[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22400-22401]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                RISK MANAGEMENT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY ACT

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have all spent considerable time during 
the past few years analyzing the problems in agriculture and making 
predictions about the future. Some of these problems can be traced back 
to various sources such as an intrusive Federal Government, drought and 
instability in foreign markets. As markets closed due to the financial 
instability, the Asian economic crisis spread, supply increased and 
farmers had no place to sell overseas. As a result, commodity prices 
across the board have been well under costs of production. We have all 
heard from producers in our states, and the message we hear is that our 
farmers are needing help.
  Before the August recess, the Senate passed a $7.2 billion emergency 
spending package designed to help offset some of the losses in recent 
years. Those in the Senate who represent Ag states realize we cannot 
pass emergency spending bills every time the Ag economy takes a nose 
dive. This is not fiscally responsible and is not sound public policy. 
Our farmers deserve better and the representatives in the Congress must 
look for ways to ensure the people in rural America reap the benefits 
of the economic prosperity we are experiencing.
  Over the August recess, I held many town hall meetings across the 
state of Oklahoma. In one meeting in the small farming community of 
Boise City, I had an audience of six farmers. For over an hour, I was 
able to talk to the folks who had seen the face of agriculture go 
through substantial changes over the past 10 years. I was able to hear 
these farmers voice their concerns about what was working, what wasn't 
and what could be improved.
  What really impressed me Mr. President, was the fact that these 
producers believed Freedom to Farm was the right thing to do for 
agriculture. They liked having the freedom to plant what they wanted, 
the freedom to experiment and try something new without government 
interference. One of the farmers, Mr. Ron Overstreet, decided to try a 
couple of new things. In an area we would not normally think of as 
dairy country or an area for growing grapes, Ron and some of his 
partners have opened a dairy operation, as well as starting a vineyard. 
As I heard during the meeting, ``If I am not willing to experiment and 
try something new, I am in the wrong business.'' I was pleased these 
farmers did not want to turn their backs on Freedom to Farm but rather 
work to improve and refine some of the provisions of the program.
  At the end of August, Congressman Frank Lucas, who represents all of 
Western Oklahoma, and I held an Agriculture Summit in which we invited 
individuals representing different commodity groups, Ag lending 
companies, farm & ranch organizations, as well as Ag economists to 
discuss solutions to the sustained downturn in the agriculture economy. 
Many saw several positive changes which could be made to Freedom to 
Farm, with very few advocating getting rid of the existing farm 
program. As several of the representatives at the Ag summit suggested, 
the Federal Government must be more aggressive in opening and competing 
in foreign markets. We must make opening and penetrating foreign 
markets a top priority of our Nation's Ag policy. Nearly \1/3\ of all 
U.S. crops are grown for the export market. In 1996, farm exports 
reached nearly $61 billion, with nearly 46% of that total going to 
Asian markets. Due to the economic turmoil, exports to Asia are now 
less than 39%. While economies in Asia are recovering, relief for our 
farmers cannot come soon enough. This Administration has been lax in 
it's fundamental duty to aggressively pursue foreign markets for 
American farmers. To do this, we must change attitudes. When the U.S. 
uses food as a diplomatic weapon with presidential embargoes, it 
deprives farmers of the freedom to sell their products. These 
unilateral sanctions hurt only a small percentage of America's 
populations. Unfortunately, that group is our farmers. But a simple 
reform introduced by Senator Ashcroft, myself and others would work to 
change this.

[[Page 22401]]

  As part of the Agricultural appropriations for FY 2000, the Senate 
adopted the Food and Medicine for the World Act. Under this amendment, 
all current food and medicine embargoes would be re-evaluated by the 
Administration and Congress and future embargoes could be imposed only 
if Congress agrees in advance. It would also lift restrictions on 
farmers using U.S. Department of Agriculture credit guarantees to get 
their goods to foreign buyers, as well as requiring the President to 
obtain Congressional approval before the U.S. implements any trade 
sanctions on food and medicine. I think this is a positive step towards 
reforming our policies on sanctions.
  With all that said Mr. President, I would like to address the reason 
I came down here today, which is to announce my support for and 
original cosponsorship of Senator Roberts' bill, The Risk Management 
for the 21st Century Act.
  At the Ag Summit I held, one item many people thought could be 
improved was crop insurance. Witness after witness testified the 
current crop insurance program is inadequate and suffers from lack of 
affordability, inadequacy in multiple years of disaster, inequality in 
rating structure, and lack of sufficient specialty crop policies. I 
believe Joe Mayer, Vice-President of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau, stated 
it best when he noted, ``. . . the cost of insurance balanced against 
the guaranteed revenues do not make the purchase of crop insurance a 
sound business practice in many parts of the country.'' In the Ag 
summit, producers also had several suggestions of how to improve the 
current system. These reforms are very simple. First and foremost, 
there must be greater levels of coverage at affordable prices to all 
producers. Second, there must be expanded availability of revenue-based 
insurance products. Third, the program must address the needs of 
producers suffering multiple crop failures. Given the present state of 
agriculture, many within the Ag community believe reforming the crop 
insurance program is the best ways to provide immediate relief for 
farmers across the country.
  Since the introduction of this bill, I have heard from producers and 
insurance agents across the state of Oklahoma who have been extremely 
pleased with the provisions of Senator Roberts' bill. I believe first 
and foremost one of the best provisions of this bill is the premium 
write-downs. Under this legislation, the current subsidy structure is 
inverted. By doing this we encourage participation at higher levels of 
coverage. By encouraging participation in the crop insurance program, 
we strengthen the safety net for America's farmers. While this is a 
very simple provision, I think this is one of the best provisions in 
the bill and one of the easiest ways to improve the current state of 
agriculture.
  The Risk management for the 21st Century Act contains provisions 
which establishes an Average Production history credit program. This 
addresses the needs of those farmers who lack production histories 
because they are just beginning or have recently added land. A related 
provision which helps many of the farmers in Oklahoma is the multi-year 
disaster Average Production History adjustment for producers who have 
suffered a disaster during at least three of the preceding five years. 
This is especially important to our producers in the Southwest who have 
suffered through several years of drought conditions.
  I am also pleased by the Noninsured Assistance program. Under this 
program, producers are allowed to plant different varieties of a crop 
and still be considered a single crop. As I heard from the farmers in 
Boise City, as well as the Ag summit, this is what they wanted--greater 
freedom and the opportunity to try new things. I am also pleased by the 
provisions dealing with restructuring the Board of Directors for the 
Federal Crop Insurance Commission. It is my hope we can fill this Board 
with producers who are farming on a daily basis and know the crop 
insurance system.
  Mr. President, Danny Geis, President of the Oklahoma Wheat Growers 
Association, noted at the Ag summit, ``Policy set forth from now to the 
end of the current farm bill must culminate in the development of a 
program that will provide a realistically solid financial floor that 
will insure stability, and will encourage the opportunistic free 
enterprise system that makes U.S. agriculture strong.'' I am proud to 
be a cosponsor of the Risk Management for the 21st Century Act as I 
believe it helps achieve this important goal. It helps producers obtain 
better coverage at a lower cost, creates a flexible policy that better 
meets their needs, and it encourages development of policies that 
ensure against market losses. This plan strengthens the farm safety net 
by improving farm and risk management by providing a good step for 
long-term policy improvements for producers. By making the permanent 
improvements to crop insurance, we will ensure that farmers and 
ranchers will have powerful management tools for years to come. Once 
again, Senator Roberts is providing a tremendous voice for farmers 
across the country and I look forward to working with him to ensure 
passage of this important legislation.

                          ____________________