[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 22]
[Senate]
[Pages 30456-30458]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
Disaster Assistance Program in the farm bill.
  From the beginning, farming has been hard work. In the Book of 
Genesis, for example, God told Adam:

       [T]hrough painful toil you will eat of [the land] all the 
     days of your life . . . By the sweat of your brow you will 
     eat your food.

  Drought and floods, frost and hail have plagued farmers ever since. 
It is hard work, yet they stick to it. It is vital work to put food on 
America's table. It has been true since Adam: All farmers suffer 
disasters. In farming, it is not a matter of if, it is a matter of 
when.
  For example, early this year, Congress passed yet another ad hoc 
disaster assistance package, and I was proud to back that package. But 
for some farmers, it was too little; it was too late. Producers are 
still reeling from disasters that occurred 2 years ago. For some 
producers who had a disaster in the spring of 2005, assistance will not 
come until late 2007 or early 2008.
  Today is November 8, and the regulations for that disaster bill we 
passed in May have not even been published. Yet some Senators are 
already calling for an extension of that disaster bill through 2007 to 
cover this summer's crops. Unfortunately, if history repeats itself, 
Congress will get around to passing another disaster bill around 2010. 
This is no way to provide disaster assistance.
  I wish to show a picture of Dave Henderson's farm in Cut Bank, MT. 
Dave is probably one of the best farmers in Montana. Just look at his 
lush field of grain. This is what Dave's wheat and barley fields 
typically look like. During a normal year, Dave raises about 35 bushels 
of wheat per acre and about 54 bushels of barley per acre. That is 
normal--35 bushels of wheat and 54 bushels of barley. But 2007 was 
anything but normal for Cut Bank, MT.
  From October 1, 2006, through September 1, 2007, Cut Bank received 2 
inches of rain. We can see the picture on the left, the result of that 
lack of rain. You don't raise a crop with 2 inches of rain all season.
  On my right is a picture of a normal year, and on my left is what 
happens when there is no rain, about 2 inches over most of the growing 
season. That is all he received.
  This fall, Dave harvested about 4 bushels of wheat per acre, and his 
barley averaged about 3 bushels per acre. You cannot pay your bills 
when your crop is about 10 percent of normal. How much assistance do 
you think Dave received from the disaster bill we passed in May? What 
do you think? The answer is nothing. Why? Because he did not plant 
before the February 28 cutoff date. Consider this: If Dave had planted 
winter wheat instead of spring wheat, he would have received a disaster 
payment. But he didn't. He planted spring wheat instead of winter 
wheat, so he didn't get a disaster payment.
  Congress can do better for our farmers. Because of Dave and thousands 
of farmers and ranchers across the countryside, I am proud we included 
a reliable disaster program in our farm bill. In the future, farmers 
will know that if they suffer a disaster, help will be on the way. It 
won't make them rich, but it will help them get by.
  I am proud and grateful for the support of the disaster program we 
have in our farm bill, the support it has received from all around the 
countryside and from a broad range of agricultural groups.
  I have a letter, which I am showing, from the National Farmers Union 
signed by over 50 groups from all across our country. This letter is 
signed by 50 different farm groups. We can see the whole list. I know 
the print is a bit small: National Farmers Organization, Ohio, Oregon, 
Pennsylvania, ARCAF, just to name a few. It is a large group: American 
Farm Bureau, Cape Cod Cranberry Growers, Texas Sheep and Goat Raisers 
Association, National Grape Cooperative Association, and the 
Independent Community Bankers of America.
  Why bankers? They have just as much at stake as farmers do. They rely 
on each other. Bankers will more likely give a loan to a farmer if he 
thinks the farmer is going to have some kind of income with a crop or 
reasonable disaster assistance program. But a banker is less likely to 
provide that loan if it looks as if that farmer is not going to have 
any income or if there is not a good disaster assistance program, 
assuming if there is hail, drought, or whatnot.
  I have another letter of support from the National Cattlemen's Beef 
Association representing cattle ranchers all across the country, 
showing a broad array of support. It is not just farmers but also 
livestock producers who very much want and support the agricultural 
Disaster Assistance Program that is in the farm bill. These letters 
demonstrate how important reliable disaster assistance is to all 
sectors of agriculture. It doesn't matter if you are a cattle rancher 
in Montana or a cranberry grower in Cape Cod; when disaster strikes, 
this program will provide a reliable safety net.
  One more interesting point. In addition to helping farmers, the 
disaster program in the farm bill is good for taxpayers. The program is 
only available to farmers who purchase crop insurance, and that is why 
it is also good for taxpayers. Let me explain that a little more.
  Those farmers who purchase high levels of insurance are eligible for 
more assistance when they face natural disasters. If you purchase low 
levels of insurance, you get probably less assistance. The program, 
therefore, creates a

