[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 128 (Tuesday, September 28, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11528-S11529]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             USDA'S APPROACH TO EMERGENCY FARM LEGISLATION

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to read a statement I am 
sending to Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman regarding USDA's 
approach to emergency farm legislation. The letter goes like this:
  ``Dear Mr. Secretary''--Dear Dan, we are personal friends--

     We all agree that we need to get the emergency agriculture 
     bill out of conference, passed and get the assistance to our 
     farmers as fast as possible. In this regard, I am concerned 
     with recent comments you have made regarding how these 
     payments should be funded and made available to farmers. 
     Instead of using the current Agriculture Marketing Transition 
     Act--[and the acronym for that is AMTA--instead of using 
     that] payment system that farmers and their lenders were 
     promised and banked on several months ago, you and others 
     within the Administration have recommended alternative 
     payment plans.
       In your September 15 testimony before the House Agriculture 
     Committee, you said:
       ``There is an immediate need to provide cash assistance to 
     mitigate low prices, falling incomes, and in some areas, 
     falling land values.''
       But then you said:
       ``Congress should enact a new program to target assistance 
     to farmers of 1999 crops suffering from low prices. The 
     Administration believes the income assistance must address 
     the shortcomings of the farm bill by providing counter-
     cyclical assistance. The income assistance should compensate 
     for today's low prices and therefore they should be paid 
     according to this year's actual production of the major field 
     crops, including oilseeds.''
       [Mr. Secretary--] Dan, I know the Administration, the 
     Farmer's Union and some Democrats in the Congress want to 
     change the farm bill in the emergency legislation. And I know 
     some of the budget [folks, I call them] ``wonks'' in the 
     Office of Management and Budget--[I do not mean to perjure 
     their intent, what they do, but they are] sending mixed 
     signals and I know the politics of the issue. [There has been 
     a lot of that.] Nevertheless, I urge you to reconsider for 
     the following reasons:
       First: The very farmers who need the assistance [and who 
     would receive the assistance] oppose this plan.
       The commodity organizations representing producers of 
     soybeans, wheat, corn, cotton, grain sorghum, sunflowers, 
     canola and rice and the American Farm Bureau--the very 
     farmers you stressed in your statement--strongly disagree 
     with your philosophy and proposal. In a letter to the 
     chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Ted 
     Stevens, they said and I quote:
       ``We strongly disagree with that [and I am saying] (your) 
     philosophy. The current economic distress is party a result 
     of the unfulfilled promises of expanded export markets, 
     reduced regulations and tax reform that were part of the 
     promises made during deliberation of the 1996 farm bill. The 
     costs of these unfulfilled promises fall upon those people 
     who were participating in farm programs at that time.
       [They go on to say, and I am quoting:
       ``The current AMTA payment process is in place and can 
     deliver payments quickly. The administration costs of 
     developing an alternative method of payments would be very 
     high and eat into funds that should go to farmers. Given the 
     7\1/2\ months it took the Department to issue weather 
     disaster aid last year, we are unwilling to risk that 
     producers might have to wait that long for development and 
     implementation of a new farm program and disaster aid 
     formula. Time is also critical for suppliers of goods and 
     services to producers. They need payments for supplies now to 
     stay in business, not just promises that something will 
     happen in the future.
       ``Supplemental AMTA payments provide income to producers of 
     corn, wheat, cotton, rice, barley and grain sorghum.''

  Again, these are the very organizations, the commodity groups that 
represent the producers, that would receive the assistance. They go on 
to say:

       ``Soybean producers will receive separate payments under 
     the Senate language. Crop cash receipts for these producers 
     in 1999 will be down over 20 percent from the 1995-97 yearly 
     average. Producers who have smaller than normal crops due to 
     weather problems will receive normal payment levels. This is 
     better than using the loan deficiency payment program which 
     are directly tied to this year's production.''

  Finally they say:

       ``We urge you to retain the $5.5 billion in supplemental 
     AMTA payments as the method of distribution for farm economy 
     aid in the agriculture appropriations conference agreement. 
     Any alternative would certainly take additional time to 
     provide assistance to producers--time which we cannot 
     afford.''

  My second reason for opposing these alternative plans:

       Changing the payment plan will mean farmers will not 
     receive their payments until next year.
       The term you used, Mr. Secretary, in your statement 
     regarding the emergency payments was ``immediate.'' The 
     difference between using the AMTA payment system--

  That is the current one--

       and the several alternative methods you have suggested is: 
     Three weeks or 3 months. Or this year or next.
       Last week, Farm Service Agency official Parks Shackelford 
     said: ``All the king's horses and all the king's men could 
     not get the payments made as quickly as Congress desires.''
       Well, Dan, last year the USDA was able to distribute 
     payments through the AMTA system in less than 3 weeks after 
     passage of the legislation by Congress. They began on 
     November 3, the date of the election, by the way, and farmers 
     received their payments before Thanksgiving.
       Last year, in delivering disaster assistance, through a 
     formula developed by the Department, it took 7\1/2\ months to 
     receive these payments.

  I say to the Secretary with no disrespect:

       Dan, you are the ``king'' and you have the horses, just do 
     it.
       Third: No specific or formal plan has been presented and in 
     terms of the actual farming practices, the criticism, in my 
     view, just doesn't add up.
       Staff on both the authorizing and the appropriations 
     committees tell me no formal plan for an alternative 
     distribution plan has been developed or submitted. What has 
     been developed and submitted, however, is repeated criticism 
     of current policy.

