[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Page 20973]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             DROUGHT RELIEF

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I was surprised to get up this morning and 
read the Washington Post and see that the Speaker of the House, Mr. 
Hastert, said the House could pass drought relief legislation after the 
election, `` . . . if there is a problem.''
  Where has the Speaker been? If there is a problem?
  Tell that to the farmers of North Dakota. This is a photo of what it 
looks like in southwestern North Dakota. That is a moonscape. Nothing 
is growing. There is no question, I would say to the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives, about whether or not there is a problem. 
There is a deep problem. This is a disastrous year.
  Let me read just one letter from a farmer in North Dakota. He says:

       Dear Senator Conrad:
       I am a 40 year old man with a wife and 4 children. I am a 
     third generation farmer. We enjoy farming very much but it's 
     getting very hard to keep on going.

  He continues:

       When we have had good crops in the past there was no price. 
     Now in 2002 we have no crop, no grass, no hay, and no rain, 
     which all leads to no money.
       I know it is hard for city people to understand the 
     difficulties of farming, but it has become very hard to keep 
     a good attitude when you are always under financial pressure. 
     Without any disaster aid this fall, a lot of good farmers 
     will be forced to sell, or will simply just quit.

  He went on to say:

       I hope and pray that you can persuade the Members of the 
     House how serious it is out here in rural North Dakota.

  I do not know of anything that could tell the story more clearly than 
this picture. This isn't just a small part of southwestern North 
Dakota. This is mile upon mile of southwestern North Dakota. This is a 
drought as bad or worse than the 1930s.
  This has to be responded to. For the Speaker to say yesterday that 
the House could pass drought legislation ``if there's a problem'' 
misses the point entirely. There is a problem. It is more than a 
problem. It is a crisis. And it is not just in North Dakota.
  How can the Speaker of the House have missed this? In Montana, in 
South Dakota, in Nebraska, in Kansas, in Minnesota, in Wyoming, and 
other parts of the country as well, they have suffered different kinds 
of disasters. My neighboring State of Minnesota has suffered the worst 
flooding in their history--and the administration has said, Well, look 
to the farm bill. Yet the administration knows there are no disaster 
provisions in the farm bill. They prevented it. The Speaker prevented 
it. I was one of the conferees on the farm bill. When we went to 
conference with the Senate bill that included disaster assistance, the 
House conferees said that there were only two things they were not at 
liberty to discuss in the conference. No. 1, they said we can't talk 
about opening trade with Cuba; and No. 2, we cannot talk about disaster 
assistance. The House conferees told us that those two issues had to go 
to the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
  The Speaker said no. The President has said no. Always before when 
any part of the country suffered a disaster, we have moved to respond--
always. Whether it was earthquakes in California, mud slides in that 
same State, hurricanes in the State of the occupant of the Chair, 
whether it was drought in farm country, or flooding any place in the 
Nation--always before we have moved to help. This year, there is no 
assistance for those suffering natural disasters. That is wrong.
  In my State, there is a calamity. It is not just my State. It is 
State after State.
  For the Speaker to say yesterday that disaster aid may be considered 
later this fall ``if there's a problem'' shows that he is terribly out 
of touch with what is happening across this great Nation. These are 
natural disasters that deserve a response and that require a response, 
and we ought to be providing help. For those who say look to the farm 
bill, there is no disaster assistance in the farm bill. In fact, there 
are savings under the farm bill to pay for the disaster assistance.
  Some may ask, How is that? Very simply, because of these disasters, 
there is less production. That means prices are higher. That means the 
farm bill will cost less. The Congressional Budget Office has told me 
and has told all of our colleagues there will be about $6 billion in 
savings in the farm bill this year because of these natural disasters. 
That also happens to be the size of the disaster relief package. So we 
have an opportunity here to be fiscally responsible. We are proposing 
to spend the same amount of money on disaster assistance that is being 
saved in the farm bill because of these disasters. Because there is 
less production, prices are higher than anticipated. That means the 
farm bill will cost less by nearly $6 billion. That is money that could 
be available for disaster assistance and should be.
  Let me conclude with this chart that shows what this is going to 
mean.
  Net farm income is going to decline this year by 21 percent across 
the country largely because of these natural disasters. Yet there is no 
response from Washington. We passed disaster assistance here in the 
U.S. Senate. We passed it as part of the farm bill. We passed it on an 
amendment on the Interior appropriations bill with 79 votes--an 
overwhelming bipartisan agreement that we should provide disaster 
assistance. But the House has said no. The President has said no.
  To have the Speaker of the House say yesterday that they may consider 
aid in a lame duck session ``if there's a problem'' is incredible. 
Where has the Speaker of the House been to say ``if there's a 
problem''?
  This is a disaster. This is a crisis. There ought to be a response.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

                          ____________________