[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 112 (Friday, August 3, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8857-S8861]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EMERGENCY AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, here is the situation, just for the
benefit of all who are watching and wondering what happened. Basically
what has happened is that the Senate just took up the House-passed
Agriculture emergency bill and passed it, and therefore it will be sent
to the President for his signature. I also point out we still have
pending in the Senate the bill that was passed by our committee and
there has been entered a motion to reconsider that has been placed by
our leader, by Senator Daschle of South Dakota. So at some point when
we come back it is entirely within the realm of feasibility or
possibility that this Senate might want to revisit that Senate bill
because it is clear that the House bill is totally inadequate to meet
the needs of our farmers across the country.
I am proud of our committee and the work it did. Keep in mind that
our committee was not reconstituted or able to do business until June
29, because the Senate organizing resolution was held up until then.
And we did not have our full membership until July 10. But our
committee worked diligently to look at the entire spectrum of farm
families across America to try to determine what was needed to keep
these farm families in business, keep their heads above water for yet
another year until we can get a farm bill passed. The bill we reported
out met the needs of farmers across America. Yet the White House said
no.
I again point out that our committee voted the Senate bill out on a
bipartisan vote. The Senate voted, again on a bipartisan vote, in favor
of our bill and the provisions we had in our bill. But the White House
said no.
Now we are at the point, because the House has left, they went home,
and because we need to get this money out, that a gun is held at our
heads by the White House and by OMB. They are saying if we do not pass
the House bill, or if we pass something more adequate to the need in
rural America we may lose even the $5.5 billion the House provided. So
the gun was held at our heads and the White House refused to
compromise.
Yesterday I spoke several times with the head of the Office of
Management and Budget, Mr. Daniels, I spoke with the President's chief
of staff, and I spoke with the Secretary of Agriculture to see if they
would at least meet with us to see if there could be some compromise
worked out. I said to the President's chief of staff last night: I
respectfully request a meeting with the President at least to lay out
our case on why the House bill was inadequate. That meeting was denied.
So the President decided he would accept only $5.5 billion, which is
only about three-fourths of what Congress passed in a similar bill last
year.
I had a long visit with the head of OMB on the phone last night to
try to determine why they picked that number. He said: Well, it looked
as if farm income was a little bit better this year.
I said: Compared to what? We have had extremely low commodity prices,
in some cases at about 30-year lows. Now, because livestock receipts
were up a little bit the ag picture looks a little bit better than it
did last year, but we are still in the basement. However, the money in
this bill mainly goes to crop farmers, and they are the ones who are
hurting the most. They are not only as bad off as last year, but they
are probably worse off than last year because the prices are still low
and all of their production costs have gone up--fertilizer, fuel,
everything. Yet somehow the bean counters down at OMB have said no, the
House bill is sufficient.
I will resubmit for the Record at this time letters or statements
from just about all of the main farm organizations: The American Farm
Bureau, National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Corn
Growers Association, the American Soybean Association, the National
Barley Growers Association and others--all saying that the House bill
is inadequate. I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.
[From the Voice of Agriculture, Monday July 30, 2001]
Farm Bureau Disappointed in House Funding for Farmers
Washington, DC., June 21, 2001--The House Agriculture
Committee's decision to provide only $5.5 billion in a farm
relief package ``is disheartening and will not provide
sufficient assistance needed by many farm and ranch
families,'' said American Farm Bureau Federation President
Bob Stallman.
``We believe needs exceed $7 billion,'' Stallman said.
``The fact is agricultural commodity prices have not
strengthened since last year when Congress saw fit to provide
significantly more aid.''
Stallman said securing additional funding will be a high
priority for Farm Bureau. He said the organization will now
turn its attention to the Senate and then the House-Senate
conference committee that will decide the fate of much-needed
farm relief.
``Four years of low prices has put a lot of pressure on
farmers. We need assistance to keep this sector viable,'' the
farm leader said.
