Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. My logic does, as I have made very clear over and over, publicly and privately. But, you know, I don't get to decide. We have House conferees, we have other Senate conferees, and, of course, we have a White House that has an interest--although they have no formal role in the budget process here. They submit a budget, but as the ranking member well knows, the budget resolution is entirely a congressional document. With that said, I do want to indicate that I previously voted for the amendment of the Senator. I will vote for it again. But I do want to indicate we do not have any reconciliation instruction in our resolution, and the House, through its leadership, has made clear they do not intend to use a reconciliation instruction for the purpose of cap and trade or for the purpose of climate change legislation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, just briefly, I want to thank Senator Wyden for his leadership. He is really an outstanding member of the Budget Committee. No one--no one--has spent more time on health care reform and tax reform than the Senator from Oregon. No one has reached across the party divide more assiduously than Senator Wyden. I very much appreciate his contributions to the committee and to the Senate and especially to a thoughtful debate and discussion of the key issues facing the country. One of the things that is so striking on health care is that we are spending about 18 percent of our gross domestic product on health care. And some are saying: Well, we have to spend another $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion. It strikes some of us as improbable that when we are spending $1 in every $6 in our economy on health care--about twice as much proportionately as any other country in the world--that the answer is to spend another $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion. Senator Wyden, through really years of effort--and I mean years-- working week after week with the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, with other policymakers, has put together a bipartisan health care plan. It is the only one of significance I know of that has broad- based bipartisan support. He deserves all of our thanks for the efforts he has extended. I once again thank the Senator for his leadership in the committee, on the floor, in the Senate, and for the seriousness of purpose he has brought to the task.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I thank the Senator for his remarks. I disagree with them, but I respect them. They are deeply held on the part of Senator Sessions, who is an important member of the Senate Budget Committee. Let's review the record, because I have heard some things here today that are a bit of rewriting of history. How did we get in this ditch? This wasn't the Obama administration's doing. The Obama administration has been in office less than 100 days. They inherited this colossal mess. Who did they inherit it from? They inherited it from the previous administration, aided and abetted by what was for 6 years solid Republican majorities in the House and the Senate. And what was the record they produced? Not projections in the sweet bye-and-bye of what the new President's budget might do. We can look back and see what their policies actually did. And what did they do? Well, on spending, it is interesting to see the crocodile tears now, but when they had a chance, they doubled the spending of the country. That is a fact. They doubled it. Much more than that, they took the deficit to unprecedented levels. This is the deficit record of the previous administration. What you see is an ocean of red ink. The black is the previous administration. The Clinton administration balanced the budget and stopped raiding the Social Security trust fund. The Bush administration came in and ran up the deficit to record levels, put the economy in the ditch, and then left town. They said to the Obama administration: Good luck. This is what happened to the debt under the Bush administration. Not only did they double spending, they more than doubled the debt of the country, and that was at a time when the economy was relatively good. What a tragic record. What a legacy they have left for this country--a legacy of debt, deficits, and decline--the three Ds. And they are the Ds that belong and describe the record of the previous administration. What did President Obama inherit? Record deficits, the more than doubling of the national debt, the worse recession since the Great Depression, the financial markets and housing markets in crisis, almost 4 million jobs lost in the last 6 months alone, and war in Iraq and Afghanistan. My goodness, what a mess he was left to try to clean up. Senator Gregg has made it very clear--and he is right--that we have a need to increase the short-term deficit, unless we want to return to Hoover economics, which put this country in a depression and, unfortunately, that is exactly what I heard in the previous speech--a desire to return to Hoover economics. The markets will correct themselves; the Government doesn't have to do anything. We can just sit by and watch the whole thing collapse. That was the philosophy of the last administration. We can see what happened. It was a tragic mistake. We can go back further in history and see what happened in the 1920s and 1930s when that same philosophy prevailed. It put this country into the worst depression in the economic history of our country. All I can say is, no thanks. My vote is no on going back to Hoover economics. I say to my colleague, Senator Gregg, who recognizes that Hoover economics is not the answer, this is the statement he made: I am willing to accept the short-term deficit number and not debate it, because we are in a recession, and it's necessary for the Government to step in and be aggressive, and the Government is the last source of liquidity. And so you can argue that this number, although horribly large, is something we will simply have to live with. Senator Gregg said much the same thing today. Of course, he is