Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 109 (Tuesday, July 31, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 31, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8403-S8423]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EMERGENCY AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2001

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 1246, which the clerk will
report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1246) to respond to the continuing economic
crisis adversely affecting American agricultural producers.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, is recognized to offer an amendment.

[[Page S8404]]

Amendment No. 1190

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the
amendment.
Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment not be read in
full.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the amendment
by number.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar] proposes an amendment
numbered 1190.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide a substitute amendment)

Strike everything after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. MARKET LOSS ASSISTANCE.

(a) Assistance Authorized.--The Secretary of Agriculture
(referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, use $4,622,240,000 of funds of
the Commodity Credit Corporation to make a market loss
assistance payment to owners and producers on a farm that are
eligible for a final payment for fiscal year 2001 under a
production flexibility contract for the farm under the
Agriculture Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.).
(b) Amount.--The amount of assistance made available to
owners and producers on a farm under this section shall be
proportionate to the amount of the total contract payments
received by the owners and producers for fiscal year 2001
under a production flexibility contract for the farm under
the Agricultural Market Transition Act.

SEC. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL OILSEEDS PAYMENT.

The Secretary shall use $423,510,000 of funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation to make a supplemental payment
under section 202 of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of
2000 (Public Law 106-224; 7 U.S.C. 1421 note) to producers of
the 2000 crop of oilseeds that previously received a payment
under such section.

SEC. 3. SUPPLEMENTAL PEANUT PAYMENT.

The Secretary shall use $54,210,000 of funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation to provide a supplemental
payment under section 204(a) of the Agricultural Risk
Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-224; 7 U.S.C. 1421
note) to producers of quota peanuts or additional peanuts for
the 2000 crop year that previously received a payment under
such section. The Secretary shall adjust the payment rate
specified in such section to reflect the amount made
available for payment under this section.

SEC. 4. SUPPLEMENTAL TOBACCO PAYMENT.

(a) Supplemental Payment.--The Secretary shall use
$129,000,000 of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to
provide a supplemental payment under section 204(b) of the
Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-224;
7 U.S.C. 1421 note) to eligible persons (as defined in such
section) that previously received a payment under such
section.
(b) Special Rule for Georgia.--The Secretary may make
payments under this section to eligible persons in Georgia
only if the State of Georgia agrees to use the sum of
$13,000,000 to make payments at the same time, or
subsequently, to the same persons in the same manner as
provided for the Federal payments under this section, as
required by section 204(b)(6) of the Agricultural Risk
Protection Act of 2000.

SEC. 5. SUPPLEMENTAL WOOL AND MOHAIR PAYMENT.

The Secretary shall use $16,940,000 of funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation to provide a supplemental
payment under section 814 of the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (as enacted by Public Law
106-387), to producers of wool, and producers of mohair, for
the 2000 marketing year that previously received a payment
under such section. The Secretary shall adjust the payment
rate specified in such section to reflect the amount made
available for payments under this section.

SEC. 6. SUPPLEMENTAL COTTONSEED ASSISTANCE.

The Secretary shall use $84,700,000 of funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation to provide supplemental
assistance under section 204(e) of the Agricultural Risk
Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-224; 7 U.S.C. 1421
note) to producers and first-handlers of the 2000 crop of
cottonseed that previously received assistance under such
section.

SEC. 7. SPECIALTY CROPS.

