[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 66 (Wednesday, May 24, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4337-S4338]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CROP INSURANCE

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate today 
because--and I speak with some sense of timing--I come from an 
agricultural State.
  In the next several days we could very well have a crop insurance 
reform conference report out here on the floor. There is at least some 
discussion, some thought, and maybe some probability that included in 
that conference report will be about $7 billion of economic assistance 
for family farmers, which essentially will be more AMTA payments.
  When the Budget Committee allowed for up to $7 billion to go to 
assistance for family farmers in the country, whether it be Minnesota, 
whether it be Montana, or any other State, I think all of us believed 
and hoped that this would be far superior to emergency appropriations, 
and that we would have the agriculture authorization committee do some 
fairly important investigation and analysis of the best way to get this 
financial assistance out to family farmers.
  In my rush to come down to the floor, I did not bring with me the 
exact statistics, but basically the reports that we now see on what are 
called AMTA payments suggest that entirely too much of this money goes 
to those in least need. In other words, it is a subsidy program. Last 
year, it was to the tune of about $16 billion in inverse relationship 
to need. The top 10 percent of the producers--some of the big 
corporations--received over 60 percent of the benefits, and then the 
farmers received the rest, so that a family farm in Minnesota would be 
lucky to get maybe $2,000 worth of assistance; whereas, those huge 
operations were raking in $100,000 worth of assistance.
  If we just take the $7 billion and put it into this conference report 
without any committee hearings and without taking at least several 
weeks after we get back to do some evaluation and some important 
analysis about how to get this assistance out to the people who need it 
the most, then I think we have not lived up to our responsibility as 
Senators.
  I say to my colleagues that I think we could at the very minimum, for 
example, make sure that this money goes to producers. Those who own the 
land

[[Page S4338]]

but aren't involved in the production receive too much of the benefits. 
The benefits ought to go to the producers.
  I would also say to my colleagues that there is no reason in the 
world that for fiscal year 2001 we can't focus on equity and get the 
loan rate up at least to the rate for soybeans, in which case corn 
would be $2.11 and wheat would be $3.10. Let me tell you that is the 
direction we need to go for a State such as mine.
  I sent a letter yesterday to Chairman Lugar, my colleague, a Senator 
for whom I happen to have a tremendous amount of respect. I will 
certainly get a chance to talk with him today. I believe that we are 
making a big mistake if we simply put this money into a conference 
report, which means there will not be any real discussion and no real 
debate. We will not have paid any attention whatsoever as to how we can 
allocate this financial assistance out there in the countryside so that 
the lion's share of the benefit goes to the farmers who are in greatest 
need.
  Why in the world do we want to use the same AMTA formula which gets 
subsidies out to farmers in inverse relationship to need? Why not some 
careful consideration and some careful discussion? Isn't that what we 
are about as legislators?

  Too many times now in the Senate we see the same pattern of important 
decisions not being made by virtue of taking, in this particular case, 
what I think is an important question and just putting it into a 
conference report with no opportunity for amendments and no opportunity 
for discussion. I think that would be a big mistake. Instead, we can 
surely decide on a better formula for getting the money out there to 
the people. At the very minimum, it ought to go to the producers. It 
ought not go to landowners who are not even involved in production.
  Again, we have an opportunity for fiscal year 2001 to literally talk 
about equity and at least get the loan rate up for other farmers and 
other grain farmers that are equal to what we do for soybeans.
  As a Senator from Minnesota, as a Senator from an agricultural State, 
I come to the floor today to take issue with the direction in which we 
are going and to urge my colleagues not to put this financial 
assistance money into the crop insurance bill. But instead let's do the 
kind of work that we ought to do as legislators. Let's do the kind of 
evaluation we ought to do as legislators so we can get the help out 
there to people who need it.
  Farm income is going to go down 17 percent again this year. There are 
a lot of farmers in my State. Many are going to be driven off the land.
  If we are not going to write a new farm bill as an alternative to 
this ``freedom to fail'' bill, which is one of the worst pieces of 
legislation ever passed by the Congress or ever signed by a President, 
then I don't think we are going to write a new farm bill until after 
the election. At the very minimum, we ought to do our best to get the 
assistance to the people who need it the most.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Baucus pertaining to the introduction of S. 2617 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. WELLSTONE. How much time remains on the Democratic side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fourteen minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes to speak in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________