```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 66 (Monday, April 24, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5569-S5571]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

   IMPLEMENTATION OF USDA DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS IN CALIFORNIA

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I was a strong supporter in the last 
Congress of the bill passed and signed into law by President Clinton 
regarding the reorganization of the Department of Agriculture and 
Federal crop insurance reform. I would like to again extend my 
congratulations to Senator Lugar and Senator Leahy for their 
outstanding efforts on the passage of this very important legislation.
  A driving force behind crop insurance reform was to make basic crop 
insurance obligatory in an effort to avoid ad hoc disaster bills in 
Congress. Under crop insurance reform, crops that are not eligible for 
insurance will qualify for disaster relief under the newly created Non-
Insured Assistance Program [NAP]. We are not sure how the NAP Program 
will work and how effective it will be in helping farmers of 
noninsurable crops who have suffered a natural disaster. The NAP 
regulations are still being drafted by the Department of Agriculture.
  California agriculture has recently experienced devastating floods. 
California Food and Agriculture Secretary Henry J. Voss has estimated 
that damage resulting from the March winds, rains, and flooding in 
California is over $665 million.
  Commodities suffering severe losses statewide include almonds, $208 
million; strawberries, $63 million; plums and prunes, $53 million; 
lettuce, $40 million; and apricots, $20 million.
  One of the hardest hit counties is Monterey County, which has 
suffered over $240,000 million in damages. Over 70,000 acres of 
agricultural land have been lost or damaged. I share Congressman Sam 
Farr's grave concern about 
[[Page S5570]] how the Department of Agriculture will help these 
farmers get on their feet again.
  My purpose in raising this issue today is to ensure that 
implementation of crop insurance reform is successful, that it achieves 
the goal of helping farmers recover quickly, and that it avoid the need 
for another ad hoc disaster bill.
  The Department of Agriculture, in implementing the new Non-Insured 
Assistance Program and other disaster relief programs, should do so in 
a way that appropriately meets the needs of California agriculture.
  We have the situation in California, especially in the case of 
specialty crop growers, where farmers may not qualify for the Non-
Insured Assistance Program, due to various criteria. Note that of the 
250 crops grown in California only about 10 are covered by crop 
insurance.
  There are two specific issues which I hope, with your help, and with 
the ongoing efforts of Congressman Farr, we can urge the Department of 
Agriculture to resolve administratively.
  At this point, I would like to ask my colleagues Senator Lugar and 
Senator Leahy several questions regarding the implementation of the 
agriculture disaster assistance programs by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture.
  Would the Senators agree with me that we must urge the Department of 
Agriculture to ensure that ``area'' is defined in a fair and equitable 
manner?
  Mr. LUGAR. Yes, I agree that the Department of Agriculture must 
ensure that ``area'' is defined in a fair and equitable manner, 
consistent with the need for fiscal responsibility and program 
integrity. The issue should be resolved administratively so that the 
definition of ``area'' is sufficiently flexible and sensitive to the 
agronomic practices of the area that has suffered the disaster.
  Mr. LEAHY. I concur.
  Mrs. BOXER. Another issue of critical importance to farmers in 
California and their ability to recover from the disastrous floods they 
are experiencing is the issue of crop losses in cases where a grower 
plants and harvests multiple crops in 1 year. To qualify for the Non-
Insured Assistance Program, a farmer must lose 50 percent of the crop 
in a crop year. Loss is counted differently depending on whether a 
farmer plants the same crop over and over again--as in the case of 
lettuce growers--or whether a farmer grows and harvests different crops 
in 1 year.
  In the case of a lettuce producer who raises multiple crops of 
lettuce in 1 year, for example, the producer won't be eligible for non-
insured assistance based on losses for a single harvest even if he 
loses 100 percent of his crop. In comparison, a producer who raises 
wheat followed by soybeans--which commonly occurs in the south--would 
be eligible if the grower lost 50 percent of the wheat crop. The grower 
would again be eligible for his soybeans if he had significant losses. 
In contrast, the lettuce producer who suffered 100 percent loss of his 
crop would receive nothing.
  Would the Senators agree with me that we must urge the Department of 
Agriculture to ensure that the multiple planting issue is dealt with in 
an equitable manner?
  Mr. LUGAR. I agree that we must urge the Department of Agriculture to 
ensure that the ``multiple planting issue'' is dealt within an 
equitable manner, consistent with the need for fiscal responsibility 
and program integrity.
