[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 108 (Monday, July 30, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8379-S8391]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   EMERGENCY AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2001--MOTION TO PROCEED--
                               Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The matter before the Senate is the motion to 
proceed to the consideration of S. 1246.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand the parliamentary situation 
is we are now on the motion to proceed to the agricultural supplemental 
bill. Is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is on the motion to proceed.
  Mr. HARKIN. We are on the motion to proceed to the Emergency 
Agricultural Assistance Act of 2001?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. The vote on the motion to invoke cloture will take place 
at what time, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 5:30 p.m. today there will be a vote on the 
motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed.
  Mr. HARKIN. At 5:30 today, for the benefit of all Senators, there 
will be a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed 
to the emergency agricultural assistance bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Presiding Officer for clarifying that.
  As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I will take this 
time to discuss what is in this bill and why we should proceed to the 
bill and not wait any longer.
  We have this week to finish, and I understand then the Senate and the 
House will be going out for the month of August, at the end of this 
week. This bill really ought to be done this week. Then we have to go 
to conference with the House, bring the conference report back and send 
it on to the President. I am hopeful we will do that because most of 
the monies that are provided in this bill, which are allocated by the 
Budget Committee, really do need to get out. The fiscal 2001 funds need 
to

[[Page S8380]]

get out prior to September 30. It will take awhile to get the money out 
in September, although I have information that certainly the Department 
of Agriculture can get this money out in the month of September.
  However, if we have to come back in September to complete action on 
this bill and then go to conference, back and forth, then there might 
be a problem. We do have to get this bill done this week, and that is 
why I am sorry some in the leadership on the Republican side decided to 
engage in extended debate on the motion to proceed. Otherwise, we would 
be on the bill right now.
  In about 3 hours we will invoke cloture and then be on the bill, and 
hopefully we can wrap it up very soon.
  The need for assistance to America's farmers and ranchers, and the 
communities in which they live, is very critical. Without the 
assistance in this bill, tens of thousands of farmers and ranchers are 
in danger of going out of business. This package is designed to do the 
best we can to address the many problems in agriculture across the 
Nation while staying within the limitations of the budget resolution.
  I want to underscore that. This package is in full compliance with 
the budget resolution. There are no points of order that will lie 
against this bill because it is in accordance with the budget. It is 
fully in accordance with the budget resolution.
  If we compare today's market situation for the crop sector with what 
it was in the mid-1990s, crop farmers are expected to receive at least 
$16.7 billion less in net income based on both lower farm prices and 
higher input costs. The help from existing Government payments only 
makes up about half that gap, leaving a financial shortfall of a little 
over $8.5 billion. That is compared to where it was in the mid-1990s.

  This package we will have, we hope, before us this evening will offer 
direct payments and other benefits to a range of crop producers, but it 
still will not make up that entire gap. Even with this package, 
farmers, in terms of their net income, adjusting for inflation, will 
not be where they were in the mid-1990s.
  Farmers are in dire need of assistance. The bill we have before us 
provides considerably more assistance than the House bill. It is a 
substantial package, and it is considerably larger than the House bill.
  Again, I point out the needs are great and they are urgent. Crop 
prices are low. Production expenses have gone up sharply. Farmers are 
in the classic cost-price squeeze.
  I do not want to cite all the provisions in the bill, but I would 
like to mention a few. We have included in the bill funding for the 
full level of market loss assistance that was provided last year. That 
means this bill will provide an additional payment in September at the 
rate of the 1999 Freedom to Farm payment for feed grains, wheat, rice, 
and cotton. That is what it was last year, and it will be the same this 
year.
  I want to make it very clear: I am not a big fan of the AMTA payment 
mechanism which is used for the market loss assistance payments. I 
believe there are real inequities in that formula, and we must change 
it in the next farm bill.
  Our staff and I looked very carefully at whether there could be an 
alternative payment mechanism for putting out the assistance before 
September 30 other than the AMTA formula. However, in view of this 
short timeframe for USDA to get the payments out and some other 
factors, the best available approach under the circumstances is to use 
the same market loss payment approach that has been used in recent 
years.
  The inequities have been in this since the start of the 1996 farm 
bill, the so-called Freedom to Farm bill. The market loss assistance 
payments were based on the AMTA formula, and basically this formula 
went back some 20 years to look at what the base acreage was in those 
basic commodities of feed grains, wheat, cotton, and rice.
  It was based upon the production pattern at that time and based on a 
percentage of the base acreage, times the established yield, times the 
set price that is in the Freedom to Farm bill, which equaled the 
payment.
  Here is where the inequity arises: Let us say we were neighboring 
farmers. My farm was in Northern Iowa and the Presiding Officer's was 
in southern Minnesota, right across the boundary, the same farming. Let 
us say that 20 years ago I decided I was going to put all my land in 
corn. I was not going to get involved in crop rotations. I just planted 
everything fence row to fence row of corn. So my base got high.
  The Presiding Officer, on the other hand, decided the best way to 
farm would be to involve himself in crop rotations, maybe a corn/bean-
type rotation, or one involving hay and pasture. He decided it would be 
good to put in buffer strips or grassed headlands.
  That was 20 years ago. Let us advance to right now. Let us say now, 
however, the Presiding Officer and I are planting the same crop mix of 
corn and soybeans. We both have the same acreage of corn today, but 
because I planted so much 20 years ago and the Presiding Officer did 
not, I get more money from the Government because of what I did 20 
years ago. That is an inequity. Farmers who practiced good crop 
rotations and conservation are penalized. Those that planted continuous 
corn or another crop get the highest payment. It is not fair.

  We also found other inequities. Some receive market loss assistance 
payments who are not even planting any of the grains--they did 20 years 
ago--but because they established their base 20 years ago they can be 
doing something else entirely, and they are still getting that payment. 
Yet another farmer who doesn't have that base history may be receiving 
nothing or very little.
  The AMTA payment mechanism is inequitable and has been since the 
beginning. It ought to be changed.
  In view of the short timeframe we have in getting money out before 
the end of September, there was no other way to do it. Hopefully, we 
will be able to change that in the next farm bill.
  The present farm bill has one more year to run. Before we get to that 
mechanism next year, we should come up with a different mechanism.
  There are a few other areas of importance. The bill has full funding 
for soybean and other oil seeds payments at last year's level; also 
money for cotton seed and peanut farmers; funding to help the specialty 
crop producers with assistance for commodity purchases and special 
assistance for apple producers. However, in this bill, the funds for 
specialty crops in terms of market loss assistance amount to $420 
million. This amount, some say, is a lot. It is nearly identical to the 
$416 million we provided specialty crop producers in crop insurance and 
appropriations bills last year.
  America's apple growers are experiencing the worst economic losses in 
more than 70 years, having lost $1.5 billion since 1996, an estimated 
$500 million during the past year alone. Current apple prices, which 
are as low as 40 percent below the cost of production, are driving many 
of our family farmers out of existence. The average prices received by 
growers for fresh market apples in March of this year were the lowest 
in more than 10 years, 31 percent below prices in March 1999, 29 
percent below the 5-year average.
  Again, apple farmers need some help. Quite frankly, what could be 
more healthful for our population and especially for our kids in school 
than an ``apple a day to keep the doctor away,'' as our mothers used to 
say. We have a commodity that is healthful, helps prevent illness and 
disease, yet the people who grow them are in serious financial trouble. 
I thought it was important in this bill to provide some help and 
support for apple farmers who are in dire straits.
  We also provide in the bill nutrition-related assistance mainly 
through helping provide commodities for schoolchildren, families, and 
seniors in need.
  The package includes a substantial commitment to agricultural 
conservation. Several of these programs are out of money. This package 
puts much needed funding into the conservation programs. There is 
funding for technical assistance that allows the Conservation Reserve 
Program to go forward. It has no money for fiscal 2002 presently. There 
is funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, and the 
Farmland Protection Program. Basically, it provides four conservation 
programs with funds. The demand exceeds the amount of funding by a 
factor of 5 or 6. In other words,

[[Page S8381]]