[[Page 30457]]

powerful incentive for farmers to purchase high levels of crop 
insurance and take measures to manage their own risk. When farmers 
purchase crop insurance, taxpayers save money on disaster assistance.
  Now, I will put up a chart that shows this a little more graphically, 
by definition. This graph compares the disaster payments made to sample 
Midwestern farms that are under both the ad hoc and new disaster 
program. The ad hoc is in blue, and in the disaster program, in the 
farm bill, the bars are in red. Under the ad hoc disaster bills, 
farmers' payments would have been about $9,000 for a 75-percent crop 
loss--$9,000 for a 75-percent crop loss--compared to only $3,000 under 
the new program. If you had a 50-percent crop loss, the ad hoc payment 
would be $3,400 but, under the new program, $3,300.
  You might ask: What in the world is going on? Why in the world would 
we, in our farm bill, provide disaster assistance at the lower level, 
with a 75-percent crop loss, than in the ad hoc program? As I mentioned 
earlier, it is because of crop insurance. You are more likely to get 
more assistance when you purchase crop insurance. That is a good thing. 
That saves taxpayers money because we will be paying out fewer dollars 
under the disaster program.
  The program also saves taxpayers money by basing payments on whole-
farm losses. In the past, disaster payments were based upon losses to 
individual units or individual crops on the farm. Farmers were never 
asked if the farm's other units or their crops had bumper harvests. So 
it was based on a unit. One crop disaster got payment in the ad hoc 
disaster programs, even though your whole farm was doing real well on a 
net basis. You may have had hail to a small part, but the rest of the 
place was great. That often happens in my part of the world. That 
doesn't make sense.
  So we have changed that disaster assistance based on the whole farm 
on a net basis, and I think that is fairer to the taxpayers. The 
program will look at all the crops on a farm and only provide 
assistance if the entire farm has suffered a loss. When disaster 
payments are based on whole-farm losses and not individual unit losses, 
taxpayers save money and assistance is delivered to those who need it 
the most.
  In closing, our farmers deserve a disaster program that is 
dependable, that is timely, and is equitable. Our taxpayers also 
deserve a program that is fiscally sound and requires farmers to manage 
their risk; i.e., crop insurance. This disaster program accomplishes 
both. It is a win for agriculture and it is a win for taxpayers.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to reject any attempt to weaken or cut 
the disaster program. Farmers such as Dave Henderson deserve better, 
farmers producing in other parts of the country deserve better, and our 
taxpayers deserve better.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
for the Record the letters I referred to earlier.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 
    Record, as follows:

                                              National Cattlemen's


                                             Beef Association,

                                 Washington, DC, November 1, 2007.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     U.S. Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Baucus: On behalf of the National Cattlemen's 
     Beef Association (NCBA), and the farmers and ranchers it 
     represents across the Nation, I am writing to express support 
     for the Permanent Disaster Relief Trust Fund that was 
     approved by the Senate Finance Committee earlier this month 
     as part of the Heartland, Habitat, Harvest and Horticulture 
     Act of 2007 (S. 2242). It takes nearly two years for a cow to 
     produce her first calf, and a significant amount of effort 
     and expense is invested in each breeding animal. For this 
     reason, the impact of natural disasters such as hurricanes, 
     wildfires, tornadoes, blizzards, floods or prolonged drought 
     can be particularly stinging for cattle producers. 
     Appropriate and timely agricultural disaster assistance from 
     the permanent disaster relief program will provide critical 
     assistance to producers when they need it most.
       In the past, Congress has moved to pass disaster assistance 
     on an ad hoc basis in an effort to help those impacted by 
     catastrophic weather events. It has become abundantly clear, 
     however, that this reactive system of addressing agricultural 
     disasters is no longer an effective or viable means of 
     providing timely aid when it is needed. Producers struggle 
     with difficult management, movement and sale decisions in the 
     midst of a disaster, and the situation is only worsened by 
     the uncertainty that accompanies legislative action. Natural 
     disasters will continue to occur, and NCBA submits that a 
     different approach is needed. While the Permanent Disaster 
     Relief Trust Fund is not perfect, it represents a significant 
     step toward prudent fiscal planning that will serve the 
     interests of both Congress and beef producers.
       Livestock producers are accustomed to dealing with adverse 
     weather conditions, and most do their best to plan for them. 
     In fact, beef producers have actively sought out measures to 
     mitigate their risk of loss in the case of weather related 
     disasters. An example would be strong producer participation 
     in the Risk Management Agency's (RMA) Pasture, Rangeland and 
     Forage Insurance Pilot Program, which was made available just 
     last year to provide livestock producers in certain 
     geographic areas with a mechanism to insure against losses in 
     forage production. Cattle producers applaud the objectives of 
     this program, and NCBA is committed to working with RMA and 
     others to ensure that workable risk management tools are 
     available to producers.
       Nevertheless, during periods of extreme and prolonged 
     disaster, access to Federal disaster assistance programs is 
     important to the viability of many livestock operations. In 
     the most devastating instances, when producers have 
     experienced tremendous grazing forage losses or even 
     livestock mortalities, the Permanent Disaster Relief Trust 
     Fund will provide crucial support as producers struggle with 
     additional expenses for supplemental feed, grasslands 
     restoration and herd rebuilding.
       There will no doubt be challenges in implementing the 
     permanent program, and it is likely that some provisions will 
     need refinement. But, the central tenets of the Permanent 
     Disaster Relief Trust Fund, such as no disincentives for the 
     development and adoption of other insurance and risk 
     management options, eligibility criteria based on actual 
     livestock and/or forage production losses and requirements 
     that any disaster assistance funds are to be directed to only 
     those producers directly impacted by disaster conditions, are 
     a step in the right direction.
       There is no `silver bullet' solution to addressing 
     agricultural disaster assistance, but NCBA appreciates your 
     efforts on this issue. We look forward to working with you to 
     see the inclusion of this program in the 2007 Farm Bill as it 
     moves through the Senate.
           Sincerely,