right. Look, nobody is more of a deficit hawk, I don't think, in this place than I am. But I understand in the short term, when your economy is collapsing, deficits and debt will grow. That is necessary because only the Government can provide the liquidity to prevent a complete collapse. But over time, it is absolutely essential that we pivot and go back to a more sustainable fiscal course. That is what this budget begins to do. For example, on domestic discretionary spending, we take it from 4.3 percent of GDP in 2010 down to 3.2 percent in 2014. We are stepping down discretionary spending in each and every year, measured as a share of our national economy. That is what economists say is the right way to measure. I could show it in dollar terms, but that doesn't take into account inflation. This does. When I hear this talk about this being a big-spending budget, please, I don't know what budget they are talking about. They are not talking about the budget that passed the Senate because the budget that passed the Senate increases nondefense discretionary spending, on average, per year, by 2.5 percent. That is not a big spending budget. Let's look at the defense side as well because in 2010 defense spending under this budget is 4.8 percent of GDP. Over 5 years, we step it down to 3.7 percent of GDP almost the exact same trajectory as nondefense discretionary spending that we are taking from 4.7 percent of GDP in 2010 down to 3.6 percent in 2014. So it is one thing to come out and make a claim, it is another thing to prove it. Everybody has a right to their own opinion, but they don't have a right to their own facts. These are the facts of the budget before us. This is a tough and fiscally responsible budget that increases nondefense discretionary spending, on average, by 2.5 percent a year. Measured against the share of the economy, we are taking both defense spending and nondefense discretionary spending down as a share of our national income to the lowest level it has been in many years. Madam President, where are the increases that are in this budget, the 2.5 percent, on average, increase in nondefense discretionary spending? I have already shown that we are taking both defense spending and nondefense spending down as a share of the national income. But where are the increases, as modest as they are? In overall discretionary spending, the biggest increase is in defense, which is 37 percent. Why? Because this President and this budget were honest about war spending, unlike the previous administration, which played hide the ball and acted as though the war wasn't going to cost anything. I am not overstating because for several years in a row the previous administration, even though we were at war, said the war in their budget was going to cost nothing. Let me repeat that. The previous administration, even after the war in Iraq had begun, claimed in their budget submissions that the war was going to cost nothing--nothing. What an amazing thing. It wasn't true. This President came in and said: No, we are going to write a new chapter. We are at war, and we are going to put the war cost in the budget. So in the modest increases here, 37 percent of them are defense; 14 percent is in international. That is also something hidden in the previous administration. They kept presenting what they called ``supplemental'' budgets after their regular budget to hide the full cost of their involvement overseas. The next largest increase in the modest overall increases we have is for veterans; 10 percent of the increases is for our Nation's veterans. Why? Because they deserve the best care we can provide. We have the largest dollar increase for veterans health care in this budget than in any budget that has been presented. I am proud of that because we are keeping faith with our Nation's veterans. Ten percent of the increase is for education, and 10 percent is for income security. That is because we are in a deep recession. That means people are out of work, and if we are going to provide unemployment benefits to keep them from losing their homes and being out on the street and not being able to feed their families, we provide unemployment benefits. That costs money, and that is in the budget. Eight percent is for the census. We only do the census once every 10 years, but we have to pay for it. It is in the budget. Six percent is for natural resources and the environment. Three percent is for transportation, and 2 percent is for other items. The overall context of this budget, I want to make clear--the deficit, in dollar terms, is being reduced from $1.7 trillion this year, and this year's budget is almost totally the responsibility of the previous President because he set in place the policies that the new administration inherits. We stepped down the deficit, very dramatically, by more than $500 billion from 2009 to 2010, by more than $300 billion from 2010 to 2011, by another $300 billion from 2011 to 2012, and then more modestly thereafter, so that we are reducing the deficit over the 5 years of this budget by two-thirds. Measured as a share of the gross domestic product--which, again, economists say is the best way to measure--the deficit is reduced by more than three- quarters, from 12.2 percent of GDP to less than 3 percent of GDP in 2014. So over the 5 years, we are reducing the deficit by three- quarters. One other point I want to make is that the previous administration-- not only did they more than double the debt and double spending, they tripled foreign holdings of U.S. debt. It took 224 years and 42 Presidents to run up $1 trillion of U.S. debt held abroad. The previous President alone tripled that amount. You talk about a legacy of debt, you talk about a legacy of weakening the country, that is it. Madam President, I don't mind hearing criticism of the budget we have proposed. Is it a perfect document? No. Do we have to do much more, especially in the next 5 years? Absolutely. But this budget is a good and responsible beginning. If our budget is so bad, why haven't they offered an alternative? If our budget is as irresponsible as they claim, why