[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.
____________________