Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to say to my colleagues, I hope very much we are able to find some accommodation to work out the situation. I stand ready to try to resolve this matter. I did it yesterday. I withdrew an amendment with the assurance that we would go to the Agriculture appropriations bill today. I really expected that commitment would be kept. I don't know how else this place can run but on the good faith of Members. I did my best to accommodate colleagues yesterday and did so on the assurance, both public and private, that we would go to the Agriculture appropriations bill so we could have a vote--we could have a series of votes, if necessary--on the question of whether we are going to provide disaster assistance to farmers who have been hit by drought, flooding, and other natural disasters, something we have done routinely in the past, frankly, at far greater cost. One of my colleagues asked me yesterday: How does this compare to disaster bills of the past? We looked it up. One year we had a disaster bill of $16 billion, natural disaster. Another bill, another year it was $14 billion. This is $4 billion for 2 years. This is not some outsized disaster assistance legislation; it is barebones. We recall that the bill that passed earlier was in the $6 billion range, when I had earlier offered $6.7 billion. We are down to $4.5 billion, as we have taken out things the White House said they would object to. We took out the energy provisions, for a savings of $1.8 billion. We stripped out some of the support for small businesses, for a savings of $215 million. We did add steps to reduce the cost in response to complaints from the administration. We now have it stripped down to the barebones, $4.5 billion for 2 years. Mr. President, I thank very much those who have tried to work things out. I look forward to further discussions. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, as this interregnum continues, as we wait for some kind of resolution--we were told an hour and a half ago that would be forthcoming in 45 minutes--I wanted to read a letter I received from a young farm family that had been hit by one of the disasters I had referenced earlier. This family is from Souris, ND. It was a letter that was written to me last year about the extraordinary rains. This is what the father of the family wrote: The rains began in earnest the last days of May 2005. Our crops were in the ground so the majority of the input costs for the crops were already realized. We received 25 inches in 33 days and the attached pictures show the result. In our local town residents were going up and down the streets in boats. We did our very best to cope with expenses but with the increased energy prices and the loss of crop income we and all the other producers in our area lost the battle. Our farm had financial reversals in the amount of $110,000. We carry crop insurance but this program does not begin to cover our risks. In speaking with loan officers at 2 of our local banks I was told that First National expects to restructure 60% of their Ag. Loans and State Bank estimated 75%-80%. This is serious business in agriculture. We have felt the seriousness of the disasters in the South from last year's hurricanes and we have urged our delegation to support help for them. However our area was understandably off everyone's radar screen yet we had the devastation here as well. Concerns abound as we look to the future. As I look out my window to the west I see a field that we have seeded since my grandfather homesteaded here in 1892. For the first time we will not be able to seed it. It is 120 acres with about 60 acres still under water from last summer. The Federal Government has placed a heavy burden on us by declaring our area as a Prairie Pot Hole Region. This means I cannot drain this excess water into a nearby drainage system. I am stuck with it. How do I begin to recover the financial losses mentioned above when the Government Regulations limit those opportunities? The water is to the top of the road on both sides and now after being this way for close to a year the road is saturated and just about ruined. I just spoke with a township supervisor and they feel they will be closing the road because of liability concerns. We are asking that you come along side us and help us through this impossible situation that has been presented to us by a combination of nature and government regulations. Please support the Disaster Relief Appropriation currently working its way through Congress. If you do, you will literally be the difference between many being able to continue to produce food and fiber for this great nation and not being able to continue this production. Thank you so much for listening to part of our story. This