Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank my colleagues, who perhaps remember that in 1998 I authored legislation passed by Congress that identified Russia's tactical nuclear stockpile as a serious proliferation threat and called for United States pressure on Russia for real reductions. I was therefore disappointed that a requirement for Russian tactical warhead dismantlement and United States inspection rights were not part of the Treaty of Moscow. The disconnect between the ability of the United States to maintain current strategic force levels almost indefinitely, and Russia's inevitable strategic nuclear decline due to economic realities, gave our side enormous leverage that I believe we should have used to win Russian concessions on tactical nuclear arms. While I am encouraged that the resolution of ratification before us includes a declaration on accurate accounting and security, it does not mention Russian tactical nuclear reductions. I have prepared a corrective amendment and would welcome the support of the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Mr. CONRAD. Would the chairman and ranking member be willing to hold hearings in the coming months focusing on the threats associated with Russia's tactical nuclear stockpile? Furthermore, would the chairman and ranking member be willing to join me in urging the President to develop a comprehensive plan to reduce the Russian tactical threat, including making Russian tactical warhead reductions a priority in our dealings with the Russian Federation?

Mr. CONRAD. Would the chairman and ranking member consider sharing their views on the threats posed by the proliferation of tactical nuclear weapons with the administration? Might I propose a letter indicating our shared concerns and our hopes that this issue will be a high priority for the administration in future discussions with Russia?

Mr. CONRAD. I thank my colleagues for their concern about this clear and present ``loose nuke'' threat and for their supportive statements today. We cannot afford for this blind spot in our non-proliferation efforts to go uncorrected. With the assurances of the chairman and ranking member, I withdraw my amendment and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, it has been very interesting to me to review the budget document that is now before us that has the omnibus appropriations for 2003, which provides funding for all the discretionary programs and activities outside the Department of Defense. For months last year, our Republican colleagues prevented completion of the remaining 2003 appropriations bills, arguing that that level for appropriations was too high and the President would not accept appropriations bills that exceeded $750.5 billion in total. The President's veto threat persisted even with the Senate Appropriations Committee having voted out all 13 appropriations bills on unanimous 29-to-0 votes. After delaying the 2003 appropriations process for 5 months, and forcing most of the Federal Government to operate under a series of continuing resolutions, our Republican colleagues have produced a bill that, when combined with the already enacted defense and military construction bills, exceeds the President's level by more than $12 billion. Republicans provide total discretionary budget authority for 2003 of $762.7 billion, and highway obligational authority of $31.8 billion, for a total of $794.5 billion. Last year, they railed against the Senate Budget Committee reported spending level of $797 billion. My friends, that is a difference of three-tenths of 1 percent, a $2.5 billion difference. Five months of delay over a difference of three- tenths of 1 percent. Levels they said were fiscally irresponsible they have now adopted. Most interesting--most interesting--when the bill was here on the floor, some of our colleagues on the other side ran up a debt meter on amendments offered by some Democrats that had a total cost over 10 years of $37 billion. We are poised to vote now on their proposal which is $62 billion above what was offered on the floor at the time. So if they still have their debt meter chart, they had better get it out. And they ought to put another $25 billion on their tote board because they are running up the debt--and it is their spending. They are in charge, and all their talk about Democratic spending, and that that is the problem with fiscal responsibility, is shown for what it was. It was all talk. The reason we are in the deficit ditch is the tax cuts that were unaffordable that they have put in place and the additional tax cuts this President is seeking that are going to drive us deep into deficit and debt. Mr. President, the numbers do not lie. I have been waiting for this moment for 5 months, to see if the rhetoric matched the reality. And now we see. In just a few moments we are going to have a chance to vote, and then we are going to see who stands with their words, and who stands with their rhetoric, and who votes to spend the money. This has been a very interesting year, but this is just the beginning. Because we are going to see, in the coming months, who is serious about fiscal responsibility, who is serious about having budgets that add up, who is serious about paying down debt, who is serious about exploding deficits and debt--right on the eve of the retirement of the baby boom generation. I hope very much that the rhetoric matches the reality because we have not seen that in the last 5 months. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, reserving right to object, I would like 3 minutes before final passage of this bill.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes today to express my concern about yet another implementation foulup at the Department of Agriculture. Over the past several months, many colleagues and I have been extremely disappointed to find that USDA has deliberately ignored congressional intent in implementing the farm bill. Today, I want to point out to my colleagues that this pattern is not limited to the farm bill. Six months ago, we enacted comprehensive trade legislation that gave the President trade promotion authority. In return for this authority, the President embraced an expansion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program to help those who suffer ill effects as a result of trade agreements. I was extremely pleased that this expansion of Trade Adjustment Assistance included legislation I authorized to make the TAA program work for farmers. When a trade agreement causes manufactured imports to increase, and plants close and workers lose their jobs, the workers are eligible for cash benefits and retraining under TAA so that they can adjust to this dislocation and find new work. But when a trade agreement or change in our trade policy results in a flood of agricultural imports that collapse prices and cost farmers tens of thousands of dollars in the lost income, farmers could not qualify for assistance because the program requires that you lose your job. Farmers don't lose their jobs. They still bring in the harvest. But when prices collapse, they can end up losing a lot more than income than the manufacturing worker who does lose a job. That is unfair, and it is wrong. My TAA for Farmers legislation would fix it to make sure farmers can receive assistance when trade causes their prices and incomes to collapse. The law we passed last year directed USDA to get this program up and running by February 3--this past Monday. But just a few days ago, without any prior warning, USDA informed me that Secretary Veneman and her top deputies had ignored the law. They never bothered to direct anyone to write the rules to implement TAA for Farmers. USDA is only now getting started on this project, and it will take at least 6 months before the rules are in place. That means farmers who were hurt by trade last year will not be able to get the assistance to which they are entitled under the law. That is just not right. Year in and year out, agriculture is one of the few bright spots in our international trade picture. At a time when we are running $400 billion annual trade deficits, agriculture is one of the few sectors to show a trade surplus. Yet too often in trade negotiations our agricultural interests have been traded away to get agreement in other areas. And the results can be devastating. For example, in North Dakota we have had a bitter experience with the Canadian Free Trade Agreement. As a result of defects in that agreement, North Dakota wheat and barley growers have been subjected to a flood of unfairly traded Canadian imports, costing our farmers hundreds of millions of dollars in lower prices and lost sales. Not surprisingly, support for trade expansion out in farm country, where it ought to be stronger than anywhere else, has slipped dramatically. My TAA for Farmers legislation is designed to create a safety net to help farmers in this circumstance. My hope is that this legislation will also help rebuild support for trade agreements than can increase our agricultural imports. But that certainly won't happen if Secretary Veneman and the USDA ignore the law and fail to implement the program. So I want to put the Secretary on notice that, while I cannot say I am surprised that she has once again failed to come through for farmers, I am certainly disappointed. And I will be watching very closely to make sure that the timetable does not slip again and that the final rule is consistent with congressional intent.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Turtle Mountain Community College located on the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation in my State of North Dakota on its 30th anniversary. Turtle Mountain Community College was one of the six original tribal colleges formed to meet the higher education needs of American Indians. Without the college, the dream of a college education would have been out of reach for so many on the reservation. It is quite exciting to see how this college has evolved over the past 30 years. The college started from very humble beginnings. On the third floor of an abandoned Catholic convent, with fewer than 60 students and only 3 full-time faculty members, the college offered its first course to those on the reservation. Today, the college has grown to serve over 650 students, with more than 150 courses and 65 full- and part-time faculty members. Additionally, the college serves more than 250 adults who are working to earn their general equivalency degree. Turtle Mountain Community College was the first tribal college to be granted 10-year accreditation by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and was the one of the first to fully integrate traditional culture throughout the curriculum. By far one of the largest accomplishments for the