there are five times more applications, applications that are approved, 
for the Wetlands Reserve Program than we have the money for.
  Some may ask, why fund them in this bill? The answer is, if we wait 
to fund them until later, several of the programs will lie dormant in 
fiscal year 2002 for several months, at least, pending a new farm bill 
or other legislation. We don't know when that may be completed.
  Keep in mind, the conservation provisions in the bill reported out of 
our committee constitute only 7 percent of the total package. I don't 
think that is too much to ask.
  Many farmers are hurting. Of course, we have the market loss 
assistance payments which I described as inequitable in many cases for 
many farmers practicing good conservation that don't have a high base. 
These conservation payments do two things. They help support their 
income, but it also provides a benefit for everyone in cleaning up our 
water and our air and saving soil. In that way, it is as much as an 
emergency need to those farmers and to us as the market loss assistance 
payments. Surely we can afford 7 percent of the entire bill to care for 
our land and water and deal with the critical conservation and 
environmental challenges in agriculture.
  For fiscal year 2002, CBO estimates conservation spending will be 
about 12 percent of USDA mandatory farm program spending. Adding $542 
million, as we have in this bill, to the fiscal year 2002 spending on 
conservation, only raises that share to 13.5 percent. That is a very 
modest increase at best and still much less than is needed. Even with 
the money we included, of all of the USDA mandatory farm spending 
program, it will only be 13.5 percent next year for conservation.
  In 1985, I believe about 97 percent of our funding for conservation 
went to farmers on working lands and 3 percent went to land taken out 
of production. Today, I believe it is about 85 percent that goes for 
land out of production and 15 percent on working lands, overall, of all 
the conservation funding. What we are trying to do is get that balance 
a little bit more oriented to helping farmers actually working the land 
rather than just taking it totally out of production.
  I strongly believe we have a balanced package, one I hope will 
receive broad support in the Senate. It has been crafted to address 
needs across the country, from Florida to Washington State and from 
Maine to New Mexico and California. It has also been crafted to address 
the needs on both sides of the aisle.
  I come back to the issue of the budget and spending. We will hear a 
lot of debate about this on the floor this evening and tomorrow. 
Hopefully we can wrap up this bill up yet this evening.
  The budget resolution as adopted by the Congress provides for the 
Agriculture Committee to spend up to $5.5 billion in assistance to 
farmers in fiscal year 2001, which ends September 30th this year. That 
is what we have done. We have not gone over that. We have put $5.5 
billion into the bill for 2001.
  The Budget Committee also allows the Agriculture Committee to spend 
up to $7.35 billion next year, in fiscal year 2002, starting October 
1st.
  The Budget Committee did not say to the Agriculture Committee: You 
can't meet and decide how to spend it until after October 1st. We just 
cannot write legislation that outlays the money before October 1st.
  Now, a budget point of order would lie if we wanted to take that 
$7.35 billion and move it to before September 30th. We didn't do that. 
As we all know, we said we will spend the $5.5 billion this year, but 
because the needs are great and the fiscal year and the crop year don't 
coincide, we decided to meet in the committee and determine how to 
spend $2 billion of next year's money next year. So the $2 billion we 
decided to spend will be spent after October 1 of this year, in fiscal 
year 2002, and it is in full accordance with what the Budget Committee 
allowed us to do. Again, I point out the Budget Committee did not say 
to the Agriculture Committee: You cannot meet and you cannot decide how 
to spend that money this year. They just said: You cannot obligate it 
until after October 1. That is what we did.

  We met. We saw the need, and we said we are going to spend $2 billion 
of that after October 1, which is fully allowed under the budget 
resolution. There is no shifting from one fiscal year into another.
  I heard it in the committee when we were debating this in the 
committee and I have heard other people on the floor refer to the fact 
that we have gone way over what the budget resolution allowed; the 
budget resolution allowed us $5.5 billion and we are up to about $7.5 
billion in this bill.
  I will continue to say as often as I can--it looks like I am going to 
have to say it a lot in the next few hours--we spend $5.5 billion in 
this year as the budget resolution allows. We spend $2 billion next 
year as the budget resolution allows. That is all we have done. We have 
the authority to do that. We are completely within the budget to do 
that.
  Again, regarding the use of fiscal year 2002 funds, this package 
simply reflects the reality of the difference between crop years and 
fiscal years. Most of the cost of farm programs associated with the 
crops this year, the crop that is in the ground in many of our States 
right now, some are being harvested--in wheat country, for example, 
some of the smaller grains are being harvested. Up in our area, we have 
not started yet, but that will happen this fall--but most of the crops 
are in the ground. The impact of the low prices will not really be felt 
until next fiscal year, 2002. That is just how farm programs work.
  I simply cannot see the problem in using some part of the fiscal 2002 
money to help agricultural producers deal with the problems of the 2001 
crop year. That is all we have done. We have done it in a way that is 
in accordance with the budget.
  Again, contrary to some of the arguments, we are not spending up next 
year's money. We are saving most of it to be spent at a later time. 
What we are spending is being used for its intended purpose: to fund 
programs within the Agriculture Committee's jurisdiction. So we had 
$7.35 billion for the next fiscal year. We have spent in this bill 
before us $2 billion of that $7.35 billion. That leaves about $5.35 
billion for next year that we can use, either separate and apart by 
itself, or we can fold it into the farm bill if, in fact, we do pass a 
farm bill later this year.
  Let's discuss the package before the Senate today compared with what 
we did last year. In last year's crop insurance bill, there was a farm 
assistance package that included $5.5 billion for fiscal year 2000, 
plus an added $1.64 billion for fiscal year 2001. So the total package 
we passed last year was about $7.1 billion. This year's package is in 
that ball park. It is a little bit higher, but really very close to 
what we did last year.
  I just ask the rhetorical question: How could it have been fiscally 
responsible to provide that level of assistance last year, but it is 
irresponsible to provide that level of assistance this year?
  When it comes to America's crop producers across the country, their 
situation has not improved and probably has worsened during the last 
year. So the need is still there. The package is very similar in size 
to last year. If the situation is every bit as bad as last year, and we 
have a package of a similar size to last year, I cannot understand any 
objection to this.

  Again, there is a similarity to last year, but there is also a 
difference. When we approved a package of over $7 billion last year, we 
had nothing left over the next year in the budget resolution; that is, 
we enacted a bill during fiscal year 2000 and we used both fiscal year 
2000 money and fiscal year 2001 money and we left zero dollars for 
2001. That is what happened last year.
  This year, however, we are spending fiscal year 2001 money, a portion 
of 2002 money, and we will have $5.35 billion left over for next fiscal 
year, which we did not do last year. So, again, I repeat for emphasis 
sake: We now have $5.5 billion to spend before September 30 on farm 
assistance. We have already that much left for the remainder of fiscal 
year 2002. So we are, with this package, maintaining a budgetary 
position for fiscal 2002 very similar to the one we have for this year.
  Some will say: Should we now be spending the money that could be 
saved for the new farm bill? First, because of the difference between 
crop-

[[Page S8382]]

years and fiscal years, spending on the new farm bill will really focus 
on fiscal year 2003 and later years, not fiscal year 2002. The farm 
bill we are under right now runs through next year. It runs through 
next year. So if our committee is going to be fashioning a new farm 
bill, really it is going to be focusing on 2003 and beyond, not for 
fiscal year 2002.
  So, again, if those who say that $7.35 billion should be left for the 
farm bill, are they saying that none of it should be spent next year? 
They are going to put it in 2003? There are a lot of farmers going to 
go broke next year if that is the case, and we will be in dire straits 
next year.
  Again, what we have tried to do is provide a smooth transition from 
this fiscal year to the next crop-year, and then to the next year 
beyond that when we will have a new farm bill. Whether the money is 
spent on a new farm bill or not, the objectives are the same: to meet 
the needs of farm and ranch families and address other priorities of 
farm policy. There are many farmers in this country who cannot wait for 
a new farm bill; they need the help right now. They are struggling to 
hang on. If we can get them some immediate help while saving some funds 
for the next farm bill, which we are doing, that seems to me to be the 
right thing to do.
  I want to take a moment to discuss a letter from the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget concerning this legislation. In that 
letter, Mr. Daniels says he will recommend the President not sign a 
bill providing more than $5.5 billion in additional assistance for 
crop-year 2001.
  Again, I am not certain how we read this. I read this saying we have 
complied with that. We provide no more than $5.5 billion for crop-year 
2001. Even though the letter refers to the 2001 crop-year, I can assume 
that the letter reflects some confusion between the fiscal year and the 
crop-year.
  I just went through all that, the difference between the crop-year 
and a fiscal year. Maybe there was some confusion in that letter. As is 
commonly done, this bill includes assistance for the current crop-year, 
2001.
  Some of this money will be spent in fiscal year 2002, but it will 
help cover the shortfall to agricultural producers for crops grown in 
the 2001 crop and calendar year. Again, there is nothing unusual about 
providing assistance in the next fiscal year for crops that were, in 
fact, grown in an earlier numbered crop or calendar year--that is the 
way farm bills work. The fiscal year ends on September 30. That is not 
when the crop-year ends, not in my area. The crop-year doesn't end for 
a long time after that. Some crop-years end about that time or before 
that, in certain parts of the country. So you cannot just base 
everything on when the clock tolls on the end of the fiscal year in 
terms of farm assistance. We do that all the time, provide that 
carryover.
  Again, having said that, I want to underscore that this bill is in 
full compliance with the budget resolution. No budget point of order 
lies against this bill. It is within the prerogative of the Senate to 
approve this legislation. It is within the prerogative of the 
Agriculture Committee to both spend up to $5.5 billion for this fiscal 
year, and up to $7.35 billion for the next fiscal year.
  I have to question the justification for Mr. Daniels' threat that he 
would recommend the President not sign this, and I must also question 
whether or not they are confusing crop-years and fiscal years.
  Is Mr. Daniels saying that Congress will not be allowed to deliver 
the assistance to agriculture that is clearly provided in the budget 
resolution? I am sorry. The White House and OMB have no jurisdiction 
over that.
  Is Mr. Daniels saying that the promise of assistance to farm 
families, which is clearly contained in the budget resolution, isn't 
worth the paper on which it is written? From everything I am aware of, 
President Bush and the White House were on board with the budget 
resolution that was put together by Republican majorities in the Senate 
and the House. That was the budget resolution which provided the 
wherewithal of the tax-writing committee to put through the tax bill.
  I recall Republican colleagues pointing favorably to the budget 
resolution and agricultural funding when the budget resolution went 
there also. We are now being told by the White House that the President 
may not sign it, even though it is fully within the budget resolution.
  Why? Mr. Daniels simply says $5.5 billion is enough. That is that. 
Maybe it is enough until September 30.
  But Mr. Daniels ought to go down and sit at some of the kitchen 
tables in the farmhouses and say, OK. Until September 30, and after 
that you are on your own.
  There is a lot of assistance that will be needed after September 30. 
The crop-years don't pay attention to when the fiscal year ends.
  Tell them that Congress won't be allowed to use the money in the 
budget resolution until after September 30.
  Finally, I must point out that Mr. Daniels is wrong to suggest 
funding is not needed for conservation. I went through that a little 
bit ago. The facts are, if we don't provide this funding, several 
programs will lie dormant for a number of months before they can be 
funded again.
  Again, it is not just payments to farmers for the loss of prices for 
their corn, wheat, cotton, rice, apples, and a lot of other 
commodities--peanuts, cottonseeds, and everything else we have. It is 
also to help farmers--maybe because of their planting history--who 
don't get much under the AMTA payments. Yet, they have been good 
stewards. These are good farm families. By providing them some help 
with conservation funding, we both are able to help them, and we are 
able to help the country as a whole by providing for cleaner water, 
cleaner air, and less soil runoff.
  This package is substantial, but it is very close to what we had last 
year in terms of spending. It is very close to what we had last year in 
terms of specialty crops. All in all, this package is not a heck of a 
lot different than what we had last year. It is a little bit more. Last 
year it was about $7.1 billion. This year it is about $7.5 billion. 
Most of that additional money is going for conservation, which is 
sorely needed around the country.
  It is a balanced package. It is balanced regionally. It addresses a 
lot of urgent needs. It fits within the budget resolution. I hope we 
can support it. I am hopeful that any amendments seeking to change it, 
to shift it, or to cut down on the payments will not be successful.
  Again, I am sorry we had to go through this exercise of filing 
cloture on the motion to proceed. We should be on the bill right now. 
We have been held up at least 1 day because someone in the Republican 
leadership on the other side decided to filibuster the motion to 
proceed to this emergency farm package. We had to file a cloture 
motion. At 5:30 today we will vote on the cloture motion on the motion 
to proceed. Again, I am hopeful it will be overwhelmingly approved, and 
that maybe yet we can even reach some agreement to wrap this bill up 
this evening. At least that is my desire.

