[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 9 (Friday, January 17, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1166-S1168]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISASTER AID
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the leader for his kindness in
letting me speak for up to 15 minutes before the Senate goes out for
the long weekend before we come back in on Tuesday. I take this time to
draw attention to the provision in the pending bill regarding disaster
aid to our farmers.
We have been fighting here for almost 3 years to get disaster relief
for farmers all over America. We had it basically in our budget a
couple years ago. We had it in the farm bill, but it was taken out. We
had assurances from the administration that it would come later. It
never did. We have farmers who were promised disaster aid over 2 years
ago, and they still have not received it.
A number of us on both sides of the aisle have been trying for some
time now to fill in that hole and get aid to the farmers who have
really suffered a lot from disasters. In the Presiding Officer's home
State, livestock producers and grain farmers have had disasters in the
last couple of years for which they have not been adequately
compensated. That is true in the Midwest--some in my State, and much of
it further west, and a lot along the eastern seaboard. But we have had
some serious crop disasters.
Now the bill before us has some money in there for, as they say,
disaster assistance. But upon reading the fine print, it turns out that
it is not really disaster assistance, it is just putting money in a
bushel basket and throwing it out to farmers. It just doesn't make any
sense. In the Des Moines Register this morning, Philip Brasher had an
article about it. Here is the headline: Bountiful Crop Could Still Draw
Disaster Aid. My quote is this:
``This is just nonsense,'' said Iowa Senator Tom Harkin.
Basically, the article shows that a grain farmer in Iowa--we had
really great crops in Iowa--the soybean and corn crops this year. In
one part of Iowa, we had a drought. In many parts of the State, we had
bumper crops and we had significantly higher prices. Under the
provision in the bill before us, those farmers will get disaster
assistance. What sense does that make?
Please, someone explain to me why we are taking an across-the-board
cut--we are cutting education, veterans, medical research, and all this
other stuff; and we are going to take some of this money and give it to
farmers who have had no losses. In fact, some farmers made a lot of
money because they had good crops. God bless them. I wish every farmer
could have a good crop and have high prices to go with it. But this
doesn't make sense in
[[Page S1167]]
this bill. Basically, it is using the old Freedom to Farm payments.
Mr. Brasher points out in the article:
A farmer who received $40,000 last year would get a special
payment of as much as $16,700.
That could be a farmer who had a great crop and made money. They
don't have to have a disaster. All you have to do is be eligible for
crop payments, and then you can get part of this payment.
``This is not a disaster relief package,'' said Republican
Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, which has been hard hit by a
long drought.
Harkin said, ``Let's face it, there are a lot of farmers in
my State and there are a lot of farmers in other States who
made pretty good money this past year. Why should they get
some more money from the government?''
Senator Charles Grassley agreed that the aid should be
directed to farmers with crop losses.
``The farmers who didn't get hurt weren't asking for more
money from the Federal Treasury,'' he said.
He is right. Why is there money in this bill for farmers who didn't
have a disaster and are not asking for it?
I understand Senator Daschle will be offering an amendment to correct
this anomaly in the bill. The provision being offered by Senator
Daschle, whether it is next week, or whenever it is going to be
offered, is already known to the Senate. In September of last year, we
essentially passed the same measure by a vote of 79 to 16. So it is
nothing new.
The provisions in the appropriations bill before us totally miss the
mark. It is not directed toward those who actually lost crops due to
natural disaster; the funding is offset by reducing funding for other
important Federal programs, and it is inadequate.
We know from our experience, we know from having investigated it,
from hearings we have had both in the House and the Senate, that we
need somewhere in the neighborhood of $6 billion to address the needs
of those who suffered a drought.
As Senator Conrad said earlier today--and I was watching his speech--
the Department already, because of the new farm bill and because the
new farm bill directs payments in a more targeted fashion, we have
already saved $5 billion to $6 billion, maybe a little bit more than
that. So the savings have come in from the new farm bill.
We think those savings, rather than going back to the General
Treasury, ought to be used to help those farmers who had a loss, who
had a drought, who did not have anything because of a natural disaster.
If an argument is made that $6 billion has to be offset by cuts
somewhere else, it is already offset because we have already saved the
money that was previously budgeted for agricultural commodity programs.
That money was budgeted, and yet we saved it. That money ought to go
out to help farmers hit by this drought and hit by disaster.
To repeat for emphasis sake, this appropriations bill would simply
provide a supplemental direct payment for all producers of all covered
commodities and peanuts. It means that all producers of these crops who
were eligible to receive a direct payment for 2002 will receive the
supplemental payment regardless of whether they had an actual disaster
loss in 2001, 2002, or any other time.
