[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 22, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1584-S1586]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CROP INSURANCE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I come to the floor to stand in support 
of S. 2251, the crop insurance reform bill. I thank all of my 
colleagues on the Senate Agriculture Committee for the tremendous work 
they did in getting this bill to the floor. First and foremost, thanks 
goes to the chairman of the committee, Senator Lugar, for his 
willingness to bring this issue up in a timely fashion, so we could get 
this legislation out of committee and to the floor to get some 
meaningful support for our Nation's farmers, particularly those farmers 
who are not participating in the current Crop Insurance Program.
  Congress is reaching out to farmers, encouraging them to participate 
in the Crop Insurance Program to give them the kind of risk management 
tools they need to deal with the uncertainties of weather conditions, 
prices, et cetera, experienced in the past several years in 
agriculture.
  I thank the chairman for his good-faith adherence to moving this bill 
in a prompt fashion. I thank in particular also Senator Pat Roberts of 
Kansas and Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska for their incredible work 
with me as one of two Senators from the Northeastern part of the United 
States on the Agriculture Committee. They reached out to see what we 
could do in crafting a piece of legislation which would broaden the 
base of the Crop Insurance Program to include many areas of the country 
that have not participated in the old Crop Insurance Program, basically 
because it wasn't tailored to meet the needs of many regions of the 
country, particularly the Northeast.
  Believe it or not, agriculture is the No. 1 industry in the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Most people don't realize that, but we 
also have the largest rural population of any State in the country. 
Agriculture is very important to the way of life for the millions in 
Pennsylvania who do not live in Pittsburgh or Philadelphia, who live in 
between those two cities in the great rural areas of our commonwealth.
  We have the third lowest participation rate in crop insurance in the 
country. We are anywhere from single digits to reaching a high of about 
20 percent participation of our farmers. It is a very small rate of 
participation. We need to encourage our very diversified farmers to get 
into this program to provide a safety net for them in the event of 
drought, floods, or other problems they may encounter in producing 
their crops.
  There is an opportunity for them now with this bill. With about a 
third of the money in this bill devoted to specialty crops, it is a 
real opportunity for our fruit growers and for our vegetable growers--
truck farmers, we call them--folks who produce potatoes up in the great 
northwestern part of our commonwealth, and a variety of other 
producers, as well as nursery men and women. Those are the folks who 
now cannot get any kind of help or support. We have provisions included 
for them in pilot programs. There is a real opportunity for risk 
management tools that many farmers in our States have not had the 
opportunity to enjoy.
  Special thanks, again, go to Senator Roberts and Senator Kerrey. They 
come from the bread basket, Nebraska and Kansas. Frankly, they 
understand very well the issues of agriculture. To their credit, they 
understood that if we were going to move forward with agriculture 
policy under Freedom to Farm, we would have to make sure that all areas 
of the country had the kind of tools necessary to be able to farm 
successfully. This legislation will go a long way in providing 
government aid to an area of the farming country that has been left 
behind in the past.
  I heard Senator Roberts and I thank him for his kind comments. 
Senator Roberts talked about the battle we had on the floor of the 
Senate last year with respect to the agricultural supplemental.
  There was a record drought, a 100-year drought in Pennsylvania, which 
caused about $1 billion in crop losses. It was a frustration to me in 
that there was a very small part of that bill which was designated to 
help farmers who had suffered as a result of that nonprogram crop, 
former program crop farmers. We have a very small percentage of those 
in Pennsylvania.
  As a result, a lot of the help in that bill was in the form of AMTA 
payments. A very small percentage of our farmers in Pennsylvania 
receive any AMTA payments. As a result, the bill was of minimal help to 
our farmers. We tried to include some things for dairy and livestock 
and some things for specialty crops, and we were successful--I thank 
the Senator from Mississippi for including that--but it highlighted the 
concern that many of us in the Northeast have with the direction of 
farm

[[Page S1585]]