  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand that when we go into a quorum 
call the time should be divided equally between both sides. I ask 
unanimous consent that when we go back into a quorum call the time 
remaining be evenly divided between both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to talk today about the emergency 
supplemental bill that will be on the floor dealing with the farm 
problem we have in this country.
  I just heard my colleague, Senator Harkin, the chairman of the 
committee. I commend him for what he has

[[Page S8383]]

done. I think he made a great statement. I think he has written a good 
bill, and Congress ought to pass it posthaste.
  It is rather strange that we find ourselves in this position. We are 
in the position of debating the motion to proceed to go to the actual 
bill on the floor of the Senate. Let me say that again. We are debating 
the motion to proceed. We are debating whether we should proceed to a 
bill to provide emergency help to family farmers.
  I guess those who are stalling our being able to get to that bill are 
probably not facing, with respect to their personal income, the 
circumstances family farmers are facing. Soybeans have recently been at 
a 27-year low in price; cotton, a 25-year low; wheat and corn, a 14-
year low; rice, an 8-year low. Prices have collapsed as if they had 
dropped off a cliff. They have stayed down for a number of years, only 
recovering slightly, at times.
  So family farmers, who are out there in the country and have invested 
sweat and equity in their family farm trying to make a living, have 
discovered that their income has completely collapsed. This has 
required Congress to try to patch up a bad farm bill with emergency aid 
year after year after year.
  We really need to write a better farm bill. I know Senator Harkin, 
the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, is leading the effort to do 
that. I fully support him. In the meantime, we need to provide some 
emergency help. That is what this bill is designed to do. It is called 
an emergency supplemental to try to provide some help to family farms.
  If one needs more insight into what is happening to our family farms, 
one can probably see it in the circumstances described to me by a 
Lutheran minister one day this past year. This Lutheran minister works 
in New England, ND, as the pastor of the local Lutheran church. We were 
talking about the struggle that family farmers are having in our 
country, and especially there, which is near my hometown of Regent in 
southwestern North Dakota.
  She said to me: In our little town, where we have a shrinking 
population--this is a town of probably 800 people-- we have about 4 
funerals for every wedding I conduct as pastor of our church. Four 
funerals for every wedding--I was thinking to myself about that movie 
``Four Weddings and a Funeral.'' This is just the opposite: four 
funerals for every wedding.
  What is she saying with that data? What that means is the population 
in those rural areas is getting older. Young people are moving out. 
Family farmers are shutting down family farms because they can't make 
it, and those economies are just shrinking. The root of all of it is a 
farm program that does not work. It just isn't able to give families a 
feeling they can stay on the family farm and make a decent living.
  We are in this Chamber today on an emergency supplemental bill to try 
to help family farmers. The Senate can move ahead or it does not have 
to move ahead. This is not like milking. If this were a dairy 
operation, come 5:30, if you had 80 cows that were fresh and needed to 
be milked, you could not sit around the house twiddling your thumbs 
saying: I don't think I will milk this afternoon. You would have to go 
to the barn and start milking those cows. If it was spring planting 
time, you wouldn't have the opportunity to say: I won't go spring 
planting this afternoon. You have to fuel up the tractor and go plant 
some seeds.

  Farmers understand deadlines. Farmers understand that you need to get 
things done when it is time to get them done; this Senate ought to as 
well. Having to debate the motion to proceed is an outrage.
  Who is stalling here? And why? We ought not have to debate the motion 
to proceed to an emergency supplemental bill to help family farmers. On 
Friday, one of my colleagues on the other side said: I am holding it up 
because it costs too much money. I say: You have every right to try to 
reduce the amount of help for family farmers. Let the bill come to the 
floor and then offer an amendment. If you want to cut it by $2 billion 
or $4 billion, offer that amendment, and then let's have a vote. If 
enough Senators vote with you, you will have cut the amount of help for 
family farmers. I am not going to support that, but why would you 
consider holding up the bill because you have your nose out of joint 
that it costs too much? If you think it costs too much, then offer an 
amendment to decrease it.
  Let me say this. From my standpoint, I think this investment in 
family farms for this country is a bargain. A good deal deserves 
repeating: I think investing in families who are out there trying to 
make a living on the family farm is a bargain for this country in that 
I believe it strengthens this country.
  Europe does not have this kind of internal debate. Europe decided 
long ago that it wants to maintain a network of family farms across 
Europe. Why? Because it has been hungry. It doesn't want to be hungry 
again. How does it prevent that? They work to preserve a network of 
family farmers living on the land in Europe.
  Go to a small town in Europe some evening and ask yourself whether 
that town is alive. It is. Small towns in Europe are alive. They have 
life because of family farms, which are the blood vessels that flow 
into those communities, are doing well in Europe.
  In this country, family farms are flat on their backs, struggling to 
make a living because prices have collapsed. Has anyone in this Chamber 
who makes an income had it reduced by 40 percent? That is what family 
farmers face when they discover that the price for their crop has 
collapsed. They put the seed in the ground in the spring. They pray 
that nothing is going to happen to it: no insects, no hail, no 
excessive rain, but enough rain. They pray that nothing bad is going to 
happen. Then they harvest it in the fall and they put it on a truck and 
take it to the elevator, only to be told that in a world that is 
hungry, with 500 million people going to bed every night with an ache 
in their belly because it hurts to be hungry, they are told: Your food 
doesn't have any value, Mr. Farmer. They wonder about the value 
contained in that statement.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. I was across the hall watching the presentation of the 
Senator from North Dakota. I had two questions I wanted to ask him.
  Did I understand the Senator correctly when I heard him say that the 
Senator from Idaho said he didn't like this bill because it was too 
much money, and the Senator from North Dakota responded, if that is the 
case, let us go ahead and debate the bill and offer an amendment that 
it is too much? Is that what you said?
  Mr. DORGAN. That is what I said. This bill isn't too much money. It 
is within the framework of what we decided as a Congress that we were 
going to spend on the budget. It spends the required amount in this 
fiscal year, and then $2 billion in the next fiscal year. It does not 
violate the budget.
  The point I was making was that real income for family farmers has 
fallen to the level of the 1930s. This is the real income achieved by 
farmers out there who are struggling to raise a family and run a farm. 
It is clearly an emergency. We have clearly brought to the floor 
legislation that does not violate the Budget Act. Yet even though it is 
an emergency supplemental, we can't get to the bill. We have to debate 
today a motion to proceed to the bill.
  I am outraged by the fact that there is stalling on a bill that 
represents a clear response to an emergency in American farm country.
  Mr. REID. Another question I will ask the Senator from North Dakota: 
Nevada is a State that has some agricultural interests. We have a few 
green belts, not many. Those we have are very important to the State.
  Agriculture is the No. 1 industry in North Dakota; is that right?
  Mr. DORGAN. In North Dakota, which is a rural State, agriculture is 
40 percent of the State's economy. It is clearly the 500-pound gorilla 
of economic activity in States such as North Dakota. But it is not just 
North Dakota, it is Montana, Minnesota, Wyoming, Nebraska, South 
Dakota, and Iowa. There is a whole heartland in this country whose 
economies are supported by agriculture, by family farm producers.
  Mr. REID. I have served in the House with the Senator from North 
Dakota and also in the Senate. It is difficult