gentleman included pictures. I don't think these are pictures that can be seen on camera, but I will hold them up and describe them. These are six different pictures. In some of them, there is water from horizon to horizon. Here we see a view that would go for miles and miles. There is water everywhere. This is what happened last year over much of my State--as I indicated earlier, a million acres that could not even be planted, another 600,000 acres where the crops were drowned out. Now this year, as I have said before, irony of ironies, the worst drought since the 1930s. Land I have been on many times in my life south of my hometown is like a moonscape--nothing growing, just dirt; land that had been planted and nothing even emerged. To understand what happened, this is the weather for the month of July in my State. Bismarck, ND, is the State capital. It started out with a day at 90 degrees; the next day, 92. Then right after July 4 it went over 90 degrees the next 2 days. Then it jumped up to 102, and then it was 97. The next week, 96, and then it was 101, 105, 94, 101, 105, 106. This is not heat index. These were the actual temperatures. Then we had kind of a cooling, and it got into the 80s. Then on the 22nd it jumped back up to 96, 97, 96, 90s all these days, 99, 97, and then the real corker, on the 30th of July, 112 degrees. That is really hot. I had friends who went out and drove south of my hometown that day who told me it was so hot it took your breath away, 112 degrees. I am not talking heat index or any of that; I am talking the actual temperature. The crops just burned up. During this period, there was no precipitation--no precipitation, no precipitation, no precipitation that whole week, no precipitation this entire week, no precipitation until the 19th. In fact, not a drop until the 19th of July, and then there was 7/100th, then there was 32/100th, then no precipitation, none for the next period going through the end of the month. So from the 21st to the 31st, not another drop of precipitation. Meanwhile, 101, 105, 106, 112 degrees. This is why the disaster is so serious, a combination of virtually no precipitation--for this whole month, there was 39/100th of an inch of precipitation--and day after day, 90 and 100 degrees. The crops just burned up. We can say: Tough luck, you are out of here, but that is not what we have done in the past. In the past, going back to 1989, we had the disaster assistance bill, $3.4 billion. In 1990, we had disaster assistance. Every year with the exception of 1991, right through 2005. Disaster assistance in 2000 was $14.8 billion. The next year it was $11.3 billion. This disaster package is $4.5 billion for 2 years, so it is dramatically less. Obviously, that is a result of more widespread disasters, perhaps, in those years, so the cost is less, but also this is a less generous disaster bill, as we have moved to reduce things, cut things from the $6.7 billion to $4.5 billion or just under $4.5 billion. I think most people would acknowledge I have not been somebody who has ever sought to hold up the business of the Senate. I have been here 20 years. That is not how I have conducted myself. But I am left with no alternative and no choice when a commitment was made to me yesterday, both publicly and privately, that we would go to the Agriculture appropriations bill today and that I would have a chance to offer the amendment. I have reviewed the Record. It is very clear, the commitment that was made. As of this hour--we are approaching the 6 o'clock hour--that commitment has not been kept. I understand there are others who may have lodged objection to going to the bill. But there are ways to go to a bill. It happens every day here. It happens every day that we go to a bill to which somebody has an objection. We have completely reserved the rights of our colleagues. They can require a supermajority vote. They can raise a budget point of order. They can raise rule XVI. As I have indicated, it is clear to me rule XVI doesn't apply because we have written this in a way that it does not apply. They can insist on a vote. Fair enough. That is all I am asking for. I am asking for a vote. These people deserve that chance. The fact is, literally thousands of farm families in my State are hanging in the balance. Right now, they are done with production for the year. Many of these places didn't have any production. This time of year, you go to your banker, and the bankers are saying to me that if there is not disaster assistance, 5 to 10 percent of farm families in my State are finished. What does that mean? We have 35,000 farm families in North Dakota. Five percent, if my math is right, would be 1,750. Ten percent would be 3,500 farm families who are out there right now wondering: What is the