policy in the Senate and in the Congress generally.
  In this legislation, for the first time in quite some time, we have 
seen a nod to the Northeast, saying what goes on up there is not 
insignificant. Pennsylvania, for example, is the fourth largest dairy-
producing State in the country. New York is the third largest dairy-
producing State in the country. We have real production agriculture in 
many States in the Northeast and that production agriculture needs to 
have the same tools available to be able to survive through the 
difficult times as other areas of the country. We may not have the 
frequency of disasters as in other areas of the country, and I 
understand that and respect that, but it does not mean we should have 
any fewer tools to be able to deal with the vagaries of the marketplace 
or the vagaries of the weather.
  This bill does that. It does it in a very fair way, reaching out to 
farmers who have not participated in the program in the past. It 
eliminates some of the hurdles and obstacles which have limited our 
access in the past and I think will create a much stronger backbone for 
agriculture in Pennsylvania which we desperately need.
  Rural Pennsylvania is lagging behind economically from the rest of 
the Commonwealth. We have record employment rates in metropolitan 
areas, but, still, some rural counties in Pennsylvania have double-
digit unemployment rates where the principal economy is either mining 
or agriculture.
  These kinds of tools to support farmers who are the backbone of that 
economy are very important to keep these farms operating through very 
difficult weather disasters. It is very important to have these tools 
available to our farmers at an affordable rate and to provide real 
coverage for these losses, not as we have seen in the past.
  I again thank Senator Lugar and particularly Senator Roberts and 
Senator Kerrey for their outstanding work on this legislation. I hope 
we can move on this bill rather quickly, get this passed, and move 
forward to join with the House in a conference that can result in a 
strong, bipartisan piece of legislation to be sent to the President. I 
am enthusiastic about the product we have on the floor and hope we can 
take care of that quickly.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation 
before us. I think the crop insurance legislation before us this 
evening is very important. It is one of the pieces of legislation that 
should have been passed in 1996 when we passed the current farm bill. 
We promised farmers we were not only going to provide a safety net for 
them, we were also going to do what we could to expand trade, change 
the tax laws so they could better manage the highs and lows associated 
with on-farm income, spend more money for research, and provide a crop 
insurance program that provided a more opportunities to managing risk.
  We still have not passed the necessary tax legislation. We have not 
done all we can do to promote trade in American agricultural products. 
And we have not done all we can to tear down the barriers to trade 
around the world. There is still a lot that should have been 
accomplished in 1996 that has not been done, but finally we are able to 
add one more thing that was promised in 1996. Now 4 years later, we are 
finally getting it done. What I am refering to is the ability of 
farmers to protect themselves from natural disasters over which they 
have no control by insuring for the productivity that they would 
normally experience in a good year.
  This legislation will provide farmers in Iowa and across the country 
sound risk management opportunities that were promised in 1996. As 
everyone involved in agriculture knows, the weather is an unavoidable 
risk farmers must deal with every day. The Federal Crop Insurance 
Program was established to protect farmers from unavoidable risks such 
as adverse weather, plant disease, and insect infestation. There are 
two ways to respond. One is through a crop insurance program that 
farmers can manage and make their own participation decisions. This 
would be their decision, not my decision. The other way is through 
disaster relief. The farmer has little control over whether Congress 
will provide, at the time of a natural disaster, some disaster relief 
for him.
  In most instances, Congress has responded. But that makes the 
individual family farmer a pawn of Washington. His welfare is based 
upon decisions that Members of Congress might make, which might not 
provide the relief that is needed.
  Once again, the 1996 farm bill was meant to give farmers more control 
over their own destiny, with the proper tools. Crop insurance is one of 
those proper tools.
  The agricultural community has recently been subjected to more than 
just unavoidable natural disasters. My neighbors in Iowa, where my son 
and I have a family farm have felt the brunt of the world economic 
crisis and its increased foreign competition and poor trade diplomacy. 
These factors have led to significant reductions of farm income.
  Just last year, it was necessary for Congress to provide $8.7 billion 
in additional assistance to farmers. This was only a short-term fix, 
not a long-term solution. But it did keep a promise to the family 
farmers of America that we made in 1996 when we passed a 7-year farm 
bill. We set aside $43 billion to meet the obligations of the safety 
net in that farm bill because we thought $43 billion was enough. But 
nobody anticipated 4 good crop years with record yields, reduced 
prices, and the Far East financial crisis that reduced our exports.
  The $43 billion that was set aside for the 7 year farm bill in 1996 
was not enough to meet our promise of a smooth transition for farmers 
and the maintenance of a safety net. Consequently, we had to provide 
more money. In doing so we kept our commitment to the farmers of 
America to provide a strong safety net.
  With the farm economy in the tank and the price of multiple 
commodities hitting 20-year lows last year, many individuals have 
decided to lash out against the 1996 farm bill.
  I would be the first to admit that Government policy was partly 
responsible for the instability within the agricultural community. But 
that is not the farm bill. That is a lack of wise International 
Monetary Fund policy regarding loans to countries whose banks went in 
the tank, a seemingly passive pursuit of trade opportunities for 
agriculture, and Congress, for that matter, not giving the President 
the authority to negotiate. While I have found fault in the past in our 
inability to pass a substantive crop insurance bill and the 
administration's failed efforts to open markets for our agricultural 
commodities, I hope this bill remedies one of those shortcomings. This 
legislation provides a long-term solution to the agricultural community 
for risk management which better mediates the unavoidable risks farmers 
experience.
  The Congress can do disaster relief with the political exigencies 
that are involved with that or it can promote risk management. Through 
this legislation, we are promoting risk management, giving farmers the 
tools to respond to and control their destiny rather than having 
Congress involved in the family farmers destiny.
  This legislation is entitled the Risk Management for the 21st Century 
Act. It is bipartisan. It will accomplish many of the most important 
goals requested by my farm constituency.
  This has been a bipartisan cooperative effort from the beginning 
because those of us who understand agriculture know this is the right 
thing to do. Senators Pat Roberts and Bob Kerrey wrote an excellent 
piece of legislation. Senator Conrad of North Dakota and I, along with 
Senator Rod Grams and Chairman Domenici of the Budget Committee, worked 
hard 12 months ago to provide sufficient budgetary authority to fund 
this blue ribbon reform proposal that is now before us.
  By adopting this legislation, we will increase the affordability of 
crop insurance, make the program more flexible and more responsive to 
changing demands, improve the public-private