[[Page S8384]]

for those of us who are not from farm States to comprehend what a 
family farm is. I have heard you say on a number of occasions how the 
family farms are disappearing.
  Would this bill, if we don't pass it in a timely fashion, force other 
family farmers to go out of business?
  Mr. DORGAN. There is no question that will be the case. There isn't 
any question if we don't provide a bridge, and quickly--between the 
current inadequate farm bill and a new farm bill that tries to provide 
a decent safety net and a bridge across price depressions--there isn't 
any question that family farmers in a number of cases around the 
country will not be allowed to continue. These are people who are more 
than just in this for a business. These are people for whom family 
farming is their life. It is all they know. It is what they do. It is 
what they want to do.
  There is so much value in family farming in a country. Farmers 
produce much more than just wheat or corn or soybeans. They produce 
communities. They produce cultural value. It is a seed bed for family 
values that moves from family farm to small towns to big cities. It is 
such an enormous contribution to the country. That is why, as I 
mentioned, in Europe they decided long ago that the kind of economy 
they want is an economy that has healthy family farm agriculture--a 
network of producers living on the land throughout Europe producing 
their food. We should make a similar commitment and write a farm bill 
that does that.
  In the meantime, this emergency supplemental is the bridge to get 
from here to there. I do hope beyond this afternoon we are not further 
delayed by anyone stalling with what clearly is an emergency piece of 
legislation designed to reach the extended hand out to say to family 
farmers that we are here to help during tough times.
  Mr. REID. I say to the Senator from North Dakota, I appreciate his 
bringing up the family values that we have in farm States.
  Our friend, Pat Moynihan, who just left the Senate, used to say that 
to have good scores on tests for students, high school students, you 
should just move them near the Canadian border, North Dakota, South 
Dakota, States along the border, the farm States. The kids do better 
than anyplace in the country with their tests; is that true?
  Mr. DORGAN. That is the case. We have some of the highest tests, 
education tests in the country. It has a lot to do not so much with the 
specific teachers or the specific schools, but it has to do with the 
family values of family farms and small towns and rural life. That is 
not to denigrate any value that anyone else has. It is simply to say 
that the kind of family values that spring from a rural State produce 
good achievement in education.
  There was a wonderful author who has since died, world-renowned 
author, actually grew up in Fargo, ND, and lived in New York and London 
before he died. He wrote a number of books. His name was Richard 
Critchfield. He wrote books that described the rolling of family values 
in this country's history in two centuries, the rolling family values 
from family farms to small towns to big cities, and the refreshment and 
nurturing of the value system in the country by having that happen.
  I grew up in a town of 400 people--not quite 400, between 300 and 400 
people. We raised livestock and other things. But I understood what 
those values meant when a fellow named Ernest died of a heart attack 
with his crop out there needing to be harvested. All the neighbors 
showed up and harvested the crop. It is like the old barn raising, the 
neighbor-to-neighbor help in which they form communities. Those values 
by which people form communities to help them through tough times are 
very important values for the country.
  That is why I came to the floor to talk about this legislation. It is 
money to be sure, but that money represents a bridge. There are very 
few people in the country who have seen a total collapse of their 
income the way family farmers have. The income for their work and the 
income for the measure of their effort is down 40 percent, 50 percent 
from what it used to be. How many businesses or how many enterprises in 
this country are getting 1930s level income in real dollars? That is 
what is happening to family farmers. It is unfathomable to me that we 
are such a strong country in terms of having this aspiration to build a 
national missile defense along with all these technologies. We are 
doing all these things, yet we have 500,000 people who go to bed every 
night hungry as the dickens.
  We have this food in such abundant quantity, yet we can't find the 
way to connect the two so that family farmers have a chance to make a 
living and people who are hungry have an opportunity for a better life. 
There is something that is not connecting very well in this country on 
this policy. That is why I want us to write a better farm bill. In the 
meantime, we must have this bridge to get there. The bridge is this 
bill, an emergency supplemental bill that provides about $5.5 billion 
in this fiscal year, and roughly $2 billion, slightly less, in the next 
fiscal year, to help family farmers over these troubled times.
  Mr. REID. One last question of the Senator: We know how important 
agriculture is. We are the breadbasket of the world. And it is 
important that we do something in this emergency supplemental bill. We 
were asked by the Chair to withhold. Another bill was brought by the 
House of Representatives, the Export Administration Act, which has 
passed the House. All they did was continue the bill that is now in 
existence, which is also a disaster for the high-tech industry.

  The Senator knows that the high-tech industry has a number of things 
they need to remain competitive. One is to make sure we pass 
legislation that modernizes the ability of these high-tech companies to 
export things that are now sold in Radio Shack that, under present law, 
they can't do.
  I want my friend to comment on what he sees happening here in the 
Senate. I reflect back to last year, when we were in the minority, we 
passed by the August recess eight appropriations bills. We have now 
passed three because, as you know, they have been slow-walking the 
Transportation appropriations bill, and we hope we are fortunate enough 
to get the VA-HUD bill. We must do something on this emergency bill 
that we are now trying to get before the Senate on agriculture. We also 
need to do the Export Administration Act. I think my friend will agree 
that it will allow the high-tech industry to stop exporting jobs 
overseas and do them here so they can manufacture equipment here, sell 
it overseas, and not have to move their businesses overseas to 
manufacture equipment over there. But we are not going to be able to do 
that, it appears. It looks as if the House is satisfied with extending 
the act that is already in existence, which the industry says doesn't 
do us any good at all.
  Will my friend comment on what is happening in the Senate with these 
things?
  Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from Nevada, I think, knows the answer to 
this question. Not very much is happening in the Senate, regrettably. 
We have a large amount to do, yet this place has been slowed down. Last 
week, it was sort of a parade-in-rest all week because people didn't 
want the Senate to get its work done. Trying to get something done in 
the Senate is like trying to walk through wet cement. It is pretty hard 
going. It is not as if there is not a lot to do and there are not a lot 
of pieces of legislation that need doing now.
  The emergency supplemental to help family farmers passed the House, 
out of the Agriculture Committee. But are we on the bill? No. Why? 
Because we are debating a motion to proceed. What is going on here, 
when we have to debate the motion to proceed to deal with an emergency 
bill to help family farmers?
  There can't be a lot of thinking going on about this. Senator Daschle 
is trying to create an agenda that says let's get our work done and get 
it done soon. Everybody ought to have the opportunity for full debate. 
For nearly 2 days last week, this Senate sat in session with nobody 
coming over to offer substantive amendments, but an objection to going 
to third reading to pass the Transportation bill. Essentially, the 
Senate was shut down. We have all these things to do, and we have so 
much ahead of us, yet people think it is somehow to their advantage to 
slow this place down.
  The Senate has never been accused of speeding, in the first place. 
This is a deliberate body, the place where we deliberate for long 
periods of time. There

[[Page S8385]]

is no excuse under any condition to force us to have to debate a motion 
to proceed. That is unthinkable, in my view.
  In addition, when we get this done, we have to finish the Department 
of Transportation bill, the VA-HUD and independent agencies bill; and 
if we get all that done, we will still come up far short of what we 
need to do. It is not because Senator Daschle has not said here is what 
we need to do, it is because we have some people sitting on the back 
seat of this bicycle built for two and putting the brakes on. All we 
want is a little cooperation.
  The Senator asks me what is happening here in the Senate. 
Regrettably, not much. This afternoon, nothing. We are debating the 
motion to proceed on an emergency bill. I have never seen the likes of 
this.
  So my hope is that those who are stalling, those who are holding this 
up will come to the floor and say, all right, we won't hold it up 
anymore. Let's go have our votes and get these pieces of legislation 
passed. The Senate can do better than this.
  Mr. President, I reserve time for others who want to speak on this 
bill. I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, in due course we will be debating a very 
important bill for American agriculture. As the distinguished chairman 
of our committee, Senator Harkin, has pointed out, the needs of farmers 
throughout our country are evident to most Senators. In fact, all 
Senators, I suspect, share an empathy for attempting to do what we can 
to help.
  I want to take these moments, before we get into the substance of the 
debate, to describe the problem as I see it; the reason the Ag 
Committee and the Senate and our compatriots in the House of 
Representatives have taken this up.
  To begin with, however, I simply want to make a comment with regard 
to the colloquy I heard in the Chamber a short time ago suggesting 
delay with regard to the agriculture situation. The comments of our 
distinguished colleagues really related to more than agriculture, and 
other bills certainly have a different track, but in the case of this 
supplemental bill to help American farmers, the House of 
Representatives passed legislation on June 26. It was not until July 25 
that legislation came before our Agriculture Committee. There was 
almost a month intervening.
  I do not charge delay. There are many things in the lives of 
Senators, many activities in the life of the Senate Agriculture 
Committee, but I simply point out that at any time from June 26 on we 
could have acted, even if we were to adopt, for example, the House 
bill, obviating a conference, and to move on to assist farmers within 
this fiscal year.
  As the distinguished majority leader pointed out last Friday evening 
at the termination of debate, there is a technical problem of cutting 
the checks physically and getting the money to farmers by September 30, 
and that is one reason that the urgency of this bill is apparent to 
most of us. My own guess is as we approach the cloture vote on the 
motion to proceed at 5:30 this evening, there will be surely almost a 
unanimous vote, if not a unanimous vote, to proceed. I think we all 
understand that.
  To suggest on our side we have been delaying action for agriculture 
would be inaccurate. Perhaps that was not even implied. Putting that 
aside, the fact is we have had packages of this variety now for the 
last 3 years.
  I just want to review, for the benefit of Senators as well as for the 
American people, some of the assumptions behind these supplemental 
packages that arrive at this point in time or sometimes even earlier in 
the year.
  Essentially, we had a very good year in American agriculture in 1996. 
For a variety of reasons, a lot of income that may have been delayed by 
events in the world and other circumstances that led to very strong 
export markets led to a net farm income in 1996 of $54.9 billion.
  If we look at the year before in 1995, it was only $37 billion. An 
average of those 2 years would lead to something between $45 billion 
and $46 billion. Nevertheless, in 1996, often mentioned in debates 
because it was an extraordinary year, it was also the year we passed a 
farm bill. The thoughts are perhaps we were carried away by the 
euphoria of that situation. I doubt whether anyone was carried away, 
but nevertheless it was a good year.
  Generally, the years came into something else. In 1997, net farm 
income was $48.6 billion, down well over $6 billion really from the 
previous year; then in 1998, $44.7 billion; and in 1999, $43.4 billion.