``We've been told net farm income is rising but a closer
examination shows that is largely due to higher livestock
prices, not most of American agriculture,'' Stallman said.
``And, costs are rising for all farmers and ranchers due to
problems in the energy industry that are reflected in
increased costs
[[Page S8858]]
for fuel and fertilizer. Farmers and ranchers who produce
grain, oilseeds, cotton, fruits and vegetables need help and
that assistance is needed soon.''
____
National Association of
Wheat Growers,
Washington, DC, July 11, 2001.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Chairman, Senate Agriculture Committee, Russell Senate
Officer Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Harkin: As President of the National
Association of Wheat (NAWG), and on behalf of wheat producers
across the nation, I urge the Committee to draft a 2001
agriculture economic assistance package that provides wheat
producers with a market loss payment equal to the 1999
Production Flexibility Contract (AMTA) payment rate.
NAWG understands Congress is facing difficult budget
decisions. We too are experiencing tight budgets in wheat
country. While wheat prices hover around the loan rate, PFC
payments this year have declined from $0.59 to $0.47. At the
same time, input costs have escalated. Fuel and oil expenses
are up 53 percent from 1999, and fertilizer costs have risen
33 percent this year alone.
Given these circumstances, NAWG's first priorty for the
2001 crop year is securing a market loss payment at the 1999
PFC rate. We believe a supplemental payment at $0.64 for
wheat--the same level provided in both 1999 and 2000--is
warranted and necessary to provide sufficient income support
to the wheat industry.
NAWG has a history of supporting fiscal discipline and
respects efforts to preserve the integrity of the $73.5
billion in FY02-FY11 farm program dollars. However, given
current financial conditions, growers cannot afford the
reduced level of support provided by the House in H.R. 2213.
Wheat farmers across the nation are counting on a market loss
payment at the 1999 PFC rate.
Thank you for your leadership and support.
Sincerely,
Dusty Tallman,
President, National Association
of Wheat Growers.
____
National Corn Growers Association,
Washington, DC, July 23, 2001.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Russell Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Harkin: We write to urge you to take
immediate action on the $5.5 billion in funding for
agricultural economic assistance authorized in the FY01
budget resolution.
The fiscal year 2001 budget resolution authorized $5.5
billion in economic assistance for those suffering through
low commodity prices in agriculture. However, these funds
must be dispersed by the US Department of Agriculture by
September 30, 2001. We are very concerned that any further
delay by Congress concerning these funds will severely hamper
USDA's efforts to release funds and will, in turn, be
detrimental to producers anxiously awaiting this relief.
We feel strongly that the Committee should disperse these
limited funds in a similar manner to the FY00 economic
assistance package--addressing the needs of the eight major
crops--corn, wheat, barley, oats, oilseeds, sorghum, rice and
cotton. It is these growers who have suffered greatly from
the last two years of escalating fuel and other input costs.
The expectation of these program crop farmers is certainly
for a continuation of the supplemental, AMTA at the 1999
level.
Again, we urge the Committee to allocate the market loss
assistance payments at the FY99 production flexibility
contract payment level for program crops. We feel strongly
that Congress should support the growers getting hit hardest
by increasing input costs.
Sincerely,
Lee Klein,
President, National Corn
Growers Association.
____
National Farmers Union,
Aurora, CO, July 25, 2001.
Farmers Union Commends Senate on Emergency Assistance Package
Washington, D.C. (July 25, 2001).--The National Farmers
Union (NFU) today applauded the Senate Agriculture Committee
on its approval of $7.4 billion in emergency assistance for
U.S. agriculture producers. The bill provides supplemental
income assistance to feed grains, wheat, rice and cotton
producers as well as specialty crop producers. The Senate
measure provides the needed assistance at the same levels as
last year and is $2 billion more than what is provided in a
House version of the measure. NFU urges expeditious passage
by the full Senate and resolution in the House/Senate
conference committee that adopts the much needed funding at
the Senate level.