did they not offer an alternative? Well, I think we know the reason. They didn't want to have to be held responsible for the tough choices of presenting a budget. So talk is cheap around here. This budget upholds the President's fundamental priorities of reducing our dependence on foreign oil, a focus on excellence in education, and fundamental health care reform because that is the 800-pound gorilla that can swamp this boat. Without such reform, we are headed on a course in health care that is totally and completely unsustainable. Finally, we are dramatically reducing the deficit over the next 5 years. Those are the priorities the President asked us to preserve. We have done it in the budget. The President supports it. He is right to do so. Let's remember this President did not create this mess; he inherited it. He has been asked to clean it up. I am proud of the aggressive actions he has taken to try to get us on a better course. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I will take this moment to ask those Senators who have motions to instruct to please come to the floor. We have had Senator Johanns offers his, and Senator Sessions offer his. We have other Senators--Senator Ensign, Senator Cornyn, Senator Alexander, Senator Coburn, Senator DeMint, and Senator Vitter. It would be very helpful if those Senators would come and be prepared to offer their motions so we do not unduly take the time of the Senate in quorum calls, especially on a day in which we are going to have 9 or 10 votes. We know we can only do about three votes an hour. That means three hours of voting when we get started on voting. So it is already going to be a late night. It would be very helpful and considerate to our colleagues if those who have motions to instruct would come to the floor and offer their motions. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would be eager to do that. I think what we need to do is have other Members come and offer their motions to instruct and see what time is needed in terms of rebuttal on that. It would be our intention to--if you have three more on your side, 10 minutes each, so we will probably need 30 minutes on the other side. I don't want to lock this in at the moment because I have not talked to leadership and I do not know if there are other considerations, but the intention would be to begin voting about 7 o'clock. Perhaps we can move that up. Perhaps I will not need all of that time. Hopefully not.

Mr. CONRAD. We need to check with the leadership to see when votes can start, but it would be our intention, perhaps in the 6:45 to 7 o'clock timeframe, to begin voting, perhaps even a little bit before that. We will have to check with the leadership. Motion to Instruct

Mr. CONRAD. I am told by leadership staff we have a problem voting before 7 in terms of getting some Members here.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me observe that we have a chance to handle a number of these motions by voice vote. There are a number of them we could support, we could accept. Senator Gregg will be talking to those Members who have motions to instruct that we could accept. I ask them to carefully consider that offer. We have stacked up 10 potential votes. We can do three votes an hour. That would be three hours of voting starting at 7. That would take us until 10 tonight. Frankly, as I count them, we have six of these motions that we could accept, shortening the time for voting by 2 hours. That would mean we could be done by roughly 8. It is dependent on Senators being willing to take voice votes or being willing to have their motions accepted on a unanimous consent basis. I make that plea to Senators. We could do it the way that gets us finished with our business in a reasonable way by 8 or we could go until 10. The other thing I want to add is, this will not affect how these motions do in conference. If somebody has that in mind, sometimes it does make a difference, but in this case it will not. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, for the advice of our colleagues, we are very close to being able to begin voting. At roughly 7 o'clock, we will begin. We have 10 motions pending, or we will have by that time. We are still waiting for a signed copy of one motion that I will send up when that is available. Again, we are asking colleagues--we have a number of these we can take which would reduce the number of votes that would have to be conducted. Senator Gregg is working diligently to talk to colleagues to see if they are willing to take a voice vote or take an acceptance by unanimous consent, and we are still waiting for final answers on all of those matters. So again, for the advice of our colleagues, we are very close to the time when we can do that. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending motion to instruct so I may offer a motion to instruct on behalf of Senator Stabenow.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I wish to point out to colleagues that there is no reconciliation instruction on the budget resolution that we are sending to conference from the Senate. In the House, the Speaker and the rest of the leadership has indicated there is no intention and no provision for reconciliation to be used for cap and trade or for climate change. With that, we are prepared to vote. Mr. President, we have an agreement on 10-minute votes for all remaining votes.

Mr. CONRAD. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, can we have order in the Chamber.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we need order because Senator Alexander is next, and if he would be so gracious as to accept a voice vote on his motion, we would take his motion. It is a good motion. We support it.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, next, I believe, is the motion of the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.

Mr. CONRAD. Yes Mr. Levin. Is it true that every provision of a reconciliation bill is subject to the Byrd rule; and any provision that does not meet all of the requirements of that rule, would be subject to a 60-vote point of order?