  In those last 2 years, the $44.7 and the $43.4 billion, these figures 
would have been lower still except for the fact we plugged in some 
income, a supplemental bill just like the one we are discussing now. 
Those monies brought things to about a $45 billion level.
  We can ask, why $45 billion? Because that seemed to be a general 
average. Those observing the debate should say: Are we saying this is a 
plus-$45 billion, American agriculture made $45 million? I am saying 
that. This was always a plus, never a deficit. In no year was there a 
net farm loss. It was always a net farm gain, and it was substantial.
  As we started this particular year, as a matter of fact, even the 
latest estimate by the U.S. Department of Agriculture is that without 
action by this body the net farm income in 2001 would be $42.4 billion. 
That is roughly the same figure the Budget Committees of the Senate and 
the House had earlier in the year when they had an extended budget 
debate. They knew that somewhere in the $41 billion to $42 billion 
level net farm income would come out about that way for 2001.
  They knew we had taken action in the past to bring things up 
somewhere in the $45 billion area, comparable to the years before. We 
did not quite succeed in 1999 at $43.4 billion, but we did succeed in 
2000 at $45.3 billion.
  They came to a figure by their deliberations in debate in the Budget 
Committee that $5.5 billion was about the right size to plug the gap. 
If this, in fact, were adopted, the $42.4 billion estimated plus the 
$5.5 billion should come out somewhere around $47.9 billion. That would 
be about $2.5 billion more than 2000. It would turn out, in effect, to 
be about $4.5 billion more than 1999. As a matter of fact, it would be 
very close to the $48.6 billion in 1997, really exceeded only by the 
banner year of 1996 which, if averaged with the year before that, came 
out somewhere in the $45 billion to $46 billion level.
  Americans outside of agriculture looking into this would say: Is this 
done for people in the electronics industry or retail stores generally 
in America, or struggling manufacturing firms, or anybody? The answer 
is: No, there is no other business in America that takes a look at net 
income for the whole group of people doing it, every entity collected 
in these figures, and says we want to make you whole, at least whole at 
a level of a multiyear picture.
  This is the only situation of that sort. It is not by chance. Those 
of us who are involved in farming, and I have been one of them--my 
family has been involved for generations. I think it is fair to say 
that in terms of the truth and being upfront about this bill and this 
advocacy. I know the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, and 
his family have a farm in Iowa. When he served on the Agriculture 
Committee, he and I, I believe were the only two involved in these farm 
programs to keep the books, to make the marketing decisions, to either 
have to borrow money and repay it or distribute whatever profits there 
are to our family members. This bill is one that my farm, 604 acres in 
Marion County, IN, will have to live with, or benefit from, as the case 
may be.

  I understand intimately what these figures mean. I am not an advocate 
for clients or just trying to do good for the farmers I have met in my 
States. I am one of them, a member of the Farm Bureau, a regular at 
whatever meeting farmers call.
  I am sympathetic with the thought that if we are truly interested in 
family farmers, in retaining farmers in agriculture, we ought to move 
on this legislation. I will vote for cloture so we

[[Page S8386]]

can proceed. I will try to work with my distinguished friend, Tom 
Harkin, chairman of our committee, to come to a constructive result in 
this debate. It is important. It is timely.
  Having said that, it is also unique. What has occurred in the 
evolution of the current farm bill is a quest on the part of the Senate 
and the House and the President to save every family farmer, every 
single entity in American agriculture. That is the purpose of filling 
the gap, of making certain net farm income stays at a level comparable 
to years before.
  To a great extent we have succeeded. One of the interesting aspects 
of the same agricultural report that has net farm income is a 
discussion of farm equity. By that, I mean the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture has pulled together the total assets of all of American 
agriculture and the total liabilities and has come to a conclusion in 
this year of 2001. As it stands, total farm equity, net worth, all the 
farms in America, will be $954 billion. That will be up from $941 
billion in 2000. That was higher than $940 billion in 1999, or $912 
billion in 1998, or $887 billion in 1997, or $848 billion clear back in 
the golden year of 1996. In fact, the annual increase in the equity of 
American agriculture has been 3.2 percent over the period of 1995 to 
the year 2000.
  If one asked, how can that be, given the stories of failing farms, of 
desperate people all over our country, how is it conceivable that given 
a whole group of farmers, whatever they are doing, in livestock or 
grain or the specialty crops, so far there has been a gain in equity. 
This is true in large part because through our policies, through the 
supplemental bills, we have almost guaranteed an income for agriculture 
in America, and at a fairly high level.
  One of the dilemmas of this is because of this prosperity--and I say 
that advisedly, at a 3.2-percent increase in equity over the course of 
time; in fact, the land prices in that same period have risen on 
average of 4.6 percent a year countrywide--there is not a region of the 
country that did not have an overall percentage change in land values 
that was positive between 1996 and the year 2000--every single part of 
our country, some a little stronger than others. I note, for example, 
strangely enough, in the Appalachian region, a 6.3-percent gain in land 
values on an annual basis throughout that period of time. In the Lake 
States, an 8-percent change. In the Northeast, only a 2.8-percent 
change in agricultural lands. But everyone gained.
  The dilemma, having said that, and this is why I coupled these two 
figures--net farm income, roughly $45 billion on an average; net worth 
of American agriculture, about $954 billion, more or less--if you take 
those figures, you come out with a figure of roughly 4.5 to 5 percent 
as the return on invested capital, the invested capital being the net 
worth, the equity, the net income being the 45, and maybe this year 48 
as it turns out.

  When I have talked to farm bureau meetings, on occasion the question 
has arisen: Lugar, what kind of return do you get on your farm? Why are 
you still involved in this? I have recited that over the 45 years I 
have managed our farm, 1956 to the present, we have had roughly a net 
gain on worth of 4 percent a year on the value of the farm. We have not 
always gotten 4 percent every year, but nevertheless we made money in 
all 45 years, and the average return has been 4 percent.
  Many say that sounds a little too high to me; I have not been getting 
4 percent. I said, we have been fortunate, perhaps. That is not out of 
line with what appears to be the case with American agriculture across 
the board--apparently, a return on net worth of about 4.5 to 5 percent.
  Outside of agriculture meetings, people say, well, something is 
missing; you could have gotten 6 or 7 percent on 30-year Treasury bonds 
throughout this whole period of time and not taken any risk with regard 
to the weather, exports, or the vagaries of Congress or whatever else 
might have happened. That is true. In fact, for most people involved in 
investment, a return over a long period of time of 4 to 5 percent does 
not appear to be particularly attractive. That is why we are always 
likely to have agricultural debates with regard to money.
  The difficult secret of this is the business does not pay very much. 
If you are an entrepreneur and you want to go into electronics or into 
a dot-com situation or whatever venture capital has taken a look at in 
recent years, the odds are you looked for a much more attractive rate 
of making your money grow faster.
  As I mentioned earlier, I plead guilty to 45 years of staying with 
this because I like it. That is why people farm. They want to do it. 
They love the land. They love the lifestyle. They have some reverence 
for their dads, their grandfathers, the people involved in it. They 
want to save it, perpetuate that. We know that in the Senate 
Agriculture Committee or the House Agriculture Committee. That is why 
we have the debates without apology and we try to make certain that 
heritage might flow.
  All of these debates have to have some proportion to them. I started 
out by pointing out a $5.5 billion supplemental will elevate income 
this year somewhere into the $47, $48 billion net as opposed to the $45 
we were aiming at. There is no magic about 5.5. The Budget Committee 
must have gone backward and forward on that subject for some time. But 
it gets the job done.
  I conclude this particular thought by saying the Agriculture 
Committee of the Senate came forward with a package of expenditures 
that exceeds $7.4 billion. The distinguished chairman of the committee, 
I am certain, will have more to say as to how the components were put 
together. Let me just say from my own experience, not from his--he will 
have to explain how it happened this year--but as chairman of the 
committee for the previous 6 years, I was responsible for at least 
three of these situations. Essentially, you visit with members of the 
committee. They make suggestions for what ought to be a part of the 
package.

  When we started these packages we were dealing with the traditions of 
agricultural farm bills which dealt with so-called program crops, 
programs that have gone on for a long time, since the 1930s and 
Franklin Roosevelt. The big four in this respect were corn and wheat 
and cotton and rice. They were programs because, in the 1930s, my dad 
and others were asked to destroy crops and hogs. At least that occurred 
on our farm. This was supply management with a vengeance. It was not 
just planning for the future, it was actual destruction of crops, and 
rows that were in the fields, and actual livestock at that point.
  The philosophy was if you let farmers plant as much as they wanted to 
plant, inevitably they would plant too much. They simply would use 
their ingenuity, their land, their resources, and we would have an 
oversupply and depression of prices. Prices were very low during the 
beginning of the New Deal period. So the thought was supply management, 
but a program would come along with that. In other words, you became a 
member of the program. You worked so many acres, whatever the quantity 
was that you were dealing with, in return for assurance of payments, 
therefore a sustenance of your income. There is no reason why this 
should have gone on for over 60 years, but it did. It was an attractive 
idea.
  In 1996, with this farm bill, we changed and we fulfilled perhaps the 
worst fears of those in the 1930s because we said Freedom to Farm means 
freedom to plant whatever you want to on your land; use those resources 
with your own ingenuity. A lot of farmers did. They made a variety of 
choices. By and large, less wheat has been planted in some years, more 
soybeans have been planted. That seemed to meet, really, world market 
conditions. People have been planting soybeans in different States more 
than they had been before. I suppose that may be true of cotton, but by 
and large, less cotton, seemingly, has been produced and perhaps less 
rice. It is a close call because these are large farms and there are 
fixed costs and many people have continued on, whether it was a program 
or not.
  When we talked about our supplemental payments, when we began to plug 
these gaps, we went to the program crops because they have behind them 
a list of farmers, names and addresses, people who are part of the 
picture. If you are attempting to get money to people rapidly, checks 
could be cut to people who were known, with a name and address and a 
quantity behind their name in terms of planting expectations and 
history.