``We commend Chairman Tom Harkin for his leadership in
crafting this assistance package,'' said Leland Swenson,
president of NFU. ``We are pleased that members of the
committee have chosen to provide funding that is comparable
to what many farmers requested at the start of this process.
This level of funding recognizes the needs that exist in
rural America at a time when farmers face continued low
commodity prices for row and specialty crops while input
costs for fuel, fertilizer and energy have risen rapidly over
the past year.''
The Senate Agriculture Committee approved the Emergency
Agriculture Assistance Act of 2001 that provides $7.4 billion
in emergency assistance to a broad range of agriculture
producers and funds conservation programs. It also provides
loans and grants to encourage value-added products,
compensation for damage to flooded lands and support for bio-
energy-based initiatives. The funding level is the same as
what was provided last year and is comparable to what NFU had
requested in order to meet today's needs for farmers and
ranchers. The House proposal provides $5.5 billion.
``We now urge the full Senate to quickly pass this much-
needed assistance package,'' Swenson added. ``It is vital
that the House/Senate conference committee fund this measure
at the Senate level. As we meet the challenge of crafting a
new agriculture policy for the future, today's needs for
assistance are still great. We hope for swift action to help
America's farmers and ranchers.''
____
National Barley Growers Association (NBGA)--Position Statement
income and market loss assistance for the 2001 crop
The Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 budget resolution provides $5.5
billion in additional agricultural assistance for crop year
2001 and an increase of $73.5 billion in the agriculture
budget baseline through 2011. The budget resolution also
provided flexibility in the use of a total of $79 billion.
Because agricultural prices are not improving and production
costs continue to escalate, NBGA believes it will be
difficult to fully address the chronically ailing agriculture
economy if Congress provides no more than $5.5 billion in
assistance.
Although projections show a rise in farm income, this is
largely due to the fact that analysis project livestock cash
receipts to rise from $98.8 billion in 2000 to $106.6 billion
in 2001. At the same time, cash receipts from crop sales are
up less than $1 billion.
Further, producers continue to face historic low prices and
income as well as increased input costs. In 2000, farm
expenditures for fuel and oil, electricity, fertilizer and
crop protection chemicals are estimated to increase farmers'
cost $2.9 billion. This year, USDA estimates those expenses
will rise an additional $2 billion to $3 billion while farm
income continues to decrease. These issues affect every
sector of agriculture.
We urge Congress to mandate that the Secretary of
Agriculture make emergency economic assistance for the 2001
crops in the form of a market loss assistance payment at the
1999 Production Flexibility Contract (PFC, or AMTA) payment
rate as soon as practicable prior to the end of FY01.
We beleive this additional assistance will help address the
serious economic conditions in the farm sector and does not
jeopardize the House and Senate Agriculture Committees'
ability to develop effective new long-term farm policy in the
near future.
____
American Farm
Bureau Federation,
Park Ridge, IL, July 31, 2001.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Chairman, Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, U.S.
Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Harkin: The American Farm Bureau Federation
supports at least $5.5 billion in supplemental Agricultural
Market Transition Act payments and $500 million in market
loss assistance payments for oilseeds as part of the
emergency spending package for crop year 2001. We also
believe it is imperative to offer assistance to peanut, fruit
and vegetable producers. In addition, it is crucial to extend
the dairy price support in this bill since the current
program will expire in less than two months.
All over this country agriculture has been facing historic
low prices and increasing production costs. These challenges
have had a singificant effect on the incomes of U.S.
producers. At the same time, projections of improvement for
the near future are not very optimistic. We appreciate your
leadership in providing assistance to address the low-income
situation that U.S. producers are currently facing.
We thank you for your leadership and look forward to
working with you to provide assistance for agricultural
producers.
Sincerely,
Bob Stallman,
President.
____
July 31, 2001.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The undersigned oilseed producer
organizations strongly support the Committee's efforts to
complete consideration of legislation to provide Economic
Loss Assistance to producers of 2001 crops prior to the
August Congressional work period. As you know, funds
available for this purpose in FY-2001 must be expended before
the end of the Fiscal Year on September 30, 2001. This
deadline requires that Congress complete action this week, so
that the Farm Service Agency can process payments after
enactment.