                                                   John Queen,

                                                        President,
     National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
                                  ____

                                                 November 5, 2007.
     U.S. Senate,
      Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: Each year, weather-related disasters are 
     likely to occur in many communities across the country. While 
     ad hoc assistance has always been appreciated in the past, 
     the 2007 Farm Bill presents an opportunity to establish a 
     predictable program for future disasters. We urge you to 
     support the Supplemental Disaster Assistance Program and 
     oppose any efforts during floor consideration of the 2007 
     Farm Bill to redirect funds away from the disaster program.
       According to the Congressional Research Service, 34 ad hoc 
     disaster packages have been approved since fiscal year (FY) 
     1989, totaling $59 billion. Each approved measure requires 
     the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to recreate an 
     implementation plan that often results in new guidelines and 
     sign up requirements. A standing disaster program will ensure 
     a consistent and reliable implementation strategy is in place 
     for any future weather-related disaster. Furthermore, the 
     program works in concert with current risk management 
     programs, such as crop insurance and the Non Insured 
     Assistance Program, by requiring producers to purchase 
     coverage and providing an incentive to purchase higher levels 
     of coverage.
       Many of our organizations have expressed strong support of 
     ad hoc disaster assistance in the past, but have witnessed 
     the increasing difficulty in securing help. Earlier this 
     year, Congress approved emergency ad hoc disaster assistance 
     for losses that occurred in 2005, 2006 or 2007. 
     Unfortunately, the assistance is just now reaching producers 
     for losses sustained in 2005, which is a long time to wait.

[[Page 30458]]

       Again, we urge you to support the Supplemental Disaster 
     Assistance Program and oppose any efforts to redirect 
     resources to other farm bill programs.
           Sincerely,
       Agriculture Committee of the Midwestern Legislative 
     Conference of CSG.
       American Agriculture Movement.
       American Association of Crop Insurers.
       American Beekeeping Federation.
       American Corn Growers Association.
       American Farm Bureau Federation.
       American Sheep Industry Association.
       American Soybean Association.
       American Sugar Alliance.
       California Dairy Campaign.
       California Farmers Union.
       Cape Cod Cranberry Growers Association.
       Colorado Wool Growers Association.
       Idaho Wool Growers Association.
       Independent Community Bankers of America.
       Iowa Farmers Union.
       Kansas Farmers Union.
       Maryland Sheep Breeders Association.
       Michigan Farmers Union.
       Montana Farmers Union.
       National Association of Farmer Elected Committees.
       National Association of State Departments of Agriculture.
       National Barley Growers Association.
       National Bison Association.
       National Cotton Council.
       National Family Farm Coalition.
       National Farmers Organization.
       National Farmers Organization-Wisconsin.
       National Farmers Union.
       National Grape Cooperative Association.
       National Sunflower Association.
       North Dakota Farmers Union.
       Northeast States Association for Agricultural Stewardship.
       Ohio Farmers Union.
       Oregon Cattlemen's Association.
       Pennsylvania Farmers Union.
       R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America.
       Ricebelt Warehouses.
       Rocky Mountain Farmers Union.
       South Dakota Farmers Union.
       Southern Peanut Farmers Federation.
       Texas Sheep & Goat Raisers Association.
       United Dairymen of Arizona.
       United States Cattlemen's Association.
       U.S. Canola Association.
       U.S.A. Dry Pea & Lentil Council.
       Washington State Sheep Producers.
       Welch's.
       Western Peanut Growers Association.
       Wisconsin Farmers Union.
       Women Involved in Farm Economics.
       Wyoming Wool Growers Association.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________