[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 74 (Tuesday, May 6, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H3102-H3106]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2419, FOOD AND ENERGY SECURITY ACT 
                                OF 2007

  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DeGette). The Clerk will report the 
motion.

[[Page H3103]]

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Flake moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2419 (an Act to 
     provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through 
     fiscal year 2012) be instructed not to recede to the 
     provisions contained in subtitle A of title XII of the Senate 
     amendment (relating to a permanent agriculture disaster 
     assistance program).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) 
will each be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, this motion to instruct conferees is 
simple. It would urge the farm bill conferees to not include a new 
permanent disaster program contained in the Senate-passed farm bill. 
The Senate-passed farm bill included a new and permanent disaster 
program which has been estimated to cost an additional $5.1 billion.
  First of all, I want to commend the House for not including the 
disaster title. It is not needed. We end up paying far more than we 
should in the regular subsidy programs; but to add a permanent disaster 
title is simply heaping too much on the taxpayers. As I go through some 
of this, you will see why.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, since 1989 Congress 
has passed 35 appropriations authorizations or farm disaster acts that 
have added more than $60 billion in supplemental funding to USDA 
programs with just under 8 percent of that coming in the last 10 years. 
An analysis by the Environmental Working Group showed the Federal 
Government provided $26 billion in disaster relief payments between 
1985 and 2005. Congress spent more than $8 billion in disaster payments 
between 2002 and 2006, with an additional $3.4 billion being made 
available for the 2008 omnibus for disaster payments for losses between 
2005 and 2007.
  So you see, we have regular subsidy programs that are awfully big, 
and then we are being asked to add a disaster title on top of that. 
When we debated the bill in 2002, the 2002 farm bill, the idea was to 
stop the expensive disaster assistance payments. Former Senator Daschle 
said at that time: ``We are getting rid of these ad hoc disaster 
payments approaches. We are actually bringing down the cost of the 
Federal program.''
  So in essence we were basically including permanent disaster relief 
within the farm program in 2002. Or that is what was said at the time. 
And now we are being asked again, let's add another disaster title 
because we simply aren't subsidizing enough.
  Representative Lucas of Oklahoma said during that debate: ``On the 
committee, both Republicans and Democrats worked to find a balanced 
bill so we would not have to come back to Congress and ask for ad hoc 
disaster bills year after year. We have found that balance in the 
manager's amendment.'' Again, that was in 2002.
  We were told if we passed the bill in 2002, we wouldn't have to come 
back again and again for disaster payments. But guess what, we were 
back the next year and the next year and the next year with disaster 
payments; and we are being asked again here to include a permanent 
disaster title. Now believe me, if we do this, next year we will be 
asked to add disaster payments again and the next year again and again. 
This is nothing more than an effort to increase the baseline, to 
increase more subsidies going out to farmers.
  Representative Pomeroy said in 2002: ``There is a better way to go 
than to add ad hoc year-to-year disaster bills that leave the farmer 
and their lenders and their creditors not knowing where they stand. The 
better way is to put it in the farm bill, just like this bill does.''
  Let me remind you, that bill was passed. We did exactly what these 
Members said we should do in order to avoid ad hoc disaster payments 
henceforth. Guess what, we didn't. We have seen those payments again 
and again. Now we are being asked to include a permanent disaster 
title, only to see these payments again and again. It is simply too 
much.
  When do we stand up and say enough is enough? The taxpayer is on the 
hook for too much.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, I respond to the constructive tone of the 
proponent of the motion to instruct with just a few words of 
explanation.
  Essentially there are two risks that farmers cannot control. One of 
them is if the prices collapse. And we have seen prices collapse often 
in the years I have been in the House below the cost of raising the 
crop. In that circumstance, farmers need help.
  We also see the risk of production failure where weather and natural 
disasters produce a broad crop failure. Well, the 2002 farm bill 
referenced by my friend, Mr. Flake, restored protection for farmers 
when prices collapse. Prior to that restoration, we had a farm bill 
that did not respond when prices collapsed, and during the late 1990s 
we sought not one but two, maybe even three disaster bills to respond 
to the price collapse. The 2002 farm bill fixed that, and with price 
support payments that trigger when prices hit a certain low level, we 
have not had to come the disaster route to deal with price collapse 
again. The result has been a tremendous savings for taxpayers. We have 
a farm bill that only pays out when farmers need it, and billions of 
dollars have been reduced from the baseline for agriculture because the 
pricing environment has not required the Federal Government to step in 
with price support.
  Now as a matter of budget principle, I would think that Mr. Flake, 
and we all know he is ever-vigilant on budget matters, would very much 
like bringing disaster on the budget where it is paid for rather than 
rely on ad hoc disaster payments that are not paid for, that are 
emergency spending. And so that is what I want to focus on during the 
balance of my time.
  We know that in our great Nation there will be production 
circumstances causing disaster losses, and we know that these are going 
to move around.
  This is the U.S. drought monitor for midsummer 2006. We see a broad 
pattern of drought. The very next year we had other parts of the 
country facing a drought threat that really could produce disaster 
losses.

