it has value. This is a hungry world. We 
need to be smart enough to connect it all. Our family farmers are 
enormous producers and have done very well, but they suffer disaster. 
They are individual, small economic units. They are up against the 
weather. They are up against insects. Once they plant that seed, they 
might lose their crop to a drought. They might lose it to a flood. They 
might lose it to insects. They might lose it to disease. They might 
lose it to hail. They might lose it to wind. And if they manage to not 
lose it to any of those things and they get a crop off by harvesting it 
in the fall, they might find out they lose their value by going to a 
country elevator and discovering the grain trade has told them their 
food in a hungry world has no value.
  So these farmers suffer all of those risks and more, but they cannot 
cope with the kind of relentless drought that exists in this country in 
a way that devastates individual producers in State after State.
  This is an important issue. It is not parochial. It does not deal 
with just a few problems in a few areas. What has happened in this 
country is we have passed a farm bill that tries to help farmers during 
collapsing prices. That is a significant problem and a significant 
achievement, to pass a farm bill that does that. But if one does not 
raise a crop because of a disaster price protection, it does not help; 
there is no protection at all. That is why a disaster declaration and a 
disaster bill dealing with these issues of drought and floods for 
preventive planting and destroyed crops is so very important.
  We need to do this, not tomorrow, not next month, not next year; we 
need to do it now. If we fail to do this now, there are a good many 
families who will lose their hopes and dreams for the future. They will 
not be around next spring. They will not be there because they will not 
be able to continue farming. This is an important and good investment 
for this country to make. It invests in the American dream for family 
farmers, for family entrepreneurs, and I am pleased to be a part of a 
group that has brought it to the floor of the Senate, and I am pleased 
today to support it.
  This is an urgent need. Congress needs to pass this, and we need to 
pass it now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, we have a number of people wishing to 
speak on this amendment, all of whom are in favor of it. After 2 days, 
we have not had anybody speak against it, but they will not let us vote 
on it.
  I have a unanimous consent request I will make, but I have to wait 
until we get approval from the other side. It is my understanding the 
Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Breaux, wishes to speak for 3 minutes. 
Following the statement of Senator Breaux, I ask unanimous consent that 
I again have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Madam President, I say to my colleagues who have spoken 
previously on this amendment, I join with them as a cosponsor of this 
legislation. The previous speaker from North Dakota was absolutely 
correct when he pointed out this is not a parochial issue.
  I am not from Montana. I am not from North Dakota. I am not from the 
Great Plains. In fact, I am as far away from these States as one could 
probably be and probably still be in the continental United States.
  Being from Louisiana, we traditionally do not have a lot of problems 
with drought. As a matter of fact, it is very common for Louisiana to 
have 8, 9, even 10 inches of rain during the summer months in one 
afternoon. Our

[[Page 16156]]

