Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, while we are waiting for an agreement--I hope that comes very soon--on the time to vote on the pending amendment, I would like to introduce into the Record letters of support for the amendment. The first is from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, a letter to myself signed by Lynn Cornwell, president of the NCBA; next, a news release from the National Association of Wheat Growers expressing support in favor of the pending disaster relief amendment; next, a letter from the National Farmers Union in support of this amendment signed by 26 different State farmers unions; letters to me from the Montana Stockgrowers Association, the Montana Farmers Union, and the Montana Grain Growers Association, all in support of the amendment. I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, what is the present parliamentary situation?

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair, and I thank my good friend from Delaware, Mr. Carper, who is a great addition to this body, to the country, and certainly does great service for his State of Delaware. The Senator is a good man. Mr. President, like a lot of others, I have read the David McCullough biography of President John Adams. I commend it to anybody listening who has not read it. It is a wonderful story of a colossus of a man, John Adams. It is so inspirational, especially reading about that era in our country where men and women were very concerned about their futures, most of them having left England, oppressed by Great Britain, and how they reacted to it, with the variety of people in the colonies at that time with different backgrounds and certainly not having present-day communications. Nothing traveled faster than the speed of a horse. It gave people time to reflect. John Adams read thousands of books. He read all the political philosophers of the time in original Greek, in original Latin, as did a lot of our Founding Fathers and women, too. Abigail Adams clearly was a great force in helping our country come together. John Adams, as a major force for what was right for America, helped persuade the delegates assembled at the Continental Congress trying to decide the future of our country to break away and declare independence. He is the main reason for the words in the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson wrote them, of course, but it was John Adams who was the primary mover in helping to persuade men and women in difficult times to come together and do what was right and break away from Great Britain. Then came the Revolutionary War. We were so ill prepared. Mr. President, 35,000 British troops landed on Staten Island. We had such a difficult time putting troops together, and it was John Adams, as the head of the War Board, who foresaw far ahead of anybody else how difficult the Revolutionary War would be and began putting together the armaments in order to make that happen and how to prevail and how to deal with the Brits. I only mention this because as we are debating an economic stimulus bill, an economic recovery bill, in many respects what we are doing is so far removed from those great Americans who met in Philadelphia, later met in Washington, DC, in subsequent years, in helping develop and frame our country. This is a sterile debate compared with the debates they had. It is a very important debate, but it is a sterile debate. It is very important clearly because our economy is not out of a recession. Most businesses that study these matters for their livelihood believe we are not out of the woods. The manufacturing sector is in very difficult straits. There is some data that indicates maybe we are near the end of the so-called recession, but it is my belief, in talking to people around the country, business men and women, that we are not. That is clearly the case with respect to at least a couple of million people who, in addition, have lost their jobs compared with previous years and deserve an extension of unemployment compensation benefits. We do need to come together in the way our forefathers did back then. I do not want to be too dramatic or too simplistic about it, but when we look back and think of what our Founding Fathers and mothers did and how they came together in very difficult times, it is very inspiring. I urge us to tap into that, to remember what they did and to utilize and act in the same vein and try to do what is right for America. I think if we are all honest with ourselves we know what is right is to forget this partisan bickering back and forth. Forget the labeling. Forget the criticism. Forget trying to take credit. Just kind of do something which seems right, and right to me is some modest tax stimulus to help business and extending the unemployment compensation benefits to help people who have lost their jobs. Different Senators are going to have different ideas, but in the main I think we can do something pretty modest but on target and very quickly. I am quite confident the President wants the same thing and is trying to achieve the same goals. I urge all of us on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to in a larger sense be inspired by our Founding Fathers and think of the difficulties they had in working together, and they worked together. The Thirteen Colonies actually voted unanimously for independence. One State abstained, but 12 Colonies all voted unanimously. It was very difficult. Think of the southern Colonies, the northern Colonies, much different backgrounds, but they came together. They knew what was right for America. On a much lower plane, if they could do what is right for America back in 1776, clearly in the year 2002 we could pass a modest economic stimulus package that makes sense for America. In that vein, I urge all of my colleagues to work together. Amendment No. 2701 to Amendment No. 2698

