[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 67 (Thursday, May 25, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4416-S4443]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURAL RISK PROTECTION ACT OF 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of
conference on the bill (H.R. 2559) to amend the Federal Crop Insurance
Act to strengthen the safety net for agricultural producers by
providing greater
[[Page S4417]]
access to more affordable risk management tools and improved protection
from production and income loss, to improve the efficiency and
integrity of the Federal crop insurance programs and for other purposes
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill H.R.
2559, to amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act have agreed to
recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses this
report, signed by all of the conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the consideration of the conference report. (The conference
report is printed in the House proceedings of the Record of May 24,
2000.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, as a parliamentary inquiry, my
understanding is that unanimous consent has been reached that this
Senator controls 1 hour of debate, the distinguished Senator from Iowa,
Mr. Harkin, 1 hour of debate, and the distinguished Senator from
Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, controls 1 hour of debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. LUGAR. I yield to myself such time as I may require.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Agricultural Risk
Protection Act of 2000. I am very pleased this legislation is before
the Senate today for final consideration after a great deal of work by
Senators of both parties and both sides of this Capitol. I am here to
testify that there is proud bipartisan support for this legislation,
highlighted by the fact that all members of the conference committee
for this legislation signed the conference report after our meeting
yesterday.
This conference report contains several titles. Title I pertains to
crop insurance important to so many agriculture producers throughout
the country. The fiscal year 2001 budget resolution provided $8 billion
over 5 years for crop insurance legislation. This conference report
increases premium subsidies to make crop insurance more affordable. The
bill also tightens program integrity provisions to limit abuse. It also
helps producers of non-insured crops, predominantly specialty crops, by
making the non-insured assistance program more readily available to
them. Finally, the legislation encourages farmers to adopt a broad
array of risk management activities beyond crop insurance alone.
Title II of this conference report provides $7.14 billion in economic
assistance to farmers as provided in the fiscal year 2001 budget
resolution. Included in this conference report is $5.466 for a market
loss payment for farmers in this fiscal year based on last year's AMTA
payment rate. Five hundred million dollars is provided for oilseed
producers. Funds are also provided for specialty crops including
funding for purchases of crops that have experienced low prices in 1998
or 1999 and loans for apple producers who are suffering economic and
income loss. Finally, funding is provided for purchases of commodities
for the school lunch program which benefits school children as well as
farmers.
Title III of the conference report contains the Biomass Research and
Development Act, a bill which I originally introduced in the Senate
last year. This legislation establishes a focused, integrated, and
innovation-driven research effort to develop technologies for the
production of biobased industrial products. The bill also authorizes a
biomass research and development initiative to competitively award
grants to carry out research and development of low cost and
sustainable biobased industrial products.
Title IV and V of the conference report consolidates and streamlines
existing statutory authorities for plant protection and authorizes
civil penalties for harming or interfering with animals used for USDA
inspections. Senator Craig had originally introduced this legislation
in the Senate.
I thank Senator Harkin, the ranking minority member of the committee,
and Senator Roberts and Senator Kerrey for their hard work and that of
their staff in finalizing the crop insurance legislation. All members
of the conference committee and their staff are thanked for their
important contributions to the process.
Finally, I also want to thank Congressman Combest, the chair of the
House Agriculture Committee, and Ranking Minority Member Stenholm and
their staff for their hard work in the past few weeks on this
legislation.
I am pleased to report the House of Representatives took action on
this conference report this morning and passed it unanimously. I am
hopeful that we may have a result similar, if not exactly the same as
that, this afternoon in this body.
Let me simply add that this legislation is of enormous importance to
American agriculture. I have tried to summarize as succinctly as
possible these five titles. But the consequences of this bill are very
substantial. The dollars involved I have outlined. But the confidence,
the hope that comes to producers who have had great discouragement in
terms of low prices, in terms of export markets that have been withheld
due to economic conditions in Asia, biotechnology disputes now in
Europe, very great problems in negotiating trade agreements, whether it
be the Seattle scene or the Washington scene more recently--this has
been a very tough time.
The Chair comes from the State adjacent to my own, a State which,
like Indiana, must export half of the soybeans we produce and about a
third of the corn we produce. There can be no prosperity in American
agriculture without vigorous negotiations to knock down these trade
barriers and to open up prospects for our farmers to realize the
benefits of having the best--the best in terms of quality, the best in
terms of price.
These economic circumstances do not pertain if there are barriers to
exports. But in this interim period, it is appropriate that Congress
has understood these unusual international problems and understood we
are in transition to more market-oriented farming. The crop insurance
title in particular recognizes the possibility of farmers becoming much
better marketers, much better business people, which all of us will
have to become if we are, in fact, to succeed over the coming
generation.
I know many Senators will want to speak on this issue. I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Who yields time to the Senator from North Dakota?
Mr. CONRAD. I yield myself time off the leader's time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, as a member of the conference on the
disaster bill and the crop insurance bill, I am pleased to give strong
support to the conference report.
First, I thank the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee,
Senator Lugar, for his leadership, his patience, and his very gracious
treatment of all of our colleagues. All of us understand this
particular bill was not Senator Lugar's first preference. Once again,
he responded to the concerns of colleagues on the Senate Agriculture
Committee and in the larger body and did so in a most gracious way. For
that, I thank Senator Lugar. He has once again demonstrated the way we
ought to do business in the Senate. He has certainly set a high
standard.
I also thank our ranking member, Senator Harkin, who has been
indefatigable in advancing the cause of American agricultural
producers. Senator Harkin has been a forceful advocate. Time after
time, he has stood in the breach and insisted we do what is right by
farmers and ranchers all across the country. I thank Senator Harkin for
his exceptional leadership. We would not be here today without him.
I also thank Senator Kerrey and Senator Roberts who were the primary
sponsors of the legislation before us. Without their steadfastness
right to the bitter end, we would not be here today. We faced a threat
as late as last night when it was proposed we put the bankruptcy bill
on this legislation. All of us know what that would have meant. That
would have meant endless delay. That would have meant sinking into a
bog of controversy that extends not only to the bankruptcy bill, but
unrelated issues attached to it. Special thanks to those who stood firm
and
[[Page S4418]]
said, no, this needs to be a bill that deals with the critical problems
facing farmers and ranchers in the United States.
I also thank my close friend and colleague, Senator Grassley, who, as
a member of the Budget Committee, worked with me to secure the $8.2
million in the budget that makes possible crop insurance reform.
Finally, I recognize the work of the House committee chairman,
Congressman Combest, for conducting what was a very fair and open
conference committee. That is the way a conference committee should
function. It was give and take, it was a debate, it was discussion, and
at the end, it was a coming together around legislation that is, I
think, outstanding. I again single out the House committee chairman,
Congressman Combest, for his leadership.
We have developed, I believe, the right bill at the right time with
the required budget support. In one bill, we have managed to bring
together emergency farm relief for the families who are faced with the
lowest prices, in real terms, in 50 years and a reform of the crop
insurance system to make it more affordable at every level.
In addition to that, we are righting a wrong done to Durum farmers a
year ago. This bill provides emergency relief in the form of 100-
percent AMTA supplemental payments. For wheat farmers, that means
instead of getting 64 cents a bushel, as they did last year in an AMTA
payment, they will get 64 cents in addition to the regular AMTA
payment, which this year will be 57 cents. So they will get an AMTA
supplement--this is on wheat now--of 64 cents a bushel that is
equivalent to last year's AMTA payment, married to the AMTA payment we
will be getting this year.
In addition, we have a crop insurance reform bill that is a dramatic
improvement. When I go home and have meetings all across North Dakota,
one of the most agricultural States in the Nation, what I am told, and
told repeatedly, is that crop insurance is not working. It does not
work because we do not have the right levels of support at the levels
of coverage that farmers are buying, and they have a very serious
problem if they have multiple years of disaster.
Oddly enough, the way the formulas work, when farmers have multiple
years of disaster, the base that calculates the support they receive is
diminished--it is reduced, and it is reduced dramatically. The irony
is, at the very time farmers need help the most, we have a formula that
gives them the least help. It makes no sense. We have adjusted that in
this legislation.
I know there are those who are critical of using the AMTA payments as
a basis for the economic disaster assistance. I understand that. AMTA
payments are not countercyclical. That is, they are not designed to
help those commodities that are the exact ones that are being hurt by
this downturn.
In addition, AMTA payments are not based on current production. AMTA
payments, as a result, can go to producers and landowners who may no
longer be producing the crop on which their payment is based or who are
no longer growing a crop of any kind. Those are legitimate criticisms.
Most of us recognize that.
The question is, Do we make the perfect the enemy of the very good? I
say to my colleagues, could we have done better? Yes, we could. We
could have adopted a countercyclical program. But I say to my
colleagues, at some point we have to make a decision: Are we going to
delay support for producers who are in very deep economic trouble,
faced with a circumstance in which USDA informs us, absent our action,
farm income will drop $8 billion this year; or do we act?
I urge my colleagues to join us in acting. Let's not delay. Let's not
wait. Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the very good. The fact
is, this package is going to make the difference for tens of thousands
of farm families all across America between economic survival and
economic death. That is the reality. That is what motivates the urgency
of our action.
I am very proud of the package that is before us. Many people labored
hours and hours to produce this result. I salute not only the Members
who worked hard and provided the leadership, but I thank the staffs on
both sides who exhibited a dedication to public service because they
did not work just 9 to 5. I know there are some people who think the
Senate is kind of an easygoing place and people work leisurely hours.
That is not the truth.
The truth is people here work very hard. No one works harder than the
staffs. The staffs in this circumstance have given us a perfect example
of how to function to produce a result. They worked together
harmoniously--well, not always harmoniously. Sometimes there was
friction, sometimes there were real differences of opinion, but they
kept at it, and they produced a result, and it is a result that is good
for the country. They worked very long hours, many times late into the
night, through the weekends repeatedly, to help achieve this result. I
salute them today on both sides of the aisle because this was a
bipartisan product. That happens, unfortunately, not as frequently as
it should happen in this Chamber. I can tell you, this package is a
product of coming together in a bipartisan effort. I salute all those
who helped produce it.
In addition to the disaster package we have, in addition to the crop
insurance reform which is wide sweeping and incredibly important to
America's farmers and ranchers, this bill also includes provisions that
effectively resolve a lawsuit brought by an unfair action by USDA
regarding the 1999 durum crop revenue coverage level in contracts that
were offered in various parts of the country. This means that both
parties to that lawsuit--farmers and USDA--have a reason to settle that
lawsuit, with every policyholder who received a claim getting
additional per-bushel assistance.
More importantly, the bill language makes it clear that actions on
the part of USDA that change the conditions of crop insurance policies
retroactively are not acceptable for any commodity.
Whatever were they thinking of, to put out a contract--however flawed
that contract might be--to have farmers sign up to it, and then to
withdraw it? These contracts are contracts. That means there is a two-
way bargain. You cannot have a circumstance in which the Federal
Government puts out a contract, gets people to sign up to it, and then
changes its mind and withdraws it. That is not fair. That is not right.
In this legislation, we have sent that clear signal.
I close by suggesting to my colleagues that we now have a moment in
time that we can act together in the best interests of the farmers and
ranchers of America. I urge my colleagues to support this conference
report. I again say how proud I am to have been a part of this
conference that functioned the way a conference should in a bipartisan
effort to produce a result that is good for America.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I note that Senator Harkin was going to
come out on the floor. I will try to be relatively brief. I did not
want to precede him. Let me just take a few moments, and then I will
reserve the remainder of my time for later on. I know my colleague from
Idaho wants to speak as well.
Mr. President, I am speaking on my hour right now, though I will not
take up all the time, and I will reserve the remainder of my time.
At the beginning, Mr. President, before I thank some of my colleagues
for their work and then be honest in some of my criticism, I will very
briefly, with the indulgence of my colleagues, just point out on the
floor of the Senate that yesterday--all of us have to deal with this in
our States--Sheila and I received some unexpected news that has
devastating consequences for the people of part of Minnesota--an area I
love, the Minnesota Iron Range. The steel company LTV announced it is
going to close the taconite plant in Hoyt Lakes. They employ 1,400
people, I say to my colleague from Idaho. For Hoyt Lakes, Aurora, and
other communities in the Iron Range, this is just devastating news.
It just makes me sick to my stomach because these workers are friends
and their family members are part of our family. I have always been
honest that the Iron Range in Minnesota is a second home for me. It is
all so unexpected.
[[Page S4419]]
Jerry Fallos, who is the president of the steelworkers local, got a
call yesterday at 6 a.m. in the morning. The company said: We want to
meet with you. He had absolutely no inkling there was any trouble. LTV
said: We are closing the Erie plant.
I know that the steelworkers are asking for an accounting of the
closing. They are pledging to do whatever they can to keep it open. In
whatever way I can help as a Senator, I certainly intend to do it.
By way of concluding these remarks and getting on to the conference
report, I want to say this.
Tomorrow, I am going to leave early to go home and meet with county
commissioners, workers, union representatives, company people, small
businesspeople, and all the rest. I know we will be talking about how
to get assistance to people and how to have more economic development
and the need to figure out yet other ways to diversify the local
economy. But the one thing I want to mention, because the Iron Range is
so special, is that sometimes I do not think we focus enough on
community.
I think this should bring Democrats and Republicans together --a
place where people live, where people go to church or synagogue or
mosque, or wherever people raise their families, where people know one
another, people love one another, and people support one another.
I truly do believe sometimes these capital investment decisions in
this new global economy, that get made over martinis, halfway across
the world, can have devastating consequences for the people in our
communities. I think we need to put more of a premium on community,
especially on our smaller communities. I hate it when we are put in the
position of picking up the pieces as a result of the communities being
devastated by policies that are needless and should not be supported in
the first place.
Again, we have seen a torrent of dumped steel imports coming into our
country that has made our industry vulnerable. We now have 1,400
people--much less their families and communities--who are very much at
risk.
As a Senator, I am going to do everything I can to help these people.
In some ways this is like the farm crisis.
Mr. President, I ask my colleague from Idaho how long he intends to
take?
Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleague.
I would speak probably no more than about 5 or 6 minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I did not want to precede Senator
Harkin, who is the ranking member on this committee. I ask unanimous
consent that Senator Harkin be able to speak, after which Senator Craig
would be recognized for 5 minutes, and then I be recognized to follow
Senator Craig. Would that be all right? I would be pleased to do that.
I ask unanimous consent that that be the order. I say to my friend from
Iowa, I did not intend to precede him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank Senator Wellstone for his
consideration. I do appreciate that very much.
Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon, as most of us do,
to speak about the crop insurance conference report that is now before
us and to thank those conferees--the chairman of the full committee,
Senator Lugar, Senator Roberts, and others on our side, certainly, who
were engaged, as they should be, to produce this conference report, and
thank them for the hard work they have rendered in bringing about crop
insurance reform.
It is a challenging process at best. They have done an excellent job
in balancing the interests we have in agriculture, and to have crop
insurance that reflects the diversity of agriculture itself.
With the passage of the farm bill, Congress--we--promised crop
insurance that would work. I am pleased to see that we now are living
up to that promise by passing sweeping legislation to bring some
normalcy back to our Nation's farm economy and to expand the risk
management tools available to our farmers and ranchers.
The crop insurance conference report addresses several concerns
farmers from my State and I have about the current Crop Insurance
Program. The conference report provides increased subsidies for greater
buy-up of crop insurance, funding for research and development of
specialty crop insurance, and the removal of the NAP area trigger, just
to name a few of the improvements.
This legislation is a very balanced approach, containing meaningful
and sweeping reforms that all of us would admit are long overdue.
As we all know, the agricultural economy has been in a dramatic slump
for the last good number of years. USDA reports that overall conditions
in the economy in early 2000 are largely a replay of last year.
Agriculture is a part of the world economy, and farmers across the
board are facing very difficult times.
For the past 2 years, though, we here in Congress have tried to
respond to the agricultural crisis by providing over $15 billion in
emergency economic aid. I do not stand back from that. I think it was
appropriate and necessary to keep our agriculture economy out of
bankruptcy.
The need this year is not much different than last. I am pleased that
there is $7.1 billion in economic farm aid in this conference report.
This funding includes $5.5 billion additional AMTA payments, or market
loss payments; $200 million for specialty crops; $500 million for
oilseed payments; $11 million for wool and mohair maintenance; loans
for producers who were affected by the AgriBioTech bankruptcy that
impacted my State and other States dramatically, including Oregon,
Washington, Montana, some 30-plus States that were involved in both
grass clover and alfalfa seeds.
I have worked for and supported the funding because I believe it is
what our farmers need to stay in business in the short term. We must
help them deal with this if we can; and I think we are. USDA reports
that global economies are now improving. Of course, we know that many
of our products sell openly in the world market. As that economy
improves, so does the demand for agricultural commodities from this
country and the improvement of price.
The conference report also includes the Plant Protection Act, a bill
I have been working on for nearly 2 years. What is it? It is a weeds
program. That is what it is all about. I think those of us who are
familiar with agriculture recognize that we have not been good at
dealing with weeds. Those of us who live near large tracts of public
land recognize that our public land neighbors have been less than good
stewards of their land by allowing major increases in noxious weed
populations on our public lands. This is a major step in the direction
of improving that. It follows the President's initiative that was taken
a couple of years ago with the legislation Senator Akaka and I have
worked on for some time. I hope we can meet the other needs that
Senator Akaka has, and I will work with him in the agricultural
appropriations that will follow to see if we can make that happen.
This legislation will organize and expand the function of the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service. APHIS currently gets its authority
from 10 different statutes, some of which are outmoded and conflicting
and complicated. As a result, it simply has not provided us with the
kind of consistency we need to deal with commercializing technologies
and the use of biocontrols in the area of weeds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for no more than 2
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. This bill has broad support from the American Nursery and
Landscape Association, National Association of State Departments of
Agriculture, the National Christmas Tree Association, the National
Potato Council, and many others that for a long time have recognized
the need to reform this area of the law.
Again, I commend the conferees on both sides of the aisle for the
hard work they have undertaken in producing this conference report in a
way that will produce reform in crop insurance that I think is now
functional, workable, and becomes the kind of risk
[[Page S4420]]
management tool we promised American agriculture some years ago. With
that is the supplemental program for emergency purposes that will go a
long way toward stabilizing the agricultural economy as we move through
this year and into next.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, Senator Roberts is here. He worked so
hard on the crop insurance bill, which is a fine piece of legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Roberts be recognized for about 15
minutes, and afterwards I follow him, and then Senator Harkin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
2559, the Agriculture Risk Protection Act of 2000.
As has been indicated by my colleagues, this legislation provides
what we believe are very dramatic reforms to the Crop Insurance
Program. It also marks the final product of a legislative initiative
Senator Bob Kerrey and I began working on nearly 2 years ago. Senator
Kerrey and I decided to undertake this task at the same time Congress
was passing the first of several large agriculture assistance packages
in 1998. The problems we experienced in 1998 and again in 1999 exposed
many of the holes in the current Crop Insurance Program. We agreed that
changes needed to be made and that we must work together in a
bipartisan manner to achieve program improvements. In fact, this is one
of the reforms that was promised as an integral part of the 1996 farm
bill. Obviously, those reforms did not take place, but here we are,
finally, in an effort to achieve those reforms.
Senator Kerrey and I did not just set out to write a bill based upon
what we thought needed to be done. Rather, we wanted input from those
who were most directly affected by this program. We asked virtually
every producer, every farm organization, every commodity group, every
crop insurance company, every insurance agent group in the country for
input on this legislation. We traveled throughout the country. We held,
literally, hundreds of hours of listening sessions here in Washington
to get the input both from the organizations and the producers.
The responses were overwhelmingly clear: Major changes were needed in
regard to the Crop Insurance Program. These groups recommended more
affordable crop insurance policies at higher levels of coverage,
equalization of the subsidy on something called revenue insurance,
provisions to deal with multiple years of disaster, a better program
for new and beginning farmers, changes in the product approval process,
and, finally, the removal of the regulatory roadblocks that had stifled
new product development.
Senator Kerrey and I took these recommendations very seriously, and
this legislation achieves each of these goals. The process has not been
easy. We began our meetings on this issue in September of 1998. We
introduced our first legislation, S. 529, the Crop Insurance for the
21st Century Act, last February. We then introduced a second bill, S.