problem in many cases is not drought but too much water. We were 
jokingly talking about how we could be of help by somehow reversing the 
flow of the Mississippi River from north to south and changing it from 
south to north and sending the excess water we frequently have in 
Louisiana to our friends and neighbors in farms in the Great Plains, 
the Midwest. That is a novel idea, but it is not going to happen.
  Until something like that happens, it is very important to be able to 
try to recognize this is a national issue. Whether one is from South 
Dakota or from Louisiana, it is very important when farm organizations 
and groups in one part of the country have a problem that is not 
through their own making, we in other parts of the country recognize it 
and help to contribute.
  One of the provisions that is a defect in the farm bill is that when 
someone has a disaster, they can receive disaster loans. The last thing 
a person who has no crop needs is more debt which they would incur by 
having an additional loan.
  The program we talked about in the past really does not particularly 
address the situation where farms are literally wiped out of any 
production because of a flood or because of a drought, thus preventing 
them from harvesting a crop. Having a loan in that circumstance does 
not help the farmer. They cannot pay back the loan if they do not have 
a crop. It is just that simple.
  Therefore, in the interest of trying to be of help from a national 
perspective, this legislation has been brought to the floor. It is 
absolutely essential. Because of the way the system works, it will 
ultimately save the Government money. By helping now, we avoid greater 
debt and greater losses in the future. So I strongly support this 
effort.
  We have our own unique problems right now. In my State of Louisiana, 
particularly in the rice industry, we are looking for ways to help 
solve some of the problems our farmers are experiencing because of some 
of the lowest prices in decades.
  Our farmers are not going to be able to make it, not because of a 
drought or because of a flood but because of the potential of an 
economic disaster which Congress should be addressing as well.
  In the meantime, this is the right thing to do for a disaster that is 
being caused by a drought. I strongly support it, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Michigan be 
recognized to speak for 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that I retain the floor following 
her statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I urge in the strongest possible terms 
that we pass this disaster relief package. The years 2001 and 2002 have 
been absolutely devastating years for Michigan agriculture. When I was 
home in August, I had an opportunity to visit from northern Michigan 
down to southern Michigan. To show the sense of urgency felt, there was 
an ad hoc group that put together petitions and cards. The Michigan 
Agricultural Industry Alliance and others, Lee Lavanway from Eau 
Claire, MI, in the southwestern part of Michigan, put together over a 
thousand petitions and cards desperately calling on us to act on behalf 
of American agriculture. I urge that we do so.
  In the year 2001, 82 of Michigan's 83 counties were declared a 
disaster because of drought. Early frosts and then flooding later in 
the year also contributed to considerable crop damage. Secretary 
Veneman issued another disaster declaration for 2002 covering 50 
counties.
  In 2001, yields for program crops, such as corn and soybeans, 
plummeted. Other crops, such as grapes and beans, had monumental 
losses. 2001 was the worst year in recorded history for dry beans in 
Michigan. In fact, earlier this year Bob Green of the Michigan Bean 
Commission testified before the Senate Agriculture Committee about this 
issue.
  The 2001 year drought also devastated sugar beet crops. The grape 
growers in Michigan have struggled with not 1 but 2 devastating crop 
years. The extreme, record-high temperatures during the week of April 
14, followed by freezing temperatures shortly after that, have caused 
great damage in our fruit and vegetable crops. I have heard from apple, 
grape, peach, asparagus, raspberry, and other growers who have had very 
bad results--in fact, devastating results--as a result of the bad 
weather.
  In July, I visited tart cherry orchards and witnessed with my own 
eyes the devastation that followed that bad weather. There is not a 
single cherry on any of these trees. We are not talking about less of a 
crop, we are talking about no crop. One of the farmers told me he did 
not have enough in his entire orchard to make one cherry pie.
  When we look at this, it is astounding what has happened to Michigan 
agriculture and to our farmers. The lack of crop in Michigan has a 
ripple effect on our entire economy. Processing facilities are laying 
off workers. There is a lower demand for agricultural machinery and 
supplies.
  To give an idea of the importance of these lost crops, fruit 
production contributes $235 million to the economy of the State of 
Michigan.
  I call on my colleagues, in the strongest possible words, to join 
together to pass, by a strong bipartisan voice, this disaster relief 
measure. I ask the President of the United States to join, to stand 
with us on behalf of our American farmers.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Madam President, we are very close to working out a 
unanimous consent agreement on the Harkin-Craig amendment which deals 
with Medicare and reimbursement of States. Senator Harkin has been here 
literally all day trying to get a time agreement. We hope we will have 
the approval from the minority. They have agreed on the fact we should 
do this amendment. The only question now is the time that will occur.
  In the meantime, we have had bipartisan support on the underlying 
Daschle amendment. We have had the manager of the bill, Senator Byrd, 
support it; the Republican manager of the bill has supported it, 
Senator Burns. In fact, Senator Burns is a cosponsor of the amendment. 
At last count, we had 18 or 20 cosponsors of the amendment.
  The problem we have is under the Senate rules, there can be a couple 
of people who will not allow us to go forward on legislation. That is 
what we have here. It is too bad. We have tried everything we could to 
get a vote. It appears to me that probably what we will have to do is 
go forward with a cloture motion on this amendment. That would be the 
best thing to do. I hope that can be done. Under the constraints of 
time we have we need to do that before the noon hour. I am confident we 
will have the necessary signatures on the petition to do that.
  As I indicated, there is overwhelming support for this amendment. 
This is something that all farm State Senators believe is important. 
For those not in the heavy agricultural areas, it is something we 
believe is fair and reasonable that should have, frankly, been done 
some time ago. It is good that we are in a position to move forward on 
this.
  I, therefore, send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the Daschle 
     amendment No. 4481.
         Harry Reid, Byron L. Dorgan, Kent Conrad, Tom Harkin, 
           Jean Carnahan, Max Baucus, John Breaux, Patrick Leahy, 
           Edward M. Kennedy, Herb Kohl, Dianne Feinstein, Richard 
           J. Durbin, Charles Schumer, Maria Cantwell, Deborah 
           Stabenow, Tim Johnson, Arlen Specter, Tom Daschle.


[[Page 16157]]

  Mr. REID. The staff is working to make sure we can clear the Harkin-
Craig amendment. It is my understanding we are very close to that.
  The unanimous consent agreement I will soon request at an appropriate 
time--which I will not do now--will ask consent the pending amendments 
be set aside and Senator Harkin be recognized on behalf of himself and 
Senator Craig to offer an amendment on the sense of the Senate 
regarding Medicare; that there be 10 minutes debate with respect to 
that amendment, and the time be controlled between Senators Harkin and 
Craig; that upon the use of time, the time be yielded back and there be 
a vote.
  I hope we are in a position to offer that in the Senate at the 
appropriate time.
  Madam President, the Senator from Pennsylvania wishes to speak. We 
have had a series of Democrats who have spoken. It is certainly fair he 
be allowed to speak. I ask unanimous consent Senator Specter be 
recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes and also that the time pending 
for the bill be extended until the hour of 12:15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.

                          ____________________