college was the opening of its new campus building in 1999. The college worked for years to raise the needed funds to construct this facility. Located on a 234-acre site, the 105,000-square-foot facility includes state-of-the art technology, general classroom space, science and engineering labs, a library, learning resource center, and a gymnasium. Over 2,000 tribal members have graduated from the college since its creation, a truly commendable accomplishment. Nearly half of the graduates have gone on to other institutions to earn a 4-year degree. Last spring, the college graduated the first group of students to earn a bachelor of science degree in elementary education. For the past 30 years, the college has also played a critical role in reservation life, supporting tribal business development, worker training to meet the needs of local industries, and year-round activities for elementary, middle, and high school students. I congratulate the college, its faculty, and students on this momentous occasion and wish them much success in the next 30 years.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to include a few words for the Record about the horrible tragedy that our Nation suffered on Saturday morning. Our Nation grieves for the brave astronauts that lost their lives on the Space Shuttle Columbia. My thoughts, and the thoughts of all North Dakotans, are with the families and friends of the seven crew members who died in the skies over Texas and Louisiana. Rick Husband, Michael Anderson, Laurel Clark, David Brown, William McCool, Kalpana Chawla, Ilan Ramon. These men and women came from around the country and around the world to risk their lives, and ultimately give their lives, for human space flight and all that it can offer. Mr. Ramon was a colonel in the Israeli Air Force. Dr. Chawla was an American born in India. The others came together from across the United States. Their mission was one of cooperation, research, and discovery. In these troubled times when we talk of war every day, their mission was, significantly, a mission of peace. I have always said that, when done right, space exploration can be of tremendous benefit to those of us on the ground. The cutting edge research that NASA conducts in space, including the research performed by these seven brave individuals on Columbia, simply could not happen on the surface of the Earth. Now, we are reminded not only of how difficult and how important this research is, but also just how dangerous it is. In my State, we understand this first hand. In North Dakota, we are proud to say that we have more astronauts per capita than any other State. James Buchli, Tony England, and Richard Hieb all hail from North Dakota. One of them, Mr. Hieb, flew on Columbia back in 1994. In North Dakota, we are grieving over the loss of the seven members of Columbia's last mission. But, I am confident that human space flight will continue even in the wake of this disaster. Across this country, and especially at NASA, there is a ``can-do'' attitude that will allow us to forge ahead. It is this spirit that will allow us to move forward with resilience after this horrible tragedy.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank, again, Senator McCain, and I thank my colleague, Senator Dayton. He is here defending his constituency as he sees it. I just want to assure him of a couple of things. No. 1, on this notion that we are asking for a different standard of measuring the cost-benefit test, that is true. And the reason is that the standard that applies in the law has no relevance to what is happening in North Dakota. The standard that applies in the law is designed to deal with river flooding, where the water comes and the water goes, and once the damage has been done you can rebuild. That is not the circumstance here. That is why everyone who has examined this circumstance has said the standard cost model is irrelevant.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first of all, I thank our colleague from Arizona for taking the time to listen to our concerns, because this is a disaster of staggering proportion in our State. Let me just say it is the unanimous view of every elected official in the State of North Dakota, every single one, Republican and Democrat, that we must deal with this unfolding crisis. Here is what has happened to this lake. This lake, by the way, is three times the size of the District of Columbia. This is a massive lake. It has risen dramatically, some 26 vertical feet, since 1992. It started rising then and, as you can see, it has been straight up since then. This is a flood unlike any other in our Nation's history. The reason for that is that there are only two closed basins in the entire United States. The drainage basin for this lake is the size of the State of Massachusetts. This lake, if it continues uncontrolled, will reach the size of the State of Rhode Island. That is not just conjecture. That has happened two times in history. Those two times were at times when North Dakota and Minnesota were unpopulated. Already the cost to the Federal Government already of this lake rising has been over $350 million. Threatened structures have been moved. Highways have been raised. A massive dike protecting the town of Devils Lake has been increased twice already. The Federal Government is poised to raise it again. So the hard reality is that unless more is done, we face