1580, the Risk Management for the 21st Century Act, in September. In
March, the Agriculture Committee and the Senate approved the crop
insurance legislation that was based largely upon our original bill.
Since passage of the Senate bill, we have spent nearly 7 full weeks in
conference with the House. There have been many surprises, many bumps
in the road, to say the least, sometimes arising at the last minute. I
believe those unexpected bumps, however, were appropriate because they
helped remind us of the often unexpected, unpredictable risks that our
farmers and ranchers face on a daily basis, the same risks that this
legislation works to help them manage.
The task was difficult and the hours were often long, but in the end
we achieved a bipartisan bill that was supported by all 18 members of
the conference committee between the House and the Senate. That is no
small achievement.
Exactly what does this bill do? It makes it easier for producers to
purchase the higher levels of coverage by increasing the premium write-
downs and reducing the farmer's out-of-pocket expenses. By allowing the
producer to produce these higher levels of coverage, I believe we will
reduce the need for future disaster bills, those disaster bills that
are always a disaster to pass, a disaster to implement, and always seem
to come during even-numbered years. The legislation makes the revenue
insurance policies that have become enormously popular for producers
more affordable as well. This is risk management. These are risk
management tools that, hopefully, will lessen the reliance on disaster
bills and all of the expenditures that those entail, usually under
emergency legislation.
The legislation also provides adjustments to something called the
average production history, the APH, for those farmers who have
experienced a year or years of significant crop losses and disaster. It
provides for a new assigned yield system that will benefit new and
beginning farmers.
The legislation also restructures the board of directors to provide
more producer and insurance expertise. The product approval and the
research development processes are greatly improved. This will result
in the development of new and improved products that will provide our
producers with the additional risk management tools they need.
We have also strengthened the fraud and abuse penalties in the
program. Farmers and ranchers should pay attention to this; critics of
the farm program should pay attention to this. Under this legislation,
the producers and insurance representatives who would abuse the program
face fines of up to $10,000 and possible disbarment from all USDA
programs for up to 5 years. Those who would try to destroy the
integrity of the program are going to be punished, and they are going
to be punished big time.
I also comment on several provisions that do not necessarily affect
my State and producers but which I know are very important to other
Members in this body.
In recent years, there have been many complaints that specialty crop
producers and certain areas of the country have been ``underserved'' by
the Crop Insurance Program. This legislation takes major steps to
address these concerns.
First, it provides nearly $500 million over 5 years for changes to
make something called the Noninsured Assistance Program, or NAP. NAP
will work better for these producers. It requires the RMA to undertake
studies and report to Congress on ways to better serve these areas. And
more than $200 million is provided for expanded research and education
to develop new and better risk management products for these producers.
Mr. President, in addition to the important crop insurance reforms
included in this package, we have also provided $7.1 billion in
agriculture assistance for farmers and ranchers who have not enjoyed
the booming economic times experienced by the rest of the U.S. economy.
Approximately $5.5 billion of this amount will go out as market loss
payments, through the AMTA payment mechanism established in the 1996
farm bill.
Now, while I understand some of my colleagues believe this is not the
best way to distribute these funds, it is the quickest guaranteed
manner by which the USDA can make these payments. I remind my
colleagues who wanted to develop a new payment formula that in the past
2 years it has taken the Department of Agriculture at least 9 months to
make these payments through the disaster and assistance programs that
were not paid to producers through the AMTA payment mechanism.
I also point out that after a lot of real criticism regarding the
AMTA process, the department or the administration came forward with a
plan, only to be roundly criticized by virtually every farm
organization and commodity group. So I think this is the way to do it.
These are emergency payments.
As long as we don't have our export markets back, as long as farmers
are not experiencing the kind of farm income at the country elevator,
and market prices are depressed, I think this is appropriate, and
doubtless this will help. We are doing it early. We are doing it early
in the spring. It is in the budget. No Social Security money. No
emergency money. The farmers, ranchers, and the lenders can sit down,
and
[[Page S4421]]
under consistency and predictability, know what they are getting this
fall.
I am also pleased that $15 million is included for carbon
sequestration research. The preliminary research indicates that
agriculture can and will play an important and positive role in the
debate regarding global climate change, and this funding is an
important downpayment on this research. Senator Kerrey and I worked
hard to include this research money. It will enable farmers, again, to
play a positive role in taking carbon out of the atmosphere and to
mitigate the global climate change problems we have.
I could continue to discuss the merits of this legislation, but I
will cease and desist. However, I do have a few closing comments.
First, this legislation has been a personal priority of mine for many
years. It was nearly 20 years ago that my predecessor in the House of
Representatives, Congressman Keith Sebelius, cast the deciding vote to
create the Federal Crop Insurance Program. Since that time, I have been
committed to strengthening this program and making it work for our
producers. We promised this in the 1996 farm bill. In addition, an
improved Crop Insurance Program has been an underlying promise ever
since that bill has been passed. It was a promise I personally made,
and today I consider it a promise, hopefully, fulfilled.
It has been a pleasure to work with my colleague from Nebraska on
this issue. Senator Kerrey is retiring from the Senate when this
session ends, and I know passage of this bill before leaving the Senate
has been one of his top priorities. We could not have done the job, the
committee could not have done the job, the staff could not have done
the job, we would not have had this bill without the support,
leadership, advice, counsel, and hard work of Senator Kerrey.
Furthermore, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee,
Senator Lugar, for his assistance in working with us to get a strong
bill out of the conference between the House and Senate. Without his
leadership as well, obviously, we would not have this package.
Finally, I thank the staff of the Senate Agriculture Committee. The
Senate legislative counsel and the Congressional Budget Office spent
considerable time on this legislation. As a matter of fact, maybe even
too much time. It has been a Herculean effort, and all Members and
staff involved deserve to be commended. I would be remiss if I did not
mention specifically Bev Paul, who works for Senator Kerrey; Mike
Seifert, who works for me; and Keith Luse, the distinguished and able
staff director of the Senate Agriculture Committee. They basically did
the work and reported to us, and we reported to them to go back to work
and they finally produced a bill. They persevered.
I close by stating that this is a good and fair bill. For the first
time, it is a truly national crop insurance bill that serves all
regions of the country. I remind my colleagues that it is a bipartisan
bill, supported by all 18 members of the conference committee. It
represents a real investment in our farmers and ranchers and the
agriculture sector of our economy. I am proud of our efforts on this
legislation.
I thank my colleagues for their support. I urge its quick passage. It
is my understanding that it passed by unanimous consent in the other
body, which has a lot of difficulty deciding when to adjourn, let alone
passing things by unanimous consent.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today to
speak of my profound disappointment regarding the way in which the
Senate is conducting its business. I am outraged that these payments
have been attached to a conference report without any consideration in
the full Senate.
Mr. President, without any public debate and with no hearings in the
Agriculture Committee some of our colleagues have attached $7.1 billion
to this conference report, and have unilaterally decided to continue
the failed farm policy of the 1996 farm bill.
First of all, I want to be very clear that I am pleased there was
some recognition in Congress that the Freedom to Farm bill, or as I
call it the Freedom to Fail bill, has not provided an adequate safety
net to our nation's family farmers. Furthermore, I am pleased that the
Budget Committee recognized that after spending over $16 billion the
last 2 years on emergencies, family farmers were in need of an economic
safety net.
But I believe this emergency assistance package only relieves the
apparent symptoms of the economic crisis in agriculture. This
assistance will help some farmers to continue their operations for the
immediate future, but this direct cash infusion cannot sustain farmers
for the long term.
I am deeply concerned about simply attaching this money to a
conference report without any debate or possibility of amendments. And
as a Senator from Minnesota, with thousands of family farmers in my
state who are suffering economic convulsion, I am completely opposed to
continuing this disastrous farm policy passed 4 years ago.
Mr. President, this is very much an extension of the debate we began
last week--it's a debate about our right to be legislators. It is about
being able to offer amendments to improve legislation--that is what the
people of Minnesota elected me to do. The people of Minnesota and the
thousands of Minnesota family farmers certainly didn't elect me to be
silent, and accept the status quo in Washington, DC.
At times Senate procedure can seem a bit arcane to many people--let
me explain what has happened with this legislation. We are now
considering the crop insurance conference report--this is great. The
legislation passed 95-5, and I voted for the bill. The crop insurance
bill passed by the Senate will, in fact, make crop insurance much more
affordable for thousands of family farmers who have experienced years
of crop losses--like the Red River Valley in Minnesota. I will do
everything in my power to pass this important piece of legislation--I
have no objection there.
However, what has been done behind closed doors in a conference
committee, with absolutely no public scrutiny, is completely different.
What the conferees have done is to attach $7.1 billion in emergency
farmer relief payments to the crop insurance bill. They have not asked
the full Senate. They have not consulted with the House of
Representatives.
And conference reports are privileged which means that Senators
cannot offer any amendment. Nor can Senators engage in extended debate.
In essence, we as Senators have been left with no options to alter the
conference report in any way.
Mr. President, as a Senator from Minnesota this is one of the most
egregious maneuvers I have witnessed in the Senate. And the one thing
that greatly concerns me about this road we seem to be heading down is
that back home in Minnesota I meet with people, and they really believe
that I will make a difference in their lives--that I can in fact help
them.
However if, as a Senator, I cannot at least offer amendments, to what
is probably the most important agriculture bill, I am shut out. In fact
all Senators are shut out. I don't claim to agree with everyone, and I
welcome having debates about what is the best way to spend $7 billion,
but the Senate must have those debates.
And for Minnesota farmers time is not neutral. That was evident when
nearly 4,000 family farmers from Minnesota, and all across the country,
came to Washington, DC, to demand a change in the failed Freedom to
Farm Act. People really believe when we meet with them that we can do
something right now about the abysmally low prices, whether it is the
livestock producers, or whether it is the corn growers, or dairy
producers. With what is going on in farm country with crops, people are
in such pain. They still come out to meetings because they still
believe in us as their Senators, and by meeting with us and talking
about what is happening to them, somehow since we are their Senators we
can do something to help.
But I am left with very few options. The majority has insisted on
attaching a vital piece of legislation to a conference report without
any public debate, or amendments. And that is to say nothing about the
substance of the legislation they are attempting to ram through the
Senate.
[[Page S4422]]
However, I am glad that Minnesota will benefit from the emergency
package. And, although I have significant reservations that AMTA is not
the best mechanism to provide income assistance to producers, it will
at least keep farmers going for another year. I preferred and pushed
for a mechanism that targets and ties assistance to actual production.
Mr. President for the first time since 1996 the majority has
recognized that the Freedom to Fail does not provide an adequate safety
net for our family farmers. Through including $7.1 billion in the FY
2001 budget resolution for farm relief the Budget Committee has
conceded that the Freedom to Farm Act has failed to provide an economic
safety net for our nation's family farmers.
We were presented with a tremendous opportunity to reverse the
disastrous farm policy enacted in 1996, by targeting this money to our
nation's small and medium sized producers who are truly in an economic
crisis. But rather than examining serious policy alternatives that
could reverse the current economic crisis in rural America, we have
been presented with legislation that continues the Freedom to Fail
bill.
First of all, and I think this simply prudent public policy--and I
say this is with greatest respect for the chairman of the Agriculture
Committee--I do believe the Agriculture Committee had a responsibility
to our nation's family farmers to hold hearings on mechanisms to target
the financial assistance to those small and medium farmers most in
need. I firmly believe it is a grave mistake not to base these payments
both on prices and production.
Basically what the majority has done is to double these disastrous
AMTA payments. And they have refused to deal with any of the problems
of distribution equity.
As we have seen over the last 2 years, emergency assistance packages
only relieve the apparent symptoms of the economic crisis in
agriculture. Assistance will help some farmers to continue their
operations for the immediate future, but direct cash infusion cannot
sustain farmers for the long term.
There are a couple of problems with these AMTA payments. First of
all, these payments are based on the old farm program's historic
yields. Farmers such as traditional soybean farmers, who never had a
program base in the old program, don't get any of these AMTA payments.
That is one huge problem.
In addition, it is possible for some people who might not even have
planted a crop to receive them because the Freedom to Farm--or what I
call the ``Freedom to Fail''--payments are completely unconnected to
production or price. Furthermore, I predict, largely this money will be
used to pay back banks and lenders from whom farmers needed to borrow
money earlier this year just to get in their crops.
Let's be clear--it is now evident that the majority of AMTA payments
have not been distributed to family farmers, rather they have gone to
the largest farmers and corporate agribusiness. Recently a
comprehensive study was conducted on the federal farm payments from
1996 through 1998 which shows that the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill (and
subsequent legislation) has provided minimal financial assistance for
the large majority of family farmers.
The study found that the largest farming operations were generously
compensated by Freedom to Farm, and many of the top payment recipients
were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars over the 3-year period
studied. Large operators received these enormous payments, even as
operators of smaller farms (with average annual sales of $50,000 or
less) actually lost money.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, these smaller farms
realized an average net loss of $3,400 in income from their farming
operations in 1996 alone.
From 1996 through 1998 nearly 61 percent of all federal Freedom to
Farm money approximately $13.8 billion in total went to the 144,000
individuals, corporations and farm partnerships among the top 10
percent of recipients.
A recipient among the top 10 percent was paid an average of $95,875
over the 3 years (`96-`98). These payments were on top of any profits
earned from the sale of agricultural commodities, and do not include
payments made under conservation, disaster or crop insurance programs.
In contrast to the largest farmers, the vast majority of AMTA
recipients have seen very little benefit from Freedom to Farm. Half of
all farmers received less than $3,600 in total from 1996 through 1998,
or an average of about $1,200 per year.
Large corporate agribusiness already enjoy significant competitive
advantages over smaller farming operations in availability of capital.
According to USDA's Economic Research Service, farm operator households
for farms with sales of $500,000 or more averaged $153,847 in farm
income in 1996, while operators of farms with between $250,000 and
$500,000 in sales averaged $53,265 in household farm income in the same
year. And operators of farms with less than $50,000 in sales realized a
net loss of income from their farm operations.
The central question we need to ask ourselves is that if the largest
U.S. agribusiness are inherently more efficient, as corporate America
assures us they are, why do these efficient farms need Federal
Government assistance, and why do they collect the majority of the
assistance that is provided?
Hundreds of thousands of small- and medium-sized operations receive
meaningless amounts of AMTA assistance under Freedom to Farm programs.
I believe, it is a great mistake not to target this money to producers
based on actual production.
That is the key issue. That is the key difference. In dealing with
this price crisis, we ought to make sure that the payments are
connected to production and price. So what the Republicans have is the
wrong mechanism for addressing the price crisis. We must target the
assistance to family farmers and tie direct assistance to production.
Thousands of family farmers across the country could go out of business
due to conditions that are beyond their control. In Minnesota, up to 30
percent of our family farmers are threatened--that's thousands of farm
families.
Whatever you do by way of dealing with low prices, you have to make
sure that payments are connected to production and price. Too many of
the transition payments go to landowners, and not necessarily
producers. I don't think that makes a lot of sense. Some, like soybean
growers, won't be helped at all. We can do better, we must do better.
We could at minimum target the assistance to those farmers who are in
the most need. We have an opportunity to make at the very least
incremental changes to current farm policy. The policy objective of the
ad-hoc aid is clouded by the apparent inability of Congress to pass aid
packages targeting assistance to farmers most at risk.
Some of the largest and most profitable farms in the country will
benefit from this assistance if it is distributed in double AMTA
payments and meanwhile there are no funds devoted to other needs in
rural America.
Mr. President I also want to talk about the whole problem of
concentration of power. This is an unbelievable situation. What we have
is a situation where our producers, such as our livestock and grain
producers, when negotiating to sell, only have three or four
processors. They have the ADM's, the Smithfield's, the ConAgra's, the
IPB's, the Hormel's and the Cargill's. The point is, you have two,
three, or four firms that control over 40 percent, over 50 percent,
sometimes 70-80 percent of the market.
Let me just run through some statistics that illustrate this point.
In the past decade and a half, the top four pork packers have increased
their market share from 36 percent to 57 percent.
The top four beef packers have expanded their market share from 32
percent to 80 percent.
The top four flour millers have increased their market share from 40
percent to 62 percent, while the market share of the top four soybean
crushers has jumped from 54 percent to 80 percent.
The top four sheep, poultry, wet corn, and dry corn processors now
control 73 percent, 55 percent, 74 percent, and 57 percent of the
market, respectively. By conventional measures, none of these markets
is really competitive.
Thousands of our livestock and grain producers are facing extinction,
and
[[Page S4423]]
the packers are in hog heaven. The mergers continue, and we have all of
these acquisitions. We need to put free enterprise back into the food
industry.
I have had a chance to review the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act and
the work of Estes Kefauver and others. We had two major public hearings
in Minnesota and in Iowa last year with Joel Klein, who leads the
Antitrust Division of the Justice Department, and Mike Dunn, head of
the Packers and Stockyards Administration within the Department of
Agriculture. And earlier this year we had thousands of family farmers
in Washington to rally at the Capitol. In all the meetings I have been
at over the last two years, producers are asking the same question:
Why, with these laws on the books, isn't there some protection for us?
We have all sorts of examples of monopoly. We want to know where is the
protection for producers.
It is critical to pass some stronger antitrust legislation. I know
Senator Leahy and Senator Daschle have done a great job with their
legislation. I am pleased to join with them in cosponsoring the Fair
Competition Act of 2000.
Mr. President, there is a frightening difference when the major
agribusiness firms can raise billions on Wall Street while making
record profits at the same time farmers and ranchers are faced with
take-it-or-leave-it low prices. Even, the American Farm Bureau
Federation, who I don't always agree with, testified on February 1,
2000, that ``consolidation, and the subsequent concentration within the
U.S. agricultural sector is having adverse economic impacts on U.S.
family farmers.'' The administration recently testified that:
High concentration, forward sales agreements, production
contracts, and vertical integration have raised major
concerns about competition and trade practices in livestock
and procurement by meat packers and poultry processors. . . .
The four leading packers' share of steer and heifer slaughter
increased from 36 percent in 1980 to 81 percent in 1998.
This concentration of power in the hands of a few increases the
likelihood that farmers or ranchers will be the victim of unfair or
deceptive practices. The Fair Competition Act will give USDA the
authority to help address those practices. Firms and corporations, no
matter how large, which engage in unfair, deceptive, or unjustly
discriminatory practices, or which give undue preferences, or make
false statements regarding transactions, will be stopped by this bill.
The bill also focuses on mergers of agribusinesses and on
agribusiness acquisitions. Over the last quarter century there have
been a major increase in the horizontal, vertical and sectoral
concentration of agribusinesses and in industries serving agriculture.
At some breaking point, the concentration of agribusinesses in any
region will mean that farmers or ranchers are adversely affected by an
imbalance of negotiating power and a lack of viable market
alternatives. The bill gives the Secretary the authority to identify
circumstances where a proposed merger will result in unfair or
deceptive practices that adversely affect farmers or ranchers and to
take a strong action against such a merger.
In addition, under the bill the Secretary shall make findings about
whether a proposed merger or acquisition could ``be detrimental to the
present or future viability of family farms or ranches or rural
communities in the areas affected by the merger or acquisition.''
If the Secretary determines that such adverse effects are likely, the
Secretary would propose remedies, such as divestiture of asserts or
other corrective action, designed to protect family farms and ranches,
and the affected local communities. Failure to comply with those
remedies could result in significant civil money penalties.
This authority is similar to that conferred by Congress on the
Surface Transportation Board which takes into account the ``public
interest'' with respect to proposed mergers of railroads. That Board
examines the potential effects on the public, on employees and on
competition and ``the impact of any transaction on the quality of the
human environment and the conservation of energy resources.'' (49 CFR
1180.1) To carry out its duties, ``the Board has broad authority to
impose conditions on consolidations * * *''
Similarly, the Federal Communications Commission exercises a major
role over the telecommunications or broadcasting industry mergers when
it examines whether transferring licenses to the merged entity is ``in
the public interest.''
This bill thus aims at preventing the detrimental effects of such
increased concentration on farmers and ranchers, and rural communities,
just as the Surface Transportation Board has imposed a moratorium on
railroad mergers to ensure that railroad mergers are in the ``public
interest.''