[[Page S8387]]

  Some have come to the fore this year, and to some extent last year--
really, I think, for the first time. They said: What about us? We are 
not in a program crop. As a matter of fact, we plant so-called 
specialty crops. We have melons, we have apples on trees, we have 
strawberries and raspberries--and we have problems. If you think people 
in rice country have problems, you ought to see our problems.
  In the old days--and by that I mean, say, the last 10 years--
essentially many of those problems were met by the Senate 
Appropriations Committee. The appropriations subcommittee came along at 
a time of year in which the weather disasters of the winter or spring 
or much of the summer, sometimes, were apparent. They made an appeal to 
the Senate. They said there has been very bad luck in this State or 
this district or with this crop and therefore we ought to do something 
about it in an emergency, compassionate sense. Each of us have been 
voting for these programs for years. I cannot recall those pleas being 
rejected.

  But the so-called specialty situations were enveloped in this. Why? 
Because it was very difficult to find out the crop histories of people 
who were involved in melons, for example, or in raspberries. Is there 
anywhere a 5-year idea or any idea of support payments or so forth? The 
answer in most cases was no. This means, if you get into melons, the 
USDA has to formulate a new program. It has to determine who really is 
eligible. That takes time.
  We found that out last year. We had a supplemental. It came along as 
a part of legislation to strengthen and reform the Federal Crop 
Insurance Program. That was not totally inadvertent. Agriculture 
usually has sort of one shot on the floor each year and we had been 
working on crop insurance reform for some time. It was contentious all 
by itself, among various groups, as well as the total amount.
  Senators, I think, have been advised--they probably understand--that 
the crop insurance program we strengthened as a result of last year's 
legislation is a generous one. It was a safety net. It will probably 
cost an average of $2.9 to $3 billion. That is not a supplemental, it 
is just there. It will go on permanently.
  I would say from personal experience, I have purchased the 85-percent 
level of insurance coverage on the income of my corn and on my 
soybeans. Many people in Indiana, I have found, have not gone to the 85 
percent because either they have not discovered it or they do not 
really understand why that is such a good deal. But I would say 
arithmetically this is a remarkable way of ensuring income, even 
without the supplemental.
  Without getting into an advertisement for crop insurance, 
nevertheless it is there, and it is important, but not everybody in the 
Senate sought crop insurance as a priority item. They understood the 
pleas of those of us from the Midwest and the plains States. They saw 
some of the difficulties in the South with the program crops. But they 
said we are from New England--for example. Or we are from States which 
have never been involved in program crops. What are you going to do for 
us?
  As a result, we had, in addition to crop insurance, the supplemental. 
The supplemental last year included, for the first time, a number of 
crops at least that I do not recall being a part of these emergency 
actions before. As predicted, the checks went out right on time to the 
so-called AMTA payment recipients--the program crop people. That is 
quite a number, probably a majority of farmers in our country, in terms 
of income and acreage. So that was not inconsequential.
  We have had testimony, as the Chair knows, in our committee, the Ag 
Committee, from farmers who said the check got there just in time. So 
did the country banker testify that it got there in time. The farmer 
met the banker, repaid the planting loan, was in business again to try 
again in the year 2001. What seemed to be a potential crisis was 
alleviated just in time. But with the rest of the group who were not 
program people, the checks did not come quite so fast. USDA really had 
to work out the details of a good number of complex programs.
  As a matter of fact, in February, March, even April of this year, 
those qualified were finally being identified. Weeks later, in some 
cases, the checks finally came that were being sent to them. In many 
cases, that is being cited with regard to the bill we passed in the 
Senate Agriculture Committee.

  There is a large component, once again, either in the bill for which 
the distinguished chairman from Iowa and I were present, which was 
adopted 12-9 in the committee, or in the amendment that I offered, 
which had a $5.5 billion limit, which was rejected by this 12-9 vote. 
Both of us had a fairly large component of that in the so-called 
program crops. In large part, if we are talking about money being 
dispensed in this calendar year, this is about the only group of people 
likely to see a check because they can be identified as they were the 
year before and the year before that.
  In the event people come along then and suggest there are other 
situations, this means they spill over. This is a part of the debate 
over the additional $1.9 billion to $2 billion. Some would say that is 
all the spillover from the year before because they were busy 
attempting to do these things. This year the Budget Committee of the 
Senate mentioned $5.5 billion. The Office of Management and Budget, 
through its Director, Mr. Daniels, more pointedly mentioned $5.5 
billion in his correspondence with the House committee. Who took that 
seriously? The distinguished chairman of the committee offered a 
package of $6.5 billion, but the members of the committee, led, as it 
turned out, by the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Stenholm, from 
Texas and Mr. Boehner, a Republican from Ohio, and others reversed that 
decision. They came out at $5.5 billion, and the House, as a whole, 
adopted that without rigorous dissent.
  All of this could have been adopted by the Senate a month ago. But it 
was not adopted. A month has transpired in the meanwhile, and in the 
same way that I collected sentiments a year ago, the distinguished 
chairman of the committee has collected those sentiments again this 
year. They add up to $7.4 billion. There is no magic in that figure, 
and one would say no magic in the $5.5 billion. The whole exercise was 
attempting to plug a gap between the $42.4 billion in net farm income 
that was estimated this year and the $45 billion average we have 
achieved in recent years. The $5.5 billion will get us there. It gets 
up close to $48 billion, as a matter of fact. The Director of the OMB, 
Mr. Daniels, has written that. He pointed out, and he even offered some 
charts in his letter to the chairman of the committee, to me, to the 
chairman of the Budget Committee, to the ranking member, to Senator 
Daschle, and to Senator Lott. To the extent we have shared that 
correspondence with Members, they know the argument of the 
administration.
  We could say after all that the administration has their view and we 
have ours. Honest people can differ. We are all trying to do the best 
we can for agriculture.
  I made the comment--it has been repeated in the press--about our 
public deliberations the other day in the Agriculture Committee. Is it 
really the intent of our committee of the Senate to taunt the 
President, and say, Mr. President, regardless of what you and your OMB 
Director and others may have to say about this, we want to do more than 
you want to do? We really feel more deeply about the farmers than you 
do. So, by golly, even though it is pretty clear that all of this may 
lead to zero at the end of the trail, we are going to have a go at it. 
We really do not believe you will veto it. We think when it comes to 
agriculture that your heart is in the right place. So is that of the 
American people generally. So whether the figure is $5.5 billion, $6.1 
billion, or $7.1 billion, maybe, for all I know, in conference there 
will be a larger figure. That is the way these things go. They never 
have too much discipline or form to them. They just sort of add up so 
you can get enough people on board to get a majority, and hopefully, in 
fact, the big majority. Maybe that was the intent, but I doubt it. I 
think the intent of our committee in the Senate and the House committee 
is, in fact, to get money to farmers by September 30 so that they will 
have successful meetings with the country bankers; so that our intent 
that no family farm should fail will, in fact, happen and they, in 
fact, stay

[[Page S8388]]

alive and stay in business even in difficult times.

