[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 22967-22969]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               PROVIDING AGRICULTURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report Senate Resolution 454 by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 454) expressing the sense of the 
     Senate that the 108th Congress should provide the necessary 
     funds to make disaster assistance available for all 
     customarily eligible agricultural producers as emergency 
     spending and not funded by cuts in the farm bill.

[[Page 22968]]


  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the resolution by the 
Senator from Iowa, the ranking member on the Senate Agriculture 
Committee, and I wish to support his outrage to the rip-off of money 
from the Conservation Security Program to pay for Agriculture disaster 
aid.
  The Conservation Security Program exists because of the heroic 
efforts of the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin.
  It was reported out of the Senate Agriculture Committee, on which I 
am proud to serve,
  It passes the Senate, the House, and it was signed into law by the 
President in 2002.
  The program is underway, and it is benefiting farmers in my State of 
Minnesota and elsewhere.
  The bill the Senate passed back then also included disaster aid--but 
the House bill do not.
  In Conference Committees, the House opposed disaster aid, the White 
House opposed disaster aid, so the final legislation contained no 
disaster aid.
  It was a terrible hole in an otherwise excellent Bill, for its 
counter-cyclical program. As crop prices go up--price supports go 
down--farmers make more money from higher market prices and taxpayers 
save money.
  Everyone wins except farmers who suffer disasters and lose most or 
all of their crops. They get no benefit from higher market prices 
because they have little or no product to sell.
  Because of a cruel twist of fate, they watch their hard work amount 
to nothing--nothing except destitution and bankruptcy.
  If there were ever a time when government should lend a helping hand, 
it's in the face of a natural disaster.
  Disaster aid is all of us insuring every one of us.
  Hurricane, tornado, flood drought, frost, heat wave, epidemic, who 
among us is not potentially vulnerable to a disaster?
  And if we lose our home, business, or farm, and are left destitute by 
that disaster, and if we have paid our taxes for years to benefit 
others, shouldn't our fellow citizens extend a hand to help us back on 
our feet?
  Not a hand out but a hand up, a hand back up to productivity, 
profitability and dignity.
  The House of Representatives would not extend that helping hand to 
America's farmers. The White House would not extend that helping hand 
to America's farmers. So much for compassionate conservatism.
  I guess that means you are very conservative with your compassion. It 
doesn't go very far. It goes mainly to those who don't need it. And 
there is little left for those who do.
  This time a number of us in the Senate insisted upon disaster aid for 
our farmers who have suffered losses during the last 2 years.
  A couple of weeks ago, the House sent over a $2 billion hurricane 
disaster aid bill. We were asked to pass it without debate. The 
President was traveling to Florida the next day. Just like that, $2 
billion, with no questions asked, no offset.
  I supported that aid. But I made it clear, as did my colleagues, that 
I would not support further disaster aid that did not include 
Minnesota's farmers.
  Now we have that disaster aid. In part; it covers only 1 of the past 
2 years.
  So those farmers hit the hardest--those who had the exceptional 
misfortune to suffer natural disasters in both years--they will receive 
no help for 1 of those 2 years.
  That is compassionate conservatism--those hurt the worst get only 
half the help. Unfortunately, that was the best we could do. But we 
certainly did not expect that disaster aid would be taken away from 
conservation security, robbing one farmer to help another.
  Helping hurricane victims didn't come out of another program. 
Hurricane victims won't have to choose between one of two hurricanes.
  This isn't right. It isn't just. And it's certainly not 
compassionate.
  This offset is not only unfair, it is unnecessary. The 2002 farm bill 
has spent $16 billion less than originally designed, due to higher 
market prices.
  The counter-cyclical program designed by Senator Harkin has worked--
$16 billion budgeted has not been expended. It will not be expended. 
But--we are told--OMB will not count those savings.
  And once again, the Legislative Branch, which constitutionally has 
the right to appropriate--is toadying up to the Executive Branch.
  As Senator Byrd has reminded us so eloquently, we serve with the 
Executive Branch; we don't serve under the Executive Branch.
  I think the House and the White House are all too eager to gut 
another farm program and this is their excuse.
  Well, we have an election upcoming and no that day America's Farmers 
should reject that excuse.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, disaster assistance has nearly always 
been designated as emergency spending, just like the President's 
supplemental request now, which he wants to designate as emergency 
spending. The Senate spoke clearly by approving our agricultural 
disaster aid amendment that treats agricultural disaster just like any 
other disaster, as emergency spending and not off-set by other 
programs.
  The President's supplemental request calls for agricultural emergency 
disaster aid for farmers and ranchers, but only for those whose crops 
or livestock have been damaged by a hurricane or tropical storm. And as 
I said, he did not require that the assistance be offset. If we are 
going to treat all farmers and ranchers the same, the disaster aid for 
them should make no difference if it is because of a drought in Texas, 
Colorado or South Dakota, or a flood in Ohio or Pennsylvania or West 
Virginia.
  There is a huge disparity in matching up the disaster assistance 
spending, which will occur in fiscal year 2005, against the offset, 
which is spread across fiscal years 2006 through 2014. Because of this 
mismatch there would be a budget point of order against this conference 
report if it includes the offset from the farm bill as an offset for 
the farm bill. This is another reason why the disaster assistance 
should be designated emergency spending as it has been for many, many 
years--with only one exception, which was reversed not long afterward.
  This budget problem is so significant that I would think, or at least 
hope, that the conferees and the leadership would be embarrassed to 
bring such an obvious budget gimmick to the floor. Let me explain 
further. The agricultural disaster package dollars will practically all 
be expended in fiscal 2005.
  However, the offset that the House adopted does not kick in until 
fiscal 2006 according to CBO scoring. The offset would save $56 million 
in fiscal 2006, then the per-year savings would increase over the 
years, but the full offset would not be achieved until the end of 
fiscal 2014. Of course, I am not arguing for taking more out of the 
farm bill earlier. I am just saying that this entire idea of offsetting 
a disaster program that pays out in one year out of mandatory spending 
over the next 10 years is a charade. It will cannibalize money from the 
farm bill and dramatically damage the conservation title of the farm 
bill. It will reduce the farm bill baseline and damage our ability to 
write the next farm bill in a few years. And it is a precedent that 
ties the hands of the appropriations committee to respond to future 
disasters.
  The point of the whole exercise? To come up with a budget gimmick 
that is not really even an offset and which raises a budget point of 
order. Again, the larger point here is that it makes no sense to 
require offsets for emergency disaster assistance legislation. A 
disaster is a disaster no matter where it is--and an emergency is an 
emergency, no matter where it is. We should simply recognize the wisdom 
and the necessity of funding agricultural disaster measures through the 
emergency spending designation--which is the overwhelming precedent 
over many years. Again, with only one exception we can find ever--in 
the past many decades in which we have responded to disaster losses.
  American farmers and ranchers help keep food affordable in this 
country

