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.
“TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE LEGISLATION FOR FARMERS” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Agriculture was published in the Senate section on pages S2115 on Feb. 10, 2003.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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.
____________________
