Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007

Floor Speech

FARM, NUTRITION, AND BIOENERGY ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - December 12, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk about two amendments to the farm bill proposed by the Senator from New Hampshire.

These amendments would have devastating impacts on farmers in my home State of Washington, and I urge my colleagues to oppose both of them.

The first would strike the badly needed agriculture disaster assistance trust fund and direct the money to other sources.

Under my colleague's amendment, most of that money would go to reduce the deficit, and some would help low-income residents with their heating bills.

The second would strike the Market Loss Assistance Program for asparagus growers.

Our farmers are the backbone of our Nation. But farming is a difficult business.

One bad storm can wipe out a whole crop or a whole herd--and take your livelihood with it.

That is the position that some of the farmers in my home State are in now. And that is why it is so important that we have a safety net ready to help them.

Last week, I spoke on the Senate floor about the storms that had devastated western Washington.

Winds and dangerous floods and mudslides washed out roads and homes and cut off power to thousands.

Thousands of people are still coping with the damage, and our agriculture producers in southwest Washington were hit especially hard.

We won't know the full impact of this storm for some time.

But we are already starting to hear reports about lost livestock, poultry, farm buildings, and equipment.

Some reports say that producers lost thousands of animals--and that number may still grow.

The agriculture disaster trust fund in this farm bill ensures that we have a permanent pool of money to help farmers after natural disasters, such as the storms in Washington State.

I appreciate the work of the Finance and Agriculture Committees to add this important program. And I want to thank Senators Harkin and Chambliss for their leadership on this bill.

I wish this program were already in place.

If it were, farmers in Lewis and Grays Harbor--two of the counties hit hardest by the flooding--would be able to apply for Federal aid to rebuild their herds.

For example, the Livestock Compensation Program in the trust fund would pay 75 percent of the value of the dead animal.

Without a permanent disaster assistance program, we are left to provide this kind of help on an ad hoc basis. A trust fund would ensure that money is always there when it is needed.

Our farmers shouldn't have to depend on political whim when disaster strikes.

And that is why the amendment to strike this fund would be such a bad idea.

Now I strongly support the LIHEAP program. I think it is critical, especially as we head into the winter months. But I think we can find a better solution that doesn't eliminate this trust fund.

And so I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment by Senator Gregg.

Secondly, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the amendment to strike the market loss help for asparagus growers, another program that is vital in my home State.

Historically, asparagus has been a major crop for Washington State farmers. In fact, it was the first crop harvested in Washington.

But our asparagus farmers are hurting now because of competition from growers in Peru.

The Andean Trade Preference Act has allowed Peruvian asparagus to flood the market.

And unlike most free-trade agreements, the act went into effect without a transition period to allow U.S. producers to prepare or adapt.

Over the Thanksgiving recess, I visited with a number of farmers in Yakima, WA, who told me about the devastating impact this trade agreement has had.

The numbers speak for themselves.

In 1990, the value of the crop was approximately $200 million. Its value now is down to $75 million.

Before the act, more than 55 million pounds of asparagus were canned in Washington State--roughly two-thirds of the industry. But by 2007, all three asparagus canners in Washington had relocated to Peru.

I have fought to help our U.S. growers. I have tried to get them trade adjustment assistance and other help.

And over the past several years, I have secured funding for research on a mechanical harvester to make this labor-intensive crop less expensive to produce.

And most recently, I worked with my colleagues from Michigan and Washington to include the market loss program for asparagus growers in this farm bill.

I appreciate the leadership of Senators Harkin and Chambliss on this issue as well.

This program would provide up to $15 million nationwide to help U.S. farmers who still grow asparagus despite foreign competition.

I hope this program will help growers in my State continue to invest in asparagus.

We modeled this after a similar program for apples and onions, which I helped add to the 2002 farm bill.

I remember hearing from apple growers about the effects of Chinese imports on our markets.

That program provided over $94 million for our Nation's apple growers, and it has proven to be a big help to our apple industry.

I would note to my colleague from New Hampshire that his State received over $1 million from the apple program.

Striking the market loss program from the farm bill would be a step in the wrong direction for our asparagus industry.

And it would have serious impacts on farmers in my home State.

So I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment as well.

``No'' votes on both of these amendments will support the struggling asparagus industry.

And they will help our farmers and ranchers when disaster strikes.

These programs are too important to our farmers to be cut.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source