[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2194-2196]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           DROUGHT ``DAVID''

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I will address a 
different subject than has been addressed this morning. The Senate 
recently passed a disaster assistance package consisting of $3.1 
billion to aid those affected by the worst drought since the Dust Bowl 
years of the 1930s. Some have referred to this package as drought 
disaster relief. I cannot quite call it drought relief because it does 
not really provide drought relief. It may provide some arid condition 
relief and some oasis assistance, but I cannot bring myself to call it 
real drought relief, for two reasons: No. 1, because $3.1 billion is 
inadequate. It is not enough. No. 2, it does not do enough for farmers 
and ranchers who are actually suffering the losses due to the 
devastating drought.
  I decided to give the drought a name, and I gave it the name 
``David'' to give it an identity like other natural disasters and to 
show that this drought, the same as a hurricane, required immediate 
emergency Federal assistance.
  Several of my colleagues wore Drought David ribbons that I 
distributed to them to remind all Senators of the severe impact of the 
drought, and I thank those who proudly wore them. Back home, the 
newspaper Journal Star in Lincoln thought my proposal to name the 
drought was worth asking readers to submit their suggestions, and many 
creative suggestions were submitted but one stood out.
  For Shannon Sutherland of Lincoln, the drought summons up thoughts of 
the devil in hell. Among her suggestions was ``The Devil's Bull's Eye'' 
in reference to the drought maps looking like a bull's eye right over 
Nebraska. The Journal Star reported that on Monday.
  Shannon Sutherland is absolutely right. The Drought Monitor maps do 
resemble a target with Nebraska in the crosshairs, but our neighboring 
States share the target, unfortunately.
  If we go look at this chart, if that is not a bull's eye, I do not 
know what a bull's eye would look like. Unfortunately, that bull's eye 
is right over my hometown of McCook, NE. As we can see, that area has 
suffered the worst drought conditions in the State of Nebraska.
  We are not alone. The darkest brown is where the worst conditions are 
being experienced, and even though this disaster assistance was passed 
last week and is now over in the House, the drought continues. I think 
we have a tendency at times to think when we have passed something, 
that takes care of it. Well, first, it was inadequate to take care of 
the past needs, and it certainly is not going to be adequate to take 
care of the additional needs.
  Yet despite my efforts to raise awareness--and others who have 
attempted to raise awareness--of this drought, the Senate still could 
not manage to provide comprehensive drought assistance. I have come 
today to give my fellow Senators another opportunity to

[[Page 2195]]

hear a message I received from one of my constituents, Bill Lueck of 
Arcadia, NE, in the central part of the State. His words came in over 
the weekend. I spoke to him yesterday. His words are a powerful 
reminder of how the recent drought relief bill fell short. He said:

       I have some concerns over the current disaster portion of 
     the omnibus appropriations bill. According to the information 
     I got from the farm bureau, they're considering 42 percent of 
     AMTA payments to farmers. In our area here we have irrigated 
     producers who haven't suffered a loss, who are going to get 
     an additional payment and in the western part of the State 
     our cattle producers out here are hanging on by their 
     fingers. I assumed when they didn't consider the $6 billion 
     anymore and went to the $3.1 billion for agriculture disaster 
     aid that would go more to livestock producers. We've got 
     breeding stock on wholesale bull sale that are down $1,000 
     average per bull around here.

  To Bill Lueck, I say thank you. I could not have said it better 
myself. I could not have drawn the focus more narrowly than he did. A 
$3.1 billion drought package to address the devastation of a drought 
this extensive inevitably leaves out people who need help to make it 
through the disaster.
  The State of Nebraska will possibly receive about 8 percent of what 
we need. We asked for $6 billion; we got $3.1 billion. The way in which 
it is being distributed to those who have severe needs and those who 
may have some needs but in a uniform manner robs those who really are 
most affected because they are going to be left with virtually nothing 
compared to what they need.
  Richard and Cecelia Carnes of Marquette, NE, which is very close to 
Sargent, in the middle part of the State as well, also wrote to me 
regarding true drought assistance. These two truly represent the family 
farmer. They have been in the farming business for the last 40 years, 
with some of their land having been in the family for over 100 years.
  Richard and Cecelia are afraid of losing their farm because of the 
drought. They are going to sell half of their cow herd to pay for the 
expenses they incurred during the drought last summer. The expenses are 
ongoing, even though the income is not forthcoming. They have even gone 
so far as to invest their retirement savings into keeping their farm 
afloat, but without significant Federal assistance they cannot prevail, 
either in the short term or in the long term.
  In their letter, they made a particularly good point that I will 
express at this time:

       This drought is affecting everyone in the country. Whenever 
     there is a disaster for flooding, hurricanes, tornados, and 
     snowstorms the Government is there helping right away. A 
     drought is much worse since the farmer is the one producing 
     the food for the country.