  Mr. LEAHY. I concur.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank very much Senator Lugar and Senator Leahy for 
their support on this issue. I hope that our statements today will help 
guarantee that farmers are treated equitably.
  There is another issue I am very concerned about regarding the 
implementation of agriculture disaster assistance programs by the USDA 
in California. Many small- and medium-sized farmers may not qualify for 
low-interest loans because they may not be considered a family farm, 
given the working administrative definition regarding ``the substantial 
contribution of labor.'' Many specialty crops, including strawberries, 
by there very nature require intensive labor. It is simply not fair to 
exclude them from disaster assistance.
  We seem to have a disaster assistance policy that is not equitable 
where small- and medium-sized farmers are concerned. I believe that 
just as the Federal Government steps in to help small- and medium-sized 
businesses with disaster relief low-interest loans to help business men 
and women rebuild, so too it should step in to help families who have 
staked out their business interests in agriculture. Why should a shop 
owner who sells fruits and vegetables be eligible for help from the 
Small Business Committee and not the farmer who planted and harvested 
those fruits and vegetables?
  I urge the Department of Agriculture to ensure that family farm is 
interpreted to take into account the cultural practices in the area 
where the damaged crop is being grown, as well as the common 
agricultural practices of the particular crop in question. I also urge 
the Department of Agriculture to be as flexible as possible with the 
working administrative definition regarding ``the substantial 
contribution of labor'' to ensure that growers of crops that by their 
very nature require intensive labor not be excluded them from disaster 
assistance.
  I would like to reiterate that the issues I have raised today can be 
resolved easily if the Department of Agriculture were to carefully 
consider and take into account the cultural practices in the area where 
the damaged crop is being grown, as well as the common agricultural 
practices of the particular crop in question. On the issue of the 
definition of ``area'' I would like to add the following:
  As I previously mentioned, we have the situation in California, 
especially in the case of specialty crop growers, where farmers may not 
qualify for the Non-Insured Assistance Program, due to various 
criteria. Note that of the 250 crops grown in California only about 10 
are covered by crop insurance.
  To qualify for the Non-Insured Assistance Program, there has to have 
been a loss in 30 percent of an ``area.'' The term ``area'' was not 
defined in the legislation and the Department of Agriculture is 
currently looking into just how this will be implemented. There is talk 
of ``area'' being defined as a county, or as 250,000 acres or as 35,000 
acres. We have crops in California where this definition would 
automatically exclude many of our farmers. For example, in the counties 
of Monterey and Santa Cruz, about 45 percent of the strawberry crop for 
the Nation is grown on a total of 10,000 acres. We must ensure that 
``area'' is defined equitably in a way that does not exclude California 
farmers.
  On the multicrop issue I would like to add the following:
  To be fair to California farmers, the Department of Agriculture 
should consider each harvest as a separate crop for the purposes of 
eligibility for disaster assistance. It is my understanding that this 
was the policy until 1994 and that the 1995 floods will be the first 
test case of the new policy. Although it may appear that all crops are 
treated equitably, this is not the case in reality, given the fact that 
most program crops are not planted over and over again; they are always 
intermixed; that is, soybeans after corn, and so forth. Again, I 
strongly urge the Department of Agriculture to take into account the 
common agricultural practices of farmers when looking at how crop loss 
is counted for eligibility to the Non-Insured Assistance Program.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I understand and applaud the Senator's 
concern for her constituents. However, I must also urge the Department 
to be cautious in approaching the definition of ``family farm.'' In 
years past, the Farmers Home Administation made emergency loans to 
large farmers in California and other States that led to millions of 
dollars in individual indebtedness and enormous losses to taxpayers. On 
March 31, a hearing in the Agriculture Committee pointed up the 
substantial losses that we are still likely to incur on these loans and 
made it clear that the Department has continued to write off debt owed 
by million-dollar borrowers, despite statements of outrage at past 
lending practices.
  Given this unfortunate history, I believe the Department should move 
with extreme caution and should act to avoid a repetition of past 
abuses. The Farmers Home Administration--now a part of the Consolidated 
Farm Services Agency--was intended to serve family 
[[Page S5571]] farmers, and the agency's experience in lending to farms 
of extremely large size is not a happy one.

                          ____________________
```