Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from South Dakota if he could take 4 minutes? I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota; and to the Senator from North Dakota, if I could give 4 minutes; and the Senator from Montana 4 minutes; and then the Senator from Nebraska 4 minutes as well.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Dayton, Murray, Jeffords, Enzi, and Thomas be added as original cosponsors.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota. If he uses less, he can yield time back.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from South Dakota be given 4 minutes and the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Dayton, be given 4 minutes at the conclusion of Senator Nelson's remarks.

Mr. CONRAD. Yes, out of my time.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have been asked to ask unanimous consent that Senator Clinton be given 15 minutes at the end of the current queue.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have been advised that an objection will be raised when we make the request to go to this bill. I deeply regret that. I cannot tell colleagues how deeply I regret that because we have tried to meet now every objection that has been raised. We were told that the only objection left to this legislation was that there were provisions that could conceivably help someone not damaged by natural disaster, even though they had been damaged by the sharp runup of energy costs. The legislation as previously passed by the Senate could aid those who were not hurt by natural disaster. So we took out those provisions, with a savings of $1.9 billion. Now what is left are the most basic disaster provisions that have been provided by Congress in disaster after disaster. This is national legislation; it is not regional. It is national. Nobody gets any assistance unless they have had at least a 35-percent loss. And if they have had at least a 35-percent loss, they get no help for that first 35-percent loss. They get nothing. Zero. It is only if they have had a loss of more than 35 percent that they get any help, and the assistance only then applies to after they have had the loss of 35 percent. Once you get beyond that, then assistance begins. No one is made whole. No one is enriched. What people are given is a chance to make it to next year. That is what is in doubt. The bankers of my State have told me that if there is a failure to provide this kind of assistance, 5 to 10 percent of the producers in my State will be forced off the land. That is the reality of what we confront. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I regret very much an objection has been raised. We have done everything we have been asked to do to alter this legislation to meet the objections previously raised. So I ask one more time, Mr. President: I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside.

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I can yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota. We have now run down the clock.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator has that right. I regret that he has exercised that right. What we have done on a bipartisan basis now, 23 Senators have come endorsing this legislation on a fully bipartisan basis asking for help of the most basic sort. I must say, as one Senator, if we can't get assistance in this kind of circumstance, we are going to have to think long and hard when other colleagues come to us about assistance for their areas when they suffer disaster. Always before we have responded in kind. We have helped those who have had disaster, whether it is flood or hurricane or whatever disaster. And now we are told that a drought somehow is not worthy of assistance. I must say, I think it is shameful. The people are about to lose their livelihoods. We have done everything we have been asked to do to reduce the cost of this bill, and now we are told: Sorry, there is no help. We won't even consider it. We won't even allow a vote to occur because we know what would happen if there was a vote. It would be overwhelmingly passed, as it has been in the past when it was far more expensive than the bill we come with today.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank very much the Senator from Kansas, the former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and a real leader on the Senate Agriculture Committee and my friend. I would advise him that an objection has already been raised, so we are going to be denied even a chance to vote. I regret that and I regret that deeply because I know what it means, after having been all across my State and having farmers tell me--some farmers who have been in the business for more than 30 years who have told me this will be their last year; to have had the bankers of my State come to Washington to tell me that if there is a failure to provide disaster assistance, 5 to 10 percent of the farm and ranch families of my State will be put out of business. That is the harsh reality. And this afternoon, an objection has been raised and raised in a way that will preclude us from even having a vote. I think we all know what would happen if a vote were held: this legislation would pass, and it would pass overwhelmingly. We should advise our colleagues this will not be our last attempt. If there is a lameduck session, we will be here and we will insist on the chance to have consideration for this legislation.