(A) Base State Grants.--The Secretary shall use $26,000,000
of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make grants
to the several States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
to be used to support activities that promote agriculture.
The amount of the grant shall be--
(1) $500,000 to each of the several States; and
(2) $1,000,000 to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
(b) Grants for Value of Production.-- The Secretary shall
use $133,400,000 of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation
to make a grant to each of the several States in an amount
that represents the proportion of the value of specialty crop
production in the State in relation to the national value of
specialty crop production, as follows:
(1) California, $63,320,000.
(2) Florida, $16,860,000.
(3) Washington, $9,610,000.
(4) Idaho, $43,670,000.
(5) Arizona, $3,430,000
(6) Michigan, $3,250,000.
(7) Oregon, $3,220,000.
(8) Georgia, $2,730,000.
(9) Texas, $2,660,000.
(10) New York, $2,660,000.
(11) Wisconsin, $2,570,000.
(12) North Carolina, $1,540,000.
(13) Colorado, $41,510,000.
(14) North Dakota, $1,380,000.
(15) Minnesota, $1,320,000.
(16) Hawaii, $1,150,000.
(17) New Jersey, $1,100,000.
(18) Pennsylvania, $980,000.
(19) New Mexico, $900,000.
(20) Maine, $880,000.
(21) Ohio, $800,000.
(22) Indiana, $660,000.
(23) Nebraska, $640,000.
(24) Massachusetts, $640,000.
(25) Virginia, $620,000.
(26) Maryland, $500,000.
(27) Louisiana, $460,000.
(28) South Carolina, $440,000.
(29) Tennessee, $400,000.
(30) Illinois, $400,000.
(31) Oklahoma, $390,000.
(32) Alabama, $300,000.
(33) Delaware, $290,000.
(34) Mississippi, $250,000.
(35) Kansas, $210,000.
(36) Arkansas, $210,000.
(37) Missouri, $210,000.
(38) Connecticut, $180,000.
(39) Utah, $140,000.
(40) Montana, $140,000.
(41) New Hampshire, $120,000.
(42) Nevada, $120,000.
(43) Vermont, $120,000.
(44) Iowa, $100,000.
(45) West Virginia, $90,000.
(46) Wyoming, $70,000.
(47) Kentucky, $60,000.
(48) South Dakota, $40,000.
(49) Rhode Island, $40,000.
(50) Alaska, $20,000.
(c) Specialty Crop Priority.--As a condition on the receipt
of a grant under this section, a State shall agree to give
priority to the support of specialty crops in the use of the
grant funds.
(d) Specialty Crop Defined.--In this section, the term
``specialty crop'' means any agricultural crop, except wheat,
feed grains, oil-seeds, cotton, rice, peanuts, and tobacco.

SEC. 8. COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

The Secretary shall use $10,000,000 of funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation to make a grant to each of the
several States to be used by the States to cover direct and
indirect costs related to the processing, transportation, and
distribution of commodities to eligible recipient agencies.
The grants shall be allocated to States in the manner
provided under section 204(a) of the Emergency Food
Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7508(a)).

SEC. 9. TECHNICAL CORRECTION REGARDING INDEMNITY PAYMENTS FOR
COTTON PRODUCERS.

(a) Conditions on Payment to State.--Subsection (b) of
section 1121 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
1999 (as contained in section 101(a) of division A of Public
Law 105-277 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note), and as amended by section
754 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2001 (as enacted by Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549A-
42), is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Conditions on Payment to State.--The Secretary of
Agriculture shall make the payment to the State of Georgia
under subsection (a) only if the State--
``(1) contributes $5,000,000 to the indemnity fund and
agrees to expend all amounts in the indemnity fund by not
later than January 1, 2001 (or as soon as administratively
practical thereafter), to provide compensation to cotton
producers as provided in such subsection;
``(2) requires the recipient of a payment from the
indemnity fund to repay the State, for deposit in the
indemnity fund, the amount of any duplicate payment the
recipient otherwise recovers for such loss of cotton, or the
loss of proceeds from the sale of cotton, up to the amount of
the payment from the indemnity fund; and
``(3) agrees to deposit in the indemnity fund the proceeds
of any bond collected by the State for the benefit of
recipients of payments from the indemnity fund, to the extent
of such payments.''.
(b) Additional Disbursements From the Indemnity Fund.--
Subsection (d) of such section is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Additional Disbursement to Cotton Ginners.--The State
of Georgia shall use funds remaining in the indemnity fund,
after the provision of compensation to cotton producers in
Georgia under subsection (a) (including cotton producers who
file a contingent claim, as defined and provided in section
5.1 of chapter 19 of title 2 of the Official Code of
Georgia), to compensate cotton ginners (as defined and
provided in such section) that--
``(1) incurred a loss as the result of--
``(A) the business failure of any cotton buyer doing
business in Georgia; or
``(B) the failure or refusal of any such cotton buyer to
pay the contracted price that had been agreed upon by the
ginner and the

[[Page S8405]]

buyer for cotton grown in Georgia on or after January 1,
1997, and had been purchased or contracted by the ginner from
cotton producers in Georgia;
``(2) paid cotton producers the amount which the cotton
ginner had agreed to pay for such cotton received from such
cotton producers in Georgia; and
``(3) satisfy the procedural requirements and deadlines
specified in chapter 19 of title 2 of the Official Code of
Georgia applicable to cotton ginner claims.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (c) of such section
is amended by striking ``Upon the establishment of the
indemnity fund, and not later than October 1, 1999, the'' and
inserting ``The''.

SEC. 10. INCREASE IN PAYMENT LIMITATIONS REGARDING LOAN
DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS AND MARKETING LOAN GAINS.