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to include extension of expired agricultural disaster assistance programs to the economic recovery bill. My amendment, cosponsored by Senator Enzi, provides $1.8 billion for the Crop Disaster Program for losses incurred in calendar year 2001. Further, it provides $500 million for the Livestock Assistance Program, $12 million of which will be directed to the American Indian Livestock Feed Program. Extension of these agricultural disaster relief programs is necessary. Why do I say so? It is because of an unprecedented streak of poor weather and economic conditions continue to hamper the economic prospects for farmers and ranchers throughout our country. Farmers in parts of the South and northern-tier States have been particularly hard hit. Although some sectors and some regions have begun to recover, farmers' overall earnings from their farming operations, not including government payments, are down sharply from the levels in the mid-1990s. The current difficulties could not come at a worse time. While struggling to survive three disastrous years, farmers are now faced with sharply escalating operating costs due to higher energy and fertilizer prices, and basically higher operating costs. According to the most recent projections provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, total farm expenses were estimated to rise another $4.2 billion in 2001. This latest rise came on the heels of a nearly $10 billion increase in total farm expenses in the preceding year, 2000. Caught between severe and erratic weather conditions and rising operating costs, American agricultural producers have experienced a severe economic squeeze. The data kept by USDA's Economic Research Service demonstrate that net farm business income was at a decade-low in 1999 and 2000. Thanks to a limited recovery in some sectors, USDA projects that farm business income will rise slightly in 2001. Still, unless government assistance is continued, net farm income in 2001 is actually projected to be lower than farm income in those bad years of 1999 and 2000. Even in sectors in which economic conditions have been improving, such as livestock, poor grazing conditions have pushed many ranchers to feed heifers for slaughter rather than using them to rebuild their herds. Not surprisingly, 3 years of economic hardship have taken a toll on the farm economy. ERS statistics show farm debt rising in the last 3 years at such a rapid rate, more than in the 1980s. In other words, farmers are borrowing to continue their operations. This increased debt load adds further to farmers' operating costs. In my home State of Montana, it is anticipated that 40 percent of producers seeking operating loans this year will be denied if we fail to provide this assistance in this amendment. Thus, if government efforts to support farm income are now curtailed--with weather problems continuing, costs rising, and no time to recover from the contraction in farm operating income since 1998-- the economic impact on rural America could be devastating. In a real sense, the economic problems that have afflicted the rest of the economy in recent months have been plaguing the farm economy for several years. A downturn in farm income does not just impact farmers; it wreaks havoc in the rural communities that depend upon them. Farmers in economic distress are not able to make their usual purchases of seed and fertilizer, not to mention food and clothing. This makes the agricultural sector--which is directly and indirectly responsible for nearly one-fifth of U.S. gross domestic product--among the most vulnerable sectors of the U.S. economy. To ensure that the stimulus plan also provides benefits to agriculture-dependent economies in the South Midwest, and northern-tier States, my amendment extends the disaster relief programs that have been critical to shoring up farm income over the last 3 years. This will allow farmers--and the rural economies that depend upon them--to share the economic support provided to the rest of the economy in the stimulus plan and make real progress in recovering from the multiyear downturn they are now struggling through. Simply put, many rural economies did not fully participate in the growth in the 1990s. According to data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, growth in many rural States, including Montana, Iowa, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Wyoming, Louisiana, and Mississippi has lagged behind--in some cases, far behind--the national average. In the same vein, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, over the last decade, job growth in rural areas has lagged far behind that in urban areas. Further, rural areas appear to have entered the current recession in late 2000, almost a year and a half ago. Rural America seems to be the first to suffer a recession and the last to recover. For this reason and so many more, this stimulus bill should include agricultural disaster assistance. I note that this amendment does not include a commodity purchase section that was the subject of much criticism from the other side of the aisle. Some may recall that this provision was attacked for extending benefits to buffalo ranchers and asparagus farmers--among others. I believe those attacks were unfair and misdirected. I still support provisions for specialty crop producers. However, in order to minimize controversy and move this amendment forward, I have dropped this provision from my amendment. Finally, I have letters of support for this amendment from the following organizations: The National Association of Feed Growers, Montana Stockbrokers, National Farmers Union, signed by 26 State presidents, the National Cotton Council, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and others. I also have a joint letter from the Montana Grain Growers Association and the Montana Farm Bureau Federation describing the desperate need for this agricultural disaster assistance. All I hear when I am home is the need for this legislation. We are in dire straits. We have not participated in the national growth of the 1990s. We are hurting. It is not just my State but in many other parts of rural America. We need this. I urge all colleagues to support this amendment and ensure this economic stimulus program truly helps all Americans. That includes farmers, ranchers, and those living in rural communities.