Federal Government going to do? Are they going to do what they have always done every year for almost the last 20 years and provide some kind of disaster assistance, or are they going to say: Tough, you are on your own, you are out of luck? I very much hope there will be a response and it will be a favorable response. These are as good as any people I know anywhere, hard-working, decent, honest, good people. They have been hit by the most extraordinary set of conditions. This drought has been rated the third worst drought in our Nation's entire history. The flooding last year was unprecedented in my State. Outside of the 1997 floods, which was a 500-year flood--the worst flood in 500 years-- we have not seen anything like it. I don't pretend to know what is going on with the weather out there, but something extraordinary is happening--extreme weather and extreme weather conditions, unlike anything I have seen in my adult lifetime. The result is deep financial damage to thousands and thousands of people. Mr. President, I hope somewhere somebody is listening. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, leadership indicates to me they wish to adjourn for the evening momentarily. I don't know if they have other matters to wrap up. I am certainly not going to hold the body here. We will come back tomorrow with the status quo being in place. That is my understanding of what the agreement would be. I understand they are going to try to work through the evening to resolve this matter so we can go to the bill at some point, with some assurance. I want to bring this to my colleagues' attention. I pointed out the horrendous weather in July in North Dakota. This is an article that appeared in the Grand Forks Herald. It said this: Fields of wheat, durum and barley in the Dakotas this dry summer will never end up as pasta, bread or beer. What is left of the stifled crops has been salvaged to feed livestock struggling on pastures where hot winds blow clouds of dirt from dried-out ponds. Some ranchers have been forced to sell their entire herds, and others are either moving their cattle to greener pastures or buying more already-costly feed. Hundreds of acres of grasslands have been blackened by fires sparked by lightning or farm equipment. ``These 100-degree days for weeks steady have been burning everything up,'' said Walter Johnson, Steele's mayor. ``I'd go for 2 feet of snow than this.'' Farm ponds and other small bodies of water have dried out from the heat, leaving the residual alkali dust to be whipped up by the wind. The blowing, dirt-and-salt mixture is a phenomenon that hasn't been seen in south central North Dakota since the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, Johnson said. More than 60 percent of the United States now has abnormally dry or drought conditions, stretching from Georgia to Arizona and across the north through the Dakotas, Minnesota, Montana and Wisconsin, said Mark Svoboda, a climatologist for the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. An area stretching from south central North Dakota to central South Dakota is the most drought-stricken region in the nation, Svoboda said. ``It's the epicenter,'' he said. ``It's just like a wasteland in north central South Dakota.'' Conditions aren't much better a little farther north. Paul Smokov and his wife, Betty, raise several hundred cattle on their 1,750-acre ranch north of Steele, a town of about 760 people. North Dakota's all-time high temperature was set here in July 1936, at 121. Smokov, now 81, remembers that time and believes conditions this summer probably are worse. ``I could see this coming in May,'' Smokov said of the parched pastures and wilted crops. ``That's the time the good Lord gives us our general rains. But we never got them this year.'' Brad Rippey, a federal Agriculture Department meteorologist in Washington, said this year's drought is continuing one that started in the late 1990s. ``The 1999 to 2006 drought ranks only behind the 1930s and the 1950s. It's the third- worst drought on record--period,'' Rippey said. Svoboda was reluctant to say how bad the current drought might eventually be. ``We'll have to wait to see how it plays out--but it's definitely bad,'' he said. ``And the drought seems to not be going anywhere soon.'' Herman Schumacher, who owns Herreid Livestock Auction in north central South Dakota, said his company is handling more sales than ever because of the drought. In May, June and July last year, his company sold 3,800 cattle. During the same months this year, more than 27,000 cattle have been sold, he said. ``I've been in the barn here for 25 years and I can't even compare this year to any other year,'' Schumacher said. He said about 50 ranchers have run cows through his auction this