I repeat, why should Congress be taking money away from education,
medical research, veterans, law enforcement--all these other domestic
programs--for the purpose of making payments to farmers who did not
even have a disaster and sometimes making a payment to a farmer who had
a record yield and good prices this last year? It makes no sense to me.
I have to believe that farmers all over America, when they find this
out--and they will be reading about it in their local papers; they will
read about it in their farm journals; they will hear about it on their
farm radio shows--they are going to laugh. They are going to say: What
are those people in Washington thinking about?
Mr. President, if you are a farmer and you have had a record yield,
you have had a good crop, and all of a sudden the Government comes
along and wants to give you several thousand more dollars, well, hey,
open the mailbox and take it out, but still they are going to think we
are goofy around here for doing something like that.
Talk to farmers. Most say if farmers are hit by a disaster, whether
it is a flood, a hurricane, a drought, insects--whatever it might be--
or it could be in the livestock sector where they lost feed grains for
the livestock, yes, they deserve to have disaster payments, but not
those who are doing well.
Lastly, I notice the bill adopts the Livestock Compensation Program
that was put together last summer. That program had a lot of problems.
The help it provides is inadequate for those who qualify. The Livestock
Compensation Program provided less than half of the funding that would
be provided to livestock producers under section 3 of the Daschle
amendment that will be offered.
I was told last fall that the payment offered to cattle producers who
lacked forage would cover only about 2 weeks of feed cost for the
herds, and that was not enough.
I note another curious feature about this bill in the drought
section. The provisions of the Livestock Compensation Program are
extended to catfish farming, but not to pork producers. That is very
curious. We extend the Livestock Compensation Program to catfish
farmers, but not to hog farmers. I am waiting to hear the explanation
for that one.
I am saying livestock producers of all categories experienced
significant increases in their feed costs due to higher grain and
oilseed prices, not just catfish, but pork producers, cattle, sheep,
and goats.
I have no problem--I want to say it right here and now--I have no
problem in providing disaster assistance to catfish farmers if, in
fact, they have suffered a disaster, but we cannot single out catfish
farmers and say not pork producers, because pork producers have to pay
higher grain prices also. Both use feed grains.
This so-called drought relief package that is in the bill before us
is, No. 1, inadequate. It is about $3 billion. We need about $6
billion.
No. 2, it is totally misdirected because it takes the $3 billion and
gives it to everybody. It just throws the money out there. This is
Freedom to Farm revisited. We do not care whether you had a drought or
not, but you are going to get money. It is misdirected.
And, No. 3, it should not be coming out of across-the-board cuts in
veterans compensation, education, medical research at NIH, the Byrne
grant program, and programs like those, because let the record show
that we have already saved in agriculture more than enough money to pay
for disaster assistance to farmers who need it nationwide. We have
saved that much money. No one can deny it. So we do not need an offset.
We have the offset. We have saved the money with the new farm bill.
I hope when this issue comes up next week, or whenever it comes up,
that Senators will, again, call their farmers. Do not talk to staff.
They can talk to their staff, but get on the phone and call the farm
organization back in their States. Call the Farm Bureau, the Farmers
Union, call your cattlemen's association, pork producers, catfish
producers, whatever, and ask them if they believe this is the right way
to proceed.
I will give you a dollar to a dime they will not find one in ten to
say yes, and the one who says yes made a lot of money and wants more.
Call your farmers. They will tell you what to do: Target it; get it to
the farmers who had a disaster, and make sure they are compensated
adequately and not just throw it out there for everybody.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a
letter from numerous farm organizations.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
January 6, 2002.
U.S. Senate,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Member of Congress: The undersigned organizations
write to urge your support for emergency disaster assistance
for crop and livestock procedures who have suffered losses
during the 2001 and 2002 agriculture production years due to
natural disasters. Such disaster assistance would be
consistent with responses by the U.S. government to natural
disasters in the past, including hurricanes, floods, and
droughts.
The Food Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 provides
increased economic resources, certainty, and stability across
a wide range of agricultural, rural, and nutrition programs
administered by USDA. For
[[Page S1168]]
commodities, we believe it was the intent of Congress that
the new farm bill reduce or eliminate the need for future ad
hoc market loss-related assistance and, instead, provide a
similar level of assistance in a more efficient and cost
effective manner than the legislation it replaced. In fact,
projected outlays for commodity programs under the new law
are projected to be significantly less than the annual
average federal expenditures incurred since 1998. However,
the new farm bill is incapable of predicting and adequately
dealing with natural disasters.