  Meanwhile, both Houses think about larger farm bills which may go on 
for many years. The House of Representatives' committee acted on one 
last Friday, which was a significant bill. The House will still need to 
debate that. Obviously, our debate lies ahead.
  These are important times not to be confused with the supplemental 
bill that we have at the present for emergency activity for money to be 
dispensed by September 30. But I take the time of the Chair and my 
colleagues this afternoon to recite all of this to give at least, as I 
see it, some background for this enterprise, why we are involved in it 
at all, to what extent the effects are, if you add up the figures, and 
what I perceive to be the dynamics of the political situation, if there 
is one in this.
  My hope is that at the end of the debate--I hope we will have one, 
and, as I indicated when I started, I will certainly vote for cloture 
on the motion to proceed so we can proceed--the leaders will formulate 
a program for that process. I am hopeful that I will be recognized 
fairly early in the debate to offer what I believe to be a constructive 
amendment that I think will lead to rapid resolution and reconciliation 
with the House of Representatives and some hope for farmers out there 
that this is not going to be an interesting debate among Senators but 
rather a kickoff of activity in a week that some Senators characterize 
as the fairly slow beginning given the urgency of a number of topics 
that we need to discuss.
  I am optimistic as always. I am sure the Chair shares that optimism 
and desire for constructive activity. During this rather calm hiatus 
before the debate really begins, technically, as the Chair knows, we 
are discussing really whether to proceed. I come out in favor of that. 
I hope my colleagues will, too. But, after we have proceeded, we need 
to have at least some framework I believe of how to manage this 
situation. I look forward to those hours ahead and a constructive 
result.
  I do not see other Senators. Therefore, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to address the Agriculture 
supplemental assistance bill and to answer some of the critics I have 
heard from the other side with respect to this legislation.
  As chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, I follow the budget 
issues very closely and have the responsibility for determining if a 
budget point of order exists against any legislation. We have heard 
from a number of our colleagues that the legislation before us somehow 
busts the budget. That is just wrong. That is not true. This 
legislation does not bust the budget. It is entirely in keeping with 
the budget resolution. There is no budget point of order that exists 
against this bill. Those are all facts.
  Mr. President, if we look at the legislation before us, it provides 
$5.5 billion in fiscal year 2001. That is exactly what is provided for 
in the budget resolution. In fiscal year 2002, this legislation 
provides $1.9 billion. The committee is actually authorized $7.35 
billion. So there still remains $5.45 billion available to the 
committee, available to the Congress, next year.
  Mr. President, the fact is, this legislation is entirely in keeping 
with the budget resolution. There is no budget point of order against 
it. This does not bust the budget, this is in keeping with the budget. 
Those are the facts. I challenge anyone who has a different view to 
come out here and raise a budget point of order against this 
legislation. If they really believe what they have been saying, come 
out here and raise a budget point of order against this bill because 
there is no budget point of order--none. This bill is entirely within 
the budget resolution. It is entirely within the budget, and there is 
no budget point of order against this bill.
  Mr. President, if one has any questions about the design of this 
bill, I suggest they go to the resolution on the budget that was passed 
here in the Congress. This is the conference report. This is what came 
out of the conference between the House and the Senate in the final 
budget resolution. When you go to the part of that report that deals 
with the issue before us, it says--and I have highlighted it--it says:
  It is assumed that the additional funds for 2001 and 2002 will 
address low-income concerns in the agriculture sector today.
  Not in the sweet by and by--today. That is what this bill does. It 
deals with the collapse of farm income that is happening today. I must 
say, when I hear some colleagues stand on the floor and say things are 
getting better in agriculture, I don't know what agriculture they are 
talking about. Maybe they are taking about Argentina or China. They are 
not talking about America because if you ask the American farmer what 
is happening today, they will tell you what is happening is a 
disaster--a disaster of collapsing incomes that threatens to force tens 
of thousands of farm families off of the land. That is what is 
happening.
  This idea that somehow prices are escalating dramatically and all of 
a sudden there are good times ahead is just plain wrong. What are they 
talking about? They aren't talking about agriculture in my State. Go to 
the grain elevator in North Dakota and see what wheat is selling for. 
Has it gone up a little bit? Yes, it has gone up a little bit. Is it 
anywhere close to the cost of production? No. I mean, it is almost 
farcical. Have prices gone up a little? Yes, they have. Are they still 
so far underwater you can't possibly make a farm operation add up? 
Absolutely. We all know it is true, any of us who represents 
agricultural America; and I must say the distinguished occupant of the 
chair, the Senator from Minnesota, knows exactly what I am talking 
about.

  The Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Dayton, has had a chance to go town 
to town, community to community, farm to farm, and he knows what I am 
saying is true because farmers all across the Dakotas, across 
Minnesota, tell us the same thing: These are as tough a times as they 
have ever faced. They tell us weekend after weekend, break period after 
break period: If you guys don't do something in Washington, we are all 
going to go bust. We are going to be broke. We are going to be forced 
off the land because this doesn't add up.
  When you look at the cost of the things that they buy versus the 
prices they get when they sell, there is no way of making it add up. 
That is what this bill is about. This bill is to provide emergency 
assistance for farmers who are struggling. It does it just in line with 
what the budget resolution called for.

       It is assumed that the additional funds for 2001 and 2002 
     will address low-income concerns in the agricultural sector 
     today.

  That is the wording of the budget resolution. It goes on to say:

       Fiscal year 2003 monies may be made available for 2002 crop 
     year support.

  That is a very important thing to understand. Why is it that we have 
a circumstance in which in this bill we pass in 2001, that we not only 
deal with 2001 expenditures, but we also deal with 2002 expenditures? 
Why do we do that? Very simply because there is a difference between 
the fiscal year and a crop-year. Every farmer knows it. Every member of 
the Agriculture Committee knows it. Others may not know it. So it is 
easier to confuse the circumstance. But we have always, in every 
disaster bill since I have been a Member of this body--and I am in my 
fifteenth year--when we have dealt with an agricultural disaster, some 
of the assistance comes from one fiscal year and some comes in the next 
fiscal year because that is the way crop-years work. Crop-years don't 
just neatly fall in the same fiscal year. That isn't the way it works.
  When there is a disaster, it doesn't just have an effect until 
September 30 of a year. That is when our Federal fiscal year ends. It 
affects before September 30. That is why we have some money in fiscal 
2001, and some of it has an effect after September 30, as harvest is 
completed, and that is why we have some of the money in fiscal 2002.
  Lest anybody have any misunderstanding, that is exactly what the 
budget resolution recognizes. It says it about as clearly as it can be 
said:


[[Page S8389]]


       Fiscal year 2003 monies may be made available for 2002 crop 
     year support.

  That is exactly what we are doing with 2002 and 2001. Some of the 
money is in Federal fiscal year 2001; some is in Federal fiscal year 
2002, just as you would anticipate. That is exactly what this 
legislation provides.
  Mr. President, again, I want to go back to the fundamental and basic 
point for any of our colleagues who are listening and wondering about 
the critiques they have heard. Is it true that this busts the budget? 
Absolutely not. The budget says $5.5 billion is available to the 
Agriculture Committee under their allocation. And the funding that is 
provided in this assistance package for fiscal year 2001 is $5.5 
billion--exactly what is provided for in the budget. For fiscal year 
2002, the Agriculture Committee has been allocated $7.35 billion.
  This legislation, quite appropriately, uses $1.9 billion of that 
amount. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what is being done here. 
It does not bust the budget. It does not add $2 billion to the overall 
cost of the agricultural budget that has been provided for in the next 
2 years. It does not add one thin dime to what was provided for in the 
budget resolution. It does not add a penny to what was provided for in 
the budget resolution. It is exactly what the budget resolution calls 
for: $5.5 billion in fiscal year 2001.
  This costs $5.5 billion. In 2002, the budget resolution provides 
$7.35 billion. Of that, $1.9 billion is used, leaving $5.45 billion 
next year. That is not going to be a problem.
  Why is it not going to be a problem? Very simply, because of the 
difference between fiscal years and crop years. We are going to have a 
very short period of time that has to be covered in the next fiscal 
year because of the difference between a fiscal year and a crop year 
and the fact that we are writing a new Federal farm bill.
  It is very clear in the budget resolution, for anybody who bothers to 
read it: ``Fiscal year 2003 monies may be made available for 2002 crop 
year support.'' By doing what we are doing, using the money allocated 
for 2001 as provided for in the budget resolution and using some of the 
money that is available in 2002 for 2002, with the anticipation we can 
use 2003 fiscal year money to deal with the 2002 crop year, that is 
exactly what is being done in this legislation. No harm, no foul. That 
is exactly what we have here. There is no harm. There is no foul.
  This is completely in keeping with the budget resolution. There is no 
budget point of order against this legislation. If anybody challenges 
that, they have an opportunity. They can come out and raise a budget 
point of order and see what the Parliamentarian says. The 
Parliamentarian will tell them there is no budget point of order 
against this bill--none, zero--because it is entirely in keeping with 
the budget resolution.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to voice my concerns about this 
Agricultural supplemental appropriations bill. I believe reaching 
forward into next year to spend an additional $2 billion is fiscally 
irresponsible and, frankly, unnecessary. Even though some of that $2 
billion in additional spending will benefit farmers in my State, I do 
not believe at a time when we are debating issues of great importance--
Medicare prescription drugs, Social Security, other issues such as 
that, where we are going to be needing resources to solve those 
problems--reaching forward to next year, when we are going to be doing 
a farm bill next year, to allocate those resources is the wise course 
to take.
  I do not want you to take my word for it. We have just received a 
Statement of Administration Policy about this legislation. I want to 
quote from it:

       The Administration strongly opposes S. 1246 as reported by 
     the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry because 
     spending authorized by the bill would exceed $5.5 billion, 
     the amount provided in the budget resolution and the amount 
     adopted by the House. If S. 1246 is presented to the 
     President at a level higher than $5.5 billion, the 
     President's senior advisers will recommend he veto the bill.

  We are about to engage here in a motion to proceed. If this scenario 
plays out, with the objections that I intend to have to this bill and I 
know others on this side will have, we will not get around in any way, 
shape, or form to final passage of this bill until Friday, Saturday, 
sometime Sunday.
  It can all go away. From my perspective, it can all go away. If we 
stop this overreaching and get back to the budget number of $5.5 
billion and we get to the House number of $5.5 billion, we can pass a 
bill here and, I hope, in a relatively expeditious time. Certainly from 
my perspective I will not have objections to moving forward. There may 
be amendments offered, and I certainly want to reserve my right to 
object if there are amendments offered, but the idea we are going to 
spend all week here, probably past the time the House of 
Representatives will even be in session, and pass a bill that the House 
will not even be here to deal with--it may not even get to the 
President--and we get no ag assistance at this point in time is 
irresponsible. To overreach to the point we get nothing at a time when 
certainly there are some ag needs out there, that is, in my view, an 
irresponsible action.
  I am hopeful with this word from the President, with I think a very 
strong conviction of many of us on this side of the aisle that this 
additional spending is not only unnecessary but unwise, we can get this 
bill done in a rapid, orderly fashion and get it done to a level that 
has been approved by the Budget Committee and the authorizing committee 
and move forward and get ag assistance out before the House of 
Representatives leaves and get a bill that will be signed by the 
President.
  If we go to the $7.5 billion level, I tell you we will be here all 
week. We will be here past the time the House of Representatives will 
be in session. And it will be met with a veto by the President.
  I am willing to do that. But we are not going to get any ag 
assistance to people anytime soon if we do that.

