[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 64 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4397-H4398]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          INTRODUCTION OF AGRICULTURE DISASTER ASSISTANCE BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing a bill to provide 
disaster assistance to farmers who have no other access to disaster 
assistance. I am joined in this effort by my colleagues, Mr. Doolittle, 
Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Pombo, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Herger, Mr. Fazio, Mrs. 
Seastrand, Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Brown of California, Mr. 
Rose, and Mr. Dooley.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, the central coast and northern California 
have been racked with flooding. My own district around the Monterey Bay 
area has been the worst hit with more than $240 million in agriculture 
damage alone.
  But whereas small businesses and individuals have recourse to private 
flood insurance, to FEMA emergency assistance, and to low-interest 
loans from the SBA, most of the agriculture in my district has access 
to none of this help.
  Farmers who grow specialty crops--items like strawberries, 
artichokes, lettuce, and broccoli or flowers--are not eligible for 
Federal crop insurance. They are not eligible for FEMA assistance. They 
are not eligible for SBA loans.
  This situation is inherently unfair. A businessman whose business is 
washed out can apply for emergency grants and loans. A farmer with the 
same investment cannot, simply because his business is agriculture.
  Congress attempted to correct this hole in the safety net when in 
enacted the Non-Insured Assistance Program, or NAP. The purpose of NAP 
was to provide some assistance where none other was available. 
Unfortunately, even under this failsafe program, nearly 85 percent of 
affected farmers in my district are still not eligible for assistance.
  The problem arises in three areas: the definition of family farm; the 
threshold on income that determines eligibility; and, the amount of 
planted area that must be affected.
  In all these three cases, the criteria established looks reasonable 
on its face. But in real life, they deny access to aid to farmers who 
have suffered terrible crop losses.
  For example, the farms in my district--like most other districts--are 
run like businesses. The product is produce. Farms that are held by and 
operated by a single family are considered family farms in the 
traditional sense. But the NAP definition is unclear on this point and 
implementation of programs that use this definition have erred on the 
side of not including these family farmers simply because not every 
member of the family works on the farm, even though the chief operating 
officer is a family member.
  Another problem is that the NAP program disallows any farmer who has 
a gross income of $2 million. Many, many farmers have much more than 
this tied up in their farms. But after all is said and
 done, their net income is far, far lower than $2 million. But because 
the program looks at gross income and not net, these farmers are left 
uncovered.

  Finally, there is confusion over how much land and crop must be 
affected before a farmer becomes eligible for assistance under NAP. As 
I understand it, 35 percent of the area must be affected by the 
disaster. But area is not clearly defined. Is it county? Is it acres? 
Is it statewide? Also, NAP requires that a producer lose 50 percent of 
his crop before he can be eligible for aid. But what if a farmer loses 
100 percent of his first crop but not of the two or three others he 
would have planted later? Has he lost 100 percent of his crop or only 
33? If the decision is that he has lost only 33 percent of his crop, he 
cannot receive aid under NAP, but again, without assistance, he will 
have no funds with which to rebuild his farm or plant the other crops.
  Mr. Speaker, this is unfair. During times of emergency and disaster, 
this country has always risen to the occasion and provided relief to 
hurricane, flood, earthquake, drought, and fire victims, with one 
exception: farmers of specialty crops.
  Well, the livelihood of a strawberry farmer who gets flooded out is 
just as disrupted as the livelihood of a restaurant owner who gets 
flooded out. 
[[Page H4398]] There shouldn't be a distinction between the two just 
because one happens to make his living off the land.
  So today I and my colleagues are introducing legislation to correct 
this oversight. Very simply, this bill states that the Secretary of 
Agriculture shall be authorized to provide assistance from funds 
appropriated for disaster relief to farmers whose crops are otherwise 
not eligible for crop insurance coverage under existing department 
programs; and whose farm does not otherwise qualify for loans, grants, 
or disaster assistance from other Federal sources.
  What does this mean? This means, under those emergency situations 
where no other Federal programs are available for aid, the Secretary of 
Agriculture may--and I emphasize may; he isn't required to do so--open 
up existing agriculture relief programs to farmers who have no other 
recourse to assistance. This bill does not authorize additional funds 
but allows the Secretary to use already authorized funds in existing 
programs.
  Mr. Speaker, specialty crop farmers deserve no more than other 
farmers who suffer natural disasters. But they deserve no less, either. 
I thank my colleagues for joining me in introducing this bill and urge 
other Members of the House to support us in helping America's farmers.


                          ____________________