We need to pass this legislation now, and I think there is going to
be a considerable amount of support for this. The reason I think there
is going to be a lot of support is that I think many of my colleagues
have been back in their States, and for those of us who come from rural
States, from agricultural States, you can't meet with people and not
know we have to take some kind of action.
This ought to be a bipartisan issue. I think this is one issue on
which all the farm organizations agree. We must have some antitrust
action. We must have some bargaining power for the producers. We must
put free enterprise back into the food industry.
But this conference report moves us further away from making any real
change in farm policy. I would like to remind my colleagues that $7.1
billion for assistance for producers was allocated, but a significant
portion of the funds in this bill have been dedicated to programs and
projects, as worthy as they may be, that;
1. Do not provide assistance to family farmers or ranchers in the
near term.
2. Are more appropriate issues for the appropriations committee to
handle.
3. Distribute money to universities and agribusiness.
I would simply like to identify for my colleagues where some of this
$7.1 billion, allocated for assistance for producers, will actually be
going.
$20 million for the Market Access Program--a program that assists
business trade associations and cooperatives for marketing development.
How does that help the average family farmer deal with paying for
health care for his family?
$3 million will be directed to Georgetown University and North
Carolina State University for research regarding the extraction and
purification of proteins from genetically altered tobacco. I ask my
colleagues, could not have $3 million be better spent on direct income
assistance to the thousands of small family farms who are in danger of
losing their farms this year?
$30 million for training and technical assistance relating to the
management of water and waste disposal in Alaska. As a Senator from
Minnesota, I am quite sure that small dairy producers, or soybean
producers in my state who are facing the biggest agricultural
depression in more than a generation, would appreciate the assistance
$30 million could provide--it would allow many families to at least
stay in farming this year.
Mr. President, the plain fact is that this short term assistance is
simply a band-aid. I understand the majority does not want to have any
public discussion on the farm bill they enacted. That is clearly
evident by the way in which they have moved this legislation to the
Senate floor, with no debate or examination.
The point is that farmers in this country want to know, they deserve
to know, whether they have a future beyond 1 year. They can't cash flow
on these prices, whether it be for wheat, for corn, for cotton, for
rice, or whether it be for livestock producers. They simply cannot cash
flow--they cannot make it. They can work for 20 hours per day and be
the best managers in the world, and they still wouldn't make it.
But rather than open and make changes to the farm bill and avoid
these lump assistance infusions, the majority defends the status quo in
farm policy. Yet, how much longer can we mask reality of failing
agricultural policy? Short-term fixes are more expensive than carefully
planned long-term programs. For the past 3 consecutive years, Congress
has passed supplemental appropriations bill. Direct farm payments for
1999 were approximately $16 billion, making last year the highest
record for direct farm payments in U.S. history.
[[Page S4424]]
We need to stop using ad-hoc assistance as a substitute for farm
policy. We need to reopen and rewrite a farm bill with a strong
sustainable policy. Namely, we need a farm policy that empowers farmers
not only to merely survive, but to prosper.
And that was what the Rally for Rural America was all about. We had,
from all over the country, around 4,000 people--most of them family
farmers. From the State of Minnesota, we had close to 500 people here,
most of them family farmers. I point out to my colleagues, this was an
unusual gathering. They came to our Nation's Capital to try to have a
conversation with America, to make sure people in the country know
about the economic convulsion that is happening in rural America.
And Congress appropriately responded with a commitment to reform
rural policies to: alleviate the agricultural price crisis; ensure
competitive markets; invest in rural education and health care; protect
our Nation's resources for future generations; and ensure a safe and
secure food supply.
I ask my colleagues, what became of that commitment to the thousands
of family farmers who came to Washington, DC--I ask where is the
followup? Is the followup passing $7 billion in AMTA payments that has
never even been discussed in the Agriculture Committee? Is it in
providing huge payments to corporate farms and agribusinesses, while
leaving little for the ordinary family farmer? Or is it in ignoring the
root problems in the 1996 Freedom to Fail Act. I don't think so.
For 2000, net farm income is forecast to decline for the 4th straight
year, by 17 percent. Low prices scale across the board for almost all
major crops. USDA projects that 2000 crop corn prices will be the
lowest since the mid 1980's. That's 26 percent below the average of
1993-1997. Soybeans are projected to be at their lowest levels since
1986. Yet, I do not need to list all the statistics. I have been on the
Senate floor, and Senators know, economists and specialists know and
most importantly those who farm the land do not need to hear statistics
to know times are tough.
Whatever our explanation for the very low commodity prices on the
global market, federal farm policy needs to be there to offer some
safety net to help people stay in business when this happens. We need a
farm bill that establishes an equitable safety net. We need a farm bill
that provides a level of financial security during periods of market
disruption and commodity price instability. A safety net should include
a counter cyclical price and income assistance directed to producers.
One simple idea of providing a safety net is lifting caps on the loan
rates.
In addition, long-term policy must be developed to enhance
competitiveness and transparency throughout agriculture domestically
and globally. We know these figures well. I and others have recited
these numbers time and time again on the Senate floor. We know
concentration in the agriculture economy has been accelerating at a
rapid pace.
In the past decade and a half, the top four pork packers have
increased their market share from 36 to 57 percent, the top four beef
packers have expanded their market share from 32 to 80 percent, and the
top four flour millers have increased their market share from 40 to 62
percent.
We must halt this trend of consolidation. Congress must pass the Fair
Competition Act to restore competitive markets in agriculture and give
farmers more equal bargaining power against corporate business.
It is greatly disturbing that a handful of firms dominate the
processing of every major commodity. Many of them are vertically
integrated. This growing trend in concentration, low prices and
anticompetitive practices are driving family-based farmers out of
business. Farmers are going bankrupt or giving up, and few are taking
their places. More and more farm families are having to rely on other
jobs to stay afloat. In fact, reports indicate that off-farm income now
constitutes as much as 90 percent of all household income received by
the average farm operator.
There is a gross disparity of economic power that has shifted a
growing share of farm income to agribusiness. We need to reverse that
trend and focus on equalizing the bargaining power between farmers and
the global agribusinesses.
According to economic literature, markets are no longer competitive
if the top four firms control over 40 percent of the market. Yet, Excel
and IBP control 60 percent of the beef packing industry and Kellogs and
General Mills have 63 percent of the market share for cereal.
Policy makers wrote the 1996 farm bill and we can rewrite it. The
corporate culture's powerful influence has penetrated to humankind's
greatest common denominator, food. We cannot allow our lives to become
beholden to corporate America. We must provide an agricultural policy
that preserves the family farm and protects the food industry from an
oligopoly of corporate agribusinesses. We must fight for these critical
policy changes.
We have some differences here in the Senate. They are honestly held
differences. All of us care about agriculture. All of us know what the
economic and personal pain is out there in the countryside. But with no
opportunity to consider and debate a fair and equitable distribution
plan, and a bill that short changes the American family farmer by
diverting money away from equitable income assistance, the majority in
Congress has failed America's family farmers.
Mr. President, I say to Senator Roberts and Senator Kerrey: Good
work. Thank you for your commitment and the work on the crop insurance
conference report. This report is extremely important. To farmers, this
is going to make a big difference. I also thank Senator Lugar. Senator
Conrad spoke of his graciousness, and I think he is always that way.
Because of the crop insurance reform, I will vote for this conference
report.
My dissent has to do with, again, the way we are conducting our
business. The crop insurance reform is very important. But this is a
crop insurance conference report. When the Budget Committee said, look,
we are going to have $7 billion to deal with the farm crisis, what the
Budget Committee was saying and what the Senate was saying is, rather
than just doing emergency appropriations, let's have some deliberation
and some policy evaluation and figure out how to get that money to
people in the most equitable manner.
My dissent, I say to my colleagues out of respect, is that I believe
we should have had debate about this. I believe that the Senate
Agriculture Authorization Committee should have had hearings. I don't
think it is appropriate that the $7 billion in AMTA payments--
essentially doubling the AMTA payments--was put into this conference
report. I don't think it was appropriate. I heard my colleague--two
Senators spoke. Senator Conrad said there are legitimate concerns, but
I think this is the quickest way to get assistance out to people.
Senator Roberts said the same thing, roughly speaking.
The point is that we did have some time when we could have had some
hearings and when we could have had some debate on this. I do not
believe we should have just automatically taken the $7 billion and said
it is going to be AMTA payments, that's it. We put it into a conference
report, which doesn't enable any of us to come out here and have much
debate about it, and it certainly doesn't enable us to testify, doesn't
enable us to have amendments and to act the way I think we should act
in the Senate on such important matters.
Mr. President, we had this farm rally here maybe 2 months ago.
Several thousand farmers came. It was pouring rain and it was cold.
They came a long way. Many came by bus because, for them, they are
trying to survive. I have no illusions. We are not going to write a new
farm bill. The Freedom to Farm bill is really the ``freedom to fail''
bill. I have said that many times over. But it does seem to me that if
we are not going to write a new farm bill--at least not until after the
election--we ought to do the very best we can in getting the payments
to people in such a way that people who need the assistance the most
are the ones who get the lion's share of the benefits. Right now, with
these AMTA payments, we have a subsidy in inverse relationship to need.
What we have here--with no opportunity for real debate, with no
opportunity for amendments--is $7 billion put into a conference report
on crop insurance in the form of more AMTA payments providing subsidy
to farmers
[[Page S4425]]
in inverse relationship to need, with the vast majority of the benefits
going to the very largest agricultural operations. This is a disastrous
distribution formula. I think it violates the very principle of equity
and fairness.
Problem:
First of all, the AMTA payments are based upon the old farm programs'
historic yields.
We don't have an opportunity to have an amendment on this? We don't
have an opportunity to say that this is unfair to farmers, such as
soybean farmers who never had a program base in the program and don't
receive any AMTA payments? There is no benefit for them? We don't have
an opportunity to discuss this, to have an amendment to try to improve
this?
Second, since this was connected to the ``freedom to fail'' bill--
what I call the ``freedom to fail'' bill--the payments aren't connected
to production. Many of these payments go to these large landowners who
aren't necessarily even producers. I want the assistance to go to the
producers. I want it to have some relationship to price and to farm
income.
Let me simply quote some of the findings from the Environmental
Working Group.
The largest farm operations in the country are generously compensated
with these payments. They are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars
over a 3-year period of AMTA payments going to large farm operations,
and the midsized farm operations and the smaller farm operations are
not getting the benefits they need to survive.
Environmental Working Group:
From 1996 to 1998, 61 percent of all Freedom to Farm money AMTA
payments--approximately $13.8 billion--went to 144,000 individuals,
corporations, and farm partnerships among the top 10 percent. The top
10 percent, the large farm operations, and the least in need of
assistance, get over 60 percent of the AMTA payments. It doesn't make
any sense. Recipients in the top 10 percent, those large farm
operations, are doing well. They get an average of $95,000 over this
period of time. Half the farmers in the country get less than $3,600,
and many of the farmers in my State get less than that.
While you have these large farm operations, that do not even need the
assistance, getting well over the majority of all the money--the top 10
percent--the struggling, midsized family farmers in the State of
Minnesota are lucky if they get $3,000 a year. These are the farms that
are going to go under. The USDA says we are going to see a 17-percent
drop in farm income this year.
Why in the world, when you have these transition payments--AMTA
payments--going to the largest landowners who aren't even necessarily
producers, based upon a program base going back years, providing the
majority of the benefits to the large operators, not helping those
farmers who are most in need and who may not survive--why do we have $7
billion put into this conference report which doesn't have anything to
do with crop insurance reform, which means we don't really get to
debate it?
That is why we are doing it. I don't think that is Senator Lugar's
style. He is probably one of the fairest Senators, I believe, in the
Senate. But I have to keep saying this. It pains me to say this on the
floor because I think so much of him as an individual. But this
shouldn't be in this conference report. We should have had hearings. We
should have had an opportunity to come out here with amendments.
I would love to have had an amendment saying it is going to go to
producers, and not just landowners. I would love to have had an
amendment that said we need to target more to the midsized producers. I
would love to have had an amendment that said it shouldn't be based
upon the old program base--no opportunity. I would like to have had an
amendment that called for equity payments that said raise the loan
rate--we could have done it for fiscal year 2001--to the same level it
is for soybeans, in which case corn would be $2.11 and wheat would be
$3.10. That would make a huge difference. We could have done that.
We could have had, and we should have had, an opportunity to have not
only a 1-hour speech or 2-hour speech in reaction to a conference
report, but we should have had hearings. We should have had
deliberation. We should have been able to do some serious policy
evaluation. And we should have had the opportunity to come out here on
the floor and/or in committee with amendments that would have made sure
that until we write a new farm bill and get rid of this miserable
failure--this ``freedom to fail'' bill--we would have been allocating
the $7 billion of assistance with most of it going to those farmers
most in need--not to the top 10 percent, the largest farm operations,
those that are doing the very best right now in farm income, getting
over 60 percent of the benefits.
The crop insurance reform package that Senators Roberts and Kerry
worked on is superb. I am all for it. I am going to vote for this
because of that. But I think it is just reprehensible that we continue
now along this line of taking really important policy questions and
burying them in conference reports. I don't know what the $7 billion of
assistance is doing in this report.
I just want to conclude--because I promised my colleagues I would be
brief, and then I will reserve the remainder of my time--by making one
other point, which is, I hope we have the opportunity on the floor of
the Senate to have debate about farm policy. I hope we can have a
debate and a vote on the Fair Competition Act.
It is breathtaking, the extent to which these large conglomerates
have muscled their way to the dinner table, exercising their raw
economic and political power over producers, over consumers, and, I
would argue, over taxpayers. What we need is some competition in the
food industry. What we need is to put some free enterprise back into
the free enterprise system. What we need is some antitrust action.
I am going to try to do everything I can as a Senator--and I know
other Senators will be supportive--to get this Fair Competition Act
passed, which gives USDA, if they are willing to use it, some real
authority, which really gets tough in terms of dealing with some of
this horizontal integration that is taking place, which goes after
anticompetitive practices, which really creates a level playing field
for our producers, and which doesn't exist right now.
It is just absolutely unbelievable to me that while the family
farmers in my State struggle to survive, a lot of these huge packers
are making record profits. While family farmers in my State are
struggling to survive, a lot of these big exporters and huge grain
companies are doing just fine. While the family farmers in my State
struggle to survive, the farm/retail spread grows wider and wider--the
difference between what farmers get by way of price and what consumers
pay at the grocery store, the supermarket.
I have two objections to what is going on on the floor of the Senate
right now.
Objection No. 1: This is a great crop insurance conference report,
but this $7 billion of payments should not have been put into this
report. We should be allocating this assistance and getting it to the
farmers most in need. We should have had the opportunity for debate and
the opportunity for amendment.
I think it is a terrible way for us to continue to conduct our
business. I hope we don't continue this pattern of more and more
important public policy questions that crucially define the quality, or
lack of quality, of the lives of the people we represent--in this
particular case, family farmers, being put into an unrelated conference
report. That is wrong.
The second point I make is: It is time for us to really get serious
about the policy change in this area, and in particular I focus on
dealing directly with the price crisis, and also the call for strong
antitrust action.
I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I concur with what the Senator from
Minnesota said. I defy anyone to explain in any rational context
whatsoever, any kind of rational terms, why we make payments to farmers
based on what they did 20 years ago. There is absolutely no rational
basis for that. I will talk about that in my comments a little bit
later.
[[Page S4426]]
I understand there is a unanimous consent request we are operating
under, is that right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is time allocated for three Senators:
Senator Lugar, Senator Harkin, and Senator Wellstone.
Mr. HARKIN. We are not under any kind of a speaking order unanimous
consent, is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The last order was for the Senator from Iowa
to be recognized.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will yield the floor and let my
colleagues make their statements. I vitiate that unanimous consent and
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield time.
Mr. HARKIN. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 48 minutes and the
Senator from Minnesota has 41 minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from
Nebraska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 10 minutes
following the presentation of the Senator from Nebraska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On whose time?
Mr. HARKIN. I yield the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise in support of this crop insurance
conference report.
As my colleagues from the Agriculture Committee are well aware, this
legislation has been a work in progress for a good long time.
The final package we reached with the House and that we bring to the
floor today is a very good bill. Farmers in my home state of Nebraska
are going to be very pleased with it, as are farmers of all types of
crops all across the Nation.
The major provisions of this bill reflect just what we heard when
Senator Roberts and I asked farm and lending groups what they wanted in
this legislation, nearly one and a half years ago.
At that time, they asked for more affordable coverage, equity for
revenue insurance, more new and innovative policies from the private
sector and a better program for specialty crops.
This bill includes all of those provisions.
Although we've provided additional subsidies to buy crop insurance
for the past two years, this bill makes them permanent law.
And we go one step further by increasing subsidies even higher at the
very highest levels of coverage--a provision that would have been
especially helpful to farmers this year, as a broad stretch of the
Midwest and South face severe drought.
The final bill moves the Risk Management Agency in what I strongly
feel is the right direction, toward being a regulator instead of
competitor. We place new product development fully in the hands of the
private sector, whether it be insurance companies, trade associations,
or universities.
It includes authority that will finally help provide independent
advice to the FCIC Board of Directors and create an equal review
process for all new policy submissions.
The bill includes and builds upon ideas forwarded by our colleagues
from Florida, Senators Graham and Mack, regarding new policy
development for specialty crops.
It includes an important provision first advocated by our Ag
Committee colleagues, Senators Baucus and Craig, to remove the area
yield trigger requirement from the Non-Insured Assistance Program.
There are dozens of other equally important provisions in this bill
that benefit each and every region of the country. While I am aware
that the row-crop producing parts of the country will gain the most
immediate benefits because of their long-standing participation in the
crop insurance program, the potential for the program to work just as
well along the coasts and in the south is given great weight under this
legislation.
Not every provision benefits every region; a few are specific only to
one region or commodity. That is how we finally ended up with a bill
with national appeal, and I am very proud of that effort.
Let me say just a few words about the additional 2000 and 2001
spending added to the crop insurance bill.
I am pleased that the Budget Committee included additional ag
spending in the budget resolution this year, much as they did crop
insurance funding last year, and of course Senators Conrad and Grassley
are responsible for that and I thank them.
My concerns--and the concerns of many Nebraskans--are well-known:
distributing additional payments through the Freedom to Farm mechanism
is unfair to many and the cause of a number of the problems rural
communities are facing.
These payments, based on planting decisions made in the 1970s and
1980s, disadvantage younger farmers and those who have traditionally
rotated crops or tried to diversify--exactly contrary to what Freedom
to Farm was supposed to accomplish.
Some payments go to producers and landowners who are no longer
producing the crop upon which their additional payment is based. Even
worse, under this approach payments go to people who no longer farm at
all.
The complaint I hear most frequently is about the crops included in
these payments versus those that are not. Freedom to Farm is destroying
the alfalfa processing industry in Nebraska. As prices for other
commodities have collapsed, more and more farmers are growing alfalfa--
a non-program crop. Yet they continue to benefit from these payments,
even while long-time alfalfa producers receive nothing.
Adding additional payments for oilseeds--even while most oilseed
producers already receive Freedom to Farm payments and enjoy an
artificially high support price--makes even less sense.
Despite the great expectations surrounding this farm program, I
contend that it creates greater market distortions than those supposed
``failed'' farm programs of the past.
And meantime, we spend billions of dollars each year to keep it in
place, while our rural communities are dying.
Also attached to this bill is additional spending for 2001.
This package represents a good-faith effort by Chairman Lugar and
Chairman Combest to put together a package acceptable to the majority,
and I do not envy their work.
Although there are provisions in the package I do not support, there
are many that I do.
I commend them for structuring a package with national appeal and for
giving consideration to a broad group of commodities and interests.
Finally, let me offer my sincere thanks to a number of people for
their work on this bill. Chairman Lugar and his staff have worked very
hard on this legislation and made a tremendous effort to advance the
often-diverse opinions of members of the Ag Committee.
Thanks also to our ranking member, Senator Harkin, and to his staff,
as well as to our minority leader, Senator Daschle, and his staff. They
made this legislation possible.
The coalition that joined Senator Roberts and me on this legislation
way back in March of 1999 and worked together throughout deserves
special recognition: Senators Harkin, Conrad, Daschle, Baucus, Johnson,
Santorum, Roberts, Grassley, and Craig. Special mention must go to
staff for each of these members, for working together tirelessly and in
a completely bipartisan fashion.