                              {time}  1945

  So we know that someplace in the country we're going to have 
extraordinary circumstances that will literally threaten the family 
farmers in that region.
  Well, why don't we just move ahead then and, with this farm bill 
opportunity, address that issue, and that's precisely where the 
conferees are in terms of completing their work on this farm bill. They 
have a disaster component of this bill. It is paid for in the spending 
of the farm bill; no off-budget, no emergency spending. It's paid for 
in the farm bill. And what's more, it involves important reforms as 
well.
  I expect my friend, Mr. Flake, and I agree that when you have ad hoc 
program, you don't necessarily have the reins around the spending as 
you'd like.
  This bill is very spelled out. It only pays if the entire farm 
suffers a disaster loss as defined in the statute. Earlier ad hoc 
programs will pay if just a portion of the farm is hit with disaster-
type losses. This is whole farm loss that's provided for.
  And we require the farmer to maintain crop insurance. We don't want 
anybody relying on this disaster program as their risk protection. 
They've got to provide for their own risk protection with crop 
insurance, and this would only cover additional losses in the event of 
a disaster situation.
  You might ask, why do you need that if you've got crop insurance? And 
it's well known that crop insurance leaves a significant percentage of 
the farmers' costs exposed.
  Now, let me just tell you, as I wrap up, why this is so important. We 
have farmers putting in the most expensive crop in the history of U.S. 
agriculture. The bankers that I have been visiting with in recent days 
have told me that operating loans to our farmers are running 30 percent 
above the amounts last year because of the extraordinary costs our 
farmers are encountering.
  I had a farmer tell me today that putting in his crop near Edgeley, 
North Dakota ran $10,000 a day just for the fuel burned by the three 
tractors. $10,000 a day. That means, while farmers usually put it all 
on the table and take enormous risk at the beginning of

[[Page H3104]]