  People might take issue with whether a drought is worse than other 
disasters, but I do not think anybody would disagree that a drought 
that adversely affects the output of food is a disaster that we can ill 
afford.
  They concluded the letter by saying that everyone needs to try 
farming to truly understand what it is like. The Senate needs to 
realize the seriousness of the problem and put themselves in the shoes 
of family farmers and ranchers like Richard and Cecelia. Perhaps then 
we could provide real and substantial drought relief.
  Yesterday, I spoke with my good friend and colleague Tom Osborne 
about some concerns raised by House members on the fairness of the 
drought package passed by the Senate. The Chairman of the House 
Agriculture Committee indicated that the Senate plan would provide 
``relief'' to farmers and ranchers who suffered no losses. The package 
treats equally farmers and ranchers who did and did not suffer losses.
  That's right. In a time of budget deficits and fiscal calamity, the 
Senate package squanders scarce resources and provides assistance to 
those who actually need it. Farmers and ranchers in my State of 
Nebraska are not pleased. Nebraska, perhaps, is one of the States hit 
hardest by Drought David. For two years, we have suffered under dry 
conditions and dwindling herds and crops. Some estimates say 20,000 of 
the remaining 55,000 Nebraska family farms are likely to go under this 
year because of the drought. The drought is a crisis--like a tornado, a 
hurricane, a flood, or a fire--and the climatologists indicate there is 
no relief in sight and it may be moving in an easterly direction.
  Congressman Osborne has worked tirelessly to provide comprehensive 
drought assistance. He left no stone unturned in his effort to find 
adequate funding. He knocked on every door, he made every phone call, 
did everything that could be required of someone in his position. But 
the message he received in return was that farmers and ranchers 
suffering from drought needed a budgetary offset to receive Federal 
assistance. In the end, the Senate version found an offset, but didn't 
find enough.
  But we are practical people in Nebraska and around the country--$3.1 
billion is better than nothing; but it is not enough. Ask the people of 
this country; people such as Bill Lueck and Richard and Cecelia Carnes, 
who have seen this drought dry up their livelihood, and they will tell 
you it is not enough. I hope my fellow Senator will join me in seeking 
to provide comprehensive drought relief in this Congress.
  Nebraska's State Climatologist recently predicted we are about to 
face a ``perfect drought'' this summer, sort of an oxymoron, but I 
think it requires an explanation. It is the worst of all factors 
converging. If our family farmers and ranchers are going to survive 
this perfect drought, we must provide better comprehensive drought 
relief now to take care of the past losses and prepare them for the 
bump ahead they are going to face.
  I have sent a letter to the House Agriculture Committee, Chairman 
Goodlatte, encouraging him to revisit the drought package. I know he is 
looking very carefully at it. I would love to see the House pass a 
better drought assistance bill, devoid of special interests, set-
asides, devoid of wasteful payments to those who need it least, and one 
that provides real and comprehensive drought assistance to farmers and 
ranchers who are teetering on the brink of disappearing forever, never 
to return. We need to provide the most assistance to those who need it 
most.
  In the State of the Union Address on Tuesday, the President delivered 
a speech of 5,050 words. In that speech the word agriculture never 
appeared. I know he had a lot to say and he could not say everything.
  He made a strong case in his remarks for the need to stimulate the 
economy, both with short-term and long-term implications with tax cuts 
and other economic incentives. I am sure I will be supporting a number 
of those. How can we give a tax cut to farmers and ranchers with no 
income? How can we stand by and watch the agricultural sector of the 
economy wither under drought conditions? The best economic stimulus for 
a rural state such as Nebraska and many other States right now is a 
comprehensive rural development program coupled with real emergency 
drought relief. Anything short of that will be a failure to our 
farmers, our ranchers, and our Nation.
  When it comes to making decisions, I will come down on the side of 
Nebraska every time. If I have to choose between the White House and 
the farmhouse, I choose the farmhouse. If I have to choose between the 
White House and the Statehouse, I choose the Statehouse. If I have to 
choose between the White House and the schoolhouse, I will choose the 
schoolhouse. If I have to choose between the White House and the 
average family house in Nebraska and throughout our country, I choose 
the house of each and every Nebraskan and each and every American every 
time.
  My point is the Congress is here to make decisions, not just accept 
what is dictated as appropriate from the administration. The case of 
agriculture could not be a better example. Every Member in the Senate 
knows very well, better than any bureaucrat in the Office of Management 
and Budget, what is right for our States, our communities, and our 
constituents.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.

[[Page 2196]]



                          ____________________