As part of the Economic Loss Assistance package, we support
continuing the level of support for oilseeds provided in last
year's plan of $500 million. Prices for oilseeds are at or
below levels experienced for the 2000 crop. Farmers and their
lenders expect Congress to maintain oilseed payments at last
year's levels.
[[Page S8859]]
For this reason, we support making funds available for
oilseed payments from the $7.35 billion provided in the
Budget Resolution for FY-2002. This is the same approach used
for 2000 crop oilseeds, when $500 million in FY-2001 funds
were made available. We only ask that oilseed producers
receive the same support, and in the same manner, provided
last year.
Thank you very much for your efforts to provide fair and
equitable treatment for oilseed producers in this time of
severe economic hardship.
Sincerely yours.
Bart Ruth,
President, American Soybean Assn.
Lloyd Klein,
President, National Sunflower Assn.
Steve Dahl,
President, U.S. Canola Assn.
____
National Wildlife Federation,
Reston, VA, July 27, 2001.
Senator Tom Harkin,
U.S. Senate, Chairman, Senate Agriculture Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Harkin: On behalf of the National Wildlife
Federation (NWF) and its more than 4 million members and
supporters nationwide, I would like to thank for your strong
leadership in providing significant funding for conservation
programs within the Emergency Agricultural Aid Package passed
by the Senate Agriculture Committee earlier this week.
For too many years, conservation programs have been
overlooked as viable and sustainable solutions to the
emergency needs of agricultural producers suffering from the
results of flooding and drought. As you are aware, programs
such as the Wetlands Reserve Program and Floodplain Easement
Program put needed funds into the hands of farmers at the
same time that they take disaster-prone land out of
production, reducing the need for future disaster assistance.
Thanks to your efforts, such programs will be considered as
components of agricultural disaster assistance this year. We
look forward to working with you to ensure that this funding
is retained during floor consideration of the bill and in
conference with the House.
Once again, we thank you for your work in support of
conservation programs.
Sincerely,
Mark Van Putten,
President & CEO.
____
The American Dietetic Association,
Chicago, July 31, 2001.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S.
Senate, Russell Building, Washington, DC.
Attn: Karil Bialostosky.
Dear Mr. Chairman: ADA is writing to go on record in
support of several nutrition provisions proposed in the
Emergency Agricultural Assistance Act of 2001 (S. 1246).
These provisions move programs in the right direction by
increasing consumer access to healthful foods. The American
Dietetic Association promotes optimal nutrition and well
being for all people by advocating for its members--70,000
nutrition professionals who are the leading providers of food
and nutrition services in the United States.
All consumers in the United States should have access to a
wide variety of safe, affordable and nutritious foods. ADA
urges Congress to support agriculture policy and fund
programs that help Americans follow a diet consistent with
the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The Commodity
Purchases provision (Title I, Section 108) and Sections 301,
302, 303 and 304 of the Nutrition Title (Title III) move
toward that goal.
Sincerely,
Katherine J. Gorton,
Director,
National Nutrition Policy.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask again, Mr. President, who knows better what the
farmers of America need, OMB and the bean counters or the National Corn
Growers Association? Who knows better what our farmers need, the people
down at the White House running around those corridors down there or
the American Soybean Association and our soybean farmers? Who knows
better about what our farmers need, the people down at OMB who say we
only need three-fourths of what we had last year or the farmers of
America, through their representatives here, who have said time and
time again the House bill is inadequate?
To show you how bad it really is, here is a letter dated today to me
from the American Soybean Association, the National Corn Growers
Association, the National Association of Wheat Growers, and the
National Cotton Council, sent to me in my capacity as chairman of the
Senate Agriculture Committee.