a planting season, this year, more than ever before, they've got it all 
hanging out there. And if we don't have protections, those farmers that 
might find themselves in a disaster loss situation would take a hit 
that might very well threaten the continuation of that family farm.
  So we think the best way to deal with this prospect of disaster 
losses is to put it in the farm bill, make sure that it's paid for, 
provided in the budget, and that's precisely what we have done.
  I would resist the motion to instruct, and urge my colleagues to vote 
``no.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. The gentleman mentioned that having these permanent 
disaster titles built into the budget would be a good thing so we don't 
have the ad hoc disaster programs. I agree, it would be. But we've done 
that. That's how the last firm bill was sold to us; that yes, it's a 
bit bloated; yes, it's bigger than you'd like, but it's going to 
include disaster payment so we don't have to do ad hoc stuff anymore. 
We're going to build it into the budget.
  I read several quotes. There are several more. Let me just read one 
more. Representative Combest of Texas said, ``There is a safety net 
which is built into the program. I think, to my budget conscious 
colleagues, of which I am one, this is more of an honest way to deal 
with this problem than ad hoc disaster bill after disaster bill after 
disaster bill after disaster bill.''
  Now, that sounds just like what we heard. This was in 2002. And we've 
had many ad hoc disaster bills pass since that time. I guarantee you, 
if we pass this, with this large disaster bill attached to it, we'll 
see more disaster bills after this time.
  The gentleman mentioned that disaster bills come to fill in the gaps 
when there are bad crop years. That's the purpose of it. In fact, we 
subsidize crop disaster insurance to the tune of about $3 billion a 
year, I believe. We've had many programs, many bills to do that. But it 
hasn't seemed to work because we keep funding on top of that.
  If you look at this chart, this chart will show 2002 through 2006, 
these were not particularly bad years. In the red you will see the 
subsidies that were given during this time. In the yellow you'll see 
disaster payments added on top of the programs. So you see, in good 
years, in bad, it doesn't matter. We seem to have crop disaster 
programs and money paid out every time, no matter what.
  This next chart is quite telling. Shortly before the 2002 
Congressional elections, the Bush administration faced growing pressure 
from ranchers and politicians in a handful of western States that were 
hit hard by drought. There was pressure to actually do something to 
help these ranchers.
  The USDA responded with a plan to give ranchers cash payments based 
on how much livestock they owned. Now, to qualify, a rancher had to be 
in a county that suffered from a drought and declared a disaster by the 
Agriculture Secretary in 2001 or 2002. Legislation was approved by 
Congress to extend the livestock program into January of 2003 as well.
  Let me just give you one example of how this works. I'll go to this 
chart later. But all you have to do is to be in a county where some 
kind of disaster is declared. The rules were loosened so it didn't even 
have to be a weather-related disaster. Something else could trigger it 
as well. And all a farmer had to do is say, or a rancher had to do is 
say, I am from this county, therefore I deserve payment. Per head 
livestock payment. And that was paid out.
  And you had counties that had no disaster at all, or parts of 
counties, in Arizona we have large counties, only 15 in the State, so 
you have parts of counties that perhaps weren't suffering any disaster 
at all where people were collecting payments.
  But what you also had, and this will demonstrate the absurdity of the 
program we have now and the eligibility rules. In Texas here, on 
February 1, 2003, we had a very unfortunate incident where the Space 
Shuttle Columbia exploded over Texas, upon re-entry. It scattered over 
a certain part of the State. The President declared certain counties in 
Texas a disaster area in order to have emergency services go and 
collect the debris.
  Because that was a national or, I'm sorry, a disaster declared in 
certain counties, all ranchers had to do in those counties is claim 
there's a disaster; I'm going to collect benefits for my livestock. And 
you had, literally, millions of dollars paid out to ranchers for their 
livestock because of a disaster, a space shuttle exploding over Texas.
  Now, that will give you some idea of the eligibility rules that apply 
here. This, we make no effort in this legislation, nor have we made any 
effort in any others to really seriously tighten up these eligibility 
rules. And that is simply wrong to do this.
  We are embarking again, let me remind you, in 2002 we were told, 
let's include a bigger bill, let's have a bigger bill that will include 
disaster relief, and then we won't need to come back anymore. We'll 
include it in the base bill. That's better budgeting.
  That's exactly what we're hearing today, the same thing, but with no 
promise that we'll actually get rid, or that we'll actually cut other 
programs, go into the commodity programs, shave money here to pay it 
here. No, we're just increasing the baseline substantially.
  And I should note, this is not paid for in the bill. The permanent 
disaster relief is above the base line. We're having to charge fees 
somewhere else to pay for this. So it's not in the bill. It's not paid 
for. It's actually above the baseline.
  So let me just urge my colleagues, you know, we have a program here 
that I think all of us, in our candid moments, realizes is out of 
control. We have subsidies going here that are well beyond what is 
required and necessary and right and proper. Yet, we continue to do 
this simply because it makes for good politics. I would think that 
we're better than that.
  I would think that we can rise up, at least now, as the House did, 
frankly, and say, we shouldn't have a permanent disaster title. Again, 
I want to commend the House for doing that. But this is why this motion 
is to instruct the conferees to go with the House version and not the 
Senate version.
  And I would ask my colleague, I would yield for just a minute, if you 
would, if we felt that a disaster title was so needed, why wasn't it 
included in the House bill, and why did we rely on the Senate to have 
it?
  I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Because I yielded 
back my time, anticipating you were rising to close, if you would give 
me leave, I'll have about 2 minutes, 3 minutes of answers to that.
  Mr. FLAKE. I will gladly yield.
  Mr. POMEROY. I thank my friend.
  First, there have been mistakes made in the administration of farm 
programs. And, for example, the gentleman's illustration about the 
Texas ranch issue relative to the space shuttle tragedy, that was not 
under an ad hoc disaster bill, but we believe it was very poor 
administration of relief under another program called section 32. We 
would hope that never happens again. Action is taken here to make 
certain that it doesn't.
  The disaster bill precludes losses on livestock. Moreover, they can 
only go in areas designated by the Secretary as having sustained a 
disaster loss; at which time, in the legislation, it's specified that 
the whole farm of the applicant has to suffer a qualifying loss. So no 
more if you happen to live in an area where somebody else got hit, we 
got a check for you. That's done, and tightened up considerably under 
this program.
  We think that all of those are good government provisions. We also 
addressed in the 2002 bill, and expect it to anticipate continuing in 
this bill, price support protection in the farm bill. So we have not 
had, since 2002, a disaster bill to respond to collapsed prices in the 
marketplace. We expect that that would absolutely continue. We've got a 
provision in the farm bill to respond to that. No ad hoc disaster 
required for price collapse.
  And then the gentleman's question to me, I forgot. I yield back for 
clarification, and I'll respond directly.
  Mr. FLAKE. Well, I'd just like to ask the gentleman. In 2002 didn't 
we hear exactly what we're hearing today, that if we include a 
permanent disaster title, that there will be no more need for disaster 
relief beyond this year?
  Mr. POMEROY. Well, I can only speak for the comments the gentleman