a catastrophic event. The year before last, 50 miles outside this basin, there was an event where 18 inches of rain fell in 1 day. If that event had occurred 50 miles to the west, this lake would have gone up, according to the Corps of Engineers' calculations, by 3 feet, perhaps even more. That probably would have overwhelmed the road system, because we now have roads acting as dams, protecting homes, protecting people from catastrophic loss. If that event would have occurred in the middle of the night, it is entirely likely that lives would have been lost. The consequences of a failure to act here are enormous. This lake, which is already three times the size of the District of Columbia, has had an uncontrolled release out of the east end twice before in its history. If it happened again, it would be devastating to the hundreds of thousands of people downstream. I remind our colleagues, the first ones downstream are the people in North Dakota, in the towns of Valley City, Fargo, and Grand Forks. We have insisted that water quality has to be met with any outlet procedure. The provision in this bill provides that the funds shall not become available unless the Secretary of the Army determines that an emergency exists with respect to the need for an outlet and reports to Congress that the construction is technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act; provided further that the justification for the emergency outlet shall be fully described, including the analysis of benefits and costs to which the Senator from Arizona referred. There will be a requirement that a cost-benefit analysis is done. Provided further that the plans for the emergency outlet shall be reviewed and, to be effective, shall contain assurances provided by the Secretary of State that the project will not violate the treaty between the United States and Great Britain relating to the boundary waters between the United States and Canada. We have attempted to be environmentally sensitive and cost-friendly to American taxpayers, but also to respond to this burgeoning crisis in the Devils Lake Basin, a crisis that has already cost the taxpayers of the United States $350 million. If the growth of this lake continues, it has the prospect of costing the American taxpayers hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars more. We have already had to buy out an entire town. We have already had to buy out the town of Church's Ferry. The next town on the list is Minnewaukan. There is the lake. It has already eaten up the playing field of the high school there. That is all under water. This entire town is now threatened. American taxpayers have already had to buy out Church's Ferry. Next is Minnewaukan, and if this continues, Devils Lake, a town of 10,000, would potentially fall into the requirement of having to be bought out. The cost of that to the American taxpayers would be billions of dollars. That is the hard reality. Let me close with this photo. We like to say this is the luckiest fellow in North Dakota because he just escaped the advancing flood. This is a lake that, as one Federal official came out and said: My God, this looks like an ocean. Indeed, it is huge, three times the size of the District of Columbia. If it continues to grow, we will see complete devastation for hundreds and hundreds of thousands of acres and for hundreds of thousands of people. This is a picture of a home having to be burned because it was in line with the floodwaters before it could be moved. Of course it would have created a serious health hazard had it been allowed to go into the water. So homes all across this area had to be burned and hundreds have had to be moved. This project needs to go forward to protect human life and to prevent a disaster of stunning proportion. If this lake escapes uncontrolled out of the east end, as it has twice in our history, we expect that the downstream people would have a very serious adverse health effect. I asked one time, when I heard repeatedly the Corps of Engineers talk about the health effects that would occur, the illness that would be the result of an uncontrolled release of the water out of the east end, what kind of health problems would occur? They explained the water systems downstream cannot handle the dissolved salts that are in this lake. If it went out of the east end of the lake uncontrolled, thousands of people downstream would be made ill. There are many things that need to be done. Additional storage in the upper basin, millions of dollars have been spent on that. Moving threatened structures, raising roads, millions of dollars have been spent on that. Raising the dike protecting Devils Lake, tens of millions of dollars have been spent on that. But one part of an overall strategy to deal with this crisis is to provide for an outlet. As the Senator from Arizona correctly states, there is no assurance that will solve the problem, but it is our best hope to prevent a catastrophe of truly stunning proportion, one that would not only adversely affect the people of North Dakota but the people of Minnesota and the people of Canada as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, deficits inhibit growth and hurt the economic strength of the country. That is undeniable. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. That is correct. And I have yielded to my colleague, the Senator from North Dakota, for a question.