It says:
The undersigned organizations are concerned that despite
your best efforts to develop an emergency assistance package,
the Senate's efforts to respond to the severe economic crisis
facing agriculture will be unsuccessful unless emergency
agricultural legislation is enacted prior to the August
recess. With the House of Representatives already in recess,
the only course available to the Senate to ensure that
farmers receive $5.5 billion of funds earmarked for 2001 is
to pass H.R. 2213 as passed by the House.
I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
August 3, 2001.
Re Emergency Assistance for Agriculture.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The undersigned organizations are
concerned that despite your best efforts to develop an
emergency assistance package, the Senate's efforts to respond
to the severe economic crisis facing agriculture will be
unsuccessful unless emergency agricultural legislation is
enacted prior to the August recess. With the House of
Representatives already in recess, the only course available
to the Senate to ensure that farmers receive $5.5 billion of
funds earmarked for 2001 is to pass H.R. 2213 as passed by
the House.
In order to avoid the very real possibility these budgeted
funds will be lost, we urge the Senate to take the necessary
action and pass H.R. 2213 without amendment and send the bill
to the President. Without timely action, we face the prospect
of missing the budget-imposed September 30 deadline and
forfeiting this crucial financial aid.
With prices of many commodities even lower than 2000, with
increased costs for fuel and other inputs, and with severe
weather in some regions, U.S. farmers need this assistance
package more than ever. It is imperative that Congress
complete its work right away.
Thank you for your consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
American Soybean Association.
National Corn Growers Association.
National Association of Wheat Growers.
National Cotton Council.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again, I want you to know how proud I am
to have stood side by side with the American Soybean Association, the
National Corn Growers Association, the National Association Of Wheat
Growers, and the National Cotton Council. We have fought side by side
to respond to the dire needs of our farmers in America.
But, as this letter shows, we have a gun held to our heads. If we
don't pass that House bill today, we risk losing even that amount of
money.
We have this confrontation. I had hoped that the President would be
willing to meet with us to seek some reasonable compromise. After all,
this President came to town saying he wanted to be a conciliator. He
wanted to work together in a bipartisan fashion to seek compromise. We
want to seek compromise. The House passed $5.5 billion. We passed $7.5
billion. We were willing to meet and discuss and work out some
compromise. The White House was unwilling to meet and unwilling to
compromise.
I have heard time after time speeches on the other side of the
Senate. I have heard from my Republican friends saying how bad it is in
agriculture and how much we need this assistance. But, obviously, the
President has said no.
In my conversations with the head of OMB last night, I kept saying:
Why? For what reason is it $5.5 billion or nothing? He said that is our
number--5.5. It was almost like a mantra. He said: It is 5.5, and we
are not going to budge from it.
It is one thing to have a strong position, but it is another thing to
have a position in which you have taken a strong stand that does not
correlate with the facts. The facts are that farmers and rural America
need a lot more help than what this House bill provides.
Again, I point out what the difference between the House-passed bill
and the Senate bill means for our farmers around America. These are the
payments that would go out to farmers in a number of States in this
country.
In this column, we see what the Senate bill would provide. We see in
this column the House bill. The comparisons are just on the commodity
title, but do not include the specialty crop purchases or House bill
specialty crop payments to states. This is how much each State will
lose because the President refused to compromise.
Washington State will lose $103 million for their farmers. That is
the difference between what the Senate bill had and what the House bill
had. Washington State farmers will get $75 million from the House bill.
We had $178
[[Page S8860]]
million in our bill for Washington State farmers. Washington farmers
are going to be hurt and hurt badly. So will their community banks; so
will the auto dealers; so will the hardware stores; the feed stores;
and, everyone else in those small towns all over the State of
Washington.
In Iowa, in my home State, farmers will lose $91.47 million because
the President said no, again just on the commodity title and not
counting conservation, for example.
In Minnesota, they will lose $82.7 million; Texas, $82.4 million. In
the President's home State, farmers are going to lose $82.42 million.
