News Coverage
Debating the $3 billion disaster aid bill
Published October 7, 2004
Disaster aid is a touchy topic this fall. Who deserves it? Where should the money come from? The House on Wednesday night adopted a $3 billion disaster aid measure, offset with a cap on future spending for the Conservation Security Program (CSP). The House version of the aid bill is different from the Senate-passed version. Because of the CSP offset, getting the legislation passed in conference committee is still in question.
US Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) Wednesday night called the House decision "misguided," and characterized it as a plan to cannibalize farm bill conservation funding to pay for farm disaster assistance. He said the move "will have long-term negative implications for agriculture and sets a dangerous precedent for future disaster assistance efforts."
"Utilizing conservation funding for what is essentially a political shell game will backfire. Farmers and ranchers across the country realize this is a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul, and they won't stand for it," Harkin said.
US Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), in a press conference before the vote on Tuesday, also said he didn't think paying for disaster aid should be done by cutting conservation programs. Rather, the money should come from "offsets that are across the board, not just agriculture," he said.
In that position, he agreed with a host of farm groups and the Environmental Working Group.
EWG weighed in on the issue this week, releasing a nine-year review of USDA records that pointed out that some disaster-prone farmers have received disaster payments one out of every three years, with some farmers receiving aid in 4 or more of the past nine years.
"Congress should not fund agricultural disaster payments with money already dedicated for agricultural conservation programs," EWG wrote in a report of the findings. "If these disasters are truly emergencies, they should be paid for with an emergency appropriation as Congress has done routinely in the past."
EWG's analysis showed th at more than half the farmers who received disaster aid four or more of the nine years analyzed, which met their definition for "chronically dependent" were from 5 states: Texas, Oklahoma, North and South Dakota, and Georgia.
"It's bad enough that annual farmland disaster bailouts reward farmers who grow dependent on federal emergency payments and continue to farm in disaster-prone regions," Jon Corsiglia, a spokesperson for the group told Agriculture Online earlier this week.
"But Congress is close to making this situation worse by paying for the disaster relief by raiding funds from farmland conservation programs, which reward farmers who make on-farm improvements with significant long-term environmental and productivity benefits."
The group also recommended that Congress should not approve farm disaster-funding without directing USDA, and independently, the GAO, to conduct an expedited, thoroughgoing assessment of patterns of dependency among disaster-prone recipients and regions over the past decade.
The review should also examine the need to require crop insurance within disaster-prone regions and among disaster-prone farmers, with appropriate premiums.
Also recommended in the EWG report: "USDA should develop an assistance strategy for such farms and regions to help farmers shift to agricultural enterprises that are sustainable--suited to the agronomic conditions in the region, without the need for regular disaster aid."
National Farmers Union and 25 other groups wrote to Senate and House members Wednesday insisting that farm programs not be tapped to offset natural disaster aid for farmers and ranchers.
"It would be unfair to assess extra taxes from hurricane victims to pay for relief efforts in Florida, and it would be equally unfair to liquidate farm bill assets to pay for weather-related losses that are beyond our control," said NFU President Dave Frederickson in a release Wednesday. "This alternative that the Bush administration and a few in Congre ss are proposing is virtually asking farmers to give with their left hand as they are receiving with the right."
Following is a list of the farm organizations that signed the letter:
Alabama Farmers Federation
American Corn Growers Association
American Farm Bureau Federation
American Soybean Association
Farm Credit Council
Georgia Peanut Commission
Independent Community Bankers of America
National Association of Conservation Districts
National Association of Farmer Elected Committees
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture
National Association of Wheat Growers
National Barley Growers Association
National Cotton Council
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
National Farmers Organization
National Farmers Union
National Grain Sorghum Producers
National Milk Producers Federation
National Sunflower Association
Southern Peanut Farmers Federation
Soybean Producers of America
US Canola Association
USA Dry Pea & Lentil Council
USA Rice Federation
US Rice Producers Association
Women Involved in Farm Economics