Mr. BAUCUS. Yes.

Mr. BAUCUS. About $2.3 billion.

Mr. BAUCUS. Disaster assistance.

Mr. BAUCUS. Right.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the farmers cannot wait. We don't know the prospect of the farm bill either. Income is going down the tubes; farmers are going down the tubes. That is why we are acting now.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to make some points in response to the Senator from Oklahoma. He makes some good points, but I think they should be addressed. One is, what about livestock; what about crop insurance. Why don't we have a crop insurance program that works, that takes care of disasters, farmers who suffer disasters? Why do we have to come along every once in a while with a disaster assistance bill? If I might suspend, I see my friend from Nevada in the Chamber. He may have a request.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, just some basic points to clear the air and to get the facts straight. It has been suggested that we have crop insurance and why isn't crop insurance sufficient to compensate farmers and ranchers through disaster. The argument is made that we have a crop insurance program. Why do we need disaster assistance? The answer is quite simple. First of all, the crop insurance program does not cover livestock. So that point is irrelevant. Second, with respect to crops, program crops, there are a couple of points. No. 1, very few farmers buy Federal crop insurance. Why? Because it is so expensive and the coverage is so poor. Even with reform of the crop insurance program, it is not good enough for farmers and ranchers to participate in it. It just is not available as a practical matter. In addition to that, it is unavailable today for crop losses in 2001. If you had a loss on your crop in 2001, you cannot go now to buy Federal crop insurance in 2002 which will cover losses in 2001. It is too late. Even if you were to buy Federal crop insurance in 2002, you would not want to, a lot of farmers do not want to because, as I said, it is so expensive and the coverage is so poor. The last disaster bill passed here covered losses basically because prices were so low. The disaster assistance bill before the Senate now covers natural disaster losses--drought, floods--and also quality crop losses; that is, insect, disease, or for whatever reason the quality of the crop is so poor that the farmer takes a large cut. This is not a new program. This amendment only provides dollars for existing disaster relief programs. For crops, it is a 35-percent loss, and for livestock, under the livestock emergency feed program, it is a 40-percent loss in grazing over 3 months; for quality loss, as I recall, it is about a 25-percent loss. It is existing programs. In many States across our country, we find counties that have already been declared disaster counties for purposes of this amendment. For example, I will read some of the States. In Iowa: $17 million would be available for crop disaster, $3.1 million for livestock. In Oklahoma--my good friend from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, would be interested in this--it is about $50 million in disaster assistance to farmers in Oklahoma for crops, and about $40 million for livestock disaster assistance; Texas, $436 million for crops, $92 million for livestock. The list goes on: Wyoming--Senator Enzi, of course, is cosponsoring this amendment--Tennessee, a significant amount; Mississippi, a cotton State, $70 million for cotton producers as a consequence of disaster to the cotton industry in that State; Montana, of course, and I might also add that there are many others. At the appropriate point, I will indicate all of the States that qualify. I might also address a point made by the Senator from Oklahoma that all these big farm bill payments--he read in the paper a lot of farmers get very high payments under the farm program. That is comparing apples with oranges or watermelons with peanuts or whatever products you want to take. We are not talking about the farm bill, Mr. President. This debate is about emergency agricultural disaster assistance, which is entirely separate from the farm bill. It is true that some farmers, under the current farm program, get high payments. It is also true that there are very significant limitations on which farmers or ranchers can get disaster assistance-- very significant limitations. A farmer or rancher cannot get disaster payments over $80,000. We hear about farmers who get large payments under the farm program. Much of that is justified because they are large farms. But that is irrelevant to this point. This point is, what do farmers receive and what should they receive under disaster assistance? There is an $80,000 limitation. A farmer or rancher cannot receive more than that in disaster payments. But $80,000 is not a lot of money. That is gross payment. Think of all of the costs that farmer or that rancher has to incur. That is not $80,000 in his pocket, that is $80,000 to cover expenses and losses. Mr. President, I guarantee you it would not even come close to making a farmer whole. There is another limitation, where no payments can go to any farmer or rancher whose gross income is $2.5 million. That may sound like a lot of money, but not if it is gross. Anybody who knows anything about farming or ranching knows that what farmers and ranchers receive as their net profit, in most cases, is zero. In many cases, it is less than zero, or maybe a little bit more than zero. The net return on farmland in America is a pittance. But farmers and ranchers endure that low rate of return because it is a way of life.