In Illinois, they will lose $81.6 million. In Nebraska, they will
lose $65.2 million; Kansas will lose $61.7 million for their farmers;
North Dakota, $60.7 million; California, $52.5 million; Arkansas will
lose $43.9 million for their farmers; Indiana will lose $40.12 million;
Louisiana, $32 million; South Dakota, $32 million; Missouri, $31
million; Michigan, $31 million; Ohio, $29 million; Montana, $24
million; Wisconsin, $24 million; Idaho, $23.9 million; Oklahoma, $22.8
million; Mississippi, $22 million.
That is what the House bill is going to cost the farmers in those
States because the President said no. The President is determined that
the House bill was sufficient to take care of the farmers in those
States.
Time and time again I see the President visiting farms. How many
farms is he going to have to visit before he gets the picture and
before he understands what is happening in rural America?
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter of
March 13 sent to the Honorable Pete Domenici, chairman --at that time--
of the Budget Committee. It was signed by 21 Members of the Senate
asking that the 2001 Agriculture Market Transition Act payment be the
same as it was last year. The letter went on to say how bad things are
in rural America with high production costs, fuel, fertilizer, and
interest rates with projections that farm income will not improve in
the near future. It says:
We believe it is vitally important to provide at least as
much total economic assistance for 2001 and 2002 as was
provided for the 2000 crop.
I ask unanimous consent that this letter and the accompanying
signatures be printed in the Congressional Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Washington, DC,
March 13, 2001.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington,
DC.
Dear Pete: We are writing to request your assistance in
including appropriate language in the FY02 budget resolution
so that emergency economic loss assistance can be made
available for 2001 and 2002 or until a replacement for the
1996 Farm Bill can be enacted. Specifically, since conditions
are not appreciably improved for 2001, we support making
market loss assistance available so that the total amount of
assistance available through the 2001 Agricultural Market
Transition Act payment and the Market Loss Assistance
payments will be the same as was available for the 2000 crop.
We understand it is unusual to ask that funds to be made
available in the current fiscal year be provided in a budget
resolution covering the next fiscal year, but the financial
stress in U.S. agriculture is extraordinary.
According to USDA and other prominent agriculture
economists, the U.S. agricultural economy continues to face
persistent low prices and depressed farm income. According to
testimony presented by USDA on February 14, 2001, ``a strong
rebound in farm prices and income from the market place for
major crops appears unlikely . . . assuming no supplemental
assistance, net cash farm income in 2001 is projected to be
the lowest level since 1994 and about $4 billion below the
average of the 1990's.'' The USDA statement also said . . .
``(a) national farm financial crisis has not occurred in
large part due to record government payments and greater off-
farm income.''
In addition to sluggish demand and chronically low prices,
U.S. farmers and ranchers are experiencing rapidly increasing
input costs including fuel, fertilizer and interest rates.
According to USDA, ``increases in petroleum prices and
interest rates along with higher prices for other inputs,
including hired labor increased farmers' production expenses
by 4 percent or $7.6 billion in 2000, and for 2001 cash
production expenses are forecast to increase further. At the
same time, major crop prices for the 2000-01 season are
expected to register only modest improvement from last year's
15-25 year lows, reflecting another year of large global
production of major crops and ample stocks.''
During the last 3 years, Congress has provided significant
levels of emergency economic assistance through so-called
Market Loss Assistance payments and disaster assistance for
weather related losses. During the last three years, the
Commodity Credit Corporation has provided about $72 billion
in economic and weather related loss assistance and
conservation payments. The Congressional Budget Office and
USDA project that expenditures for 2001 will be $14-17
billion without additional market or weather loss assistance.
With projections that farm income will not improve in the
near future, we believe it is vitally important to provide at
least as much total economic assistance for 2001 and 2002 as
was provided for the 2000 crop.
Congress has begun to evaluate replacement farm policy. In
order to provide effective, predictable financial support
which also allows farmers and ranchers to be competitive,
sufficient funding will be needed to allow the Agriculture
Committee to ultimately develop a comprehensive package
covering major commodities in addition to livestock and
specialty crops, rural development, trade, and conservation
initiatives. Until new legislation can be enacted, it is
essential that Congress provide emergency economic assistance
necessary to alleviate the current financial crisis.
