April 4, 2001 Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to enter into the RECORD letters from Senators requesting approximately $10 billion a year to be added over this 10-year period to the support for agriculture. This is a letter from 44 Senators, including 19 Republicans, asking for an amount of money--actually asking for somewhat more than is in the Johnson amendment. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: U.S. SENATE, Washington, DC, March 30, 2001 Hon. PETE V. DOMENICI, Chairman, Committee on the Budget U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. KENT CONRAD Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget Washington, DC. DEAR CHAIRMAN DOMENICI AND SENATOR CONRAD: We request that at least $10 billion in emergency economic assistance for agriculture for the 2001 crop year be included in the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution. We also ask that the budget resolution contain an increase in the annual baseline spending for agriculture for subsequent crop years by at least $12 billion over fiscal years 2002-2011. Economic forecasts for agriculture remain bleak for the 2001 growing season and beyond due to the continuation of collapsed commodity prices, while input costs--most notably fuel and fertilizer--skyrocket. We believe that Congress must continue to support agriculture in order to prevent massive farm failures, which would cripple rural America's economy and could further dampen the general economy. We cannot allow this to happen, especially during this time of national economic uncertainty. As you know, the funds devoted to agriculture in the fiscal year 1997 budget were cut substantially to help reduce our nation's ballooning deficits. The farm bill enacted in 1996 was therefore insufficient to fully address the last three years of collapsed commodity prices and weather disasters. Consequently, Congress has been forced to provide approximately $25 billion in emergency aid to Agriculture since 1998. We believe the budget resolution must allocate a level of funding adequate for Congress to write a new farm bill that meets the needs of farmers and insures the future of our rural communities. Producers should not be held hostage to the unpredictability of politics and annual ad hoc payments. Finally, we wish to go on record as supporting the position already taken by our colleagues--Senators Cochran, Hutchinson, Breaux, Landrieu, Bond, Sessions, Lincoln, Shelby, Bunning, Helms, McConnell, Craig, Cleland, Inhofe, Thurmond, Fitzgerald, Miller, Frist, Thomas, Hutchison and Hagel--on this issue in their letter dated March 13, 2001. We thank you for your attention to this issue. Sincerely, Byron Dorgan, Conrad Burns, Tom Daschle, Mike Enzi, Tom Harkin, E. Ben Nelson, John Edwards, Dick Durbin, Mark Dayton, Max Baucus, Jay Rockefeller IV, Tim Johnson, Carl Levin, Patty Murray, Patrick Leahy, Debbie Stabenow, Maria Cantwell, Ron Wyden, Herb Kohl, Jean Carnahan, Evan Bayh. Mr. CONRAD. I also ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the RECORD. It is a request to Senator Domenici from Southern Senators, Republicans and Democrats, for an amount of money that is actually in the Johnson amendment. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: U.S. SENATE Washington, DC, March 13, 2001 Hon. PETE V. DOMENICI Chairman, Committee on the Budget U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. DEAR PETE: We are writing to request your assistance in including appropriate language in the FY02 budget resolution so that emergency economic loss assistance can be made available for 2001 and 2002 or until a replacement for the 1996 Farm Bill can be enacted. Specifically, since conditions are not appreciably improved for 2001, we support making market loss assistance available so that the total amount of assistance available through the 2001 Agricultural Market Transition Act payment and the Market Loss Assistance payments will be the same as was available for the 2000 crop. We understand it is unusual to ask that funds to be made available in the current fiscal year be provided in a budget resolution covering the next fiscal year, but the financial stress in U.S. agriculture is extraordinary. According to USDA and other prominent agriculture economists, the U.S. agricultural economy continues to face persistent low prices and depressed farm income. According to testimony presented by USDA on February 14, 2001, `"a strong rebound in farm prices and income from the market place for major crops appears unlikely . . . assuming no supplemental assistance, net cash farm income in 2001 is projected to be the lowest level since 1994and about $4 billion below the average of the 1990's." The USDA statement also said . . . `"(a) national farm financial crisis has not occurred in large part due to record government payments and greater off-farm income." In addition to sluggish demand and chronically low prices, U.S. farmers and ranchers are experiencing rapidly increasing input costs including fuel, fertilizer and interest rates. According to USDA, "increases in petroleum prices and interest rates along with higher prices for other inputs, including hired labor increased farmers' production expenses by 4 percent of $7.6 billion in 2000, and for 2001 cash production expenses are forecast to increase further. At the same time, major crop prices for the 2000-01 season are expected to register only modest improvement from last year's 15-25 year lows, reflecting another year of large global production of major crops and ample stocks." During the last 3 years, Congress has provided significant levels of emergency economic assistance through so-called Market Loss Assistance payments and disaster assistance for weather related losses. During the last three years, the Commodity Credit Corporation has provided about $72 billion in economic and weather related loss assistance and conservation payments. The Congressional Budget Office and USDA project that