[[Page 22969]]

and also help to feed the world. They produce the food and fiber that 
is so vital to our economy while protecting our soil, helping to keep 
our waters clean, and reducing air pollution across the country. And, 
they are the basis for the strongest part of our Nation's economic 
engine--in fact, food and fiber comprise roughly 16 percent of our 
gross domestic product.
  Farmers and ranchers did not ask for floods or frost or drought. 
Congress needs to respond to these natural disasters by providing 
assistance to those affected including the nation's farmers and 
ranchers to help restore financial stability in times of such losses, 
and since we have traditionally provided such assistance on an 
emergency basis without cutting programs to the class of those 
suffering--we should continue to do so as the Senate has already 
supported.
  Mr. President, I am deeply concerned today at the manner in which the 
Congress, and more specifically conferees to the fiscal year 2005 
Homeland Security Appropriations bill, have chosen to address disaster 
funding. Our agriculture producers in South Dakota and across America 
have waited a long time for substantive relief--relief that will enable 
our family farmers and agricultural communities to survive through hard 
times--and the majority leadership has chosen to provide emergency 
relief for hurricane victims while requiring farmers and ranchers on 
the Northern Plains to cannibalize an already underfunded conservation 
program in order to secure moderate drought assistance.
  With respect to the Conservation Security Program, the CSP budget was 
funded at only 41 million dollars for Fiscal Year 2004. The severe 
funding limitations on the program allowed the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service to write only around 2,000 contracts, and limited 
watersheds were chosen, not one of which was in my home State of South 
Dakota. South Dakota has already been shortchanged because of decreased 
conservation dollars, and I would urge my colleagues to ensure CSP can 
operate as intended under the farm bill.
  The disaster package that was attached to the Homeland Security 
funding bill had bipartisan support and was approved in the Senate by a 
voice vote. Given the enormous savings we have experienced with farm 
bill price support programs, totaling nearly $16 billion, we shouldn't 
be robbing Peter to pay Paul to provide any type of substantive relief. 
Farmers shouldn't have to pay any more, and they shouldn't have to 
choose between crucial environmental programs and substantive disaster 
relief.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the resolution, and the clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. 
Campbell), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from 
Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig), the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Specter), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the 
Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. 
Breaux), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kerry), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), and the Senator from 
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 71, nays 14, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 209 Leg.]

                                YEAS--71

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--14

     DeWine
     Ensign
     Fitzgerald
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bayh
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Edwards
     Graham (SC)
     Hollings
     Kerry
     Miller
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Sununu
  The resolution was agreed to, as follows:

                              S. Res. 454

       Whereas, agriculture has been the cornerstone of every 
     civilization throughout history and remains the driving force 
     behind the nation's economy;
       Whereas, American farmers and ranchers help keep food 
     affordable in this country and also help to feed the world;
       Whereas, America's farmers and ranchers produce the food 
     and fiber that is so vital to our economy while protecting 
     our soil, helping to keep our waters clean, and reducing air 
     pollution across the country;
       Whereas, all sectors of our country rely in some way on a 
     successful, strong and vibrant agriculture industry;
       Whereas, it is the nature of agriculture that farmers and 
     ranchers will suffer production losses because of the 
     vagaries of weather;
       Whereas, Congress has responded to natural disasters by 
     providing assistance to those affected including the nation's 
     farmers and ranchers to help restore financial stability in 
     times of such losses; and
       Whereas, Congress has traditionally provided such 
     assistance on an emergency basis without cutting programs to 
     the class of those suffering.
       Resolved, That it is the Sense of the Senate that the 108th 
     Congress should provide the necessary funds to make disaster 
     assistance available for all customarily eligible 
     agricultural producers as emergency spending and not funded 
     by cuts to the farm bill.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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.

                          ____________________