Mr. CONRAD. If I might ask the Chair, the Senator from North Dakota sought recognition, was granted recognition, the Senator from North Dakota still has the floor; is that not the case?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I enjoyed very much the speech of my colleague from Pennsylvania, but it has almost no relevance to what is going on here at all. It was good for the amusement of the Chamber, but those numbers bear no relationship to the amendments that have been offered. The Senator from Pennsylvania adds up some tote board scoring of costs that bear no relationship to the amendments on which we voted. These amendments were not spending for 10 years. These amendments were to restore cuts that have been made in the budget for this year. This does not have anything to do with spending for 10 years from now, or 5 years from now. So all those cumulative totals bear no relationship to what has occurred in the Senate. The concern with deficits of the Senator from Pennsylvania is interesting, but it is a change for him because he supported the massive tax cuts that have opened up this chasm, where we have gone from a projection 2 years ago of $5.6 trillion of surpluses over the next decade to now being $2 trillion in the hole. Where was he in his concern for deficits then? The assertion that each of these items that have been voted on can be totaled is erroneous as well. We cannot just take each of these amendments, every one of them which has been defeated, and total them. One amendment is offered, it is defeated. That money cannot be treated as though it has been spent. That is what the Senator from Pennsylvania has done. It defies logic. It defies reason. It defies the facts. These amendments were not offered in total. They were offered one at a time. As they were defeated, another amendment was offered. So you cannot total them. And you certainly cannot make 10-year totals from any of them because they are 1-year pending proposals. I am happy to yield to my colleague.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, what has just been stated is not the case. The Corps of Engineers is not opposed to this project. They have been working on this project for years. EPA has not registered opposition to this project. We have met with the Director. Let me show my colleagues the problem we face. We have a lake called Devils Lake that has risen 26 vertical feet since 1992. The Federal Government has already had to spend $350 million raising roads, raising protective dikes, and moving threatened structures and populations. The Corps of Engineers has determined that if we have to continue to buy out communities--we have already had to buy one; the water is lapping at the edge of a second town--if we have to buy out the town of Devils Lake, it will cost billions of dollars. The answer is, more storage in the upper basin and outlet.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the time in opposition is on our side.

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield, but if I can just finish my thought. What is required here is to understand this is cumulative damage as this lake continues to rise. That is why we have had to raise this dike twice, and the Federal Government is poised to raise it a third time. That is why the roads have had to be raised twice. That is why hundreds of threatened structures have had to have been moved. More will have to be done. And the cumulative cost continues to grow. Second, on the question of flooding in Minnesota, we share the border with Minnesota. We are not going to do anything that will make the flooding worse for our own people. We share the border with Minnesota. We will do nothing to hurt Minnesota or North Dakota because that would not be in our constituency interest. Finally, we have to meet NEPA. That is what our amendment provides. That is what is in this law. We have to meet the National Environmental Policy Act. We have to meet the Boundary Waters Treaty with Canada. But we should not be blocked, either, by Canada refusing to make a joint referral to the IGC, which they have done for more than a year.