Mr. CONRAD. Yes

Mr. CONRAD. Senator DeMint is next.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I support this amendment. I think it is entirely reasonable in what it outlines. We all want patients to be able to choose their doctors. We want to make certain if people are happy with the health care plan they are in, that they are able to stay in that plan. I would ask the Senator from South Carolina, would he consider accepting a voice vote--a strong voice vote--in favor of his amendment?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would note for the Record that the Senator from South Carolina is smiling. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we still have pending the motion of Mr. Vitter, the Senator from Louisiana. That was an amendment that was taken by unanimous consent or voice vote during the budget resolution. It is now here as a motion to instruct. Obviously, we are going to have a rollcall vote on it. We asked the Senator to withhold. He has asked to have a rollcall vote, which is absolutely his right. Senators will vote their judgment.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank Senator Isakson for his leadership in this matter. It has been exemplary. I have truly enjoyed working with Senator Isakson and his staff. They are the leads on this legislation, which I think is one of the more important pieces of legislation we will consider this year. We have had two extraordinary tragedies in this country in the last period of time: September 11, when this country was attacked, and also what was very close, I believe, to a global financial meltdown. In fact, I will never forget as long as I live when, last fall, being called to a special urgent meeting in the leader's office with the chairman of the Federal Reserve and the Secretary of the Treasury of the previous administration and being told they were going to take over AIG the next day and they believed if they did not do it, we could suffer irreparable damage to the economy of the United States and, in fact, we could face a global economic meltdown. After 9/11, we put into place a commission--bipartisan, nonpartisan-- to review what happened, why it happened, and what could be done to prevent it from ever happening again. That is precisely what we must do now with respect to the economic crisis that is upon us. We have an obligation to the people of this country and to our colleagues to put into place a commission, which is separate from partisan politics, to do a careful review of what happened, why it happened, and how it could be avoided from ever happening again. All across America, millions of people are wondering about their retirement. They are wondering if they will be able to retire. They are wondering what the quality of their life is going to be in retirement. They are wondering how their 401(k) became a 201(k). How did their retirement savings get cut in half? What occurred and who is responsible and what could be done to prevent it from happening again? This Commission will have 10 members appointed by the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, the speaker and minority leader in the House of Representatives, the chairman and ranking members of the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee. It will be charged with reporting back to the President, the Congress, and the American people by the end of next year. The Commission will also have the authority to refer evidence of criminal wrongdoing to the Justice Department and State attorneys general for prosecution. I believe this Commission is absolutely essential to determine, in a nonpartisan way, how this financial crisis occurred. Where were the mistakes made? Were there failures of regulation? Were there failures in the regulatory agencies? Were there failures in the private sector? I think we all know the answer to every one of those questions is yes. There were failures in the Congress of the United States and in the administration. This is not a finger-pointing exercise; this is an exercise to determine, on a fair and objective basis, what occurred and what can be done to prevent it from happening again. That is the goal of the legislation introduced by Senator Isakson, which I am proud to cosponsor. Let me conclude by saying that working with Senator Isakson has been a delight. He is a fairminded, serious legislator who has spent an enormous amount of time doing this legislation--and, let me say, doing it right, talking directly to the committees of jurisdiction, trying to get their input, their assessment, and also talking to other colleagues and preparing something that I think is fair, balanced, and is completely intended to be objective in its outcome. I think all of us have a responsibility to see this through to the end, so that at some future date the American people will be able to look back and find out, on an objective basis, what were the failures of fiscal policy, what were the failures of monetary policy, what were the failures of the private sector, what were the failures of Government regulation and the policymakers in the Congress of the United States and in the administration? What could be done to prevent it from ever happening again? We have that obligation to the American people. Again, I thank Senator Isakson for his leadership on this important matter. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I would like to take a few minutes to speak on the unfolding crisis in my State with respect to record flooding all across North Dakota. We are facing something unseen in recorded history in the State of North Dakota. From east to west, from north to south, there is massive flooding, never seen before in all of recorded history. The eyes of the Nation have been on our State. As I have said many times in North Dakota, people across the country have liked what they have seen about the response of the people of North Dakota. In Fargo, a town of 90,000, the mayor said we have 80,000 volunteers. That is exactly what it has been like--all across the State, thousands of people coming out, neighbors helping neighbors, helping to protect their homes, helping to protect the community. There was an outpouring of volunteer effort I have never seen before. Several weeks ago, I was home with General Walsh, who is the commandant of the Mississippi River Division of the Corps of Engineers, the chief flood fighter for that part of the country. We walked into the FARGODOME, which is a place where NDSU--North Dakota State University--plays its football games, and there were thousands of volunteers filling sandbags. There were 3 million sandbags made in just a few days--3 million sandbags--by tens of thousands of volunteers working around the clock. I went into that FARGODOME, and it was inspirational to see the efforts of people to protect their homes and their community. By the way, it was not just in Fargo, it was every town up and down the Red River Valley, every town up and down the Cheyenne River Valley, every town up and down the James River Valley, every town up and down the Missouri River Valley, every town up and down the Souris River Valley, because this was flooding on a scale never seen before. In the midst of it all, in my hometown, here was the newspaper headline: ``A Double Shot of Blizzard and Flooding.'' These two people you can perhaps see here are wading knee-deep through ice and water. This is very close to where I grew up. Ultimately, they had demolition teams come in and blow up the ice because logjams were forming and water was being forced into the southern part of my hometown, which is the capital city of North Dakota. Well, that was Bismarck, ND. Here is the headline from the Fargo Forum at about the same time: ``Race Against Time Spring Flood 2009.'' This is a shot of water completely surrounding this particular home and volunteers using shovels to keep the sand moving into funnels to fill the sandbags around the clock in Fargo, ND. This is the headline from Grand Fork, ND, that was so badly flooded in 1997. There we had a 100-year flood, perhaps a 200-year flood. You will recall that was the flood that was fought in the midst of a blizzard after the worst winter storm in 50 years. This is from Fargo, with the headline: ``Fear Is Setting In.'' This shows people in winter garb placing sandbags on top of snowbanks. This is the kind of conditions that people were confronting, fighting massive flooding days in the midst of some of the biggest snow storms in our State's history. Here are some of the headlines that appeared: ``Records Fall in Snow Storm;'' ``Minot Sets December Snowfall Record, 24 Inches in One Month;'' ``Looks Like A Record December In Grand Forks, 90-Year-Old Record Broken There With 29 Inches of Snow;'' ``December 2008, Snowiest Month on Books In Fargo-Moorehead;'' ``Fargo Nears Record December Snowfall.'' This is the news from one end of our State to another. So many people have asked me: How did this happen? How could it be that you have flooding unprecedented in recorded history? Well, as we try to reconstruct events this past fall, precipitation in the eastern part of the State was 2 to 300 percent of average, resulting in the wettest fall on record. Soil observations taken just prior to the freeze-up revealed nearly saturated moisture levels in the upper 8 inches of soil across the Red River Valley. Then the onset of winter came very abruptly. The quick, hard freeze occurring with minimal snow cover and saturated soil moisture conditions allowed the frost to quickly penetrate the ground to a level of 2 feet. Then, in December, the cities from west to east across the State had record snowfalls. Over the past 2 months, areas of North Dakota have had 150 to 300 percent of normal precipitation. In fact, the city of Fargo saw both record rainfall and record snowfall in the month of March. Who could have believed it? I was in the little town of Linton, ND. I was with the mayor; I was with the sheriff. They told me they were expecting pretty much normal flooding. Then they got hit by 2 inches of rain. That 2 inches of rain brought that snow off the hills surrounding the town, flooded 50 of the homes of people who lived on largely fixed incomes, who have been devastated by these developments. And it is not just in the Red River Valley; as I have indicated earlier, it is all across North Dakota in a way that is unprecedented. In my adult life I have never seen anything like it. This is the little town of Pembina, ND. I landed there last week. I landed on an airstrip completely surrounded by water--completely surrounded by water. The only thing that was not covered by water was the airstrip itself, and the people I was with, as they were landing, said to the pilot: Boy, it gives you an eerie sense. It feels as if you are landing in the middle of the ocean. That is really what it felt like. That is Pembina. But we have seen it in town after town. Here in Valley City, the sewer system failed. The sewer system, under this incredible water pressure, broke down. Here is the headline: ``Shutdown Continues. Nonessential Businesses Ordered Closed. Porta-Potties Dot The City.'' Well, part of this has a humorous note to it. But I tell you, not if you are in that town and you have been asked to shut down, if you are a nonessential business, the mayor has asked thousands of people to do a voluntary evacuation because of a catastrophic breakdown in the sanitary sewer system on Friday morning. That is this last Friday. I just talked to the mayor, Mayor Mary Lee Nielson, by the way, who has provided outstanding leadership in that community. But you talk about a community that has been dealt a tough hand. You can see work crews out from the public works department, National Guardsmen out trying to contain the