Let me also thank the Senate Legislative Counsel, especially Gary
Endicott, for his work throughout this process, including too many
nights and weekends.
And finally, my deepest thanks to Senator Roberts and to Mike Seyfert
of his staff for their perseverance and good humor for the last
eighteen months. Their commitment to making this legislation
bipartisan--right up to the closing hours--is a tribute to Kansas and
the Senate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to make a few comments about
the conference report that is before us today. As I do, I want to
compliment some folks for a lot of hard work: My colleague, Senator
Conrad, especially, who has played such an integral role in
[[Page S4427]]
this; Senator Harkin, Senator Lugar, Senator Grassley, Senator Roberts,
to just mention a few--for a whole series of folks in different areas
have played significant roles in trying to bring this to the floor of
the Senate.
Frankly, while there are some things I would have done differently in
constructing this legislation--particularly the emergency aid--I am
going to vote for it. I think this is a good day for family farmers in
my State and the country.
We have a fellow in North Dakota named Arlo Schmidt. Arlo is an
auctioneer. He told me one day about an auction sale he had conducted
awhile back. What happened during that sale describes so well the
passion and the hurt that exists in farm country when grain prices
collapse and family farmers lose their hopes and their dreams. This
auction sale had occurred on a family farm, owned by a family who was
not able to make it. They had gone broke because prices collapsed. It
was not their fault. A whole series of things conspired to say to this
family they could not farm anymore. They were losing their hopes, their
dreams, and their future that day.
At the end of the auction sale, a young boy who lived on that farm--
he was 10 or 11 years old or so--came up to the auctioneer. The young
boy was very angry with him, so angry, that he said to the auctioneer:
You sold my dad's tractor.
Arlo said he put his hand on the boy's shoulder to try to console him
a little bit, but the boy looked up at him through some tears and
angrily said: I wanted to drive that tractor when I got big.
The young boy wasn't accepting any of that comfort from the
auctioneer. He wanted to drive that tractor when he got big.
That boy felt like a lot of families feel, living on a family farm.
The farm was much more than a business. It was a way of life.
Family farmers cannot make a living when grain prices collapse. The
underpinning basis of Freedom to Farm was, let's not care about price
supports or safety nets; let's operate in the open market, the free
market. Well, there wasn't an open market when Congress passed it; and
there's not one now.
It seems to me, after about 3 years of applying tourniquets, somebody
ought to ask the question: Isn't there some serious bleeding going on
here? We have brought to the floor--including this bill--emergency help
three times in 3 years. All of this emergency help is to try to take
the place of the safety net that does not exist in Freedom to Farm.
It seems to me it would be wise for us now--after we pass this bill--
to learn from our mistakes. If we have to do this every single year,
let's do it in a thoughtful way and the right way. Let's repeal Freedom
to Farm and replace it with a safety net that works for family farmers,
a safety net that says to that family who has those hopes and dreams:
if you work hard and you do a good job we will give you an opportunity
to make it, even during tough times.
This legislation has a lot of things in it. No. 1, it improves the
Crop Insurance Program. I salute that effort by my colleagues. Many of
us have had input, although I did not play the major role on this. The
fact is, this improvement is a collaboration of Republicans and
Democrats that is significant. This legislation increases premium
subsidies to help family farmers buy up better levels of coverage; a
better depth of coverage at less cost for family farmers.
In North Dakota, it solves some peculiar problems. We have had
problems year after year in which farmers have lost a substantial
amount of their crop to wet cycles and, therefore, their production is
decreased. Because of this, every single year their insurance coverage
under crop insurance is decreased. They have been caught in a Catch-22
from which they could not escape, and it did not make any sense. This
bill addresses those issues. This is an important and significant piece
of reform to the crop insurance bill.
Let me also say this proposal before us today includes emergency
economic assistance for family farmers. This assistance is what I
talked about earlier. My colleague, Senator Wellstone, was absolutely
correct on this subject. We ought not use doubling the AMTA payment,
year after year after year, as a method of providing economic
assistance to family farmers. It is not the most efficient and not the
most effective way to deliver this assistance.
I am going to vote for this bill. If I had written this legislation,
I would have written it differently. This replicates what we have done
the last 2 years. This is the third year in a row we have increased
AMTA payments. This will send money to people who have not seen a farm
for a couple of years; have not gassed up a tractor in the spring to
plow a straight furrow for awhile. They are not farming now. They are
going to get money under this bill, and it does not make any sense to
me.
What we ought to be doing is extending emergency help to family
farmers living out there on the farm, and who are struggling to make a
living. This help should be going to family farmers who are confronted
with collapsed prices; all who have found that when you raise a bushel
of grain for $4 a bushel and then have to sell it for $2.50, you are
going to be in trouble. You cannot continue to make it that way. There
ought to be a safety net for those folks, the folks who are really
farming. Regrettably, the mechanism to distribute that emergency
economic aid has been the double AMTA payment. I think we could have
done much, much better than that.
My hope is that following the passage of this conference report--and
I will vote for it even though I disagree with the mechanism of the
economic assistance package, and I do compliment those who helped bring
this to the floor--my hope is that when this is done, we will all
understand that if we have to do this year after year after year, it is
time to learn from it. We really ought to be able to learn when
something doesn't work. Let's just admit our farm policy doesn't work
and change it.
I started by talking about family farming. Some will say--they are
careful about the circles they say it--but they say the family farm is
just yesterday. This is all nostalgia about an economic unit that does
not work anymore. This view is just wrongheaded. We have the kind of
economy we intend to have. We can have the kind of economy we create in
this country. We can decide we want big corporate agrifactories from
California to Maine producing America's food, or we can decide to have
a network of families working on farms producing America's food.
Europe has made that decision. Go to Europe and visit the rural
communities in the countryside. You will discover small towns are doing
well. There is life, there is a heart, and there is pulse in small
towns. Why? Because Europe has decided they want a network of family
farmers producing their food.
The result of this decision is a rural economy that is thriving and
working. Europe has a safety net for family farmers they can rely on
which gives them hope for the future. Regrettably, we have not had that
same continuity in this country.
On the other hand, we in this country have lurched back and forth
from farm policy to farm policy. Finally, we fell off the cliff with
Freedom to Farm, saying we have this new idea--not a very good idea,
incidentally--but a new idea called Freedom to Farm. Now, after 3 years
of tourniquets, having had to pass three successive economic assistance
packages to make up for the deficiency, we all ought to understand that
we have to change the underlying farm bill.
This legislation includes a substantial amount of resources at a time
when those resources will be critically important to our family
farmers. I have said, and I will say it again--I think repetition is
probably important, at least to make this point--while I think there is
a better way to move these resources to rural America, it is critical
at this point, given the collapsed grain prices, to send these
resources out now. This help will give farmers some hope.
Our family farmers are not some anachronism that does not fit in
today's economy. As I said, there are some who think it is like the
little diner that got left behind when the interstate came in--it is
nostalgia to think about, but not really a significant part of our
future economy.
People who think that way, in my judgment, are fundamentally wrong.
[[Page S4428]]
Go to rural America and learn from where the seedbed of family values
comes. Understand the value of rural values in this country and the
rolling of those values from family farms to small towns to big cities,
and what it has done to nourish and refresh the values of our country.
Then tell me somehow families living on America's farms don't count and
don't matter.
The fact is, they face economic challenges almost no one else faces.
A small family unit trying to run a farm puts a seed in the ground and
has no idea whether that seed will grow. It might get too much rain; it
might not. Maybe this seed won't get enough rain. It might hail; it
might not. Maybe insects will come. Maybe not. Maybe crop disease will
destroy it. Maybe not.
If they survive all those uncertainties, maybe they will get it off
in time to go to an elevator and discover they have lost $1.50 a bushel
for every bushel they raised. They get hit with this loss after all
their months of work, starting with the tractor in the spring to plow
the furrows to plant the seeds all the way to the combining in the fall
to get it in off the field and into the grain elevator.
The lack of connection here is striking. So many hundreds of millions
of people are hungry and our grain markets tell us the food produced by
family farmers has no value. It is a striking paradox.
In conclusion, I thank my friends, Senator Harkin and Senator Lugar,
for whom I have great regard, for what they have done in this
legislation. I urge my colleagues to come back, after we pass this
legislation--and I shall gladly vote for it--to reform the fundamental
farm program itself. If we do that, we will not then have to be
continually passing emergency economic assistance packages, as we are
doing today with the crop insurance reform bill.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I commend the conferees for their efforts to finalize
the crop insurance report. The crop insurance proposal before us today
is the culmination of literally years of hard work by numerous Senators
and Congressmen. As you may remember, I have been a supporter of S.
2251, the Risk Management for the 21st Century Act, and I am extremely
happy to see that the work on that legislation has finally been dove-
tailed into the work of the House of Representatives. You will also
note that the report includes over $7 billion in supplemental
appropriations to help farmers and ranchers cope with the current farm
crisis.
Some will note that this is the third year in a row Congress has
provided a large supplemental appropriation to help America's farmers.
However, those of you that have traveled to our rural communities know
that every dime we can send to these areas is vitally needed.
Agriculture is facing one of the most dire times that I can remember.
Families are losing farms, ranches, and the livelihood that makes up
their own family histories. A way of life is at risk, and in Montana,
that way of life is what makes my state what it has become. Without
these monetary adjustments to make up for failing markets, entire
communities would dry up and blow away. In Montana, our economy is
already reeling, and agriculture is our number one industry.
Without adequate agricultural support, the investments we have made
in economic development to diversify our economy will be threatened.
Agricultural production is the foundation that we must build upon.
Agriculture is what keeps products moving across the shelves,
restaurants open, and food on the table. Without that, it will be
almost impossible to keep towns vibrant enough to attract new
investment and new technologies.
Some critics are pointing out that this is the third year in a row
that we have supplied rural America with supplemental appropriations. I
agree that this pattern is costly, but I must point out that the
promises given to rural America have not been carried out. We were
promised strong foreign market penetration and a workable market that
would get our fair share of the dollar back to producers. This has not
happened. Look at any trade deal that has been negotiated in the last
few years and you will see that our agriculture industry is almost
always left with little protection, and actually very little support
from our trade representatives. The result is an onslaught of foreign
competition within our own markets, and not nearly enough of our
product making it out of the country. Unfortunately, the administration
and current world market trends have not allowed current farm policy to
work in the manner that was anticipated at the time of its
implementation. I continue to support the principles of our current
farm policy but am deeply disappointed that we have not found a way to
address the inaction of the administration in opening foreign markets.
It will be necessary for Congress to look for ways to allow our current
farm policy to continue and provide for the times of depressed markets
such as we are facing currently.
The current farm policy has not created the trade imbalance and
subsequent market collapse, but it has not been flexible enough to
protect our consumers. The combination of failed trade policies, and an
unresponsive farm policy has resulted in the need for direct supports
being sent to our producers. This year may be even more vital than
previous years. We are facing drought across the West. Livestock is
already being moved for lack of water and irrigation has started
earlier than in recent memory. Markets and mother nature have combined
forces and Congress must respond with a strong message to rural America
that we will be there to help, both this year and in the future.
I thank the conferees for heading some of my requests and helping out
those farmers hurt by the bankruptcy of AgriBiotech. The ABT language
is vital to producers who have been negatively impacted by a bankruptcy
that was no fault of their own. Additionally, our wool producers have
been given a shot in the arm to help make sure their industry remains
viable. These are just a few examples, but I can assure you that this
Montanan extends our thanks for these helping hands.
The underlying legislation that is carrying this supplemental package
is equally important, and is part of the necessary message that
Congress is willing to support agriculture in the future. It is a
proposal that offers much-needed changes in the area of risk management
for farmers and ranchers. Managing risk in agriculture has become
perhaps the most important aspect of the business. Agricultural
producers who are able to effectively manage risk are able to sustain
and increase profit and operate more effectively in business cycles. An
effective crop insurance program will provide our producers new
possibilities for economic stability in the future. It will provide
another foothold in our attempts to help agriculture out the current
hole that it is in, and it will provide a vital tool to help prevent
future depressions in the agriculture industry.
The Federal Government must help facilitate a program to unite the
producer and the private insurance company. The control must be put in
the hands of the agricultural producer, and coverage must be high
enough to warrant enrolling in the program. Although no producer can
completely control risk, an effective management plan will reduce the
negative effects of unavoidable risks. Today's family farmer must have
adequate options, or one bad year could mean the difference between
keeping the family farm or having to leave agriculture.
This bill addresses the inadequacies of the current crop insurance
program. The problems and inconsistencies with the current program make
it both unaffordable and confusing to agricultural producers. Costly
premiums with low coverage percentages are the biggest problem. In
years of depressed market prices, crop insurance, though badly needed,
is simply unaffordable for farmers.
This bill inverts the current subsidy formula, in order to provide
the highest levels of subsidies to producers at the highest levels of
buy-up coverage, and thus alleviate the problem of unaffordable
premiums. It also allows for the revenue policies to be fully
subsidized.
Another important provision in this bill is a pilot program to reward
producers for risk management activities. It will allow producers to
elect to receive a risk management payment or a
[[Page S4429]]
crop insurance subsidy. The risk management payments will be given to
those producers that utilize any two of several activities, including
using futures or options, utilizing cash forwards, attending a risk
management class, using agricultural trade options or FFARRM accounts
or reducing farm financial risk. Quite simply, it rewards a producer
for utilizing management tools that will help protect his, and the
government's, exposure in the current agriculture market.
This bill also takes into account the lack of production histories
for beginning farmers or those who have added land or recently utilized
crop rotation. This will make it possible for producers to get a foot
in the door and receive affordable crop insurance.
This bill is an important tool to reform the current crop insurance
program into a risk management program, designed to help the producer
in the long-term. It is vital to find a solution to provide a way for
farmers to stay in agriculture. They must be able to continue to
produce and distribute the world's safest food supply at a profitable
margin.
Mr. President, I am extremely happy that the conferees have finally
completed their work on this important proposal. It is vital to Montana
and the rest of our Nation's rural agriculture communities.
Mr. President, I thank Senator Harkin of Iowa, Senator Kerrey of
Nebraska, Senator Roberts of Kansas, and the Ag Committee--I do not
serve on the Ag Committee--for completing this legislation.
This legislation, by the way, was promised 2 or 3 years ago. They
have labored a long time with the Crop Insurance Program which is
probably the best package that has ever been produced by Congress and
given to the American agricultural community to manage their risks.
This is a tool to manage their risks.
Also, my colleagues will note this report also includes $7 billion in
supplemental appropriations to help farmers and ranchers cope with the
current farm situation.
Think about that a bit. This is landmark legislation because we are
not even to Memorial Day, we are not even into the meat of the growing
season, and we have already made preparation to deal with the situation
that exists in agricultural today.
We have been stripped from some of our markets, and our prices
continue to be very low. On the other hand, the American consumer is
still supplied with the most wholesome food in the world.
This Congress has fulfilled its promise to have this money ready to
go for our Nation's ag producers.
Without these monetary adjustments to make up for failing markets,
entire communities will dry up. They are experiencing more financial
stress than ever before, probably even through the Great Depression.
Without this support, the investments we have made in economic
development to diversity our economy will be threatened. This also
sends a strong message to the financial community and the farm
community that we are serious about the support of that industry and
will not just let it dry up on the vine.
I congratulate the people who worked so hard. This conference was not
an easy conference. It was not an easy package to put together. Next
year, we will be debating what is good for a farm program, and we know
there will be some changes made. Right now, the signal to our producers
on the land is direct and it is very sharp.
We have had some unfortunate things happen in the State of Montana.
We depend heavily on the Pacific rim for exports. Three years ago, the
economics of the Pacific rim collapsed: Indonesia, Malaysia, the
Philippines, South Korea, Thailand. Some of those economies are just
starting to come back.
Just yesterday, we signed an agreement with the Taiwanese--they will
be visiting the State of Montana--on buying wheat from my State. We
have also put in the act that the Department of Agriculture has tools
to use to fight the competition on the international markets. They have
chosen not to do that. There is enough blame to go around for a farm
economy that is hurting. Nonetheless, this is a positive bipartisan
step in the right direction.
The producers of our country should take a look at this package.
There is a lot of flexibility here. Not only do we talk with multiperil
things that can happen in a crop-year, but we are also talking about
revenue, and we have never done that before. We have a complete
package, a package that offers a tool for risk management for our ag
producers on the land.
Again, I compliment the Agriculture Committee on both sides of the
aisle for their work on this legislation. It is very important to the
farm States of this country.
I thank the Senator from Iowa for allowing me a little time. I
congratulate him and thank him for his leadership on this issue and
everybody who had a part in putting this together.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself on my time such time as I
may consume.
I thank the Senator from Montana for his strong support and input
into this bill, as he said over a couple of years, trying to make sure
we get a crop insurance bill that helps farmers manage risks. I
appreciate his input and his kind words. Hopefully, we will adopt this
conference reports this afternoon and farmers in Montana and Iowa, and
all points in between, will at least have some assurance they can help
manage their own risks.
Mr. BURNS. There are a lot of points.
Mr. HARKIN. There are a lot of points in there, that is true.
Mr. President, I express my support for the conference report to the
Agriculture Risk Protection Act of 2000 which we conferenced yesterday.
I thank Senator Lugar, our chairman, for his hard work and
persistence, as I said, over a couple of years in crafting the crop
insurance title in this conference report which will provide
significant benefits to farmers across the country.
This accomplishment is bipartisan, one of which we can be proud. I
thank Senator Lugar again for his persistent and strong leadership. I
thank both Senator Roberts and Senator Kerrey who really were the
impetus for these changes in the Crop Insurance Program. I know the two
of them worked long and hard to put together this bill. In the
beginning stages, they worked with us on both sides of the aisle to
meet the needs of various parts of our country. I especially thank
Senator Roberts and Senator Kerrey.
In this regard, Mr. President, this is probably the last agriculture
bill we will have this year. There may be some bits and pieces that
come along later. I think it is safe to say this may be the last, and
probably will be the last, major ag bill this year.
In that regard, I pay my respects and thank our departing colleague,
Senator Kerrey from Nebraska. He has been an invaluable member of the
Senate Agriculture Committee for all of these years. He has always
given great input and great insight into our deliberations and
discussions on all facets of American agriculture. He has been an
invaluable member of our committee. I know I will miss him greatly on
our side of the aisle.
He has always worked in a bipartisan fashion to help move
legislation. I take this time to thank my friend and colleague from
across the Missouri River and to wish him well in the future and again
thank him for his work in getting this legislation through. It is a
fitting tribute to his work through the years in the Senate. His
fingerprints are on this crop insurance bill we are passing today.
The point of the bill is to help farmers obtain better crop
insurance; that is, to help them buy up their coverage. The final
structure of the premium subsidy schedule provides higher discounts at
both lower and higher levels of buy-up coverage. The improvements at
the highest levels, 80 and 100 and 85 and 100, will benefit Iowa
farmers who typically face low risk of loss.
The bill also provides equivalent subsidies to farmers buying revenue
insurance policies such as CRC, which is the crop revenue coverage, a
product which is very popular with Iowa farmers. This change spurred
development of new insurance policies and products.
In addition, the bill will offer reimbursement to private developers
of new plans of insurance. Again, that will be good for our farmers.
Another major provision maintained was the elimination of the area
loss
[[Page S4430]]
trigger for the program for noninsured crops, such as hay and forage
crops or horticulture fruits and vegetables.
This change is important to Members in the West and Northeast, one
which we fought very hard to maintain in conference.
The bill will also protect farmers by allowing them to maintain their
insurable yields, despite significant crop loss, by limiting how much
of a loss affects future insurance coverage.
This feature could be very helpful to Iowa farmers, especially those
facing potential drought this summer. At some point today we will be
talking a little bit more about that drought. But this will also be
very helpful, again, to other farmers, too, in the Dakotas and other
places where they have had some very severe losses for 1 or 2 years in
a row, which, if not balanced out, could unduly affect their rates and
their coverage in future years. So we protected those farmers in those
areas in those circumstances.
I also want to note some other positive provisions in this bill, in
the economic assistance package.
First, there is $50 million for conservation, $10 million for the
Farmland Protection Act, and $40 million for EQIP.
I am disappointed, however, that an amendment that I had offered in
the Senate, and which was adopted by the Senate, that would have linked
conservation compliance to the provisions of crop insurance, was
rejected by the House conferees.