year. ``Some of them just trimmed off their herds, but about a third of them were complete dispersions--they'll never be back,'' he said. ``This county is looking rough--these 100-degree days are just killing us,'' said Gwen Payne, a North Dakota State University extension agent in Kidder County, where Steele is located. The Agriculture Department says North Dakota last year led the nation in production of 15 different commodity classes, including spring wheat, durum wheat, barley, oats, canola, pinto beans, dry edible peas, lentils, flaxseed, sunflower and honey. North Dakota State University professor and researcher Larry Leistritz said it's too early to tell what effect this year's drought will have on commodity prices. Flour prices already have gone up and may rise more because of the effect of drought on wheat. ``There will be somewhat higher grain prices, no doubt about it,'' Leistritz said. ``With livestock, the short-term effect may mean depressed meat prices, with a larger number of animals being sent to slaughter. But in the longer run it may prolong the period of relatively high meat prices.'' Eventually, more than farmers could suffer. ``Agriculture is not only the biggest industry in the state, it's just about the only industry,'' Leistritz said. ``Communities live or die with the fortunes of agriculture.'' Mr. President, this is an article that was repeated in newspaper after newspaper across my State. This is a disaster that is virtually unprecedented. South Dakota is even worse. That is why we simply have to achieve a result. I again ask my colleagues, please, just give us a vote. These people deserve at least that. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, yesterday I withdrew an amendment to provide disaster assistance to farmers and ranchers for the disasters of 2005 and 2006. I did so on the basis of an assurance by the majority leader that is in the Record very clearly: we would go to the Agriculture appropriations bill today, I would have a chance to offer my amendment today, the rights of all Senators were protected, and that they would have their rights. Now I am told there is an objection to going to the Agriculture appropriations bill. I say to my colleagues, that leaves me with no alternative but to object to other business. I, in good faith, removed my amendment yesterday, took it down, with the assurance--and that is in the Record, very clearly in the Record--from the majority leader, the assurance that we would go to Agriculture appropriations today. I alert my colleagues I kept my word. I would hope others would keep theirs. If that is not to be, I will be in a position in which I will be objecting to any other business coming before the Senate. If they want to have a live quorum, we can go through that exercise, but we will go through it repeatedly. This is not fair. It is not right. We have tried repeatedly to get this bill up so we can have a vote. It has previously passed the Senate with 77 votes in favor. What we are asking for is not unreasonable. We have reduced the cost dramatically. Here, a person's word is their bond. I kept my word. I am expecting others to keep theirs.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I notice the majority leader has returned to the floor. I tried to recount for our colleagues the status of our discussion, and the understanding that we had reached, that I would withdraw my amendment from this bill with the understanding that we would go to the Agriculture Appropriations bill tomorrow and have a chance to offer it there. All Senators' rights would be reserved. That is the status of it. I just ask if that is the majority leader's understanding. If it is, I will then be willing to withdraw my amendment from the Military Construction bill and we can conclude that.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for being very constructive. I thank my friend from New Mexico for his zealous guarding of the rights of his chairmanship of his committee. I certainly recognize that position. I think we have made significant progress. We can move to the Agriculture appropriations bill tomorrow. That is the place this amendment ought to be. I only offered it on this bill because we had no prospect of going to the Agriculture appropriations bill any time this year without this agreement. I thank the majority leader. I thank very much the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, the very able Senator from Utah. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl. I very much thank the chairman of this committee, the Senator from Texas, and the Senator from California, the ranking member, who have been so constructive today. And again, special thanks to my colleague Senator Dorgan for his assistance throughout. I withdraw my amendment.

