[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1408-1410]
[From the U.S. 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 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.

[[Page 1409]]

       ``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 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

[[Page 1410]]

     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.

                          ____________________