In every other Government farm programs, there is a provision that
mandates that a farmer has to follow conservation compliance to be
eligible for those programs. We had it for crop insurance until 1996.
It was taken out. I and others desired to put that back in this crop
insurance bill.
As I said, it was adopted on the Senate side, but the House conferees
refused to go along with that. And in the interests of getting the crop
insurance bill through, we acceded to the unanimous consent request to
go ahead and remove that provision. I am hopeful to come back with that
again at some point in the future on some other piece of agricultural
legislation.
But other than that, there is $50 million for conservation. That is
good.
Secondly, there is $15 million in this bill to assist farmer-owned
cooperatives, and other farmer-owned ventures, to help develop the
value-added crops and processing for our farmers.
Third, there is $7 million in this bill to further fund vaccines for
pseudo-rabbies eradication program for hogs. It is very important in
our area of the country.
Fourth, in the nutrition assistance programs, there is $110 million
for school lunch commodity purchases. Again, we have a lot of surplus
crops out there, a lot of surplus commodities. I think it is
beneficial, both for the health of our children, and the school lunch
program, the school breakfast program, and the summer feeding program,
that we purchase these commodities and get them out to our young kids.
Also, we have reformed the Child and Adult Care Food Program to guard
more against fraud which has come up repeatedly.
Also, there is a provision in this bill--that is also a small
provision--but I think it is going to be very important, which is going
to permit us to get more children into health insurance for low-income
families.
Right now, under the provisions in this bill, if you qualify for
reduced-price school lunches, or free school lunches, a provision in
the bill will then say the people in the school have to inform your
families that since you qualify for free or reduced lunches, you will
probably qualify for things such as the CHIP program, to make sure,
through Medicaid, your children are in a health insurance program. That
is another way of reaching low-income families to make sure that their
children are indeed covered by health care. That is another good
provision in this bill.
Lastly, there is a biomass research and development title in this
bill that Senator Lugar has worked on for a long time. He is a real
champion of it. I have been a cosponsor of it, but it is Senator Lugar
who has pushed this bill to help make more fuel and industrial raw
materials from biomass. And this bill is part of this. Again, another
good provision of this bill is the biomass research and development
bill that has been championed by Senator Lugar.
So there is much that is good in this bill. That is why I will
support it. That is why I was reluctant in the conference committee to
take any more time than we did yesterday, in just a few hours, to get
this bill through.
But I am compelled to speak for a little bit about what is in this
bill that I think is detrimental to our family farm structure in
America and to ensuring that we have a diversified and widely spread
system of agriculture.
The $7.1 billion in emergency assistance that is included in this
report, I believe, is misapplied, misdirected, and in many cases will
be misspent.
It is clear that our farmers are going to need aid. There is no doubt
about that. But how this final package looks, I think, does not really
meet those needs. This is the third year in a row that we have had
additional AMTA payments--payments to farmers based on emergency help
in the farm economy. The farm economy is still in shambles. For 3 years
in a row, it has been in shambles. Every year, we come back and do the
same thing year, after year after year, after year. Someone once
defined ``insanity'' as doing the same thing over and over and
expecting a different result. Every year we keep doing the same thing
over and over, and we expect some different result; and we do not get a
different result. The only result we get is fewer and fewer family
farmers, more stress in rural areas, and more and more of our money
going to the larger concerns who are driving out our family farms.
But I want to recite for the Record where this money is going, these
billions of dollars that we are taking from taxpayers and putting out
there.
During the first 3 years of our Freedom to Farm bill--1996 to 1998--
the top 10 percent of payment recipients, or about 150,000 individuals,
got 61 percent of the payments. Ten percent of the recipients got 61
percent of the money. Their annual payments from AMTA, the supplemental
AMTAs, we passed every year, and the loan deficiency payments averaged
$95,000. That is for the top 10 percent.
The other 90 percent averaged only $7,000 in payments.
I have a chart that illustrates this. It shows the average Government
payments by farm size in 1997. The average was $7,378 for all farms.
But those farms that had sales greater than $1 million averaged
$33,699. For those farms that had sales of $250,000 to $500,000, they
averaged $16,524--and on down.
As you can see, the bigger you are, the more you got. And I daresay,
it is usually those bigger farmers that were better able to protect
themselves with insurance and other methods, who may not have needed
that kind of assistance.
It is the farmers down here in the lower end that needed the
assistance and the help. But they were left stranded.
On a State-by-State basis, the lopsided nature is even more striking.
I will talk about Iowa, too, but the top 10 percent of recipients in
Mississippi received 83 percent of the payments. In Alabama, the top 10
percent received 81 percent of the payments. In my own State of Iowa,
lest anyone think that I am singling out other States other than my
own, the top 12 percent, in terms of income, received 50 percent of the
payments in my State of Iowa.
I do not think that is fair. The inequities of the current system
have been exacerbated during the current economic crisis in
agriculture.
The last 2 years have shown that when prices are low, regular AMTA
payments do nothing to keep an ad hoc disaster package under control.
More importantly, they are not an effective mechanism in targeting aid
to those who need it.
We have had the AMTA payments. We come along every year, and we have
a disaster program. They are a very poor method of response to our
current farm crisis.
While it is important to get needed aid out to producers, it is
imperative that we get it out to help mostly family farmers who are
really hurting, not to help the bigger farms bury the smaller ones.
The data indicates just the opposite is happening. The lion's share
of this additional aid will go to the largest
[[Page S4431]]
producers, while small producers receive almost nothing. Under the
current scheme, a recipient at the high end of the spectrum may qualify
for as much as $240,000 in AMTA payments this fiscal year. Under the
current law, a person ``may be eligible'' to receive the payment
maximum of $40,000 for each round of AMTA payments, the original
payment plus the supplemental payment we have in this bill. That adds
up, of course. Then they already received the supplemental payment that
is in the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill. So that is $120,000. If
they structure their operations to fit under the three-entity rule,
each person can receive payments from three entities. That, in effect,
doubles that $120,000 up to $240,000. And that is not the end of it. As
much as $300,000 in loan deficiency payments and marketing loan gains
can go to that farmer. One farmer in this country this year can get up
to $540,000 of taxpayers' money. I don't believe that is right; I don't
believe that is fair.
I was going to offer a provision in the conference committee. I
didn't. The reason I didn't is that I thought it was important to get
the crop insurance bill through. As I said in the conference committee
yesterday, we should have a crop insurance bill before us.
The budget resolution that was passed here, that allowed us to have
additional spending this year for supplemental payments to farmers,
provided for the authorizing committee to authorize it by June 29,
which means we had until the end of June to have a debate in our
committee to talk about the policy implications of what we have been
doing the last couple years and whether or not we want this policy
structure to continue.
Do we want to really continue to put our AMTA payments out like this?
Well, we did not have that debate, so here we are confronted with
this on a crop insurance bill, which should not be. This should be a
separate bill from the Agriculture Committee on the floor where we
could debate this.
Maybe it would be the will of the majority of the Senate to continue
to give large payments to large farmers, to continue the three-entity
rule to allow some farmers to get hundreds of thousands of dollars.
That could have been the outcome. But at least we should have been
debating it. It should be here in a manner in which it would be
debatable and amendable. We don't have that.
I was going to offer an amendment to limit to $100,000 the most
anyone could get through the AMTA system. I heard all kinds of talk
from different people saying this would be terrible. That would have
affected five-tenths of 1 percent of all the recipients; 6,700 farmers
would have been affected by that if we would have capped it at
$100,000.
I have always thought I was here to fight for the vast majority of
the family farmers who are out there, not just the top one-half of 1
percent who, by and large, have the economic wherewithal to protect
themselves. Many of our smaller farmers simply don't. Again, the data
indicates that it is those at the top of the spectrum who are getting
the most money.
I have another chart. This chart illustrates how we are going in the
wrong direction. As we continue down this pathway of AMTA payments,
supplemental AMTA payments, loan deficiency payments built on each
other year after year, without addressing the underlying provisions of
the Freedom to Farm bill, what is happening is we are creating a bigger
gap between the big farmers and the smaller farmers in our country.
This chart illustrates that.
As one can see by Government payments here on the left side, $20,000,
$40,000, $60,000, $80,000, $100,000, and producers who receive those
payments, if they look at this block, they will see that those
producers who received about $50,000 or more in payments in the last 3
years almost doubled the amount of money they were getting from the
Government--almost doubled it.
Look here at our smaller, family-sized farmers, who only got maybe
$2,000 or $3,000 in payments. They just went up a very small amount.
These doubled in size, doubled in payment; these hardly went up at all.
What kind of policy are we pursuing here?
I am not talking about farmers just getting big on their own and
making more money. If these big farmers are more efficient and can do a
better job and get this money in the marketplace, God bless them. We
are talking about taxpayers' money going from here to these farmers.
The big ones almost doubled in the amount of money they are getting
from the Government; the smaller ones barely got any increase at all. I
wish someone would explain to me how this is sound public policy.
I have the figures right here. Recipients who averaged $50,000 or
more in Government payments from 1996 to 1998 received $42,337 more in
1998 than in 1996. In contrast, if you were at the bottom of the
payment spectrum, these little ones down here at the bottom, you
averaged between $5,000 and $10,000 per year, which is the bulk of the
farmers in my State; you received a mere $740 more in 1998 than you did
in 1997.
I will repeat that. In my State--just talking about my State; I don't
want to pick on anybody else's State--in my own State of Iowa, if you
received an average of $50,000 or more in Government agricultural
payments from 1996 to 1998, in 1 year you got more than a $28,000
increase, from 1997 to 1998. You got $42,000 more over the 2 years.
That is if you were at the top of the heap. If you were at the bottom
and you only got $5,000 to $10,000 in Government payments, you got $740
more.
Someone please tell me how this is good public policy, that we give
Government money out like this to the biggest, those who can protect
themselves. Do you know what they are doing with that money? They are
buying more land. They are getting bigger, because our smaller farmers
are going out of production and the bigger farmers are buying their
land.
Again, if this were a free market approach, I would say fine, but it
is Government payments going out to large farmers who are providing for
the extinction of our family farmers--Government policies, right now,
allowing these bigger farmers to get these massive Government payments,
squeezing the smaller producers, and the bigger producers are buying up
the land and getting bigger and bigger and bigger. It isn't because of
any free market approach, it is because of governmental policies.
Again, the disparities are not just size related, they are based on
planting history.
When I opened my remarks earlier today, I said someone please explain
to me how it is good public policy that we pay farmers AMTA payments,
Government payments, this year based on what they did 20 years ago.
That is right. I try to explain this to people, and I get blank stares.
It is a fact. If you have two farmers out there, one who has a 20-year
history of planting and the other who maybe only has a 5-year history
of planting, the one who has the 20-year history of planting may be
planting nothing this year, but guess what, you are going to get money.
Yet if you were a farmer out there planting for the last 3, 4, or 5
years, you don't have that 20-year history, you won't get anything.
Again, please explain to me how this is good policy. It is not tied to
what farmers are producing today. It is tied to what they produced 20
years ago.
Two farmers in Iowa, with half their production in corn and half
their production in soybeans, can be paid markedly different levels
because of past planting history. When you figure the AMTA payment
level, the farmer with a 50-percent corn base and a 50-percent soybean
base will be paid half as much in AMTA payments as the farmer who has a
100-percent corn base. What sense does this make? It makes no sense.
Farmers all over my State recognize that.
Now, as if all I have said isn't bad enough, the prospects for
drought this year will even cause this program to be worse than it is.
If a drought of the proportions that is predicted actually occurs, the
disparity between the haves and the have-nots will grow even more. Why
is that? Because let's say we have a drought--and it looks as if we are
going to have pretty severe droughts in some parts of the country and
other parts of the country will not--that means that the price, say, of
corn is going to go up. But you, who are in a drought area, may only
get a certain portion--you may get an AMTA payment, but you won't get
anything out of the market because you won't have
[[Page S4432]]
a crop. If, however, you are in an area where you haven't had a
drought, you are going to get high prices for your crop and an AMTA
payment. Those who have no crop to sell will have their incomes
plummet; they will get no adjustment in their AMTA payment to address
those losses. They will get absolutely no more than the farmer who has
a huge crop because they were not in the drought area. Again, these
payments will exacerbate again this disparity between the large farmers
and the small farmers in America. Again, I think that is bad public
policy.
Now, maybe if we have a big drought, we will come rushing in here
with some kind of a disaster package. But, again, I wonder who is going
to get the benefits of that. So throughout all of this, the mantra has
been that there is no other viable mechanism, that AMTA payments are
our best means of getting aid to our producers. Well, if this is the
best we can do, I would hate to see what the worst is.
There is a better way. I believe both sides should come together to
figure out a better way of getting payments out to farmers. This idea
of giving more and more to the biggest is not right, not good for our
country; it is not good public policy. I have urged the Senate to have
a frank and open discussion about the failures of the current system
and on ways to improve it. We have not been afforded that opportunity
in a meaningful way.
As I said, this is in no way disparaging of my friend and the
chairman of the Agriculture Committee. I know he was more than willing
to have this discussion and this debate. But the powers that be
insisted that we have this AMTA payment provision on the crop insurance
bill. So here we are with it, without any provision for our authorizing
committee to discuss and debate, and perhaps modify. As I said, I don't
know if the will of the majority would have been there to do that, but
at least we could have had an open and frank discussion about whether
or not we wanted to go in that direction. Hopefully, we will have that
opportunity in the future.
So, again, I hope we will have this type of debate. I think our
farmers and our taxpayers deserve that type of debate. In the meantime,
I have no problems with the underlying bill. It is a good bill. The
crop insurance bill is a good bill. It is going to go a long way toward
helping our farmers manage the risk. As I said, there are other good
provisions attached onto it. I am just sorry we had to attach on the
payment provisions to this bill without having the committee do its
job.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to briefly express my support for
the crop insurance reform package that is being considered today, and
the additional emergency assistance that was appended to the bill.
This crop insurance reform is critically needed in the heartland of
America. As the sponsor of the first crop insurance reform legislation
introduced in the 105th and 106th Congress, I have worked hard on crop
insurance reform and on keeping this issue at the forefront of
congressional priorities, so it is gratifying to finally see this
measure completed by conferees and the Congress.
I worked with a committee of Minnesotans representing producers,
lenders, agriculture economists, and other stakeholders to build a
consensus on solutions to the current discontentment in rural America
with the federal crop insurance program. I am pleased that the final
bill contains the expansion of pilot programs I worked for, expansion
of the dairy options pilot program that I cosponsored, and higher
premium subsidies at the higher levels of coverage that was the
critical portion of my original legislation.
The premium subsidies will be crucial to help farmers manage their
risk, and possibly reduce the need for ad hoc disaster assistance. Many
producers believe that the current crop insurance program is too costly
to take part in, and this reform measure should increase participation
and thus spread risk more widely.
I am also pleased that the crop insurance package includes an
additional $7.1 billion in emergency aid to producers, which includes
AMTA payments and oilseed producer assistance payments. This will
hopefully give rural economies and farm families the financial boost
they need until commodity prices start to rise again. While I have
concerns about AMTA, this is the best way to quickly distribute these
funds to farmers. I agree AMTA should be revisited in the next farm
bill.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this report is a good example of how the
Senate--when we sit down and work together--can craft sound
legislation.
New England and Mid-Atlantic farmers who do not usually participate
in crop insurance will greatly benefit from this effort. There is
funding to help preserve farmland, protect the environment and to give
farmers better tools to manage risk.
In addition, farmers who have suffered through two years of low
prices will get some relief as USDA purchases $200 million worth of
apples, cranberries, potatoes, melons, and the like. There will also be
major purchases of specialty crops for the school lunch program--this
will benefit farmers and school lunch programs.
In the beginning, there were a lot of strong differences of opinion
on how to reform crop insurance and provide assistance to farmers. In
fact, we had a 10-8 split in the Agriculture Committee on how to
structure this reform.
But Republicans and Democrats worked together and got the job done.
Sure, it's more work but that is why we are here.
I was very upset yesterday when I learned--after we ended our
conference negotiations and worked out all the final deals, and after
we terminated the conference and had signed the conference report--that
the unfinished bankruptcy bill was going to be thrown into the crop
insurance conference report.
That is an example of how the Senate should not operate. It would be
hard to imagine a more serious breach of trust.
I was prepared to discuss the world history of crop insurance from
1860 through the year 2000, which could have put me to sleep while I
was talking. In the end, it appears that cooler heads prevailed and
decided they would rather pass crop insurance than listen to me speak.
I appreciate the role of Senators Lugar and Roberts to get us back on
track on crop insurance.
For my part, I will continue to work with Senators Grassley,
Sessions, Daschle, Hatch, Torricelli, and others on both sides of the
aisle to craft a fair balanced and bipartisan bankruptcy bill. If we
could do this for crop insurance, we can do it in bankruptcy--if there
is the will to get it done.
While there are aspects of the crop insurance compromise that I do
not like, there clearly was a significant attempt to design a package
that benefits all areas of the nation and a wide range of commodities--
including specialty crops. This is a very good bill.
I appreciate this national focus because a narrowly focused crop
insurance bill would not have been helpful to New England and the Mid-
Atlantic States. I was pleased to work with many of my colleagues from
that region--both Democrats and Republicans--to formulate a package
that would also benefit our regions.
I appreciate the leadership of Chairman Lugar and his ranking member
Senator Harkin in working out a good compromise. Also, Senators Roberts
and Kerrey deserve a great deal of thanks for all their work on this
issue.
I want to point out one general concern.
Because of the simultaneous work on Agriculture appropriations some
provisions critical to New England and the Mid-Atlantic States, and to
many other states, have been omitted from this package--because the
plan is to include them in appropriations.
It is crucial to me--and Republicans and Democrats in both Houses--
that dairy farmers not be left out of Agriculture appropriations bill
since this report does not provide them with direct financial
assistance. I am counting on some assurances I have received to keep
the dairy funding in the appropriations bill. I will be working closely
with my appropriations colleagues Senator Cochran and his ranking
member, Senator Kohl, on this matter.
Also, I understand that the House appropriations bill includes $100
million for apple farmers who have been hard-hit by low yields or low
quality after two years of unavoidable weather extremes, from floods to
drought. Helping
[[Page S4433]]
these farmers is extremely important to New England, Mid-Atlantic
States, Washington State, California, and other areas.
As I pointed out during the conference, farmland protection programs
work very well to help preserve farmland as farmland. There is so much
need for funding, that our modest program in Vermont could instantly
use the full $10 million since there is such a need and desire for this
program.
Indeed, I had a major role in getting section 388 included in the
1996 farm bill. Similarly, in the 1990 farm bill contained a related
farmland preservation program which I drafted called ``Farms for the
Future.''
I was pleased that the conference would accept this latest farmland
protection proposal found at section 211, the ``Conservation
Assistance,'' provision. This provision will be of great help to the
Vermont Housing and Conservation Board which has done a tremendous job
helping preserve Vermont farms and the farming way of life by buying
development easements on farmland property.
I was proud to fight to include funding for such a great agency--the
Vermont Housing and Conservation Board of Vermont. Providing funding to
them as soon as possible will enable them to free up money which could
be used to preserve additional farmland in Vermont.
I appreciate the willingness of the other Members to include this
provision and am anxious to allow the Board to greatly enhance its
service to farm families in Vermont.
Section 211(b) is also a very important provision for many regions of
the country. It allows the Secretary through the CCC to provide
financial assistance to farmers for a very wide range of activities
such as addressing threats to soil, or water, or related natural
resources.
In the alternative, it permits funds to be used to help farmers
comply with environmental laws or to be used for ``beneficial, cost-
effective changes'' to a variety of different efforts or uses needed to
conserve or improve soil, or water, or related natural resources.
This gives the Secretary a broad range of land preservation and
conservation alternatives for funding under that subsection.
There is language in this report for a temporary suspension of
authority to combine USDA field offices. I am concerned that in small-
population states, such as Vermont, cuts in federal staff have been so
significant that the offices do not function effectively. During this
temporary suspension the Secretary should also suspend staffing cuts.
These staff cuts, particularly in the Farm Services Agency, should be
halted in very small states so we can figure out what minimal numbers
we need to properly run these offices. Indeed, in a small state like
Vermont it only makes sense to allow them to hire the staff they need
such that USDA can, during the suspension, properly determine which
offices should be closed.