Mr. CONRAD. I urge my colleagues to support the tabling motion.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I hear over and over from the other side that we can't get it done. That is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We have gotten it done for 4 years, before last year, every year. When farmers suffered a natural disaster, we responded--and we responded with the package we are offering today. This isn't some new formulation. This isn't something that has never been done before. It was done every year before when farmers suffered from a natural disaster. All of a sudden, the other side throws up their hands and says they cannot do it. The reason they can't do it is they will not vote for it. Vote for it, and we will pass it here, and then we will be able to go to the House and fight it out with them. This notion that we should give in to what the House might agree to, I have never heard of that working very well in the Senate. We are the masters of our destiny. We represent the people who sent us here. We should not abrogate our responsibility to what the House might do or might not do. We ought to do what has been done for 4 years in the past and reach out and help a part of the country that has been devastated. A headline in the Wall Street Journal of today reads: ``Midwest Drought Is Threatening Agriculture, Rivers and Tourism.'' The article begins, ``A severe drought that began in the Great Plains is engulfing the Midwest this winter, snarling the Mississippi River, crippling snow-dependent businesses, and increasing the likelihood for poor crops at a time when the nation's grain supply is precariously low.'' That is the Wall Street Journal. The package offered on the other side isn't a disaster package. A farmer isn't required to have a farm loss in order to get a payment. Let me repeat that. You do not have to have a crop loss to get a payment under the plan being offered on the other side. No. 2, every eligible farmer--which could be as many as 97 percent of the farmers in this country--could get the same level of payment regardless of what loss they suffer. Even if they have no loss, if they are in a disaster county, they get help. Now we see the appearance, in this proposal, of $53 million in direct payments to tobacco producers--not tobacco producers that have had a disaster but just tobacco producers. This is not a disaster bill. I don't know what one would term it, but it is not disaster assistance, not the disaster assistance we gave 4 years in a row before last year. The proposal on the other side provides one-half of what was done in every previous year--one-half. That does not meet the test of what is required. We ought to pass what we know is right, what we have done before, what we have provided in assistance every time in the past when there was a natural disaster; and that is the Daschle proposal. I hope my colleagues will support it. The difference is dramatic. In my State, if a farmer suffers a full loss, they get $6.50 an acre under the proposal from the other side. Under the Daschle proposal, they get $45 an acre. But under the Republican proposal, if you did not suffer a loss, you get $6.50 an acre. If you did not have any loss--and it does not matter under the Republican proposal what level of loss you suffer--you get the same payment. We have never designed a disaster package that way. I hope colleagues will think very carefully about this vote and provide the parts of the country that have suffered natural disaster with a natural disaster package.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise to talk about a matter that is of urgent concern to the people I represent in the State of North Dakota, where we have been hit by a series of natural disasters, both drought and flood. In northeastern North Dakota, we have had nearly a decade of overly wet conditions and, as a result, very severe crop damage, a dramatic loss in production. Ironically, in the other corner of the State, the southwestern corner, we have had the most severe drought since the 1930s. This combination has been a devastating blow to producers in my State, as it has been to producers in Montana, where they have suffered from terrible drought. Right down the core of the country, State after State has experienced overly dry conditions. On the other hand, States to our east have experienced overly wet conditions, with dramatic crop losses, and substantial damage to the economy as a result. In the last farm bill, we passed in the Senate on a bipartisan basis a disaster relief package. When we went to conference with the House of Representatives, we were told there were two things that could not be negotiated. One was opening up Cuba to trade. The second was disaster assistance. We were told that both had to go to the Speaker of the House. When the Speaker of the House was contacted, he said that the answer on both of those questions--opening up Cuba for trade and disaster assistance--was a firm no. The administration, in open session in the conference committee, indicated they would not support disaster assistance. Madam President, we now come to this juncture, and we have another opportunity to respond to the extraordinary natural disasters that have been felt in various parts of the country. And the question is: What do we do? Some have suggested in this legislation an across-the-board cut of 1.6 percent in all domestic programs, and then to take some of that money and give a bonus payment to all farmers, whether they have been hit by natural disaster or not. As much as I would like to see a bonus payment to all farmers, I really do not think it can be justified before we provide a disaster program for those who have been hit by natural disasters. The hard reality is that this is something we have