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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, unfortunately, the Republican leader just left the floor. We were about to be in a position to resolve this matter. I ask the leader's staff to ask the leader to return to the floor so we can resolve this. Maybe for the interest of my colleagues, I will try to reflect on where we are. I had offered an amendment for disaster aid for farmers and ranchers. The chairman of the Budget Committee, within his rights, raised a budget point of order against my amendment. It was then suggested that rule XVI would be raised as well. We have had, over the last several hours, a series of discussions to find a way to resolve this matter. At this hour, it appears the best way to resolve it is to have a commitment that we would go to the Agriculture Appropriations bill tomorrow and try to do that in a tight timeframe of limited amendments, and that I would have a chance to offer the amendment at that time and other Senators' rights would be reserved, and that I would withdraw my amendment from this bill with the understanding that we would go to the Agriculture Appropriations bill tomorrow. That is what we had tentatively agreed to. I think we just have to have the leader indicate publicly that that is his understanding as well. Then we can break the gridlock here and proceed to finish Military Construction. While we are waiting, I might indicate how much I appreciate the patience of the chairman and the ranking member of the Military Construction bill and their very constructive efforts to try to find a way out of this. I for one deeply appreciate it. I also very much appreciate the work of both the majority leader, Senator Frist, who has made his best efforts to try to resolve this matter, and our own leader, Senator Reid, for his assistance as well. Certainly a special thanks goes to Senator Bennett and ranking member Senator Kohl for their constructive efforts and their agreement to go to their bill tomorrow. I also thank Senator Dorgan, my colleague, for his efforts to try to move this matter along. With that, I yield the floor and hope that we have a chance to hear from the majority leader, so we can start the process to unwind this and reach a conclusion.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues. Let me be very clear. Senators have a right to invoke rule XVI. But let's be clear. This is how emergency disasters have been dealt with year after year after year in this body. What I am seeking to do is to get a vote. The farmers and ranchers of this country deserve a vote. Now, they can deny the vote, at least temporarily, but if they think that is the end of the story, they are wrong. We are going to be back. And, look: If my colleagues are going to invoke rule XVI on this measure, when the underlying legislation has passed this body with 77 votes, and by that device prevent a vote, then things are going to get very tough around here. I know the rules of the Senate. If Members think they can ramrod things and deny farmers and ranchers in this country a vote on desperately needed disaster assistance, then this Senate is going to slow way down. My colleagues can use their rights and I will use mine. Let there be no doubt about what the result will be. This place is going to have a hard time functioning if there is not comity, if there is not fairness, and if people are denied a vote repeatedly. That is what is occurring. The precedent is clear in this Senate. Virtually every disaster package has been legislation on an appropriations bill. Rule XVI was not invoked because it was recognized that is one of the few ways to achieve the result. The Senator has the right to invoke rule XVI. This Senator has a right to object to unanimous consent agreements, to put the legislation on Vietnam PNTR, and to move to seek a vote. It is only fair the farmers and ranchers of this country, who have been devastated, get a vote. Let the Members vote. That is what the people were saying in this election. They want a process that is fair and that gets results for the American people.

Mr. CONRAD. I object.

Mr. CONRAD. Does the Senator from New Hampshire want to continue?

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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have listened to my colleague with great interest. He is the chairman of the Budget Committee, someone with whom I work closely and have respect for and affection for. But he has talked about this violating the budget. There is no budget. No budget has been passed. My colleagues have been in control, and we have not passed a budget. Let's be square about this. There is no budget. No. 2, this is not the new Congress; this is a continuation of the old Congress. The old Congress didn't get the job done. Let's be straight about that. No. 3, the Senator said this has been defeated in the past in the Senate. Wrong. This has passed the Senate. This passed the Senate with 77 votes. It wasn't defeated; it was passed with 77 votes on a bipartisan basis. The package that passed was more generous than this package because the White House raised objection to that package. The White House said it was too much money. The White House said they did not want the direct payments as an offset to the skyrocketing energy prices, so we took those provisions out and saved $1.8 billion. That is the package that is before this body. It is the package that has passed. In fact, in the appropriations process, it passed