I want to briefly mention a special crop provision, section 203,
which provides $200 million to the Secretary to purchase specialty
crops ``that have experienced low prices during the 1998 and 1999 crop
years . . .'' We expect the Secretary to very aggressively use this
authority to purchase apples, cranberries, potatoes, and the other
commodities listed. This provision is very important to New England,
Mid-Atlantic states and to other areas.
I want to thank my colleagues on the crop insurance conference for
all their efforts to craft a strong compromise report. I appreciate all
the hard work of Chairman Lugar and his great sense of fairness. As
usual, his staff did an excellent job. Keith Luse, his chief of staff,
helped carefully balance many competing interests.
His chief counsel, Dave Johnson, was extremely helpful and provided
outstanding guidance throughout this complicated process. Andy Morton,
the chief economist, and Michael Knipe, the lead counsel, provided
sound analysis and helpful assistance.
Senators Kerrey and Roberts played a very major role in this effort
and I appreciate their contributions. Mike Seyfert of Senator Roberts'
staff demonstrated great expertise on these complicated issues. Hunt
Shipman, with Senator Cochran, and Scott Carlson, with Senator Conrad,
were very instrumental during this effort.
Bev Paul, with Senator Kerrey, was creative and energetic throughout
the staff negotiations and of great help in crafting the final
compromises. While not a conferee, the Democratic leader, Senator
Daschle, and his staff, Zabrae Valentine, were very helpful regarding
this effort.
As always, the ranking member of the committee, Senator Harkin, was a
strong spokesman for farmers and ranchers. His staff, Mark Halverson
and Stephanie Mercier, provided help to all of us.
The House staff also did a great job and I salute them. The chairman,
Mr. Combest, as have past chairmen, was very ably represented by his
Chief of Staff, Bill O'Conner. Jeff Harrison, the majority legal
counsel, did a terrific job drafting and explaining very complex legal
language.
It is always a pleasure to work with Congressman Stenholm, the
ranking member on the House Agriculture Committee. His staff, including
Vernie Hubert, Chip Conley, and John Riley, displayed a thorough
understanding of the issues and are a great resource for the Members.
My own staffer on these matters, Ed Barron, as usual did a tremendous
job, put in endless hours and helped me work out a good package. Also,
Melody Burkins, who joined my staff recently, did a terrific job.
I have praised the work of Gary Endicott, of Senate Legislative
Counsel, many times and do so again today. David Grahn with the Office
of General Counsel of USDA has once again greatly assisted the Congress
in providing expert technical drafting advice.
Ken Ackerman, head of the Risk Management Agency, also provided
expert technical advice to the Congress on this bill.
Let me bring your attention to another aspect of this report, the
Plant Protection Act that has been incorporated into this legislation.
This modernization of existing laws provides tools and resources for
animal and plant health inspection services for the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service of USDA so that they can better do their job.
This legislation will not only help protect agricultural plants in
the United States from pests and disease but will also assist APHIS in
dealing with invasive species. The Plant Protection Board has indicated
that passage of this Act is their number one recommendation for
safeguarding American plants. I want to thank Under Secretary Mike Dunn
for his leadership on this important matter.
Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. President, Members of the Senate. I come before you
today to speak in support of the conference report of the Agriculture
Risk Protection Act of 2000 which we are voting on today.
First, I believe that this conference report is the beginning of a
new era of cooperation between traditional row crop states and
speciality crop states. During our development of this legislation, I
have worked closely with my colleagues Senators Mack, Lugar, Kerrey,
and Roberts to address the unique needs of speciality crop producers.
This new cooperation speaks well of our ability in the next Congress to
cooperatively review the impacts of the 1996 farm bill on American
agriculture. I believe that, based on this cooperative effort, we will
be successful in ensuring that all American agriculture, not just row
crop producers or speciality crop producers, but all of agriculture
reaps the benefits from those reforms.
Let me say a few words about agriculture in the state of Florida. The
image that many of us hold of the state is one of white sand beaches,
coral reefs alive with hundreds of tropical fish, or Disney World.
While accurate, this image is not complete.
Florida has 40,000 commercial farmers. In 1997, Florida farmers
utilized a little more than 10 million of the state's nearly 35 million
acres to produce more than 25 billion pounds of food and more than 2
million tons of livestock feed. Florida ranks number nine nationally in
the value of its farm products and number two in the value of its
vegetable crops.
Florida agriculture is not only valuable, but diverse. We rank number
two nationally in horticulture production with annual sales of over $1
billion. Florida grows 77 percent of U.S. grapefruits and 47 percent of
world supply of
[[Page S4434]]
grapefruit. The state produces 75 percent of the nation's oranges and
20 percent worldwide.
In 1997, Florida's farmers led the nation in the production of 18
major agriculture commodities including: oranges and grapefruits,
sugarcane, fresh tomatoes, bell peppers, sweet corn, ferns, fresh
cucumbers, fresh snap beans, tangerines, tropical fish, temple oranges,
fresh squash, radishes, gladioli, tangelos, eggplant, and houseplants.
Florida livestock and product sales were $1.1 billion in 1997. We are
the largest milk-producing state in the southeast. We rank 14th
nationally in the production of eggs. Florida's horse industry has
produced 39 national thoroughbred champions and 47 equine millionaires.
Florida also has active peanut, cotton, potato, rice, sweet corn, and
soybean industries.
As these facts demonstrate, agriculture in Florida means many things
to many people. However, all Floridians recognize that agriculture is a
critical part of our economy. Each year, Florida agriculture ranges
from the second to the third largest industry in the state on an income
basis. It is this diverse industry that the Agriculture Risk Protection
Act of 2000 will assist.
On July 20, 1999, I joined my colleagues Senators Mack, Feinstein,
and Boxer in introducing S. 1401, the Specialty Crop Insurance Act of
1999. This legislation sought to reduce the dependence of the specialty
crop industry an emergency spending and catastrophic loss insurance
coverage by improving its access to quality crop insurance policies.
Currently, crop insurance policies available for specialty crops do
not cover the unique characteristics associated with the planting,
growing, and harvesting of specialty crops. According to a GAO report
on USDA's progress in expanding crop insurance coverage for specialty
crops, even after an expansion in policies available to specialty corps
planned through 2001, the existing crop insurance program will fail to
cover approximately 300 specialty crops that make up 15 percent of the
market share. In some cases, although crop insurance may exist for a
specialty crop, it may not be available in all areas where the crop is
grown. For example, the GAO report indicates that crop insurance for
grapes is available in selected counties in Arkansas, California,
Michigan, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and
Washington but not in other growing areas located in Arizona, Georgia,
North Carolina, and South Carolina.
In an effort to increase producer participation in buy-up coverage,
the Risk Management Agency last year undertook a pilot program to
increase the premium subsidies at a total cost of $400 million. In
1999, the Congress enacted this same program which was deemed a success
on an emergency basis.
This program was not a success for specialty crops. Of the 125,772
producers who bought additional buy-up coverage after this subsidy was
offered, 81 percent were producers of program crops. The highest
increase in a single commodity was 31,191 additional policies sold to
corn producers while the lowest increase was an additional 3 policies
sold to pepper producers. Even when corrective action is taken to work
on increasing buy-up coverage for all crops, the program that is
designed does not have a dramatic effect on specialty crop
participation. We need a different approach for this unique sector of
U.S. agriculture.
The original legislation that I introduced sought to promote the
development and use of affordable crop insurance policies designed to
meet the specific needs of producers of specialty crops. The
Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 will increase specialty crop
producer participation in the Federal Crop Insurance Program, encourage
higher levels of coverage than provided by catastrophic insurance, and
enable better planning and marketing decisions to be made.
I am pleased to say, Mr. President, that the crop insurance
conference report we are considering today enacts the major provisions
of my original bill. With the key support of Senators Kerrey and
Roberts, who have focused their attention on the needs of speciality
crop producers, we have forged a bi-partisan piece of legislation that
addresses the needs of multiple regions of the country.
In addressing speciality crops, the Agriculture Risk Protection Act
of 2000 takes the following actions:
First, to ensure that the Risk Management Agency utilizes private
sector expertise in developing new crop insurance policies, it requires
that portions of research and development funds in this bill and
research and development funds for new crop insurance policies
appropriated to RMA each year be focused on specialty crop product
development. The legislation specifically authorizes $20-25 million per
year for RMA to enter into public and private partnerships to develop
specialty crop insurance policies.
Second, it also establishes a process to review new product
development and ensure that crop insurance products are available to
all agricultural commodities, including specialty crops.
Third, the Agriculture Protection Act of 2000 expands the
authorization for the Risk Management Agency to conduct pilot programs
to increase its flexibility in developing better products for specialty
crop producers. Today, we are voting on legislation that will allow
pilots to be conducted on a state, regional, and national basis for a
period of four years or longer if desired by RMA. This legislation also
specifies authority for the Risk Management Agency to conduct a pilot
program for timber, a provision I originally introduced on April 22 of
1999 in S. 868, the Forestry Initiative to Restore the Environment.
Fourth, to encourage specialty crop producers to buy up to 50/100
coverage once these new policies are developed, the report before us
today increases the rate for 50/100 coverage, the initial buy-up level
after catastrophic coverage to 67 percent. This will create an
incentive for growers to purchase buy-up coverage and bring us closer
to meeting our goal of reducing dependence on the CAT program.
Fifth, to ensure that aid for farmers who have no crop insurance
policies available to them actually receive aid in times of natural
disasters, this report modifies the Non-insured Assistance Program
(NAP) to eliminate the area trigger, making any grower whose crop is
uninsurable and experiences a federally-declared disaster, eligible for
these funds.
I will not enumerate each of the provisions of this legislation, as
almost each page contains a specific remedy for problems faced by
specialty crop producers. I commend my colleagues for their efforts to
ensure that crop insurance reform passed by the 106th Congress will
take into account the needs of all agriculture producers. In
particular, I thank Senators Mack, Kerrey, and Roberts for joining me
in my efforts to ensure that the needs of production agriculture in
Florida are met.
I believe that the provisions in the Agriculture Risk Protection Act
of 2000 will ensure that specialty crop producers have access to high
quality insurance products designed to meet their needs.
Turning away from crop insurance for a moment, I would like to
mention a few key times in this package that are just as critical for
specialty crop producers.
First, this legislation includes $25 million for compensation to
growers who have experienced losses due to plum pox virus, Pierce's
disease, and citrus canker. To date, citrus canker has spread to over
1600 acres of commercial citrus groves in Florida and is threatening
the existence of the industry. The entire lime industry is on the verge
of being eliminated. Already, over half of the 3000 acres in lime
production have been destroyed or marked for destruction. Once an
infected tree is discovered, federal regulation, designed to eradicate
this disease, requires the destruction of all trees, healthy or
diseased, within a 1,900-foot radius. Literally thousands of citrus
trees, which require three to four years to reach maturity, have been
burned to the ground during this year's growing season. These funds are
a critical first step in the ability of our grower to recover from the
devastation that this disease has caused in Florida.
Second, this legislation includes a streamlined version of the Plant
Protection Act. In 1988, I commissioned a study by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture and the Animal and Plant
[[Page S4435]]
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to evaluate the viability of our
nation's system of safeguarding America's plant resources from invasive
plant pests. In today's global marketplace where international travel
is commonplace, the importance of APHIS' role in ensuring that invasive
pests and plants do not enter our borders in paramount. The passage of
the Plant Protection Act was the number one recommendation of this
report which included almost 300 individual recommended actions. Today,
we are taking our first step toward a serious commitment to protecting
American agriculture from the ravages of diseases like citrus canker or
the Mediterranean fruit fly.
Third, conference report includes over $70 million for key
infrastructure improvements to the fruit and vegetable inspection
system that was recently embroiled in controversy when eighty USDA
inspectors were arrested for taking bribes to reduce the value of
produce and allow receivers to negotiate lower prices with shippers.
These funds will restore the integrity of this system.
Again, I commend my colleagues for their fine work and perseverance
in bringing this conference report to completion and before the Senate
for a final vote. Today's action will enact long-term change in our
crop insurance program that will provide specialty crop producers with
access to affordable crop insurance policies which are designed to meet
their specific needs.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to address the Senate today
in support of a conference report (H.R. 2559) that improves and expands
the crop insurance and risk management tools available to farmers in
the United States. I am equally pleased to support economic and
disaster assistance attached to H.R. 2259 not because I believe the
assistance will always be targeted to those that need it most, but
rather because Congress cannot afford to ignore the opportunity to act
now in order to provide timely relief to our nation's family farmers
and ranchers.
Collapsed crop and livestock prices, weak export demand, and
agribusiness concentration continue to threaten the viability of our
independent family farmers and ranchers. Crop insurance provides many
agricultural producers with a risk management tool, and with the
reforms made in the legislation before us today, crop insurance will
prove even more effective.
Nonetheless, I must caution that no matter how well crop insurance is
improved, it is not a substitute for a sound farm policy or a safety
net. Instead, crop insurance is an important part of that farm safety
net. Moreover, the economic and disaster farm aid attached to this
legislation will help in the near-term, but for the third year in a row
this Congress has failed to address the underlying shortcomings of the
current farm bill.
Crop insurance is critical to the farmers of South Dakota. Nearly
twenty South Dakota grown crops are currently eligible for crop
insurance, and among our major commodities, participation in the crop
insurance program is high. Ninety-five percent of our corn acreage is
enrolled in crop insurance while ninety two percent of our soybean
acres are in this program. Wheat producers in South Dakota place
seventy-six percent of their acreage in crop insurance. After the
reforms made to the program in 1994--when I chaired the House
Agriculture Subcommittee dealing with this issue--over 10 million acres
of farmland in my state were enrolled in crop insurance.
I was pleased to co-sponsor a bipartisan reform bill that is a
modification of S. 1580, the Kerrey-Roberts Crop Insurance for the 21st
Century Act. The conference report before the Senate today closely
mirrors the Kerrey/Roberts legislation and addresses some of the most
serious concerns of the current crop insurance program; affordability,
dependability, and flexibility.
Nearly every agricultural producer wants the opportunity to purchase
higher levels of crop insurance coverage, but most have found that buy-
up coverage becomes cost prohibitive. This bill makes coverage more
affordability by providing higher subsidies for higher levels of
coverage. South Dakota farmers support this provision of our bill
because affordability seems to be the most pressing issue facing crop
insurance today.
In recent years, the issue of coverage dependability has come into
serious question. Farmers in South Dakota and elsewhere have suffered
under multiple years of weather related disasters. The bill before us
today ensures greater coverage dependability by providing relief for
producers suffering from insurance coverage decreases and premium
increases due to multi-year crop losses resulting from natural
disasters.
The conference report authorizes USDA to conduct a series of pilot
programs to provide risk management protection to livestock producers,
I am hopeful livestock producers can stand to benefit from this action
because to date they have been specifically excluded from this
protection.
Yet, I am disappointed the crop insurance conference committee
members dropped a provision that sought to maintain conservation
compliance as a part of crop insurance coverage.
As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I helped secure $6
billion last year (over a four year period) in order to improve the
overall crop insurance program. This year, funds were added to this
level to bring a total of $8.2 billion over five years to crop
insurance improvements. As a member of the Senate Agriculture
Committee, I am pleased the legislation I cosponsored and supported
closely mirrors the conference report before us today; therefore, I am
pleased to vote for H.R. 2259.
Nonetheless, I want to discuss some items in the economic and
disaster assistance package included in the conference report. I am
concerned that the conference committee ignored the inequity inherent
with the current farm bill, and instead, chose to make economic aid
payments to farmers based on AMTA payments.
Even though South Dakota producers stand to receive--in a timely
fashion--about $158 million in additional AMTA payments within the
economic aid package, these payments are unfair to many of the family
farmers in my state for a number of reasons.
First, AMTA payments are made regardless of whether crop prices are
high or low. I would prefer an approach (in overall farm policy and in
the context of disaster aid) that provides targeted, counter-cyclical
benefits to family-sized farmers because it would be more market-
oriented and provide a more reliable safety net.
Second, since AMTA payments are based on outdated crop yields and
base acres from 1985, they are unfair to many South Dakota farmers. In
the mid-1980s, farmers in my state planted more grain sorghum and oats
in combination with the staple crops like wheat, corn, and soybeans.
But, all of these crops make up their ``base acres'' upon which an AMTA
payment is made. As such, farmers in South Dakota may receive AMTA
payments on low-value crops like oats and grain sorghum that they don't
even plant today.
Moreover, crop yields in the mid-1980s were much lower than crop
yields today, yet, AMTA payments are based on these outdated crop
yields. For example, the 1985 corn yield assigned to AMTA payments is
set at 64 bushels per acre. Yet today, most farmers raise around 100
bushels of corn or better. Once again, the AMTA payments fail to
recognize modern day farming conditions.
Finally, there still exist situations where landlords and not farm
operators receive the AMTA payments.
Last week I sent a letter to Conference Committee Chairmen Lugar and
Combest insisting that Congress must not alter statutory payment
limitations so large farming entities can't swallow up the majority of
government assistance. Last year, an amendment to the fiscal year 2000
Agriculture appropriations bill increased payment limits on loan
deficiency payments and marketing loans from $75,000 to $150,000 for
1999. As a result of this specific change last year, only the largest
of the large farms stood to benefit. My letter urged the conference
committee members to not extend this special treatment of the payment
limits beyond 1999. I am very pleased the conference committee agreed
to reinstate the more responsible, lower, payment limits for this year.
Family farmers are the backbone of rural America. If we have a limited
amount of taxpayer funds in which to provide a safety net for farmers,
it is simply common sense that we target the benefits to those who need
the assistance.
[[Page S4436]]
I also want to mention that there are several items within the
economic and disaster aid package that I support, and as such, I will
vote in favor of this legislation.
First, sheep producers in South Dakota have suffered under near all-
time low wool prices. To add insult to injury, many of these same
producers must try to compete in lamb meat production with unfair and
surging imports from other countries. I am especially pleased the
conference committee agreed to provide $11 million in fiscal year 2001
to provide direct payments to sheep producers based on poor wool
prices.
Second, as a strong advocate of farmer-owned value-added
cooperatives, I am extremely satisfied to support the inclusion of $15
million worth of competitive grants in fiscal year 2001 to assist
producers in establishing these types of business ventures.
Because flooding remains an obstacle to crop production in many parts
of South Dakota, I am pleased to support the $24 million in the
conference report for the Flooded Lands Compensation Program.
I am also pleased this legislation offers honey producers in South
Dakota and across the nation a recourse loan program to help provide a
safety net and price support in order to market their product.
Finally, I am pleased the conference committee included provisions
from my legislation--S. 2056, The Emergency Commodity Distribution Act
of 2000--which restores funding to USDA in order to procure commodities
for the School Lunch Program over a nine year period.
Last year, Congress enacted the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives
Improvement Act. A provision of this legislation amended the School
Lunch Act to require USDA to count the value of ``bonus'' commodities
when it determines the total amount of commodity assistance provided to
schools. This change will result in a $500 million budget cut for the
School Lunch Program over a nine-year period without congressional
action this year. While not large in overall budget terms, this cut
will have an immediate impact that is especially severe in school
districts more dependent on the program.
My legislation would ensure that schools receive the full value of
entitlement commodity assistance, and allow the School Lunch Program to
continue to meet its dual purpose of supporting American agriculture
while providing nutritious food to children across the country. While
the provision included in today's legislation provides $34 million in
fiscal year 2000 and $76 million in fiscal year 2001, it does not
restore the entire $500 million over the nine-year period. However, I
am greatly pleased the conferees agreed to include part of my
legislation in the conference report as this represents a step in the
right direction.
I also encouraged the conference committee to consider inclusion of
my bills to forbid packer ownership of livestock and to label meat for
its country-of-origin.
My legislation enjoys broad support all across the nation because it
will restore confidence and freedom in livestock markets. I am
disappointed the committee failed to include either of these items as
it will once again become clear that Congress largely ignored the
independent livestock producer trying to compete in an unfair
marketplace.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, first, I would like to thank Senators
Kerrey, Daschle, and Roberts who have worked to craft a national crop
insurance reform bill. I rise in support of the Conference Report
because it represents a fundamental shift in farm policy in its
recognition of the importance of agriculture in the Northeast.