Mr. BAUCUS. Yes.

Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct. The Senator makes an excellent point. Farm machinery costs have skyrocketed. It is obscene how much tractors cost. A combine is over $100,000. I know; I was raised on a ranch. I am astounded at how much farm equipment costs today. It is just ridiculous. On top of that, it cannot be used, in most cases, year round. It is not like a factory where you get to use the equipment all the time and have 60, 70, 80, 90 percent capacity. Most farm equipment is only used for a short time. You can only harvest cotton a certain time of the year or bail hay or combine grain. It is a very short season. It is not year round. So it is a very expensive piece of equipment that does not get a great rate of return because it cannot be fully utilized, to say nothing of all the other increased costs that are greater for farmers or ranchers; namely, fuel, fertilizer, and other things; all of that has gone through the roof, including freight rates. I am from a State which is a captive shipper State. There is virtually no rail competition in my State. Shippers in my State ask grain farmers to pay twice as much to ship a bushel of wheat than do farmers in other parts of the country who ship that wheat the same distance. Why? Because there is competition in the other States. There is none, for all intents and purposes, in Montana. There are other cases around of captive shippers. It is not of sufficient competition to get trucker or rail rates low enough. However you slice it, this is a sector of the economy that is in deep trouble. For a specific, unique reason--weather-related, cost-related-- if we are going to pass an economic stimulus bill, as we should, because our country still needs a stimulus that is fair, direct, short term, a shot in the arm, agriculture should be included. Agriculture, directly and indirectly, is one-fifth of America's gross domestic product. I will bet a lot of people living in cities do not know or appreciate that. But agricultural production, directly and indirectly--that is, suppliers and expenditures farmers make on not only equipment but farm products and also farm services, and they also buy clothes and pay the bills and so forth--it amounts to one-fifth of America's gross domestic product. If we are going to pass a stimulus bill, certainly a good portion of it, a significant portion, or a small portion should include agricultural disaster assistance. I will yield the floor. I see my very good friend, my colleague from our State, on the floor. I am honored that he is here to speak on the amendment. I know a lot of farmers and ranchers in the country are pleased to see Senator Burns supporting this effort.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to waive section 205 of H. Con. Res. 290, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001, for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, there are a number of States that have a good number of counties which have been designated as having disasters. In Michigan, for example, there are 82 counties that are eligible for these emergency loans due to losses by drought. In Texas, 58 counties received emergency designations. To quote a press release from Secretary Veneman, ``Texas has experienced a variety of weather-related disasters this year, including drought, excessive rain, tornadoes, hail and flooding.'' These counties were in addition to the 23 counties designated for emergency earlier in the month of December 2001. In Idaho, 28 counties were designated; in Maine, 16 counties; in Tennessee, 16 counties were designated; in New York, 33 counties, because of drought, hail, and excessive rain; Nebraska, 36 counties due to draught and severe heat; Pennsylvania, 3 counties were named on January 8th of this year, but 58 counties in Pennsylvania were designated December 14 because of drought; in Ohio, 36 counties designated for disaster qualification due to losses caused by excessive rain and flooding. That designation was on November 8 of last year. In Oklahoma, in October of last year, the entire State was designated due to losses caused by excessive heat and drought. Secretary Veneman stated at that point: Oklahoma has experienced severe drought conditions this year. Our farmers and ranchers need this assistance to recover from these natural disaster losses. That is Secretary Veneman commenting on the problems in Oklahoma. Mr. President, there are more I could cite, but I think that is enough at this point. I see other Senators standing in the Chamber. I assume they want to address the Senate. I am not positive. But I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, seeing no speakers at this point, I hope my co-manager, my good friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, will come fairly quickly so we can get an agreement on further time remaining for debate on this amendment. When that occurs, then we will get closer to a vote. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Landrieu of Louisiana be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have a letter addressed to me, signed by James Echols, who is chairman of the National Cotton Council. I will not read the entire letter, but I will read the operable paragraph. Essentially, the letter urges the passage of the pending amendment and it includes this statement: Cotton producers have suffered late season losses from flood damage in the Mid-south and dry growing conditions followed by excessive moisture during harvest in West Texas. In most cases crop insurance coverage was inadequate or nonapplicable as damage occurred to seed cotton stored in modules stored in the fields while waiting to be ginned. Further we understand crop insurance policies have a provision which deny coverage for losses due to unnamed storms such as the one that occurred in the Mid-south last fall. Producers of other commodities have suffered similar losses and also need assistance. I ask unanimous consent that this letter from the National Cotton Council be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I believe the Senator made a unanimous consent request that would change my unanimous consent request, at least as I understand it. I ask the Senator if he will modify his request to substitute the stimulus bill that passed the Senate Finance Committee instead of the bill that passed the House.