  That has been ongoing for sometime, not only at the Department, not 
only by one major farm organization, but certainly on the floor of the 
Senate and the House, for that matter.

       However, these comments show either naivete from people who 
     do not understand the current legislation or worse, that the 
     Department is breaking the law.
       In recent weeks, the USDA and Office of Management and 
     Budget officials have criticized plans to distribute 
     income assistance through the AMTA system.
       Their first complaint was, ``Payments actually go to people 
     who planted no crops.''
       I respectfully ask are producers who lost their crops due 
     to hail, disease, drought, or flooding in better financial 
     condition than

[[Page S11529]]

     those producers who had crops to harvest in 1999? Yes, our 
     farmers can receive AMTA payments without planting a crop. 
     That is part of the flexibility of the farm bill. But you and 
     I know, Mr. Secretary, they must plant a cover crop for 
     conservation requirements, and you and I also know that 
     farmers have shifted the crops they plant and the current 
     price crisis affects all crops. I know of no farmers who have 
     quit planting altogether.

  Farmers don't do that.

       Last Friday, you said these payments are being made on many 
     acres that are no longer planted to crops but rather have 
     been switched over to pasture and to grassland. If that is 
     the case, certainly hard hit livestock producers will also 
     benefit from the AMTA payments. But more to the point, you, 
     some in the Department and many of our friends across the 
     aisle have urged production and/or acreage controls because 
     farmers have allegedly planted ``fence row to fence row'' 
     under the 1996 farm bill. The dramatic changes in production 
     figures on major crops you cited arguing the administration's 
     new payment distribution proposal clearly shows the large 
     grain surpluses did not come from U.S. farmers. However, the 
     current AMTA payment plan is, in fact, a paid diversion if 
     the farmer wishes to make that decision.
       Those who propose acreage or production controls should 
     embrace AMTA payments in that it affords farmers the 
     opportunity to be paid for shifting to other crops or putting 
     the ground into good conservation practices. They won't, of 
     course, because the controls are not mandatory and did not 
     simply come out of Washington.
       The second complaint we have heard is, ``Payments are being 
     made to those who share no risk in farm production,'' or the 
     landlords.
       Dan, if they are, both the USDA and the recipient are 
     simply breaking the law. The 1996 farm bill clearly states 
     that payments can be made only to those who ``assume part or 
     all of the risk of producing a crop.'' If payments are indeed 
     being made to those who share no risk in production, it is a 
     clear violation of the law and disciplinary action should be 
     taken for any official approving payments in an illegal 
     manner.
       The third complaint was, ``The income assistance component 
     must address the shortcomings of the farm bill by providing 
     countercyclical assistance.''
       I am not going to go into a detailed description of a 
     portion of the farm bill that we call the Loan Deficiency 
     Payment Program--

  And the acronym for that is LDPs--

       but what on Earth is the loan deficiency payment if it is 
     not countercyclical? As a matter of fact, your own Department 
     estimated last week that at least $5.6 billion in loan 
     deficiency payments will be going out to farmers this year 
     because prices are low and the lower prices are, the higher 
     the LDP payments--

  i.e., they are countercyclical--

       even to the point of exempting them from payment 
     limitations.

  That is how much money is going out under the LDP Program.

       How can you get more safety net countercyclical than that?
       Fourth: The alternative plans that you have proposed--

  And there have been several of them--

     have problems in regard to how they would work.
       While no formal alternative plan has been submitted--

  And I emphasize the word ``formal'' and specific--

     you have indicated such a plan would base payments off of a 
     State average yield or off of a 5-year production average 
     that farmers would have to prove.
       On one hand, you are telling farmers their payment will be 
     based on ``actual production yields'' while on the other you 
     state you intend to use the 1999 State averages or 5-year 
     average yields. We both know that widespread discrepancies 
     can occur in yields from one region of a State to another. We 
     do not need western Kansas versus eastern Kansas arguments in 
     regard to equity or similar arguments with any State or 
     region throughout the country.
       Fifth: Our farmers, and their lenders, will not know the 
     amount of payment not to mention when they will receive it.
       Any change in the AMTA distribution payments also changes 
     what farmers and their lenders are promised and they banked 
     on several months ago when we passed the bill in the Senate. 
     We should use the current AMTA system where the producers and 
     the lenders know exactly what their payments will be.
       Finally, Dan, as we have discussed, no farm bill is set in 
     stone and none is perfect by any means.

  Certainly the current bill fits that description.

       That debate is and should be taking place but not on an 
     emergency bill. It has been 6 months now since you requested 
     an emergency bill. To date, I still don't know the 
     administration's budget position, and I have not seen a 
     specific plan. Some within OMB tell the appropriators they 
     want less lost income payments and more disaster and others 
     just the opposite.
       Summing up, with all due respect, Mr. Secretary, your 
     proposal:
       1. Is opposed by the very farmers who will receive 
     emergency assistance.
       2. Will delay the payments until next year.
       3. Is based upon comments from those who apparently do not 
     understand the legislation (and, I might add, not to mention 
     farming) or if their comments are true, mean the USDA is 
     breaking the law.
       4. Has yet to be formally presented to staff and involves 
     serious distribution and equity problems.
       5. Breaks the commitment made to farmers and lenders when 
     the Senate passed the emergency bill months ago.
       With all due respect, Mr. Secretary, I don't think we 
     should be in the business of changing horses after the stage 
     left.

  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous agreement, the Chair 
recognizes the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________