[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 23, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10877-S10879]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         FUNDING OF A FARM BILL

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the question of 
funding a farm bill. A number of the commodity groups have written to 
leadership suggesting we do not have to worry about moving with 
expedition to deal with a farm bill this year because, they suggest, 
they have received a commitment from the administration, and I will 
quote from the letter:

       The administration has provided assurances that the 
     resources necessary to fund a farm bill above the current 
     baseline will be available next year.

  I ask unanimous consent that the letter to which I referred be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 October 23, 2001.
     Senator Tom Daschle,
     Senate Majority Leader,
     The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle: The following organizations would 
     like to offer our thoughts on the current consideration of 
     the farm bill in the Senate. To date, the debate has 
     reflected the assumption that the additional funding for the 
     bill provided in the FY-2002 Budget Resolution will only be 
     available if the legislation is completed by the end of the 
     First Session of the 107th Congress. This premise has led a 
     number of interested parties to support a process that would 
     limit the amount of time for consideration and development of 
     a farm bill.
       The Administration has provided assurances that the 
     resources necessary to fund a farm bill above the current 
     baseline will be available next year. In light of this 
     commitment, we would support the Senate Agriculture Committee 
     continuing a deliberative process with a goal of reaching 
     Senate passage early in the Second Session of the 107th 
     Congress. We believe that a careful and deliberative process 
     will provide an opportunity for all parties involved to fully 
     address the needs and implications of the next farm bill on 
     U.S. agriculture and on consumers at home and around the 
     world.
       We believe it is also important to recognize that the 
     attention of the Administration and Congress today is 
     appropriately focused on conducting the war against 
     international terrorism. Rushing the process of developing 
     comprehensive farm legislation at this critical time without 
     full and careful consideration could well result in policies 
     and programs that do not effectively address today's needs.
       Based on the Administration's support for a deliberative 
     Committee process and the necessary levels of funding, we 
     urge you to set a goal of finalizing the farm bill by the 
     spring of 2002. We feel this schedule will enable all of us 
     to address the needs of all farmers, ranchers, and other 
     interested parties, and to chart a successful course for 
     agriculture and consumers for years to come.
           Sincerely,
         American Soybean Association; National Cattlemen's Beef 
           Association; National Corn Growers Association; 
           National Chicken Council; National Pork Producers 
           Council; National Sunflower Association; National 
           Turkey Federation; United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable 
           Association; U.S. Canola Association.

  Mr. CONRAD. That assurance is meaningless. That assurance by the 
administration that the resources are going to be available next year 
is meaningless. Why is it meaningless? It is meaningless because the 
administration plays no role in the writing of the budget resolution. 
That is purely a congressional document. It does not even go to the 
President. It is considered in the House and in the Senate, and it is 
conferenced between the House and the Senate and it never goes to the 
President.
  I am the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. I want to alert my 
colleagues that anyone who believes the same amount of money is going 
to be available next year as is available this year is absolutely in a 
dream world.
  I understand the Secretary of Agriculture has called Members in the 
last few days telling them money is not a problem, that she has been 
assured by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mr. 
Daniels, that money is not a problem. Wrong. Money is a problem. Money 
is going to be a big problem. We have funding in the current year 
budget to write a new farm bill. We have $74 billion over the so-called 
baseline with which to write a new farm bill. Those resources were 
provided because it was understood without additional resources we 
could not write an adequate farm bill because the so-called baseline is 
based on the previous farm bill that has proved to be such a failure. 
It has been a disaster itself.
  If it has not been a disaster, why have we had to write four economic 
disaster bills in a row to keep our farmers from mass liquidation? That 
is what would have happened without the disaster assistance bills we 
have passed in each of the last 4 years.
  The administration says--and these farm organizations people who they 
are supposed to represent send a letter to the leadership saying--the 
administration has provided assurances the resources necessary to fund 
a farm bill above the current baseline will be available next year? How 
much above the baseline? Seventy-four billion dollars above the 
baseline because that is what is available now.
  So they are buying a pig in a poke? They are saying to those of us 
who represent farmers all across America: You just line up there and 
you wait and do not worry about it because we are going to have money 
above the baseline? Really? How do you know? Where is the money coming 
from?
  Is it going to be $74 billion, or is it going to be $1 billion above 
the baseline? The administration would meet its supposed assurance if 
they provided $1 billion instead of the $74 billion that is available 
in the budget now.
  I have never been so disappointed in farm organizations as in the 
farm organizations that wrote this letter to our leadership telling 
them do not worry about getting the job done this year because they 
have gotten assurances that the money is going to be there; that