damage, and they have done an outstanding job. But now the mayor has said to stop using water in that community, stop using water. ``Valley City Sanitary Sewer System Has Failed.'' Basements are filling with sewage. The newspaper has had sewage come into its location, the police station as well. But I can tell you, this is when you really measure the character of people, and the people of my State are proving their grit and their determination because they keep on fighting and they have just done an incredible job of taking on this crisis. We have so many communities that have been hit. Here the headline is: ``Valley City Residents Urged To Get Out.'' This is a town of 8,000 or 9,000 people. You can imagine having to make the decision to ask people to leave. Here is a little town, the town of Kathryn. It had to be cleared out, completely evacuated, a small town, less than 100 people. It had to be evacuated because a dam above the town was getting ready to break. To watch what they have done to fight this effort is absolutely fascinating because they brought in not regular sandbags, they have brought in 1-ton sandbags, sandbags bigger than anything I have ever seen before. Here is a picture of the helicopter. These sandbags are 1-ton sandbags, each of them weighing 2,000 pounds. They were used to drop into this failing dam. That is the kind of effort that has been underway here. This is an eight-bag sling load that was destined for Clausen Springs, which is the dam that threatened the entire community of Kathryn, ND. Not only have people and homes and communities been so adversely affected, farm families in many cases cannot get out. Here is a farmstead, and you can see it is completely surrounded by water. Here is a big tractor coming out to try to help these people, and you can see their place is completely surrounded by water. Again, it is certainly families and communities, but it is also livestock. The estimates are now that we have lost nearly 100,000 head of livestock in North Dakota; 100,000 cows and calves have died. They think 80 percent of the deaths are young calves. This is calving season. I talked to one rancher. He was beside himself. He just came back from the fields, digging through snow banks trying to rescue little calves. Here are cows from one farmstead. You see them trying to swim against the current. Some were able to make it, some not. As we indicated, some 100,000 head of livestock has been lost, and 80 percent of the calves. This looks like a calf right here. And you can imagine, look at the power of that current. These cattle are trapped, in many cases, in a way that there was no place to escape. I bring this to the attention of the Senate because already tremendous assistance has been extended to my State. The President declared an emergency in record time. He has also provided individual assistance, which has already helped hundreds and hundreds of families in our State. Many more will need assistance. The roads, bridges, and highways in my State have been devastated by this flooding; again, the worst in recorded history. And what is most stunning about it is the extent of it. Typically, flooding in my State has been up and down the Red River. But this time every river system in our State--the Cheyenne, the Red, the Souris, the James, the Missouri, all of them--has been badly hit. Thousands and thousands of people are adversely affected, thousands of people forced from their homes, and hundreds and hundreds of homes lost, devastated, destroyed. North Dakota is an agricultural State. This is the time normally you would be planting crops to be harvested in the fall. But, obviously, when the farmland is flooded you cannot plant. So we are going to see this unfolding disaster continue to hurt the people of my State, certainly the economy of my State, because we are not going to plant. In many parts of the State perhaps you cannot get a crop at all this year. The ground is going to simply be too wet. So we are going to need continuing assistance. That is one reason I am glad in the last farm bill we provided for permanent disaster assistance for circumstances just like this one. I also want to thank the thousands of volunteers across North Dakota who came out to help in this crisis--the National Guard, thousands of soldiers deployed all across our State. I thank them for their incredible performance. I thank the Corps of Engineers for building hundreds and hundreds of miles of dikes that have so far saved community after community across North Dakota. Thanks to FEMA for being there and setting up disaster assistance that has already provided substantial sums to individual families who have been hard hit. Thanks to the local officials who have headed up the flood fight, and the mayors, the county commissioners all across North Dakota who have performed so admirably. Thanks to the State leadership for what they have done to coordinate the flood fight and do so effectively. This is a disaster that is still unfolding. We pray for the families who are affected. They are very much in our hearts and minds, and we are thinking about what can be done to help them; first, win the fight, and then recover from these series of disasters. I thank the Chair, I thank my colleagues for the many who have called me and written me and spoken to me in the halls and pledged that they would be willing to help our people at a time of such need. I thank the Members of the House of Representatives who similarly have reached out to us, and thanks certainly to the Obama administration. I want to thank Janet Napolitano, the head of Homeland Security who has been so responsive. Thanks to Rahm Emanuel, the President's Chief of Staff. I want to thank the President himself for meeting with us to get a firsthand report and for again turning around disaster aid in record time at a time when our State really needed it. I yield the floor.