always done, whether it was floods in other parts of the country--Missouri--or hurricanes in Florida or earthquakes in California. Every year I have been here, 16 years, we have responded to natural disasters. Last year, for the first time ever, we failed. There was no program to respond to natural disasters. I do not think we are going to look very good to the American people or very responsive to those who have suffered from natural disasters if our answer is to cut programs across the board and give a bonus to all farmers whether they suffered from natural disaster or not. I just do not think that can be defended. I believe such an approach is going to create very hard feelings, and I do not think it is fair. The drought we are experiencing in southwestern North Dakota has now crept across the State. We just received the latest information from the U.S. Drought Monitor. It shows that the drought is now covering virtually all of our State and, of course, it shows the terrible and prolonged drought to our west in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and down into Arizona. This is a drought that is expanding, that is growing, and that is devastating everything in its wake. That has to be responded to, and always before, we have had a program of natural disaster assistance. Some have said: Just take it out of the farm bill. There are no provisions for disaster assistance in the farm bill. The administration opposed it. It is not there. Some say it is not fiscally responsible to have a program of natural disaster assistance. We have never taken that position in the whole 16 years I have been here. We have helped every part of the country that suffered from natural disaster. Every year, we have helped those who have been hurt. I do not think we should do any less this year. The fact is, I wrote the Congressional Budget Office and asked them: What are the savings in the farm bill because of these disasters? They wrote back to me and said: Senator, the savings, because of these natural disasters, are approaching $6 billion this year. Why? If you have natural disasters, you have less production; less production, higher prices; higher prices, lower farm program payments. The distinguished occupant of the chair is married to a gentleman with whom I served for many years. Senator Dole, the former Republican leader, represented Kansas in the Senate. He and I worked together many times on disaster assistance in the Agriculture Committee and on the floor of the Senate. Whether it was a problem in Kansas or a problem in North Dakota or a problem outside of our States, we sought to be responsive to those who suffered from natural disaster, and I believe we should do that again. The proposal in this appropriations bill was not done in consultation with the Agriculture Committee members, and it borders on bizarre. I do not know how else to say it. To cut every other domestic program by 1.6 percent and then give a bonus payment to every farmer, whether they have suffered losses or not, whether they have had natural disaster or not, I do not think can be justified. We just passed a farm bill. I fought very hard for it. It is a good farm bill. It is not perfect, but it is a good farm bill, substantially stronger than the previous farm bill. For us to cut every other program 1.6 percent and give a bonus payment to every farmer in the country whether they suffered from a disaster or not, I do not think can be justified, I do not think can be supported. Sign me up to give help to those who have suffered a natural disaster. Whether it is in the State of Kentucky, the State of North Carolina, the State of New Mexico, the States of North or South Dakota, Montana, or Colorado, we ought to have a disaster package, disaster assistance for those suffering from disaster. We should not cut everybody else and give bonus payments to those who have had no disaster. How can that be justified? What are we going to do, cut law enforcement to give bonus payments to those who had no disaster? I do not believe that will be sustained. I do not believe that will be carried through the process. I do not believe the President of the United States would sign such legislation. Most of all, it is not right. Let's take the resources that are available, the substantial savings that are in the farm bill because of these disasters. Because we had natural disasters, there is less production; as a result of that, there were higher prices; as a result of that, there were lower farm program payments to the tune of $6 billion, maybe more. The CBO is about to release new estimates. They may show even greater savings. I think a portion of those savings ought to be allocated to help those who suffered from natural disasters, and goodness knows those losses were widespread in 2002. I conclude by asking my colleagues to think carefully about the precedent we are setting because always before, when others suffered natural disaster, we responded. We ought to do no less now.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I am glad you asked the question because in these projections the full cost of a war with Iraq has not been included. This only anticipates proposals the President has already made on spending and taxes, as well as an anticipated supplemental to cover the defense buildup that is currently underway, but it does not cover the additional cost of a war. Those numbers would add to the deficit and debt I have outlined here. I might say to my colleague, it is true the President's Chief Economic Adviser said it could cost $100 billion, perhaps as much as $200 billion. In fact, if we are engaged in a 5-year occupation, the Congressional Budget Office has told us the cost would be in the range of $250 billion. None of those numbers are in these projections.