The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Agriculture was published in the Senate section on pages S14106-S14108 on Nov. 8, 2007.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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 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.
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.
____________________