[[Page H3105]]

quoted from my own debate. And what I was so happy about the 2002 bill 
is we were restoring a safety net for farmers when prices collapsed. 
During the earlier farm bill, known as Freedom to Farm, that protection 
had been taken away and we had to resort to ad hoc disaster bills when 
the prices collapsed. We took care of that in the last firm bill and we 
have not had a disaster bill on that since.
  This disaster bill relates to production loss. And we're always going 
to have disasters in our country that bedevil some of our farmers 
relative to disaster dimension losses. We put them in the budget. We 
specify in tight reform language how the losses would be compensated. 
And we think it's good budgeting.
  Mr. FLAKE. Reclaiming my time, we heard some of these same arguments 
in 2002, that we had tightened things up, and that we wouldn't have the 
ability to game the system. Yet I mentioned the shuttle disaster as one 
of the more egregious examples. There are plenty of others.
  For example, after the Katrina disaster, part of the programs that we 
have allow, if prices drop substantially, that prices can be locked in 
at a certain price, and then farmers can go sell on the market 
afterwards. The system was gamed at that point; to the loss, to the 
tune of a couple of billion dollars. These were imaginary losses. These 
were not real losses.
  Mr. POMEROY. Will the gentleman yield on that?
  Mr. FLAKE. Just 15 seconds, if I could.
  Mr. POMEROY. We fixed the Katrina issue. That's another provision, 
not a disaster provision. That's a provision that relates to what's 
called beneficial interest, and we make adjustments reforms along the 
lines sought by the White House on that one.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I would simply say in response to that, 
this is what we heard in 2002, that we have fixed these loopholes, that 
this has tightened up. We won't have to have ad hoc disaster payments. 
There are several types. I mentioned the number of bills that have been 
passed to provide this type of disaster relief, whether it was for 
livestock or crop loss or something else. We just passed a myriad of 
bills to do that. And every time we hear, We've tightened it up; if you 
just give us a little higher baseline, if you just increase it a little 
more, then we promise we won't come back again and again and again. And 
here we are. We're back doing the same thing again.
  I would submit, Madam Speaker, that we simply can't do this any more. 
We simply can't do this.
  Let me go to this chart for a minute.
  May I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. I assure my colleagues I won't take my entire 15 minutes, 
but let me point out this chart right here.
  These are areas that have received disaster payments in 11 of the 
past 21 years. When you think disaster payments, you think this is 
something that happens once every decade or once every century or 
something that is an odd occurrence. It doesn't always occur. Yet here 
we see, look at these dots here. One, you can tell they're highly 
concentrated. Certain areas keep going back for more again and again 
and again. These areas where you see the dots received disaster 
payments 11 out of the last 21 years. One dot equals one recipient 
here.
  Now 11 out of the past 21 years, if you do the math right, that's 
better than once every 2 years people are coming back for disaster 
payments, catastrophic losses of some type or another. So the notion 
that we're taking care of it all, that we won't have any more 
catastrophic disasters, I think is blown away by this chart because we 
see again and again.
  Another thing that's quite notable with this chart is you see there 
is a very political disbursement here. I will point out one place, 
right here at the top of Arkansas. You will see a smattering of dots 
where this represents, believe me, millions and millions and millions 
of taxpayer dollars going to disaster relief. But something funny 
happens here. Once you cross the State line into Missouri, virtually no 
dots at all. Very little was received at all.
  Now, unless droughts respect State boundaries right along the State 
line, or a tornado is deterred by a barbed wire fence, then this is 
political. There is no other way to explain this. You look down here 
near the panhandle of Florida into Georgia and whatnot, there are a 
lot, and then as soon as you cross over that State line, virtually 
nothing.
  What this suggests to me, and I'm sure anybody who looks at it in 
candor would say, There's probably a very active farm service 
organization there that is applying for these grants and going after 
that drought relief for whatever it's for.
  But you have to concede there is no other way to explain this than to 
see that this is extremely political. That's how it happens. That's how 
it happened after 2002 when the White House was under much pressure to 
provide disaster relief before the election was coming up. It doesn't 
just happen under Democrat's administrations; it happens under 
Republicans and everyone. We shouldn't allow this to happen.
  Let me just close by saying, again, we heard this in 2002, we're 
hearing it again. We bought it then. We shouldn't have. Let's not 
include this $5.1 billion disaster program. I'm hearing that it's down 
to $3.8. That's maybe a good sign.
  Mr. POMEROY. If the gentleman would yield, I think it's the 
gentleman's motion so he has the right to close.
  Mr. FLAKE. I would yield 15 seconds.
  Mr. POMEROY. Actually, I'm going to ask unanimous consent to get a 
couple of minutes of my time back, 2 minutes of my time back, to 
basically put in perspective some of the points the gentleman has 
raised; and then you might want to reserve your time so you have the 
opportunity to close.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I will reserve.
  Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, I ask for 2 minutes of my time back that 
I yielded.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I will yield 2 minutes to the gentleman.
  Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, I will speak under Mr. Flake's time, and 
thank you for yielding.
  The reason I yielded back was because I thought this was about ready 
to draw to a close. There are a couple of points that I do want to make 
and believe the record needs to make clear.
  First, under the last farm bill, we haven't added billions. We've 
reduced billions from the baseline for agriculture. Because we stopped 
the ad hoc disaster response when prices collapsed, we had a provision 
in the farm bill to respond when prices collapsed. Guess what? Prices 
did not collapse, and the farm bill did not need to extend itself to 
help farmers. The market took care of the farmers. That saved, over the 
last farm bill, $18 billion off of the baseline in commodity payments.
  Now, what happens as we try to build the farm bill this year? It 
means we have $18 billion less to do it. We have come up with a farm 
bill that has additional spending, every dollar of it paid for without 
raising taxes.
  And so this farm bill is a very tightly constructed, paid-for farm 
bill in contrast to the last farm bill where $73 billion was added to 
the baseline, none of it paid for, under the Republican majority that 
previously ruled this Congress.
  The final point I would make is that we are going to have disasters. 
They will threaten the very continuation of family farms across this 
country. It depends who happens to be afflicted with the disaster at a 
certain point in time. The option before this Congress is we're either 
going to prefund, pay for, and budget a disaster response anticipating 
these losses, or we're going to continue to rely on ad hoc, off-the-
budget responses, which we believe is a less responsible way to 
proceed.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding and allowing me to make these 
rebuttal points.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I would yield 15 seconds. The question I 
had asked before of the gentleman is why didn't the House include the 
disaster.
  Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Essentially, we didn't have the funding in place to support a paid-
for disaster bill. Later, negotiations between House and Senate 
negotiators, and I have been right in the middle of it, found ways to 
fund the bill, and at that point in time, the disaster title came back 
in.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