expenditures for 2001 will be $14-17 billion without additional market or weather loss assistance. With projections that farm income will not improve in the near future, we believe it is vitally important to provide at least as much total economic assistance for 2001 and 2002 as was provided for the 2000 crop. Congress has begun to evaluate replacement farm policy. In order to provide effective, predictable financial support which also allows farmers and ranchers to be competitive, sufficient funding will be needed to allow the Agriculture Committee to ultimately develop a comprehensive package covering major commodities in addition to livestock and specialty crops, rural development, trade, and conservation initiatives. Until new legislation can be enacted, it is essential that Congress provide emergency economic assistance necessary to alleviate the current financial crisis. We realize these recommendations add significantly to projected outlays for farm programs. Our farmers and ranchers clearly prefer receiving their income from the market. However, while they strive to further reduce costs and expand markets, federal assistance will be necessary until conditions improve. We appreciate your consideration of our views. Sincerely, Thad Cochran, John Breaux, Tim Hutchinson, Mary Landrieu, Kit Bond, Jeff Sessions, Blanche Lincoln, Richard Shelby, Jim Bunning, Jesse Helms, Mitch McConnell, Larry Craig, Max Cleland, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Peter Fitzgerald, Zell Miller, Bill Frist, Craig Thomas, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Chuck Hagel. Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a letter from Senator Crapo asking for an amount of money actually somewhat more than is in the Johnson amendment. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: U.S. SENATE Washington, DC, March 28, 2001. Hon. KENT CONRAD Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget Washington, DC. DEAR SENATOR CONRAD: I write to request your assistance in including flexibility in the Fiscal Year 2002 budget resolution to address the needs of America's agricultural community. The budget resolution should provide for emergency economic assistance for agricultural producers until the next farm bill can be enacted. Additionally, adequate baseline funding for agriculture needs is vital. The U.S. agricultural economy continues to face persistent low prices and low farm income. A rebound is unlikely in the near future. In fact, U.S. net farm income is expected to drop 9 percent in 2001. Recognizing the importance of a safe, affordable, and abundant domestic food supply. Congress has provided producers with supplemental farm assistance for the last three years. This assistance has been vital to operator viability. Although our farmers and ranchers would prefer to receive their income from the market, they are facing desperate times. While they work to reduce costs and expand markets, we must do what we can to assist them. Supplemental support should continue until Congress enacts a new farm bill and flexibility to provide this funding should be included in the budget resolution. As a new farm bill is developed, it is also important that we increase the baseline for agriculture related budget functions. In addition to the demands of the commodity programs, current funding levels do not reflect the growing need for increased market access, conservation, research, and rural development funding. In a global economy, agricultural profitability is tied to foreign markets. Trade is critical to the future of agriculture. It must be free and fair, unfortunately, at this time we have neither. Increases in the budget will allow for additional funding for market access programs, while barriers are reduced and inequities addressed. America's farmers are working to meet increasing environmental regulations and reach their own stewardship goals. It is important that we provide them with funding to meet the demand for clean air and water, wildlife habitat, and open spaces. Increasing the natural resources and environment baseline will provide producers the technical and financial assistance necessary to allow them to succeed and remain good stewards of the environment. Increasing the agricultural baseline will also allow us to support important research efforts. America's farmers and ranchers are the most efficient in the world. Agricultural research is vital to maintaining and building upon efficiencies, improving profitability, protecting the environment, developing new markets and uses, and addressing emerging issues. The rural development programs administered through the U.S. Department of Agriculture are also important. Rural economic development programs are increasingly valued in rural America. In light of a distressed agricultural economy and declining resource industries, these programs are urgently needed. Additionally, infrastructure needs in rural areas are high and increasing federal mandates add to these costs. Rural development programs are helpful to rural communities trying to comply with the disproportionate costs of federal mandates. Adequate steps should be taken to ensure these essential programs are funded. I am confident that the budget resolution can provide flexibility for emergency economic assistance and increase baselines in a fiscally-responsible manner. Please rest assured that I remain committed to a balanced budget and will work with the Committee to prioritize competing needs. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Mike Crapo, U.S. Senator. Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the question of the amount of money is guided by what our competitors are doing. The Europeans, who are our major competitors, are outspending us by a very wide margin. The amount of money in the Johnson amendment is intended to approach what our major competitors are doing. It doesn't equal them, but it is to at least give our farmers a fair, fighting chance.