[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16654-16655]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   DROUGHT AID THROUGH THE FARM BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to discuss a very 
pressing and most distressing issue in the Great Plains States and much 
of the mountain West; and as can be seen by the map here, the drought 
map, we are currently experiencing a drought across the United States 
that affects roughly 45 percent of the land mass of the country.
  In a normal year we can expect drought in maybe 10 percent or 15 
percent of the country. And you can see by the severe brown marks and 
the red marks that the drought is not only extensive, it is extreme.
  These are areas where essentially all the pastures are gone. The 
cattlemen have no feed left for the winter. They have had to sell off 
their herd in many cases because there is no way that they can feed 
their cattle. And as we have had the glut on the cattle markets, prices 
have declined and a great many cattlemen have taken huge losses, so we 
are seeing tremendous distress in the livestock industry, particularly 
in the cattle industry.
  Also, what we have found is those who have raised crops have 
experienced a similar difficulty. The dry land crops are totally gone 
in all of those areas that are red and brown. And, of course, this has 
caused huge economic distress. Even those areas that are irrigated have 
lost substantially because one cannot run a center pivot fast enough to 
keep up with the drought. In many areas they have lost their ditch 
water. The water has been cut off because the rivers are dry. There is 
no water available. So even irrigated crops are severely impacted.
  So some have said, well, what we have to do is take the money out of 
the new farm bill because there is a huge amount of money in there and 
just take it out of there. We have not been able to figure out how we 
can get enough money out of the farm bill without destroying the farm 
bill that will undo this huge problem. So as a result, the gentleman 
from South Dakota (Mr. Thune), the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) 
and myself have introduced legislation that we think addresses this 
problem.
  At the present time we are estimated to lose $1.4 billion in the 
State of Nebraska alone. Kansas also is roughly $1.4 billion and the 
other States that we see here will have similar losses, so it is a huge 
loss. The thing that we are concerned about is if there were a 
hurricane that affected that amount of land mass in the United States, 
or if we had a wildfire that burned up that much area in the United 
States, or if we had a tornado that affected that much, or a flood or 
whatever, we would immediately have assistance. But a drought occurs 
slowly over time and it is not quite as visible, but the economic 
devastation is every bit as great as what these other disasters might 
have.
  So we need help and we need it now. We cannot take the money out of 
the farm bill because there simply is not that much there. So what we 
have proposed is another solution, and that is that we look at this, at 
the spending currently in the farm bill.
  We will see in the heavy blue line here what has been budgeted for 
the farm bill in the year 2002, roughly $19 billion. Yet, recent 
projections by CBO indicate that roughly $13 billion will be spent this 
year. So it is a $6 billion shortfall. And, you say, why is that? Well, 
the reason is because the

[[Page 16655]]

drought, the drought has reduced production of corn, soybeans, milo, 
sorghum, rye, many other crops by 10 to 15 percent. Therefore, the 
price has risen. So as the price has risen, there is no need for 
government payments, no countercyclical payment, no loan deficiency 
payments. So as a result we will see a savings, so to speak, of roughly 
$6 billion, and the reason for the saving, if you want to call it that, 
is simply because we have had a drought. And those people who have been 
affected most by the drought, who have been hurt by the drought, will 
not receive any payments.
  What we are proposing is we take this shortfall, this $5 billion or 
whatever, and allocate it to emergency drought assistance. It does not 
break the budget. It falls within what has already been budgeted. This 
contrasts sharply with what the other body has proposed. They want to 
add roughly $6 billion of new spending. We think this is fiscally 
responsible. We think it certainly addresses the issue that is going on 
in the West and other parts of the country, even in the southeastern 
part of the country. But the main thing we are trying to drive home is 
this is critical and this is not emergency spending. It is not because 
of low prices. It is because of natural disaster. It is disaster 
spending which we need badly.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge careful consideration of my colleagues to this 
dilemma that we are now facing.

                          ____________________