[[Page H3106]]

  I should note, as I did before, this is not below the baseline. There 
is only room because we're going well above the baseline. We're 
actually charging fees or doing some other things to free up offset 
money to actually pay for the disaster.
  Mr. POMEROY. If I just can respond briefly.
  Mr. FLAKE. Sure.
  Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, the ad hoc disaster programs that we have 
passed did not figure into the agriculture baseline so they have not 
counted.
  Additionally, the baseline that we're operating under for this farm 
bill is below the baseline that we operated under for the last farm 
bill.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.
  I should note that the gentleman mentioned that we've cut billions of 
dollars since the last farm bill. We haven't cut anything. The reason 
that not as much has been paid out under countercyclical or some of the 
other programs is being a product of high prices, and that's as the 
program works. But I should note that even though there have been high 
prices, we're still having disasters seemingly everywhere with very 
loose definitions of what a disaster is, and I would suggest that we 
will have those again, whether or not we include a permanent disaster 
title. That's what experience tells us. That's what we've learned just 
over the past few years. It doesn't matter if you include a permanent 
disaster title or you include this under the baseline, you will have 
disaster payments go out.
  And my plea would be let's stand for the taxpayer here. We don't 
often do that in the Congress. Let's say that enough is enough, that we 
can't continue to pay out money on top of money that we said we weren't 
going to pay out.
  Again, I thank my colleagues for their indulgence. I know we went a 
little longer than we thought.
  I would urge support for this motion to instruct.
  Let's keep what the House did and reject the disaster title that the 
Senate put in.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________