[[Page S10878]]

some amount of money--they do not know how much--theoretically is going 
to be available and they have taken assurances from the administration, 
which plays no role in determining what resources are available in the 
next budget resolution to write a farm bill.
  It is a dereliction of duty. I think they have let down the people 
who they purport to represent by sending up a letter like this saying: 
Do not worry about it, the money is somehow going to be there. I say to 
my colleagues, do not be fooled. The money is in the budget now. If we 
do not use the money that is in the budget now, it is very likely not 
going to be available next year.
  When we write the next budget resolution, we are going to be facing a 
totally different circumstance than we faced in the spring of this year 
when we wrote the budget. Does anybody not understand that? Does 
anybody not see the dramatic transformation from a weakening economy, 
from a sneak attack on this country, from the need for substantial 
funds for rebuilding the country, for defending the Nation for 
counterterrorism efforts?
  Somehow the money is going to come from somewhere to write a new farm 
bill. I say to my colleagues, there is money in the budget this year to 
write a new farm bill, and if we do not use the money that is available 
this year, you can forget that same amount of money being available 
next year. It is not going to happen.
  The economy is weakening. That means less revenue. On the spending 
side, we are having to spend more money on defense, on 
counterterrorism, and on rebuilding those areas that were damaged in 
the attacks. That means everything else next year is going to be very 
squeezed. That means there is not going to be the same amount of money 
available next year to write a decent farm bill. Frankly, the money 
that has been provided in this year's budget is just barely enough to 
write a decent farm bill. It is, in fact, less--it will provide less 
than farmers have gotten each of the last 3 years. Not just a little 
bit less, substantially less; in fact, 26 percent less on average than 
they have gotten under the disaster assistance bills of the last 3 
years.

  So nobody should be under any illusion about the money being 
available next year. Nobody should be under any illusion. The 
administration is in no position to help with this problem because they 
have no role--none, zero--in writing the budget resolution that will be 
adopted next spring. So these farm organizations that have run out, 
supposedly representing their members, and told the leadership here, 
don't worry about getting the job done this year, have done an enormous 
disservice to their membership--enormous.
  What are they going to say when we get to write a new farm bill next 
year and the money is dramatically reduced? What are they going to say 
to their members then, after counseling delay? What are they going to 
say to them? What is the administration going to say? Because this 
administration has made clear they don't want us to write a new farm 
bill this year; they don't want to spend the amount of money that is in 
the budget. Unfortunately, what that means is that the rural parts of 
this country, those that are dependent on agriculture, are going to be 
in very grave danger of being left out and left behind as we write, 
ironically enough, a stimulus package for the national economy.
  These farm organizations that have written the leadership here saying 
the resources necessary to fund a farm bill above the current baseline 
will be available next year are giving very bad advice. They are wrong. 
They are just as wrong as wrong can be. It is really hard to understand 
how they would ever have written such a letter without doing their 
homework first because they have let down their membership.
  Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DAYTON. I say to the distinguished chairman of the Budget 
Committee, who you might say was instrumental in getting this $73 
billion into the budget resolution for the sake of the farmers from 
North Dakota, Minnesota, and elsewhere across the country, I received 
one of these phone calls asking if we couldn't hold off on the farm 
bill until next year. It seems not coincidental that this letter 
follows that conversation by just a day, in fact, in my case.
  I am wondering if the Senator from North Dakota thinks there is some 
connection with these organizations, that they have been persuaded 
somehow to write a letter. As you say, why would they be contrary to 
the interest of their own member farmers? As part of this desire of 
some, and I guess the administration, to delay a farm bill until next 
year, what do you think the consequences of that will be?
  Mr. CONRAD. I say to my colleague, there is no question in my mind 
what the consequences will be. No. 1, substantially less money to write 
a new farm bill than the money left in this budget.
  No. 2, that means a totally inadequate farm bill.
  No. 3, that means hard-pressed farmers would be in even more serious 
shape because we failed to use the money that was available in this 
year's budget to write a farm bill that would strengthen their economic 
condition.
  I want to make this as clear as it can be. They say they have 
received assurances that the resources necessary to fund a farm bill 
above the current baseline will be available next year.