We realize these recommendations add significantly to
projected outlays for farm programs. Our farmers and ranchers
clearly prefer receiving their income from the market.
However, while they strive to further reduce costs and expand
markets, federal assistance will be necessary until
conditions improve.
We appreciate your consideration of our views.
Sincerely,
Thad Conchran, John Breaux, Tim Hutchinson, Mary
Landrieu, Kit Bond, Blanche Lincoln, Jim Bunning, Mitch
McConnell, Max Cleland, Jeff Sessions, Richard Shelby,
Jesse Helms, Larry Craig, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond,
Zell Miller, Craig Thomas, Chuck Hagel, Peter
Fitzgerald, Bill Frist, Kay Bailey Hutchison.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, nothing has changed. I can only assume my
friends on the other side of the aisle would like to have had more
money for our farmers. They would like to have had the Senate-passed
bill to provide 100 percent of AMTA because this is what they asked
for. That is what we put in the Senate bill. But, obviously, the
President said no. The President said no; farmers had enough.
I also point out what else was in our bill in terms of conservation.
Our bill provided funding for a number of USDA conservation programs.
The Wetlands Reserve Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program,
and Farmland Protection Program are all in jeopardy because the House
bill has zero dollars for conservation.
Let me show you what it is in terms of all of the funding for these
programs.
Here is the Wetlands Reserve Program. Right now the total backlog is
about $568 million. In our bill, we had $200 million for the Wetlands
Reserve Program to cut that in half. Here are the top 10 States that
need funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program.
I see my friend and colleague from Arkansas, a distinguished member
of our committee, here in the Chamber. Arkansas has $89 million in
backlog for the Wetlands Reserve Program. These are all eligible
enrollments. But we don't have the money for it. At least our bill
would have cut that almost in half.
Iowa, my State, $81.9 million; California, $78.9 million; Louisiana,
$69 million; Mississippi, $18 million. All of these States have
backlogs for the Wetlands Reserve Program. The House provides zero
dollars. That puts the Wetlands Reserve Program in jeopardy.
We have the Farmland Protection Program to help buy easements to keep
our farmland in farmland rather than in urban sprawl. The total U.S.
backlog is $255 million. We had $40 million in our bill, which coupled
with money from the States, local governments and non-profit
organizations would have helped a lot to save farmland. The House bill
had zero dollars for that.
Under the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, the backlog is $14
million. We had $7 million in our bill, again to cut that backlog in
half.
Here are all the States with all of the backlogs that we could have
helped in the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program.
Lastly, Environmental Quality Incentives Program, with a backlog of
$1.3 billion. We had $250 million in our bill to reduce that down.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
four charts showing the backlogs in USDA conservation programs for a
number of States.
[[Page S8861]]
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Wetlands Reserve Program
[Total U.S. Backlog = $568,772,170]
top 10 states
Arkansas....................................................$89,102,486
Iowa.........................................................81,965,541
California...................................................78,988,416
Louisiana....................................................69,656,427
Missouri.....................................................41,111,255
Florida......................................................27,539,000
Minnesota....................................................25,017,968
Illinois.....................................................24,986,434
Michigan.....................................................20,500,000
Mississippi..................................................18,173,136
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
____
Farmland Protection Program
[Total U.S. Backlog = $255,677,581]
top 10 states
California..................................................$47,692,183
New York.....................................................33,760,639
Maryland.....................................................29,531,511
Florida......................................................18,799,852
Pennsylvania.................................................15,908,572
Delaware.....................................................12,926,040
Kentucky.....................................................12,290,000
Michigan.....................................................11,579,235
New Jersey...................................................10,692,132
Massachusetts................................................10,465,820
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
____
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
[Total U.S. Backlog = $14,447,989]
top 10 states
Oregon.......................................................$1,129,115
Texas.........................................................1,100,000
Florida.......................................................1,040,000
West Virginia.................................................1,030,472
Arkansas........................................................920,000
Colorado........................................................770,000
Maine...........................................................650,000
Michigan........................................................613,434
Alabama.........................................................548,000
South Dakota....................................................529,395
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
____
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
[Total U.S. Backlog = $1,378,348,711]
top 10 states
Texas......................................................$175,615,986
Oklahoma.....................................................60,684,644
Georgia......................................................55,908,744
Arkansas.....................................................53,263,407
Kansas.......................................................49,142,061
Montana......................................................46,421,056
Kentucky.....................................................44,107,218
Nebraska.....................................................42,912,850
Tennessee....................................................40,772,836
Virginia.....................................................39,795,591
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
Mr. HARKIN. These States have tremendous backlogs and needs in the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program to help clean up the water and
conserve resources in these States. We had about $\1/2\ billion in our
bill to help all of the States meet the environmental standards and
needs in States.