Historically, New Jersey farmers have been at a disadvantage when it
comes to crop insurance for two principle reasons. First, many of the
specialty crops they grow are not eligible for insurance. And second,
because our region has a history of non-participation, many farmers
fail to investigate what options they may be eligible for. They simply
assume that they are not eligible or that the programs are not
economically worthwhile.
Without crop insurance, farmers in my region will not be able to
continue farming, they will be forced out of a way of life, they will
be forced to sell their land. New Jersey may be the best example of
what can happen when we do not protect our farmers. In 1959, New Jersey
had 15,800 farms. Today we have 9,400. In 1959, New Jersey had
1,460,000 acres of farmland. Today we have but 800,000.
The current Federal Crop Insurance program has failed to curb the
losses which farmers have experienced and has forced them to sell their
land and their livelihood. It has facilitated the end of a way of life
in New Jersey.
When the Senate passed its version of the crop insurance reform bill,
it adopted the so-called ``Northeast Amendment'' drafted by myself,
Senator Schumer, Leahy, Reed, Rockefeller and others. The amendment has
been almost entirely preserved in the Conference Report. The amendment
is targeted at increasing participation in states in which there is
traditionally, and continues to be, a low level of crop insurance
participation and availability.
The conference report provides $50 million over five years for
research to create new crop insurance policies. The goal is to develop
new programs tailored to the crops in our region so that our farmers
will find it economically worthwhile.
An additional $25 million over five years for education programs
designed to inform farmers of the current crop insurance options
available to them. This would include hiring more agents to sell
insurance and more USDA officials to help farmers craft a strategy for
their farm. This money will put in place the necessary human
infrastructure.
The final provision of the Northeast amendment is $50 million over
five years for payments to farmers who adopt certain conservation
practices. The effect of this amendment will be to increase
participation, by making it more attractive, more affordable, and more
accessible to farmers who grow specialty crops and have low rates of
participation in crop insurance.
But the Conference Report also vastly improves the situation for
farmers who grow non-insurable crops by improving the Non-insured Crop
Disaster Assistance Program (NAP). Because farmers who grow the
majority of crops in my state do not qualify for crop insurance, the
NAP program is the only assistance my farmers can rely on when their
crops are decimated, as during last summer's drought. Under current
law, losses in the region where a farmer grows must be extensive before
a single farmer is eligible for NAP relief. The Conference Report
removes this ``area trigger'' and ensures that farmers not eligible for
crop insurance receive protection in times of hardship, regardless of
whether they are the only farmer who suffered.
The Conference Report also addresses the needs of states like New
Jersey by including additional provisions to develop broad specialty
crop policies. These policies are designed to protect farmers who grow
``specialty crops'', fruits and vegetables which constitute many of the
crops grown in the Northeast. By focusing on specialty crop product
development, the bill truly addresses the needs of farmers in all
regions throughout the country. Because of these provisions, I will
support the bill and will urge my other Northeast colleagues to do the
same.
However, I am extremely concerned that the $7.1 billion in emergency
farm aid included in this bill essentially provides no relief to our
region. The majority of this funding will be distributed in AMTA
payments to farmers in the Midwest and South who grow commodity crops
such as corn, soybeans, and wheat. It will not help the specialty crop
farmers in New Jersey or anywhere else in the Northeast. This is
unfortunate, considering that the farmers in my state are still
suffering from last summer's drought.
The Senate will soon have another opportunity to provide this
desperately needed relief when it considers the Agriculture
Appropriations bill after Memorial Day. As written, this bill includes
additional aid for dairy farmers, livestock and peanut farmers. But it
still fails to address the situation faced by small family farmers
throughout the Northeast. During consideration of that bill, I plan on
offering an amendment with my colleagues from the Northeast that will
provide some relief for the specialty crop farmers in our
[[Page S4437]]
region. I hope at the time we will enjoy the support of the other
regions of the country who so generously are benefitting from the
emergency aid included in this crop insurance bill.
Again, I want to thank Senators Kerrey, Roberts, Daschle, Harkin and
Leahy for their willingness to work with us during this process.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to commend many of my
colleagues who were instrumental in the development of this
legislation. The conference report before us today represents new
opportunities for family farmers through a reformed crop insurance
program and short term assistance in the form of an additional economic
relief payment equivalent to the levels established last year.
The conference report before us today provides Congress with an
opportunity to assist farmers during this time of need. My friends and
neighbors just came off a year in which they lost tremendous amounts of
equity due to commodity prices hitting twenty year lows. If we would
not have provided an economic relief payment last year we would have
lost many more family farmers.
What does a strong agricultural economy mean for my home state of
Iowa? The agricultural industry contributes a total of around $70
billion and 446,000 jobs in Iowa. Therefore, when things are in bad
shape down on the farm, all Iowans feel the negative economic effects.
While commodity prices have improved slightly from last year, margins
are still tight. We promised our constituents a smooth transition from
the failed, government-dominated farm policies of the last 63 year
period prior to 1996. We must follow through on that promise, and this
legislation helps us fulfill that goal.
This bill provides tremendous opportunities for farmers. The Crop
Insurance title helps farmers utilize additional risk management
activities. Farmers can increase their individual coverage levels
thanks to better premium subsidies. And for the first time, pilot
programs will be available to determine how livestock producers can be
included as an insurable commodity.
I also want to thank the members of the Senate Budget Committee in
supporting my efforts earlier this year in crafting a budget resolution
which set aside over $15 billion to help farmers. The bill before us
today would not have been possible otherwise. The Budget Committee's
work and cooperation allowed the Agriculture Committee to supply
farmers with the funds necessary for the smooth transition farmers
deserve by providing what is viewed as an additional AMTA payment at
1999 levels.
The package also includes $500 million for oilseeds, $7 million to
cover pseudorabies vaccination costs incurred by pork producers, and
$15 million for what I have termed the Agricultural Marketing Equity
Capital Fund.
The Agriculture Marketing Equity Capital Fund will provide $10
million to establish grants for developing new value-added agricultural
markets for independent producers. This fund will assist agricultural
producers by providing grants for ventures to capture a greater share
of the consumer food dollar.
It is my hope that the fund will help independent grain and livestock
producers find real solutions to address the loss of competition in
agricultural markets, to combat concentration in food production and
processing, and create new value-added business opportunities for
groups like:
The Iowa Cattlemen, who are developing a regional ``grid'' of
producers to supply cattle to a proposed harvest facility being
developed with the cooperation of one of the nation's largest
processors;
Heartland Grain Fuels, a group of grain producers who have banded
together in Huron, South Dakota to develop an ethanol facility;
Iowa Premium Pork, a group of 1,400 pork producers across my home
state which have joined together in a cooperative venture to market
their hogs;
Sunrise Energy, an ethanol plant in Blairstown, Iowa;
The 21st Century Group, independent dairy producers from Kansas;
Pork America, a national cooperative of independent pork producers;
and
The New Jersey Farm Bureau, which recently commissioned a study to
determine the feasibility of ethanol production and held a meeting at
which 300 New Jersey farmers attended due to their interest in value-
added opportunities.
An informal poll by my office found hundreds of millions of dollars
in possible requests for this type of program. The reason for this is
that family farmers cannot compete with an industry that has billions
of dollars in equity and capital resources and which seems to be
willing to use this advantage to kill any producer driven competition.
Industry's aggressive stance toward competition from farmers made it
impossible for me to provide more money for independent producers. In
fact, the American Meat Institute, which is the political muscle behind
70 percent of the packers and processors in the US, fought against this
provision tooth and nail.
When I found out that AMI was opposing my efforts to help farmers I
knew that I must be doing something right. I just want the leadership
of AMI to know that I was very aware of his efforts and I hope that
AMI's successful opposition to my request for $35 million to help
America's family farmers was worth it to them.
I plan to publish AMI's membership in the record and I hope that
every independent producer in the nation takes a good look at who is
trying to limit value-added opportunities for family farmers. I'm not
saying that every processor or packer knew exactly what AMI's
Washington lobbyists were doing, but I sure hope to inform every
member, through one medium or another, what happened and why
independent producers won't have the funds to reach out to processors
in joint ventures and receive working capital to help everyone survive
and thrive.
One last point, if you thought I was pushing hard for my agri-
industry concentration legislation before, hold on to your seat.
Regardless of my disappointment in industry's effort to kill my
provision, on the whole, this bill includes a bold new approach that
will help create a brighter future for family farmers and their rural
communities.
Mr. President, in summation I want to thank my colleagues on the Ag
Committee who worked hard to develop this package. This bill is good
for Iowa and good for agriculture and the family farmer nationwide. I
look forward to sending it to the President and for the President to
sign it quickly so that we may provide family farmers with the tools
they need to be successful in today's marketplace.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today we are considering the conference
report on the crop insurance reform bill. I believe this bill makes
fundamental changes to the existing Federal Crop Insurance Program that
are necessary to make crop insurance more workable and affordable for
producers across the country and I urge its passage.
Congress has been attempting to eliminate the ad hoc disaster program
for years because it is not the most efficient way of helping our
farmers who suffer yield losses. Due to the Ag economic crisis, there
has been much discussion lately on the issue of the ``safety net'' for
our nation's producers. On that point I would like to be perfectly
clear. Crop insurance is a risk management tool to help producers guard
against yield loss. It was not created and was never intended to be the
end-all be-all solution for the income needs of our nation's producers.
Last year, Senator Cochran and I introduced a comprehensive bill that
addressed what we saw as the various reform needs of the crop insurance
program.
I am pleased that many of these provisions are included in the
conference report that we are considering here today. This bill
establishes a process for re-evaluating crop insurance rates for all
crops and for lowering those rates if warranted. After pressure from
Congress and the National Cotton Council last year, RMA reduced rates
by as much as 50 percent for cotton in Arkansas and the Mid-South. The
provision included in today's bill will require further review of all
Southern commodities.
By making the crop insurance program more affordable, additional
producers will be encouraged to participate in the program and protect
themselves against the unforeseeable factors that will be working
against them once they put a crop into the ground.
[[Page S4438]]
The bill also provides for an enhanced subsidy structure so that
producers are encouraged to buy-up from their current level of
coverage. The structure included in this bill will make the step from
catastrophic coverage to buy-up easier for producers and will make
obtaining the highest level of coverage easier for those who are
already participating in the crop insurance program.
In an attempt to improve the record keeping process within USDA, this
legislation requires that FSA and RMA coordinate their record keeping
activities. Current USDA record keeping, split between FSA and RMA, is
redundant and insufficient. By including both crop insurance program
participants and non-program participants in the process, we hope to
enhance the agricultural data held by the agency and make acreage and
yield reporting less of a hassle for already overburdened producers.
In addition, this bill establishes a role for consultation with state
FSA committees in the introduction of new coverage to a state. The need
for this provision was made abundantly clear to Arkansas' rice
producers this spring. A private insurance policy was offered to
farmers at one rate, only to have the company reduce the rate once the
amount of potential exposure was realized.
In my discussions with various executives from the company on this
issue it became apparent that their knowledge of the rice industry was
fairly minimal. Had they consulted with local FSA committees who had a
working knowledge of the rice industry before introduction of the
policy, the train wreck that occurred might have been stopped in its
tracks.
I am pleased that another reform measure that I worked on has been
included to help rice producers suffering losses caused by drought.
Recent droughts have left many Arkansas farmers with low reservoirs and
depleting aquifers. If rains do not replenish them, an adequate
irrigation supply may not exist by summer.
In addition, drought conditions in Louisiana have caused salt to
intrude into the water supply used for irrigation on many farms.
Current law states that rice is excluded from drought policies because
it is irrigated. This is not equitable since rice producers do suffer
losses due to drought.
I have worked with Senators Breaux and Landrieu to provide these
policies for our rice producers who are experiencing reduced irrigation
opportunities due to the severe drought conditions that have plagued
the South for the last two years. I am pleased that this provision has
been included in the bill.
Many of the problems associated with the crop insurance program have
been addressed in previous reform measures. However, fraud and abuses
are still present to some degree.
This bill strengthens the monitoring of agents and adjusters to
combat fraud and enhances the penalties available to USDA for
companies, agents and producers who engage in fraudulent activities.
There is simply no room for bad actors that recklessly cost the
taxpayers money.
Mr. President, I was prepared during our Committee markup earlier
this year to offer an amendment related to a cooperative's role in the
delivery of crop insurance.
I held off at that time due to concerns from the Committee related to
possible ``rebating'' ramifications and preemption of state law, but in
working with RMA and Senators Kerrey and Grassley, we were able to
craft an amendment that clarifies the role of cooperatives in the crop
insurance program.
I am pleased that the conferees included this amendment in the final
version of the bill.
This amendment does nothing to preempt state law or even change
current federal law. It simply provides that current approved business
practices be maintained. With the inclusion of my amendment Congress is
recognizing the valuable role cooperatives play in the crop insurance
program, specifically, encouraging producer participation in the crop
insurance program, improving the delivery system for crop insurance,
and helping to develop new and improved insurance products.
My amendment requires the Risk Management Agency to finalize
regulations that would incorporate the currently approved business
practices of cooperatives participating in the crop insurance program
and to do so within 180 days of enactment of this Act.
If farmer owned entities are not allowed to sell crop insurance, then
anyone can sell crop insurance in America except an American farmer.
Such a legal result would give the appearance that crop insurance is
designed for a closed club to exploit farmers.
That appearance would inhibit broader use of crop insurance. I do not
believe that such a result is the intent of those who have put so much
effort into improving the crop insurance program.
Mr. President, I would personally like to thank all staff members of
the Committee and industry representatives that have helped with this
effort. I would particularly like to thank Louie Perry of the National
Cotton Council for his tireless efforts to make crop insurance more
effective for cotton and other southern commodities.
Mr. President, Arkansas farmers have told me time and time again that
crop insurance just isn't affordable for the amount of coverage they
receive. As the program currently exists, it does not make sound
business sense to purchase crop insurance in our state. Since this
reform process began, I've been working to correct this inequity. I
hope that the changes we make today will lead to a crop insurance
program that is equitable, affordable and effective.
Crop insurance reform is not the only thing included in this
legislation, however. $7.1 billion has been included to address the
ongoing crisis in the agricultural community due to depressed market
prices. I am pleased that Congress is acting more promptly this year to
address the needs of our nation's producers. Numerous farmers in my
home state of Arkansas have indicated that the additional assistance we
provided over the last two years is the only reason their operations
are still afloat today. While some commodities have seen a slight
rebound, prices across the board are still too low to meet the
increasing costs of production on our nation's farms.
Congress has to provide these ``add on'' payments to producers
because the current farm bill does not provide an adequate safety net
when commodity markets head south. I voted against the 1996 Farm Bill
because I feared that we would find ourselves in the exact position we
do today, with one bailout after another.
I introduced a bill earlier this year that would make reforms to the
existing marketing loan program. An enhanced marketing loan program
would provide additional assistance to our nation's producers without
going through this annual ``horse trading'' over billions of dollars
trying to determine who we are going to help. Farmers would be able to
know at the beginning of the growing season what to expect from the
government with regards to economic assistance instead of having to
cross their fingers and hope Congress comes through.
We are coming near the end of the life of the ``Freedom to Farm''
bill and as we begin discussions on what the next farm bill should look
like I hope my colleagues will see the importance of providing an
adequate safety net to our nation's farms.
We must adequately support those who are supplying our nation, and
many others, with safe, affordable food.
Do not misread my remarks, I am pleased that Congress has acted
promptly to address the needs of the agricultural community this year.
I simply feel that there is a better way to approach our nation's
agricultural policy. I hope my colleagues will agree and work to
provide a better farm bill in the future.
inspection scam
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, I want to briefly raise an issue that is of
the utmost importance to produce growers and shippers throughout every
region in the United States and of great concern to me and several
other of my colleagues in both the House and Senate.
On October 27, 1999, eight Department of Agriculture (USDA) fruit and
vegetable inspectors stationed at the Hunts Point Terminal Market in
the Bronx, NY, were arrested and charged with accepting bribes for
downgrading loads of produce so that receivers could negotiate lower
prices with shippers. This week, I understand those inspectors were
sentenced for their illegal
[[Page S4439]]
and fraudulent scam at the Hunts Point Terminal Market in the Bronx,
New York.
While these guilty inspectors are being held accountable through our
legal system for their actions, the economic damages to the produce
industry remain unaddressed. Moreover, to my knowledge, those
individuals with direct oversight responsibility within the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have not acknowledged to the
Congress how their oversight activities failed, why the Department
discounted complaints by the industry over the past several years, the
number of inspections that are connected with the guilty USDA produce
inspectors or even an estimate of the damages incurred by produce
growers and shippers. This is unacceptable and USDA must act
expeditiously to restore confidence and integrity in the federal
inspection system for the produce industry.
If injured parties are not justly compensated through the legal
process, we must ensure that every appropriate action is taken by the
Congress to ensure the losses that occurred as a result of this scam
are returned to injured parties. Based on similar cases where fines
paid by guilty parties have gone directly to the federal Treasury, it
is very doubtful that growers or shippers injured will see any of the
funding owed to them as a result of this unfortunate scam. I am
certainly committed to working with the industry on this critical issue
and urge both the Senate and House Agriculture Committees to take
immediate action as soon as possible to move forward with a full
investigation of this matter.
Mr. LUGAR. I appreciate the remarks by my colleague from Idaho,
Senator Craig. I agree that the Senate Agriculture Committee should
review how these growers can recover their economic losses resulting
from illegal actions by federal employees. The Department of
Agriculture has oversight responsibility for the actions that may have
resulted in millions of dollars of losses to these growers. This matter
should be fully explored and resolved. As part of committee review, I
will continue to receive reports from the office of the Inspector
General. It is important that this industry regain confidence in the
inspection system that they use.
Mr. President, two provisions of the conference agreement warrant
some clarification as to how they should be carried out. Section 243(g)
allows a third State to expand coverage of the Child and Adult Care
Food Program to additional for-profit child care centers serving lower-
income children. It should be clear to the Secretary in implementing
this amendment that the additional State must meet the criteria for
approval at the time of enactment and is one that exempts all of its
lower-income families from child care cost-sharing requirements, while
allowing fees to be charged on a sliding scale to higher-income
families. Section 243(b)(2) requires that a minimum number of site
visits to day care centers, homes, and sponsors be conducted. The
amendment recognizes that the Secretary can strengthen this measure by
requiring more than the minimum numbers called for in the amendment.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the
conference report on H.R. 2559, the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of
2000. This conference report has two major components: a crop insurance
reform bill and a major farm relief package. I want to comment briefly
on each of these.
I support the crop insurance reform bill because it will increase
premium subsidies for farmers who buy more comprehensive coverage and
support research of new crop insurance policies for currently non-
insurable specialty crops that are important in Rhode Island and other
states in the Northeast. It is an important step forward in a long-term
bipartisan effort to encourage farmers across the country to obtain
more crop insurance coverage and reduce income losses due to natural
disasters. I was disappointed that the Senate bill's risk management
pilot project was dropped in conference with the House. The pilot
project would have allowed farmers to choose between traditional crop
insurance and a direct payment for adopting new risk management
practices such as farm diversification, futures contracts and options,
creation of conservation buffers, soil erosion control, and irrigation
management. I believe we should continue to explore ways to offer
increased income to farmers for whom crop insurance has not worked
well, while encouraging producers to adopt new risk management
strategies that are good for the environment.
I am pleased that this crop insurance bill removes the ``area
trigger'' for the Non-insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program, also
known as NAP. I believe broader NAP eligibility is one of the most
effective ways to assist farmers in the eastern United States who face
severe production losses due to drought, floods, or other disasters.
Currently, NAP crops are eligible for assistance when: (1) expected
``Area Yield'' for the crop is reduced by more than 35 percent because
of natural disaster; and (2) individual crop losses are in excess of 50
percent of the individual's approved yield, or the producer is
prevented from planting more than 35 percent of the acreage intended
for the eligible crop.
These criteria have proven to be unworkable in many eastern states,
both in terms of program accessibility and timeliness of payments. For
individual growers of specialty crops, typically grown on small
acreage, a loss of as little as 20 percent can be devastating,
especially given the high per-acre value of these crops. Moreover, the
process of verifying area yield reductions is cumbersome and
exceedingly time-consuming, resulting in waiting periods of several
months or, in some cases, more than a year for payment.