  No. 1, there is no statement there about how much above the current 
baseline. The current baseline was predicated on the old farm bill--the 
old farm bill that was a total failure, the old farm bill that required 
us to write four disaster assistance bills in the last 4 years. This 
has no assurance that it is going to be the same amount of money that 
is in the budget this year. In fact, we know the administration doesn't 
want us to have the same amount of money. They have proposed a dramatic 
cut from what is in the budget this year to write a new farm bill. That 
is the dirty little secret.
  They proposed a substantial cut. Instead of over the next 5 years $40 
billion being available, they have said only $25 billion ought to be 
available. Guess what. You can't write a decent farm bill with $25 
billion when the money that is in this year's budget is already 
substantially below what we had the last 3 years to assist farmers at 
this time of economic crisis. We are already, in the funding that is in 
this budget, 26 percent below what has been provided in each of the 
last 3 years.
  These farm organizations, somehow, got sold a bill of goods. I 
suspect it is from the Secretary of Agriculture, who is calling 
colleagues, trying to sell them the same bill of goods, telling them: 
Don't worry, the money is going to be available; we have been assured 
by the Office of Management and Budget.
  Please, don't anybody be misled. The Office of Management and Budget 
has nothing, zero, to do with writing the next budget resolution. I am 
chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. I can tell you the same amount 
of money is not going to be available next year as is available now. If 
anybody will just do a quick reality check, they will understand that 
what I am saying is true.
  No. 1, on the revenue side, the revenues are going down as a result 
of the economic slowdown and as a result of this sneak attack on the 
United States. The economy is weaker. It is generating less revenue, so 
less money will be available on that side of the equation.
  On the spending side of the equation, the expenditures are going up, 
and up dramatically. There is more money to defend the Nation, more 
money for counterterrorism, more money for item after item that is 
coming to our attention as a result of this vicious attack on our 
country on September 11. Just a commonsense approach would tell you 
less money is going to be available next year--perhaps dramatically 
less money.
  For anybody to suggest that they have an assurance from the 
administration--or anybody else who is outside of the Congress where 
these issues are decided--that resources are going to be available, 
they are not dealing with reality. They are not dealing with reality. 
For these farm organizations to send a letter to our leadership telling 
them, oh, don't worry about getting the job done this year with the 
money that is available in this budget because they have gotten 
assurance from the administration that the money is going to be 
available next year--they have

[[Page S10879]]

not done their homework. They have done an enormous disservice to their 
members, in my judgment. And I will say that to them directly when they 
come to see me about this farm bill. They have done an enormous 
disservice by telling people money is available, don't worry about it, 
when, with absolute assurance, we can see the money is not going to be 
available in the same amount that is available in this year's budget.
  Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes.
  Mr. DAYTON. If I understand the chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee correctly, in this body, the Senate, we have to pass a farm 
bill this year. Then do we also have to have it conferenced and sent to 
the President in this calendar year as well, in order to protect these 
funds?
  Mr. CONRAD. We do. The hard reality is this, in my judgment. In the 
budget resolution, those funds are available to us until the next 
budget resolution is passed. But there is another thing that is going 
to happen. In January of next year a new economic assessment is going 
to be made by the Congressional Budget Office, by the Office of 
Management and Budget, and it is going to show significant 
deterioration. That is going to change the dynamics very significantly, 
and that is going to make the ability to use this money in this budget 
resolution now to write a new farm bill much less real next year.
  So nobody should be under any illusions. A lot is at stake for 
agriculture. This is not agriculture somehow separate and distinct from 
the rest of the economy because we know agriculture plays a key role, 
right at the heart of this economy. We know if agriculture is hurting, 
Main Street businesses are hurting. Certainly that is true in our 
State. Certainly that is true in the State of the distinguished Chair.
  The irony is, right at the time we are considering writing a stimulus 
package for the national economy, we are getting advice to forget about 
writing a strong farm bill this year when we know the money that is 
available now will not be available next year. That is reality.