Furthermore, due in part to increased prices resulting from
the impact of natural disasters, the most recent projected
outlays for 2002 are less than originally projected at the
signing of the farm bill. Despite these savings and the
precedence of assistance for those who suffer from natural
disasters, Congress has failed to pass emergency disaster
assistance.
For U.S. farmers and ranchers, the current production
disaster is multi-faceted. In many areas, drought has
decimated row crops and forage and has reduced water supplies
available for livestock. In other regions, farmers are
experiencing crop destruction and reduced yields and quality
due to flooding and an increased incidence of crop pests and
diseases. Especially hard hit are the specialty crops such as
apples, cherries and grapes in the Great Lakes region, the
eastern states and the Pacific Northwest that suffered frost,
freeze and drought damage this season and adverse weather in
2001 that caused a failure of the blossom set required to
produce fruit.
The negative economic impact of natural disasters to
American agriculture and rural communities continues to grow.
Almost 90 percent of U.S. counties have received a USDA
disaster designation in 2002.
Over 40 percent have received designations in both 2001 and
2002.
Washington State alone suffered $100 million in apple crop
losses in 2002 due to early freeze.
Adverse weather conditions cut the expected cotton crop by
over 1 million bales. Drought conditions harmed the growing
season, and a series of storms hit during harvest, inflicting
continued quality and quantity losses. In the Southeast and
Mid-South, only 55% of the crop achieved a color grade of
Strict Low Middling or better. This compares to a five-year
average of 81%.
The producers on the Blackfeet Reservation, Montana, lost
over 3000 head of cattle in a freak June 3rd snowstorm. The
storm did fill stock ponds and provided some additional
spring green-up moisture but did not provide enough to
alleviate the effects of four years of drought.
The wheat acreage harvested at 45 million acres is the
lowest it has been since 1971.
Financial assistance is needed now if the economic ruin of
farms, ranches and rural businesses caused by these natural
disasters is to be averted.
Within the range of its existing options, we believe USDA
has taken positive actions to address the weather and
disease-related disasters experienced by crop and livestock
producers during the 2001 and 2002 production years.
Unfortunately, the Department's authority and resources
available to mitigate the losses sustained by farmers,
ranchers and rural businesses are inadequate given the full
scope of the weather and disease problems confronting
American agriculture.
While crop insurance, disaster loans, emergency haying and
grazing of Conservation Reserve Program acreage, and the
Livestock Compensation Program (LCP) are helpful, the relief
they provide cannot effectively respond to the unprecedented
and expansive devastation being experienced across a large
part of America. We urge your active engagement and support
immediately upon convening the 108th Congress of the
emergency disaster assistance legislation passed by the
Senate last session.
We urge Congress to approve this legislation and work with
the administration to ensure that this emergency program is
in place, which provides a responsible level of assistance to
those suffering substantial losses as a result of natural
disasters. This adequate response is needed immediately to
reduce the devastating economic impacts being experienced by
farmers, ranchers and their communities throughout much of
rural America because of natural disasters beyond their
control.
Thank you for your attention to this issue. We look forward
to working with you to address this serious situation in a
timely and effective manner.
Sincerely,
National Farmers Union.
American Farm Bureau Federation.
National Grange.
National Farmers Organization.
American Beekeeping Federation.
American Corn Growers Association.
American Sheep Industry Association.
American Soybean Association.
Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative.
Cape Cod Cranberry Growers' Association.
Cherry Marketing Institute.
CoBank.
Cooperative Ginners Association of Oklahoma.
Farm Credit Council.
Intertribal Agriculture Council.
National Association of Wheat Growers.
National Barley Growers Association.
National Cotton Council.
National Grain Sorghum Producers.
National Grape Cooperative Association, Inc.
National Milk Producers Federation.
National Potato Council.
National Sunflower Association.
National Association of Farmer Elected Committees.
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture.
Northeast Farm Credit Regional Council.
Northeast States Association for Agricultural Stewardship.
R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America.
Soybean Producers of America.
Southern Peanut Farmers Federation.
Triangle Cooperative Service Company.
USA Dry Pea & Lentil Council.
U.S. Apple Association.
U.S. Canola Association.
U.S. Custom Harvesters, Inc.
U.S. Durum Growers Association.
Vidalia Onion Business Council.
Welch's.
WIFE.
____
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the leader again for giving me
this time. I yield the floor.
____________________