Giving the Secretary of Agriculture broader discretion over delivery
of NAP program funds will streamline the approval process and make
direct assistance available to thousands of farmers whose substantial
losses do not meet NAP criteria under the current area trigger.
I am also pleased that the bill includes $50 million for the
Secretary of Agriculture to provide cost-share assistance to farmers in
states with low historical participation in traditional crop insurance
programs. These funds will be targeted to farmers who pursue innovative
conservation and risk management techniques, including: streambank
repairs and reconstruction; integrated pest management tools;
construction or improvement of watershed management structures;
transition to organic farming, particularly among dairy farmers; and
futures, hedging or options contracts to help reduce production, price
or revenue risks.
Substantial funds are also included for crop insurance education and
information programs for states with low levels of federal crop
insurance participation and availability. Combining expanded outreach
programs like these with increased research into new policies for
specialty crops is the best way to get more farmers into the program
and hopefully reduce the need for farm disaster legislation.
With regard to the farm relief component of the conference report
before us today, I am disappointed that the entire $5.5 billion of the
package's FY2000 funds, fully 77% of the $7.1 billion provided in this
farm assistance package, consists of additional AMTA or ``Freedom to
Farm'' payments. Only a very small proportion of farmers in my state
and in other Northeastern states will benefit from these payments.
Meanwhile, additional AMTA payments will be made to many other farmers
regardless of whether they have experienced substantial losses during
the current crop year.
I and many of my colleagues from the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic
opposed the farm disaster bill passed by the Senate last year because
it did not provide adequate relief to farmers in our region who were
hit by the terrible drought conditions of 1999. The National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) found that four states in the
Northeast, including Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware,
experienced the driest growing season in their histories. From April
through July, Rhode Island was the driest it has been in 105 years of
record-keeping by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.
Forecasters at the National Weather Service are predicting continued
drought conditions this year, because we are starting out with a
deficit of rainfall and, even with the snowstorms of January, winter
precipitation was 3.5 inches below normal for our region.
[[Page S4440]]
Fortunately, the removal of the NAP area trigger I described earlier
will help if disaster strikes again this year. In addition, the farm
relief package includes $200 million for purchases of specialty crops
for low prices in 1998 and 1999, including apples, cranberries, black-
eyed peas, cherries, citrus, onions, melons, peaches, and potatoes.
Manager language is included to direct the Secretary of Agriculture, to
the extent practicable, to purchase directly from farmers or
agricultural co-ops.
Another $5 million is provided by the farm relief package for apple
producers that are suffering economic loss as a result of low prices.
$35 million is provided for Loan Deficiency Payments for non-AMTA farms
for the 2000 crop year, and $50 million is provided for the Farmland
Protection Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program,
both of which are important to my state and the Northeastern region of
the country. Finally, the farm relief package requires the Department
of Agriculture to purchase specialty crop farm products for the school
lunch program, again with manager language included to direct the
Secretary, to the extent practicable, to purchase directly from farmers
or agricultural co-ops.
With the passage of this legislation we will give farmers the tools
they need to manage their risk more effectively, and possibly reduce
the need for Congress to pass massive farm disaster packages year after
year. At the same time, I believe we are beginning to recognize the
contributions and needs of farmers in every region of the country,
farmers who not only feed the world but preserve a way of life that
makes our Nation stronger and protects our precious open spaces from
the encroachment of development and urban sprawl.
I urge my colleagues to support the conference report to accompany
the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000.
submitting changes to h. con. res. 290 pursuant to section 216
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, section 216 of H. Con. Res. 290 (the
FY2001 Budget Resolution) permits the chairman of the Senate Budget
Committee to make adjustments to the allocation of budget authority and
outlays to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, provided certain
conditions are met.
Pursuant to section 216, I hereby submit the following revisions to
H. Con. Res. 290:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current allocation to Senate Agriculture Committee
Fiscal year:
2000 Budget Authority.............................. $10,843,000,000
2000 Outlays....................................... 7,940,000,000
2001 Budget Authority.............................. 14,254,000,000
2001 Outlays....................................... 10,542,000,000
2001-2005 Budget Authority......................... 61,372,000,000
2001-2005 Outlays.................................. 43,745,000,000
Adjustments
Fiscal year:
2000 Budget Authority.............................. 5,500,000,000
2000 Outlays....................................... 5,500,000,000
2001 Budget Authority.............................. 1,639,000,000
2001 Outlays....................................... 1,493,000,000
2001-2005 Budget Authority......................... 1,608,000,000
2001-2005 Outlays.................................. 1,619,000,000
Revised allocation to Senate Agriculture Committee
2000 Budget Authority.............................. 16,343,000,000
2000 Outlays....................................... 13,440,000,000
2001 Budget Authority.............................. 15,893,000,000
2001 Outlays....................................... 12,035,000,000
2001-2005 Budget Authority......................... 62,980,000,000
2001-2005 Outlays.................................. 45,364,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today we address two issues vital to our
Nation's farmers and ranchers: the need to reform the Federal Crop
Insurance Program, and the need for financial relief to help producers
deal with the third year in a row of low prices.
I support this Crop Insurance conference report, and I will vote for
it. But I must also express my deep concerns about the farm relief
provisions of the bill.
Half of this bill represents Congress at its best.
Last year Congress was given a mandate to improve the federal crop
insurance program--both by the strength of public support for reform,
and by the Budget Committee's allocation of $6 billion last year and $8
billion this year expressly to implement that reform.
Half of this bill responds to that call, and offers increased
benefits to farmers. Those benefits are well-conceived, and they are
equitable.
The program invests public resources in a system that effectively
leverages funds in the private sector, and empowers producers to use
their own best judgment in managing their production risk.
I want to thank my colleagues and their staffs, who have dedicated
long hours over the past year, for their excellent work in reforming
this vital program.
However, I believe that the other half of this bill represents a low
moment for Congress.
The other half of this bill represents, for the third year in a row,
Congress' stubborn refusal to address another significant risk of
farming: price risk.
Across the country, and for numerous commodities, poor prices have
dogged producers for three years now.
The $7.1 billion in this bill that will go to producers as ad hoc
emergency relief is critically needed in the countryside. We should be
providing resources to struggling farmers and ranchers.
But I am deeply disappointed with the way the funds are distributed.
Clearly, it would have been impossible to perfectly match resources
to need--particularly under the time constraints we face.
But we could have done better than this.
This year could have been different than the past two years.
Producers pleaded with Congress to make it different, and it should
have been different.
First, by including the relief allocation in the Budget resolution,
the Budget Committee allowed Congress to avoid the rancorous fight over
emergency spending authorization that has plagued us in the past two
years.
Second, in contrast to the previous two years, this year the
Agriculture Committee was made the arbiter of how the funding would be
allocated.
This should have resulted in hearings and the kind of substantive,
constructive debate that yields good policy.
Third, Congress was given a deadline of June 29 by which to determine
how to spend this money, which provided more than adequate time for
such a debate to occur.
Despite all of these advantages, here we are, a month early, with a
bill produced in the very same way as the two emergency relief bills
that preceded it--behind closed doors, without the free and open
exchange of ideas, and without the opportunity for amendments by
members on behalf of their constituents.
So, we are left with farm relief that I and many of my colleagues
believe is deeply flawed. Once again, our assistance fails to target
family farmers.
Once again, it wastes public dollars on the biggest operators, who
have little or no need for emergency relief.
Once again, it wastes public dollars on some people who do not farm
at all.
Most importantly--once again--it fails to meet critical needs in farm
country.
With over $7 billion at our disposal, Agriculture Committee
jurisdiction, and time for debate, not one hearing has been held to
assess the scope of need.
A flawed process has produced a flawed bill. But because farmers and
ranchers are in need of relief, I intend to vote for the conference
report.
For the third year in a row, I urge my colleagues to acknowledge the
failures of current farm policy, and come together to change it.
We need policies that better address the interests of family farmers
and ranchers.
In addition to crop insurance, fair trade, and competitive
opportunities for all producers, farmers and ranchers must have an
income safety-net that can offset severe price fluctuations, and that
can help manage uncertainties in the marketplace.
Such policies are critical to long-term survival in an industry in
which the majority of producers operate on margins of less than 5
percent.
I believe there is a lot we can agree on.
And by working together, in the spirit of the crop insurance portion
of this bill, I am certain that there is a lot we can accomplish.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference
report on the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000. Farmers in
Wisconsin and all across the country need improved risk management
products to
[[Page S4441]]
help them guard against adverse weather and market conditions. I also
want to express my thanks to Chairman Lugar, Senator Harkin, and other
members of the Agriculture Committee for including in this conference
report expansion of a dairy options pilot program that will help dairy
farmers achieve similar levels of protection afforded other
agricultural producers.
I also want to mention the fact that this conference report includes
$7.1 billion in additional assistance to farmers and ranchers this year
and in 2001. This level of spending was made possible due to a budget
reserve included in the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution which
provided an additional $5.5 billion in mandatory spending to the
Agriculture Committee in fiscal year 2000 and an additional $1.6
billion in fiscal year 2001. The budget resolution specified that these
funds were to be made available to assistance producers of program and
special crops. Senator Domenici, chairman of the Senate Budget
Committee, made reference to the action taken by both the Budget and
Agriculture Committees in providing for this budgeted approach to
meeting the needs of America's farmers.
I want to take this opportunity to mention additional assistance for
farmers provided in the pending Agriculture appropriations bill which
includes, among other items, emergency spending for America's dairy
farmers. Senators will note that within the additional $7.1 billion
included in the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, no funds are
provided for dairy farmers who are now suffering from the greatest
price collapse in history. Dairy farmers in Wisconsin, in Vermont, in
the South, in the West, in all parts of the nation are suffering
terribly from this dire emergency and it is proper that the Congress
take action, as we have, to meet this situation.
I mention this in order to remind my colleagues that we will shortly
be considering the Agriculture appropriations bill on the Senate Floor
and I ask for the support of all Senators in our efforts to help
America's dairy farmers. I would also note that to those who may be
confusing the funding provided in our bill with the amount provided in
the budget resolution, that dairy producers were not included in the
description of agricultural producers to receive assistance though the
agricultural budget reserve directed to the authorizing committee. The
emergency funding for dairy farmers is separate from the actions taken
in the bill now before the Senate, is indeed an emergency, and the
action taken by the Appropriations Committee in this regard is proper
and must go forward.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, our colleagues have suggested that if
Senators are amenable to yielding back time, at least in this instance,
we might proceed to a vote, with the understanding that provision might
be made for additional time for comments by Senators on this
legislation. There would appear, at least to the ranking member and
myself, to be no visible opposition.
Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LUGAR. Yes.
Mr. SCHUMER. I have no problem with yielding time. I have to go to my
daughter's recital. If I can speak after the vote for 5 minutes, I
would appreciate that.
Mr. LUGAR. We have been trying to accommodate our side. They were
aware we might have another hour of debate, but in the event that the
distinguished Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Minnesota are
prepared to yield back all time, I would be prepared to do that.
Mr. TORRICELLI. If the Senator will yield, I would like to comment
for the Record, also.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield back my time.
Mr. HARKIN. I yield back my time.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield back the time yielded to me.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the
conference report.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr.
Gregg), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), amd the Senator from
Ohio (Mr. Voinovich) are necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) and
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessarily absent.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 4, as follows:--
[Rollcall Vote No. 115 Leg.]
YEAS--91
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--4
Kyl
Mack
McCain
Nickles
NOT VOTING--5
Dodd
Gregg
Inouye
Murkowski
Voinovich
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to
table that.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I want to take just 1 minute to thank the
staffs who have made this event possible. From my own staff: The chief
of staff Keith Luse, Dave Johnson, Terry Nintemann, Andy Morton,
Michael Knipe, Carol Dubard, Bob White, Danny Spellacy, Jeff Burnam,
Marcia Asquith, and Bob Sturm;
From Senator Harkin's staff, who worked with us so well: Mark
Halverson and Stephanie Mercier;
From Senator Roberts' staff: Mike Seyfert;
From Senator Cochran's staff: Hunt Shipman;
From Senator Helms' staff: George Holding and Brian Meyers;
From Senator Coverdell's staff: Richard Gupton and Alex Albert;
From Senator Kerrey's staff: Bev Paul;
From Senator Leahy's staff: Ed Barron and Melody Burkins;
From Senator Conrad's staff: Scott Carlson;
From the Legislative Counsel's staff: Gary Endicott and Greg Kostka;
And from the House Agriculture staffs, who worked for 3 weeks
continuously with our Senate staff: Bill O'Conner, chief of that staff;
Tom Sell; Vernie Hubert; and Chip Conley.
I thank again the distinguished ranking member.
I earlier mentioned especially Senator Roberts and Senator Kerrey as
authors of an excellent crop insurance legislation bill, and Senator
Craig who has offered titles IV and V. I thank the majority leader,
Senator Lott, and minority leader, Senator Daschle, for expediting our
having this opportunity.
Finally, I thank all Senators for a decisive vote on what I believe
is significant legislation for America's farmers.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I join with my distinguished chairman,
thanking all the staff who worked so hard on this and hammered out all
the agreements over a long period of time on both sides of the aisle.
All the Members of our committee and their staffs did a great job. I
join our distinguished chairman in thanking them.
Let me also thank our chairman, our leader, Senator Lugar, for his
persistence and doggedness in getting this bill through. I think it has
been at least 1\1/2\ years, if I am not mistaken, since we started on
this road. It has had a lot of twists and turns and ups and downs.
[[Page S4442]]
Senator Lugar stayed in there. He knew how important this bill was to
our farmers. It is a great bill. It is one that is really going to help
our farmers manage their risks.
I again compliment him and thank him for his leadership but also for
being so kind and generous, to always work with me and be open and
aboveboard. I have never had an instance where I thought in any way
that my chairman was ever keeping anything hidden, going behind the
door or anything such as that. It has been a great working
relationship. I thank my friend and my chairman for having that kind of
good working relationship with this side of the aisle.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I will take a few seconds. Earlier in my
statement I said very nice things, as they deserved, about the
chairman, ranking member, and their staffs and every other staff member
of the Agriculture Committee except for one. That was the person who
wrote the statement I was reading earlier on the floor. So I want to
just take a moment to thank Bev Paul for all the work she did on this
piece of legislation. I appreciate very much Senator Harkin, you and
Leader Daschle, trusting me enough to put me on the
conference committee. I appreciate Bev's contribution to it.
Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the distinguished manager will just yield
for an observation? It will not take long.
Mr. LUGAR. I yield.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to say hearty thanks to the U.S.
Senate for passing the budget resolution that contemplated this issue
and this problem and this solution. Normally, in years past on
agriculture emergencies, we have waited until the end of the year and
gotten into an enormous argument as to how much emergency relief is
enough emergency relief. This year we decided, in the budget
resolution, with the help of some experts and the committee, to decide
that we would modify the resolution that applies to this year and
provide $5.5 billion in this year's budget to be spent by the
authorizing committee from a reserve fund set up by the Budget
Committee and $1.6 billion for next year, all of which could be used
for emergency purposes by the authorizing committee if they chose.
They have chosen to follow that to the letter: $5.5 billion this year
and $1.6 billion next year. We have provided in advance a pretty good
package, as my colleagues have said, on emergency relief.
I am not the expert. I am not here vouching for every item in the
bill, but I am suggesting it is good to recognize that we had the
foresight this time in advance to devise a prescription for the
solution of what I think is most of the emergency relief that is going
to be sought for farmers. There may be others in other bills. I thank
everyone for living under that resolution and under that format. I
thank the experts who told us this is a pretty good package, and we
provided for it in advance. It turned out to be a pretty good dollar
number that provides a rather substantial amount of relief.
In addition, we have had budgeted for quite sometime money for crop
insurance. It has been languishing until now. It is high time a
solution to that has been tailored, and now they are together. There is
$7.1 billion of emergency assistance, and it is prescribed by the
budgets we have voted for heretofore.
I commend those who have lived within those margins. I do hope the
farmers of America understand that we have prescribed a very large
package here, in addition to the regular appropriations bill that comes
through, and we may have additional arguments on how much additional
emergency money might be provided, if any.
I do believe this is a good example of doing it right for a change.
We did it right from the very start, and now we are seeing the fruits
of some good thinking in advance to avoid conflict at the end of the
year.
Mr. President, while the spending in this conference report does not
violate the budget, and again I congratulate the authors for following
those spending guidelines, I must be honest in saying that some
provisions in Title II of this conference report concern me. When the
Budget Committee established the $7.1 billion funding to assist
producers of program crops and specialty crops, I can assure you that
at least this Senator did not envision some of the types of indirect
assistance to producers this bill provides. Nonetheless the bulk of
assistance will go directly to producers and provide some relief to
those now suffering depressed farm incomes.
Finally, it must be said, that once this $5.5 billion in Agriculture
Marketing Transition Act, AMTA, payments are made this year, total
Commodity Credit Corporation, CCC, outlays for FY 2000 may exceed $30
billion--a historic record level of spending. Just for the calendar
year 2000, direct payments to producers will exceed $21.6 billion--
another record. It is also understood that when we return from the
Memorial Day recess, the FY 2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill may be
before the Senate, and it to may contain additional emergency spending
for the current fiscal year.
At a time when the U.S. Congress and the European Parliament are
focused on agriculture trade issues, and the level of subsidies being
provided on both sides of the Atlantic, I think it is important to take
a step back and make sure we all understand what assistance is being
provided in this bill to agriculture.
I will support this conference agreement today. But I hope that
another bill the Senate may consider after the recess--the PNTR China
bill--will provide expanded markets for our agriculture sector and
thereby lessen the need for future agriculture subsidies. Most farmers
and ranchers I know want to and will produce for the market given a
chance. They do not want and should not want to ``farm'' government
subsidies.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank Senator Lugar,
Senator Harkin, and all the conferees for their hard work in producing
a fair final crop insurance package that will provide $100 million in
targeted programs for Northeastern farmers who have struggled in recent
years, facing low prices and severe damage by drought, flooding, and
freezing.
Speaking on behalf of the farmers of New York State, I especially
thank my esteemed colleague, Senator Pat Leahy, and his hardworking
staff--Ed Barron, J.P. Dowd, and Melody Burkins--for their creativity
and persistence in defending the interests of our region which have all
too often been neglected in agricultural debates.
Back in March, I joined Senators Pat Leahy, Bob Torricelli, and Jack
Reed in a spirited and successful effort to amend this bill to include,
for the first time in the history of crop insurance, funds targeted
specifically to help our region.
Northeastern farmers have historically low participation in crop
insurance for several reasons. Many grow speciality crops that are not
eligible for Federal crop insurance, or find that, while they are
eligible, the Federal crop insurance programs do not fit their needs.
Many are simply not aware of available crop insurance options or have
no agents located nearby to sell them policies.
The results have often been catastrophic. When a disaster such as
last summer's drought strikes, our farmers have no safety net to fall
back on, unlike so many of their Midwestern and Southern counterparts.
As such, these provisions--a $50 million program to promote risk
management practices tailored to Northeastern farmers, $25 million for
crop insurance education and recruitment targeted at areas
traditionally underserved by crop insurance, and $25 million for
research into better crop insurance programs for the Northeast--will go
a long way to helping the farmers of New England and the Mid-Atlantic
region.
Our farmers will especially benefit from the removal of the area
trigger for crop insurance policies. This will benefit farmers located
in areas isolated by valleys or mountains by allowing them to collect
crop insurance for their localized disasters.
Further, specialty crop farmers, as so many of the fruit and
vegetables growers in New York State, will benefit from the $200
million USDA purchase of speciality crops as directed in the emergency
agriculture package attached to this bill.
[[Page S4443]]
I also echo Senator Leahy's remarks on our understanding of the
Agriculture appropriations bill, which we have been assured will
contain several additional critical provisions, particularly the
assistance for our Nation's dairy farmers who have suffered terribly
from low prices, and for apple farmers who have been hard hit by low
yields and low quality after 2 years of unavoidable weather extremes,
from hurricanes to drought.
I have visited regularly with dairy and apple farmers in my own State
and can say they desperately need our help.
I thank, once again, the conferees for crafting a bill that for the
first time truly takes into account the unique needs of Northeastern
farmers. I voted for the package, and I am glad so many of my fellow
Senators voted for it as well.
____________________