  For these farm groups to write to our leadership and say to them, 
don't worry about it, we have assurances that the resources necessary 
to fund a farm bill that is above the baseline will be there next year, 
they have completely bought a pig in a poke.
  I hope the members of these organizations will call their 
associations and ask them: What are you doing? What kind of advice are 
you giving down there? It is not advice that is good for the people you 
represent. This may be good advice for the administration. This may be 
the advice the administration wants to give. Why are they signing up 
for that? Why are they endorsing the administration's position when the 
administration is taking the position that is totally counter to what 
is good for not only I believe the farmers of America but for the 
national economy?
  One of the things the economists have been telling us about the 
stimulus package is that one of the most effective things you can do is 
get money into the agricultural sector because, No. 1, that money gets 
out quickly to the farmers and, No. 2, because there is such economic 
hard times for farmers.
  We have the lowest farm prices in real terms in 50 years. That makes 
farmers have a greater dispensation to spend the money that is part of 
the farm program.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, the Senator and I share a common border. I 
know our farmers are in a similar predicament. These dollars are going 
to be central to the survival of farmers in Minnesota, and I dare say 
in North Dakota as well.
  It seems to me that somebody is playing a very dangerous game with 
literally the lives and the livelihoods of a lot of farmers in my home 
State of Minnesota, and I expect others as well. It makes me wonder who 
is looking out for whom here. How could it be there are those who are 
so active in trying to postpone action on a bill with the result being 
that farmers are going to receive less money. It will take longer one 
way or the other.
  The bottom line, from what I hear from the Senator from North Dakota 
on the Budget Committee, is that they may be out of money entirely if 
we don't act this calendar year.
  Mr. CONRAD. I believe these groups have been flimflammed. I do not 
know a nice way to say it. I don't think they understand how the budget 
process works--for them to be realigned on the representation from the 
administration about money that is going to be available in the next 
budget resolution. The administration doesn't have any role in writing 
the next budget resolution. That is written in the House of 
Representatives and the Senate. The administration has absolutely 
nothing to do with writing the budget resolution. That is what makes 
the resources available next year. Just a little bit of commonsense 
analysis would tell you that the same amount of money is not going to 
be available next year. Receipts are going down. Expenses are going up. 
That means there will be less money available.
  When a budget resolution is written next year, there will not be 
anywhere close to this amount of money available for writing a farm 
bill. That puts all of the people who we represent in jeopardy. That 
puts their financial lives on the line.
  For the farm organizations that are supposed to represent these very 
people to send up a letter such as this tells me one of two things: No. 
1, either they have been totally hoodwinked about the budget 
circumstances we face next year, or, No. 2, they aren't thinking very 
carefully about who they have a responsibility to represent. No. 3, 
perhaps they have just not done their homework and don't know the 
circumstances that we will be facing.

  Mr. DAYTON. I know the time under the previous order is about to 
expire. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for sounding this alarm. 
I was not aware of this situation. I thank the Senator for making it 
very clear to the Members of the Senate and to farmers throughout this 
country what is at stake. My hope is that our colleagues will join with 
us in insisting that we have a farm bill passed so we don't leave our 
farmers back home seriously in the lurch.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from our neighboring State, who is a 
member of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Already, just in the first 
months of his term, he has demonstrated a real commitment to family 
farmers, and also to an understanding of the budget process. I wish 
that same understanding had been evidenced by these farm organizations 
that sent this advice to the leadership that could be so very harmful 
to the very people they seek to represent.
  I conclude by saying to my colleagues that we need to write the farm 
bill now. We need to use the money that is in the budget resolution 
now. No one should be under any illusion that this money is going to be 
available next year. Most assuredly it is not.
  Let's be crystal clear about what is at stake; that is, the economic 
lives of tens of thousands of farm families.

                          ____________________