  I am happy to yield to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for yielding. I am sorry the Senator 
is still not a member of the Agriculture Committee. He was a very 
valuable member.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I am sorry, too. It is the cost of leadership on our 
side.
  Mr. HARKIN. I am sorry he is not there because he comes from a very 
important agricultural State.
  I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, I have tried to make it clear, 
again, this Agriculture Committee, in accordance with the budget, spent 
$5.5 billion this fiscal year, before September 30. The Budget 
Committee allows the Agriculture Committee to spend up to $7.35 billion 
in fiscal year 2002, which begins on October 1. There are no 
instructions in the Budget Committee that say we cannot meet until 
after that to decide how to spend that $7.35 billion.
  There is no reaching forward. There is no moving money from one 
fiscal year to another, I say to my friend from Pennsylvania. This 
committee recognized that fiscal years and crop-years do not coincide. 
So what the committee did, because of the press of business, what is 
happening this fall, since we don't know when the next farm bill is 
going to be done, and in accordance with the budget resolution, was to 
obligate $2 billion of the $7.35 billion for next year to be spent in 
2002. So the money is coming out of the $7.35 billion for fiscal year 
2002. It is not being forward funded. There is no moving money from one 
fiscal year to the other. It was just a recognition that many of the 
problems that farmers face this fall, in November or December or 
January, are the result of the crop-year that came before it and the 
crop-years and the fiscal years do not coincide on the same date. I 
just say that to my friend.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator 
from Iowa.
  A couple of comments:
  No. 1, the President's advisers have advised the President to veto 
this bill

[[Page S8390]]

because of the obligation of this 2002 money and this additional $2 
billion of obligations. We received this a few minutes ago. I will read 
it to you again.

       The administration strongly opposes S. 1246 as reported by 
     the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, 
     because spending authorized by the bill would exceed $5.5 
     billion, the amount provided in the budget resolution and the 
     amount adopted by the House. If S. 1246 is presented to the 
     President at a level higher than $5.5 billion, the 
     President's senior advisers will recommend that he veto the 
     bill.

  I understand the idea of reaching forward and obligating money. The 
problem I have is we are now obligating money that is going to start to 
be spent October 1.
  I have been around here long enough to know that we will be here next 
year, and we will have another emergency. And the $5 billion left over 
isn't going to be enough and we will either try to bump that up or 
reach for the next year and try to draw out some money.
  If I can have assurances that this isn't just a continual practice--
which I know it will be, if we allow this to occur and we will just in 
a sense begin reaching more and more into the following year to make up 
for it in this crop-year. That is not what the Budget Committee 
suggested. They said we want $5.5 billion. If we have a farm bill 
coming up next year, we have authorization for $7.3 billion, let's go 
through the working process of doing that in the fiscal year in which 
we intend to do it. But to reach and grab, if you want to obligate, why 
not obligate the whole $7.3 billion, if there is no big deal about it. 
The fact is, we have a responsibility under the farm bill to change 
farm policy. Use that $7.3 billion to implement that change. There will 
be some changes, as I am sure the Senator knows, in farm policy. What 
we have done now is to limit our ability to make that happen. I do not 
think that is wise. Whether I think it is wise or not is somewhat 
relevant in this body, but what is more relevant is the fact that the 
President's advisers will recommend that he veto this bill.
  If we don't get aid to the farm country right now in this fiscal 
year, the best course of business is to scale this bill back and put 
the $5.5 billion out to the farm country. We either adopt the House 
bill or we pass $5.5 billion here in conference. There may be some 
policy differences that we may want to work out. That is the best way 
to do it.
  There would be much more cooperation from many of us on this side of 
the aisle who would like to see some agricultural assistance. If I 
could read further from the Statement of Administration Policy, it 
says:

       The budget resolution provides $5.5 billion for 2001, an 
     amount that the Administration strongly believes is more than 
     adequate for this crop year. Moreover, improvements in 
     agricultural markets and stronger livestock and crop prices 
     means that the need for additional federal assistance 
     continues to diminish. An additional $5.5 billion in federal 
     assistance will boast expected real U.S. farm net-cash income 
     to $53.6 billion in 1996 dollars, a level of income 
     significantly above the previous two years.

  Having been on the Agriculture Committee, I remember when we had this 
discussion. Our objective was to keep net-cash farm income at the 1996 
level of $45 billion.

  I ask the Senator from Iowa if he remembers that also. But the number 
we had always targeted was $45 billion in net-cash farm income.
  Here we are with this supplemental at $53.6 billion. We are talking 
about 20 percent above what we thought was the projected level of 
income that we wanted to set as a floor. Now above that we want to 
throw on another $2 billion.
  All I am asking is when is enough enough? I think $5.5 billion is 
more than generous. It is not the way I would want to spend it. That is 
why I hope we can maybe do some amendments to this bill. Almost 99 
percent of the $5.5 billion is spent this year on AMTA payments. I 
understand that is an easy way to get out the money. But it isn't 
necessarily a regionally fair way to get out the money.
  I see the Senator from Vermont. The Senator from Vermont and the 
Senator from Pennsylvania consider agriculture pretty important to our 
States. It is the No. 1 industry in my State. It is either No. 1 or No. 
2 in his State. But I will guarantee that the level of AMTA payments in 
our State is probably a third or less of what it is in Iowa, and 
certainly North Dakota and a lot of other Midwestern row-crop States. 
Putting all of that money in AMTA doesn't help us much. It doesn't help 
the Senator from Vermont or the Senator from Pennsylvania. It doesn't 
help the Senator from Massachusetts or anybody else who has farmers who 
aren't in the big row crops.
  I suggest that we step back and try to put together a bill that is 
regionally fair and that meets the budget target we set out. Then we 
can get a bill that I think can pass in a bipartisan fashion that will 
be signed by this President and really do something about the need in 
some areas of farm country to help stabilize that economy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I know our time has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time do we have before the vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three and a half minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent to have a couple of minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to, again, respond to my friend 
from Pennsylvania and to a Statement of Administration Policy that we 
have just received. It is not from the President. I don't really know 
what to make of this letter. It said they opposed the bill that we have 
before us because spending authorized by the bill would exceed $5.5 
billion, the amount provided in the budget resolution and the amount 
adopted by the House. It is the amount adopted by the House, but it is 
not the amount provided in the budget resolution. The budget resolution 
provided two amounts: $5.5 billion this year and $7.35 billion next 
year. We stayed within the $5.5 billion for this year. Then we had 
$7.35 billion for next year.
  The administration is saying we can't spend what the budget 
resolution provides. The administration has nothing to do with this. 
This is something that is internal to the Congress.
  If we are meeting our budget obligations, why should the 
administration care? Evidently, the administration must be opposed to 
how we are spending the money. How are we spending the money? In the 
next fiscal year we are spending money on a lot of our specialty crops 
such as apples.
  I mentioned in my earlier talk about how our apple farmers are being 
hurt. We heard that the livestock sector is rebounding. But that 
doesn't mean the crop sector is rebounding. Far from it. We have 
specialty crops in peas and lentils. I mentioned apples. We have a lot 
of other specialty crops that are in dire need of assistance all over 
this country.
  This bill is much fairer region to region than the House bill. The 
House bill focused on a few crops but not on the entire country. That 
is why I do not understand the administration's objection to this. They 
say the bill provides funding for a number of programs that have 
nothing to do with farmers' 2001 incomes. It sure as heck does. Ask all 
the apple farmers in Washington State, in Maine, in Pennsylvania, in 
New York, and in Massachusetts. It has a lot to do with the 2001 
income.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator 
from Pennsylvania is recognized for 1 minute 20 seconds.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would like to address the point of the 
Senator from Iowa. At least three components of this bill have nothing 
to do with farm income. One establishes a scientific research unit in 
USDA. It provides additional funding for business and industry. It 
provides that U.S. cities with populations not exceeding 50,000 will be 
eligible for guaranteed community facility costs.
  That has nothing to do with emergency farm income this year. This is 
just another vehicle to try to do some more agricultural authorization. 
I am

[[Page S8391]]

not against doing agricultural authorization. I loved being on the 
Agriculture Committee. But we should do it in a farm bill and not in an 
emergency supplemental bill for agriculture. No. 2, the fact is, I 
think the Senator has received letters from the White House and 
previous administrations where they said: Senior advisers will 
recommend that the President veto the bill. Unfortunately, we get those 
all too often around here.

  I think it is very clear that the President and his advisers do not 
like the way this bill was constructed and would prefer to see us live 
within the requirements of the budget agreement for the year 2001. I 
think we can do that, and we should do that. It is the only way I 
believe we will actually get a bill done this year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair lays 
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will 
state.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 102, S. 1246, a bill to respond to 
     the continuing economic crisis adversely affecting American 
     farmers:
         Tom Harkin, Harry Reid, Jon S. Corzine, Max Baucus, Patty 
           Murray, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Jeff Bingaman, Tim 
           Johnson, Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, Daniel K. Akaka, 
           Paul Wellstone, Mark Dayton, Maria Cantwell, Benjamin 
           Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Richard Durbin, Herb Kohl.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call under the rule has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 1246, a bill to respond to the continuing 
economic crisis adversely affecting American farmers, shall be brought 
to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Torricelli) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) 
and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett) are necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 95, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 260 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     Ensign
     Gregg
       

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bennett
     McCain
     Torricelli
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 95, the nays are 2. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________