Mr. BAUCUS. Given all the objections that approach will take, I was asking the Senator to consider the approach I am suggesting.

Mr. BAUCUS. I understand. I am sure the Senator would love to do that, and I am also sure there would be other Senators who would object.

Mr. BAUCUS. I see. It is now more clear to me what is happening.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in the whirlwind of activity that always accompanies the end of a legislative session, many critical legislative decisions are made and critical legislation passes. Often it takes some time to tote up the wins and losses and arrive at a final evaluation of what has been achieved and what remains to be done. Despite the efforts of those in the Senate, one of the losses for the session is the expiration of three key trade programs, the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), the Andean Trade Preferences Act (ATPA), and Trade Adjustment Assistance program. What is surprising about the expiration of these programs is all three of them have nearly universal support. They expire not because of a legitimate difference in policies and not because the programs have served their purpose. They expire because of political maneuvering in the House. In my view, it always reflects poorly on the Congress when needed programs expire due to political machinations or simply lack of attention. It sends poor signals to those that depend on these programs. In this case, the U.S. companies that import products under GSP and ATPA and the foreign countries we are attempting to aid through these programs can hardly avoid the impression that these programs are a low priority for Congress. In the case of ATPA, there are those that believe that expiration will spur a rapid move to expand ATPA. I support an expansion of ATPA, but I believe such brinkmanship is far more likely to result in a long break in ATPA than it is a quick expansion. Fortunately, in the case of both GSP and ATPA it is possible to extend these tariff benefits retroactively. If the U.S. importers are able to shift funds and wait, there is a good chance they will ultimately receive the promised benefits from these programs. Sadly, this is not the case with the expiration of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. This program provides income support and training benefits to workers who have lost their jobs due to trade. It provides them the opportunity to train for a new job and rebuild their lives. Given that they are unemployed, they are generally not in a position to absorb a three month or a six month break in benefits. I understand that the Department of Labor plans to advise the state agencies that work with them to administer TAA plan to advise those agencies to keep paying benefits because they expect the program to be reauthorized. The Department of Labor's advise is sound; indeed, I hope to win passage for a considerable expansion of TAA. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that state agencies will keep operating based upon this federal promise and borrow money from other programs to support TAA. In fact, in at least 5 states, state law prohibits such fund shifting. This raises the prospect that some of the 35,000 TAA recipients around the United States will receive a very nasty Christmas present-- the unexpected halt of the benefits on which they depend to rebuild their lives and support their families. Mr. President, I believe Congress is sometimes criticized unfairly. Sometimes, however, the rush of events diverts attention from some of the glaring errors we make. The stubborn obstinance of some of the other body to extend TAA is, in my view, a shameful example of playing politics with the interest of those citizens that can least afford it. I hope this example is not lost on journalists, editorial writers, and, ultimately, voters. Someone should be held accountable.