Many of the farmers in these States have to meet environmental
standards, and even without requirements, farmers and ranchers strive
to take care of the land. They want to do their best to be good
stewards. In many cases farmers are doing this out of their own pockets
with their own machinery and their own time.
I believe we need to help them. We need to help these farmers meet
these environmental standards. Yet the House bill provides nothing.
It is too bad that the President would not even meet with us and
would not try to work out some decent compromise. We were willing. The
President said, no. They made their point they were only going to have
$5.5 billion for our farmers; they were not going to have any
conservation.
We also wanted to broaden this bill out to address the needs of our
specialty crop producers in America, the people who raise peas and
lentils and apples and all the other fruits and vegetables that are
part of our great bounty that we have in this country. These farmers
are hurting, too. We tried to help them. The House bill does a little
bit, but hardly anything at all, to help these beleaguered farmers.
Lastly, I want to say--and I want to make this point one more time,
as I made it to OMB and to the White House--the $7.5 billion that we
had in our bill fully complied with the budget. No budget point of
order would lay against our bill. We had $5.5 billion in fiscal year
2001. We used $2 billion of the $7.35 billion that was allowed us in
2002. We did not bust any budgets. We stayed within the budget. We met
our obligations, and we met our obligations both to fiscal
responsibility and also our responsibility to the farmers of this
country.
So I will close by saying that the fight goes on. This Senator, and I
am sure many other Senators in this body, are not going to give up. The
President got his way because he has the veto.
I am hopeful that we can work with the White House in August and in
September, and going into this fall, on two things. One is to shape and
fashion a new farm bill that will get us off the failed policies of the
past. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the Freedom to Farm bill
has failed, and failed miserably. We need a new farm bill. We need a
new vision of agriculture in America. We need a farm bill that will
move us into the 21st century.
I look forward to working with the administration and with the
Secretary of Agriculture, for whom I have the highest regard and
respect, to fashion that new farm bill.
I also hope that as we go into the fall, we should come back and see
what we might need to fill the gap between the end of September and
whenever the farm bill is passed. The House bill we passed shorted
farmers in Iowa and across the nation. The market loss and oilseed
payments were cut back. The specialty crops were left out. Conservation
was left out. Some assistance to our dairy farmers was left out. I hope
we can come back in September--maybe early October--and revisit this
and, hopefully, have the help and the support of the White House at
that time to at least fill in that gap. That is what we tried to do in
this bill, to fill in the gap from the end of September until such time
as the farm bill is passed and enacted to make sure that our programs
for conservation were not interrupted, and to make sure that farmers
were taken care of.
The fiscal year may end on September 30, but the crop-year does not.
Farmers need help in October and November.
So hope springs eternal. The fight goes on. We will never give up the
fight to provide the kind of assistance and support that our farmers
and our farm families need--and not just those in the Midwest, but
those in Michigan and New York and Washington State and all over this
country, to make sure that those farm families are able to continue and
to provide the agricultural products that we need for our country.
I yield the floor.
____________________