Agriculture, Rurual Development, Food and Drug Administration, And Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2007
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007 -- (Senate - December 05, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THUNE. I will try to do it in 5 minutes. I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota to the Agriculture appropriations bill. I have been listening to the discussion in the Senate between my colleagues from North Dakota and my colleague from Oklahoma over the whole issue of whether this ought to be paid for and how it is paid for. Frankly, I am with all of you--I will stay here as long as is necessary to get this done. If we can come up with a mechanism that doesn't run into an objection that allows us, by unanimous consent or whatever mechanism is necessary, to pay for it, I am for that because I agree entirely. I happen to think if there is a mechanism whereby we can offset this, we ought to make every effort we possibly can to do that.
However, if you look at the impact the drought had on the Dakotas this year--it has been described on the maps shown earlier this day as the epicenter--the bull's-eye of the drought across this country, and the upper Midwest, the upper Plains States, South Dakota and North Dakota in particular, have been crippled by it. It was not just a 1-year event but a multiple-year event. It has been successive years, year after year after year, of drought. This last summer in particular was dreadful for producers across South Dakota. It was the hottest July in 70 years. The rainfall accumulations we received this year were lower than the average during the Great Depression of the 1930s.
I traveled my State of South Dakota on numerous days in the month of June. I visited Sully County in the middle of our State. In the month of July, I was in Walworth County in the middle of our State. In the month of August, Senator Johnson and I went on a five-county tour in central South Dakota. Everywhere we went, the story was the same: The drought had destroyed our crops; destroyed the wheat crop; it wiped out much of the corn crop.
Cornstalks, where there should have been corn growing, were very short. And even cornstalks that were a little taller than that, when you would look further--took a closer look--there were no ears on the cornstalks. Where there were soybeans that should have been lush and thick, they were not. Where there should have been hay and grass, there was not. And now, this fall, where there should have been cows, there aren't any because producers have had to sell their herds.
We have a practice in the Senate and the Congress of responding when a disaster strikes an area of the country. All of us voted to support the people in the gulf area who were impacted, just devastated by the effects of the hurricanes. We do not have hurricanes in the Midwest. We have droughts. And it does not happen overnight. It is not a 24-hour news cycle. It is not something that gets the same focus or attention. But it has the same effect in terms of the way it affects people's lives.
If you look at droughts, you might describe them as slow-motion disasters, but the economic impact on farmers, ranchers, small businesses, and rural communities is just as devastating. In the aftermath of one of the worst drought conditions since the Great Depression, the people of the Midwest are looking for us in Washington to provide assistance.
I am in agreement with my colleagues who have argued we ought to be looking at how we can, in farm bills, design programs that will anticipate these things so we do not have to continue to do it on an ad hoc basis. I, for one, hope in the next farm bill we will be writing next year that we can insert provisions that would accomplish just that. But the reality is, we have had year after year after year of drought. We have written a bill that, as my colleague from North Dakota has noted, addresses some of that problem, not on a level that has been addressed in previous years. The whole issue of crop insurance is addressed in here. I think that is a good idea. We ought to encourage people to buy crop insurance. This does do that. It reduces the payment that would be made available to those who do not buy crop insurance.
But the simple reality is, we need to do something to respond to what is a very devastating and real disaster for the people of South Dakota and other States in the Midwest whose futures are dramatically impacted by the drought we have experienced in this last year.
Agriculture is the backbone of our State's economy. That is true in a lot of the States in the Midwest. I would hope, before we leave this year, we can get this issue addressed, whether that is in the form of emergency relief such as this that is fashioned today or, as my colleague from Oklahoma has suggested, some sort of offset. Whether that takes unanimous consent, I am for that. I am all for that.
But the simple fact is, we need to respond. We need to do it in a timely way. I hope, before we leave today, we will be able to get an affirmative vote in support for farmers and ranchers and small businesspeople and citizens in the rural economy across this country who have been devastated by one of the worst drought disasters literally in the last century.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/