[[Page S1586]]

partnership, provide opportunities for livestock coverage--so that 
livestock farmers will have the same opportunity to better manage risk 
as crop producers have had in the past--and last, but certainly not 
least, equalize subsidies for revenue-based products.

  This means a lot for my State of Iowa. Eighty-one percent of all corn 
and soybeans are insured in the State of Iowa; in other words, meaning 
81 percent of the acreage that is planted to corn and soybeans is 
insured. 85 percent of the insured acres are covered by buy-up 
policies. And 65 percent of the insured acres in Iowa are covered by a 
revenue insurance product.
  Iowa has the highest percentage of revenue coverage in the United 
States. This might reflect the idea that farmers in my home State of 
Iowa distrust Congress to respond with disaster relief more than 
farmers in any other State in the Nation. My farmers are taking the 
bull by the horns, making the independent judgment that each one of the 
97,000 farmers in my State has an opportunity to make. They are 
managing their own risks by purchasing crop insurance and not relying 
upon the Congress to cover their losses.
  This bill makes crop insurance more affordable, especially when it 
comes to revenue products. Iowa farmers will use the improved subsidy 
formula to benefit from the highest subsidy at the highest level of 
coverage. The higher levels of coverage will help to support family 
farmers in poor years and alleviate some of the need for what is 
becoming an annual economic relief payment. Economic relief payments 
will only end when we stop losing our foreign market share and increase 
agricultural exports for the one-third of our agricultural products 
that we produce beyond the necessity of domestic consumption.
  If we do not export, we will shut down one-third of our production. 
By shutting down one-third of our production, we would not only be 
hurting farm income but obviously endangering our manufacturers. We 
would be manufacturing fewer John Deere tractors with fewer jobs at 
``John Deeres,'' having less market for feed, for seed, fertilizer, and 
chemicals. There would be less income for farmers to buy products from 
the retail merchants of the small towns of America, and more of those 
small businesses in the small towns of America would go out of 
business.
  When we talk about the necessity of exporting one-third of our 
products--because that is what we produce in excess of domestic 
production--we are talking not only about enhancing the income of the 
family farmers of America, but we are also showing the ripple effect 
that positive cash-flow has through the economy of rural America. We 
must reverse this trend to preserve small businesses and preserve 
numerous other enterprises in America, including the union jobs at John 
Deere and other farm manufacturers.
  This program we have before us won't open new markets abroad for new 
commodities, but it will stabilize the potential losses my friends and 
neighbors could experience due to poor exports. This legislation will 
provide the security necessary to help farmers through lean years so 
they will be around to experience better prices and increased revenue 
in the future.
  We have an opportunity tomorrow at 11 o'clock, when we vote on this 
bill, to provide the agricultural community with a tool, a very 
important tool to better manage the risks inherent in farming. 
Improving the Crop Insurance Program and ensuring that quality coverage 
is more affordable and better suited to the needs of farmers will only 
serve to provide much needed stability in rural America, not just 
stability among the family farms.
  While we have more to accomplish to guarantee stability for the 
family farmer, this is a very important first step, a step that should 
have been accomplished in 1996 but wasn't. In so doing, it would have 
provided the farm bill more of the safety net as we promised. Today we 
are taking an important additional step. I appreciate the opportunity 
of fulfilling some of the unfulfilled promises made in 1996, to make 
the 1996 farm bill the landmark measure it was meant to be.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

                          ____________________