[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Page 2690]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE LEGISLATION FOR FARMERS

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes today to 
express my concern about yet another implementation foulup at the 
Department of Agriculture. Over the past several months, many 
colleagues and I have been extremely disappointed to find that USDA has 
deliberately ignored congressional intent in implementing the farm 
bill. Today, I want to point out to my colleagues that this pattern is 
not limited to the farm bill.
  Six months ago, we enacted comprehensive trade legislation that gave 
the President trade promotion authority. In return for this authority, 
the President embraced an expansion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance 
program to help those who suffer ill effects as a result of trade 
agreements. I was extremely pleased that this expansion of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance included legislation I authorized to make the TAA 
program work for farmers.
  When a trade agreement causes manufactured imports to increase, and 
plants close and workers lose their jobs, the workers are eligible for 
cash benefits and retraining under TAA so that they can adjust to this 
dislocation and find new work. But when a trade agreement or change in 
our trade policy results in a flood of agricultural imports that 
collapse prices and cost farmers tens of thousands of dollars in the 
lost income, farmers could not qualify for assistance because the 
program requires that you lose your job. Farmers don't lose their jobs. 
They still bring in the harvest. But when prices collapse, they can end 
up losing a lot more than income than the manufacturing worker who does 
lose a job. That is unfair, and it is wrong.
  My TAA for Farmers legislation would fix it to make sure farmers can 
receive assistance when trade causes their prices and incomes to 
collapse. The law we passed last year directed USDA to get this program 
up and running by February 3--this past Monday. But just a few days 
ago, without any prior warning, USDA informed me that Secretary Veneman 
and her top deputies had ignored the law. They never bothered to direct 
anyone to write the rules to implement TAA for Farmers. USDA is only 
now getting started on this project, and it will take at least 6 months 
before the rules are in place. That means farmers who were hurt by 
trade last year will not be able to get the assistance to which they 
are entitled under the law. That is just not right.
  Year in and year out, agriculture is one of the few bright spots in 
our international trade picture. At a time when we are running $400 
billion annual trade deficits, agriculture is one of the few sectors to 
show a trade surplus. Yet too often in trade negotiations our 
agricultural interests have been traded away to get agreement in other 
areas. And the results can be devastating.
  For example, in North Dakota we have had a bitter experience with the 
Canadian Free Trade Agreement. As a result of defects in that 
agreement, North Dakota wheat and barley growers have been subjected to 
a flood of unfairly traded Canadian imports, costing our farmers 
hundreds of millions of dollars in lower prices and lost sales. Not 
surprisingly, support for trade expansion out in farm country, where it 
ought to be stronger than anywhere else, has slipped dramatically. My 
TAA for Farmers legislation is designed to create a safety net to help 
farmers in this circumstance. My hope is that this legislation will 
also help rebuild support for trade agreements than can increase our 
agricultural imports.
  But that certainly won't happen if Secretary Veneman and the USDA 
ignore the law and fail to implement the program. So I want to put the 
Secretary on notice that, while I cannot say I am surprised that she 
has once again failed to come through for farmers, I am certainly 
disappointed. And I will be watching very closely to make sure that the 
timetable does not slip again and that the final rule is consistent 
with congressional intent.

                          ____________________