several times. In fact, it is waiting in the Agriculture appropriations bill right now. Unfortunately, that bill, we are told, is not going to be considered. So the only opportunity we have to address the emergency disaster concerns of people all across this country is with this amendment, make no mistake. This amendment is fully bipartisan. We now have 20 cosponsors. This is an emergency. So pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006, I move to waive section 402 of that concurrent resolution for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this doesn't bust the budget. No, no, no. We have always handled natural disasters in this way, with an emergency designation. That is the rule, that is the precedent, that is what we have done before, and that is what we should do now. This is not breaking the budget. That is just not the case. The Senator knows it is not the case. This is a circumstance, as we have dealt with every natural disaster in the past: We make a determination whether an emergency exists. Clearly it does. We have been struck by the third worst drought in our Nation's history. This provision passed this body with 77 votes. The people who are out there expect the Congress, expect the Senate to respond to the needs of the American people. We have a need for security. We have a need, an absolute need, for a return to fiscal responsibility. We also have a need to deal with natural disasters when they strike the American family. This is a set of disasters almost unprecedented in our history. The people who have been hit by them deserve a response. That is what this amendment seeks to do. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object, I would like to be included in that order so that I may be able to respond to whatever the Senator from New Hampshire might say.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we recognize the Senator would be within his rights to make a motion under rule XVI. I say to the Senator, we hope he will not do that. We hope we will have a chance for a vote on the Senate floor on this question. I say to my colleagues, if we don't get a vote now, we are not going to stop until we do get a vote. I say to my colleague, it is certainly reasonable to bring a challenge under the Budget Act and to require a supermajority vote, but I hope very much that the Senator will not use rule XVI on a matter of this importance to so many people across the country. I implore the Senator not to invoke rule XVI.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have been advised that the other side may intend to raise rule XVI against my amendment. I would ask them before they make that judgment, it would be entirely in order for me to offer my amendment to the Vietnam PNTR legislation. And if we are going to get treated this way, then I reserve my right to offer the amendment on the Vietnam PNTR. That will assure that the Vietnam PNTR will not get done during this week. So if others are going to treat us that way, they should be prepared for me to play hardball, too. I have been very patient. I have operated under the regular rules repeatedly. But if others are going to give us short shrift, if they are going to tell the farmers and the ranchers who have suffered disaster that they don't even get a vote, then I am prepared to play hardball, too. I thank the Chair.

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

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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me thank Senators Hutchison and Feinstein, the managers of this bill, for the opportunity to offer and discuss my amendment to provide emergency agricultural disaster assistance for our farmers and ranchers. Normally, most of my colleagues know I would not offer this amendment on an unrelated measure. Our hand is forced. We are told it is highly unlikely there will be an Agriculture appropriations bill considered separately. We have no alternative but to offer this measure to this legislation. This amendment will determine whether thousands of farm families will be able to continue next year. We have had 2 years of unusual natural disasters that have affected agriculture across this country. These people need to know whether they can continue in the business of farming and ranching. Their bankers need to know. This legislation is critical to that determination. For over a year, I, along with many of my Senate colleagues--let me indicate that it is already nearly 20 of my colleagues--have come on a bipartisan basis to cosponsor this bill, including Senator Coleman of Minnesota; Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska; my own colleague, Senator Dorgan of North Dakota; Senator Salazar of Colorado; Senator Hagel of Nebraska; Senator Johnson of South Dakota; Senator Thune of South Dakota; Senator Enzi of Wyoming; Senator Baucus of Montana; Senator Reid of Nevada; Senator Clinton; Senator Obama; Senator Durbin; Senator Leahy; Senator Harkin; Senator Cantwell; Senator Burns of Montana; Senator Schumer; and Senator Roberts of Kansas. Repeatedly, we have come to the Senate to try to get disaster assistance considered. Last spring, as part of the hurricane supplemental, the Senate approved an agricultural disaster package for the 2005 crop-year. That measure was dropped in conference due to opposition from the administration and the House leadership. I have taken out the provisions that drew the opposition of the administration. Those direct payments that were an offset to the