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, Senator Hagel, Senator Dorgan, Senator Salazar, Senator Coleman, Senator Baucus, Senator Johnson, Senator Burns, Senator Harkin, Senator Cantwell, Senator Clinton, Senator Schumer, Senator Inouye, Senator Thune, Senator Durbin, Senator Obama, Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Dayton, Senator Murray, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Enzi. Mr. President, 21 Senators, on a fully bipartisan basis, have cosponsored this legislation to provide disaster relief for our Nation's farmers. In North Dakota, last year, we faced what was then extraordinary flooding. As shown here, these were pictures all across eastern North Dakota. We had a million acres that were prevented from even being planted, hundreds of thousands of additional acres that were planted and then drowned out. There was no disaster assistance for those people. This year--the irony of ironies--we have now had extraordinary drought. This is a picture from my home county, Burleigh County, in the center of North Dakota. This is a corn crop with absolutely nothing growing. This drought is now the third worst drought in our Nation's history. This chart shows the U.S. drought monitor. It shows the severity of the drought across the entire midsection of the country. This shows, in the darkest colors, exceptional drought. You can see the exceptional areas of drought are these. North Dakota and South Dakota are the epicenter of this drought. It has been devastating. If assistance is not granted, thousands of farm families will be forced off the land. That is a fact. I have had the independent bankers of my State say to the White House representative who was in my office: If assistance does not come, 5 to 10 percent of their clients in North Dakota will be forced out of business. Thirty-four farm organizations--34 farm organizations--have now spoken and told the Congress of the United States: Take action on disaster assistance and take it now. In addition, we have this 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 that assistance is needed, and it is needed now. Last May, the Senate approved bipartisan emergency agricultural disaster assistance for the 2005 crop year. The President threatened to veto the bill if the farm assistance provisions were included. During the conference with the House, the majority leadership demanded the assistance provisions be removed. In June, the Senate Appropriations Committee once again approved emergency disaster assistance as part of the agriculture appropriations bill for 2007. Again, the majority leadership has failed to bring that measure to the Senate floor for debate and vote. Since that time, much of rural America has suffered from what USDA meteorologists have described as the third worst drought since records have been kept. Only the 1930s and 1950s exceed the severity of this drought. In early September, I introduced a new bipartisan farm disaster relief bill to provide help for both 2005 and 2006. Senator Nelson and I offered that legislation as an amendment to include during the port security bill consideration. A vote on that amendment was denied by the Senate leadership. Last week, I once again tried to get the Senate to adopt disaster relief legislation. Again, the efforts were thwarted by the majority leadership. Today, as we are about to recess the Senate, I will offer a revised version of the important disaster legislation. Let me make clear to my colleagues, these are the disaster provisions that have already been approved by the Senate, but we have made a modification because the administration has said there are two provisions they object to. Those provisions--the economic assistance provisions to help offset the rising cost of energy, and the additional grants to the States to deal with the livestock losses--we have removed those two provisions the administration has objected to. We retain the crop and livestock production loss provisions of the original legislation. Crop producers will still need to demonstrate a 35-percent loss before they get anything. Payments for 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 suffered a material loss. It also contains additional funding for conservation programs to help restore and rehabilitate drought and wildlife losses on grazing lands. As I have indicated, my new legislation eliminates the emergency economic assistance for program crop and dairy producers, and it strikes the supplemental grants to the States to assist other livestock and specialty crop producers. These provisions were included in the original bill, but because the administration has objected, we have removed them. By making these changes, the Secretary's opposition no longer has any basis. The cost of providing emergency disaster assistance for losses in 2005 and 2006 is reduced from $6.7 billion in my original bill to $4.9 billion in this legislation. Farmers and ranchers need assistance for 2005 and 2006 natural disasters, and they need it now. If these emergencies are not dealt with, tens of thousands of farm families and main street businesses will suffer, some of them irretrievably. It is time for Congress to act and to allow this legislation to be voted on. Let's give our colleagues a chance to vote. We have removed the reasons for the objection from the administration. I urge my colleagues to act. Mr. President, I ask the Presiding Officer, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I think it would be very important here to have time specified for these names because that is the only way we can have an understanding here. I will object unless we have time associated with the names.

Mr. CONRAD. Is the Senator required to register an objection or not?

Mr. CONRAD. I object.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I will object unless we have a chance to reach a more comprehensive agreement on what follows.

Mr. CONRAD. I object to that, unless we can have a more comprehensive agreement. I was told that a number of us concerned about drought could come to the floor at 11:30 this morning. Then we were told 1:30. Now it is 1:45. It is fine with me if we can reach an agreement that extends to those of us who are from states suffering from a natural disaster. I totally appreciate the Senator's right to at some point have a chance to express himself. As a matter of procedure, when a Senator has raised an objection, it is my understanding of the rules of the Senate that you have to promptly object or not. It is not a time to speak. I would be fully in agreement having a unanimous-consent agreement to give you the right to express your views. You certainly have that right at some point.

Mr. CONRAD. I will not object to that.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, what is the regular order?

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I know that the occupant of the Chair is acting as a representative of her party, whatever her particular position might be. I want to lay it out on the record because I know the Chair can't explain her own position. She is precluded by the rules from doing that. We don't hold the Chair personally responsible in any way for this objection. We understand that she is required to do so. Any occupant of the chair would be so required. It is probably important to put that on the record. Madam President, we deeply regret that there has been objection raised. We deeply regret that we are not given the chance to pass legislation which has already passed this body twice before but that has been blocked because the President has threatened a veto and the House has so far gone along with his threat. Again, the Senate has acted twice in overwhelming numbers to pass drought relief. Goodness knows it is needed. I was home just this last weekend. I was all across the northern tier of North Dakota. In every location, farmers came to me, ranchers came to me, and said: Kent, is there not an understanding in Washington what is happening here? Does no one care? If there is no response and if it does not come soon, thousands of us are going to be gone. One of the most prominent bankers in my State, I say to my colleague from Nebraska, came to me this weekend and said: Kent, if there is not disaster relief, 10 percent of the farmers in my portfolio are going to be out of business. They will not get financing. They will not even get financing to go into the fields next year. One of the farmers said to me: It has been 5 years since I had a normal crop. Between this extraordinary flooding, these extraordinary droughts-- and I don't pretend to know whether global warming or global climate change is part of this. What I do know is something is happening that is absolutely extraordinary in our part of the country. We have gone from massive flooding to massive drought this year. Flooding and drought of that proportion has never been seen before in my State--or at least rarely seen. On the drought monitor, they say this is the third worst drought in our Nation's history. We need to act. We are not asking to make people whole. They will not be made whole by our disaster relief bill. They only get help if they have at least a 35-percent loss. Then the help only comes to the losses over that amount. We are not asking to make people whole. We are not asking that people have some big windfall. We are asking that people be given a fair fighting chance. That has been denied today. But today is not the end of the story. We are going to come back. Again, we want to acknowledge this body has twice overwhelmingly passed disaster assistance. We appreciate that. Our problem is not in this body. Very frankly, our problem is in the other body and at the White House. That is where our problem lies. I again want to thank very much my colleague from Nebraska for his steadfast leadership on this issue. That is so important to the people we represent.