dramatic runup in energy prices are not in this bill. The legislation I am offering today is nearly identical to the bipartisan relief provision I introduced on September 20, 2006. My amendment is bipartisan and has 19 cosponsors. The need for this amendment is compelling. In North Dakota last year, as this picture shows, we faced extraordinary flooding. Over a million acres were prevented from being planted. Hundreds of thousands of acres that were planted were drowned out because of excessive rainfall. There was no disaster assistance for those farmers. This year, in the irony of ironies, we now have experienced an extraordinary drought. This is a picture from my home county, Burleigh County, where the capital of North Dakota is located. This is a corn crop, but nothing was produced. It is only one of thousands of fields that were not worth harvesting. This drought has been determined by the USDA meteorologist to be the third worst drought in our Nation's history. Only the Dust Bowl of the 1930s and the prolonged drought of the 1950s compared to what many parts of the country have been facing. This chart shows the U.S. Drought Monitor. It shows how severe the drought was all across the Midwest and Southeast. Its darkest colors represent exceptional drought. North Dakota and South Dakota were the epicenter of this drought in late July. It has been totally devastating to my part of the country. If assistance is not granted, literally thousands of farm families will be forced off the land. That is a fact. The independent bankers of my State said to a White House representative who was in my office that if assistance does not come, 5 to 10 percent of their customers in North Dakota will be forced out of business. Mr. President, 34 farm organizations have told Congress that assistance is needed and it is needed now. In addition, we have a letter from the State commissioners of agriculture from all across the country saying that emergency agricultural disaster assistance is a high priority requiring action by Congress this year. It could not be more clear. Assistance is needed. It is needed now. As I noted last May, the Senate approved disaster assistance, only to be thwarted by the threat of a veto. In June, the Senate Committee on Appropriations once again approved emergency disaster assistance as part of the Agriculture appropriations bill for 2007. Thus far, that bill has failed to come to the Senate. On numerous occasions, including the last day we were in session before we recessed for the elections, I tried to get the Senate to adopt disaster relief legislation. Again, the effort was stymied. Today, we have another chance to do what is necessary and what is right. My amendment incorporates many of the provisions already approved by the Senate, but I have made a few modifications to address the objections raised by the administration. The economic assistance provisions help producers offset rising energy costs, and the direct grants to States to assist specialty crop and livestock sectors have been removed. Those provisions, at the insistence of the White House, have been removed. Also, the administration has stated that we need to wait until harvest is concluded. The harvest is now over for 2006; the losses are real and significant throughout many parts of the country. The crop and livestock production loss provisions contained in the original legislation were retained and will apply for both the 2005 and 2006 production years. Crop producers will still need to demonstrate a 35-percent loss before they get any assistance. The Livestock Compensation Program will only be made to producers whose operations are in counties designated as disaster areas by the Secretary and who can demonstrate they have suffered a material loss. The legislation also contains additional funding for conservation operations to help restore and rehabilitate drought and livestock losses on grazing land. Scientists have told us this is imperative. Because of the modifications, the cost of providing disaster assistance for 2005 and 2006 has been reduced from $6.7 billion to $4.9 billion--a reduction of nearly $2 billion. Farmers and ranchers need assistance for the 2005 and 2006 fall disaster losses, and they need it now. If these emergencies are not addressed, literally tens of thousands of farm families and Main Street businesses will suffer, many irreparably. It is time to act and allow the Senate to vote on this amendment. Mr. President, I conclude by saying I regret having to offer this amendment to this legislation. I have no choice. We have no choice. The over 20 Members of the Senate who have come forward to sponsor this legislation in various variations of the legislation have no choice. If we do not act now, tens of thousands of farm families will not be able to continue. The stakes are high. I urge my colleagues to give favorable consideration to this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would reserve the right to object. This presents us with somewhat of an awkward situation because I have withheld offering my amendment. The only amendment pending is the amendment of the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka. But we have been on my amendment. We withheld actually offering it. I would ask my colleague if she would at least allow us to call up my amendment--Senator Akaka was waiting to speak on the amendment--and then be able to lay that amendment aside?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, might I now call up my amendment?