Notwithstanding section 1001(2) of the Food Security Act of
1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308(1)), the total amount of the payments
specified in section 1001(3) of that Act that a person shall
be entitled to receive for one or more contract commodities
and oilseeds under the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7
U.S.C. 7201 et seq.) during the 2001 crop year may not exceed
$150,000.

SEC. 11. TIMING OF, AND LIMITATION ON, EXPENDITURES.

(a) Deadline for Expenditures.--All expenditures required
by this Act shall be made not later than September 30, 2001.
Any funds made available by this Act and remaining unexpended
by October 1, 2001, shall be deemed to be unexpendable, and
the authority provided by this Act to expend such funds is
rescinded effective on that date.
(b) Total Amount of Expenditures.--The total amount
expended under this Act may not exceed $5,500,000,000. If the
payments required by this Act would result in expenditures in
excess of such amount, the Secretary shall reduce such
payments on a pro rata basis as necessary to ensure that such
expenditures do not exceed such amount.

SEC. 12. REGULATIONS.

(a) Promulgation.--As soon as practicable after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Commodity
Credit Corporation, as appropriate, shall promulgate such
regulations as are necessary to implement this Act and the
amendments made by this Act. The promulgation of the
regulations and administration of this Act shall be made
without regard to--
(1) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of
title 5, United States Code;
(2) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture
effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to
notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in
rulemaking; and
(3) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly
known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'').
(b) Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking.--In carrying
out this section, the Secretary shall use the authority
provided under section 808 of title 5, United States Code.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I appreciate the agreement arrived at by
the distinguished majority leader and the Republican leader for the
beginning of this debate on the supplemental farm emergency amendment.
I cannot emphasize, as the Chair knows as a member of the Senate
Agriculture Committee, the importance of this moment for agricultural
America, for those who have hopes that we will be successful in this
endeavor. I simply pay tribute to our leadership on both sides of the
aisle for attempting to frame the debate in this way: by beginning with
giving me this opportunity to offer an amendment.
Let me be clear that the bill before the Senate now came by majority
vote from the Senate Agriculture Committee. For Members who have
followed the debate yesterday--and for those who have not--we had a
full debate in the committee during which I offered a substitute
amendment to that offered by our distinguished chairman, the Senator
from Iowa. Essentially, my amendment called for the expenditure of $5.5
billion. It was apportioned through a number of items, about $5
billion-plus of that through the so-called AMTA payments, these
payments that have been made to farmers who, as part of the farm
program, have had program crops in the last several years.
It has been the responsibility of the Senate and the House--our
Government--to make additional AMTA payments in recent years in
addition to those provided by the farm bill in 1996. The reason we have
chosen the AMTA framework is that the farmers to be paid are known,
their names and the addresses of these farms. They have been a part of
the program. As a result, their crop histories are expeditious.
Members of the committee from time to time have raised questions as
to: Why these farmers? Why should people who are in corn, wheat,
cotton, and rice be the recipients? There is no equitable answer to
that. Most of these debates have occurred in an emergency context such
as the one we now have.
This is July 31. By definition of the fiscal year, the payments have
to be cut and received by September 30. So as a result, for programs
that do not have an AMTA history and which are not clear about the
criteria or the recipients, those checks cannot physically get there by
the 30th.
We found last year, in making a larger list of recipients, that a
large list of new program procedures had to be formulated by the
Department of Agriculture. That happened, and in due course the checks
were cut, but frequently it was a hiatus of 6, 7, 8, 9 months. That is
a part of the issue today. We are talking about the fiscal year we are
in that ends September 30 and how money might be received by farmers.
Farmers listening to the debate are very interested in this. The
testimony we have heard is that they are counting in many cases upon
these payments. More to the point, many of our country bankers are
counting on these payments, counting on meeting with farmers to settle
planting loans from this season's planting and the hope; therefore,
that there might be loans for planting next year in the case of farms
that are in that situation, literally, needing loans from year to year
to continue on in business. That is why there is an emergency aspect
involved.
I have sought recognition this morning at the early part of the
debate because I sense that we may be successful, and I have some
premonition of disaster if we are not, as I read in the press, in the
newsletters, in all of the communications that come to us about all the
ways in which this particular debate might go. I will not try to be a
prophet. My own optimistic spirit is that the debate will go in a
constructive way, and that is the purpose of this amendment.
I will not offer the amendment this morning, though I offered it in
committee. It did have a limit of $5.5 billion. I thought it was
reasonably well constructed as a compromise of various interests within
the committee.
Instead, the amendment I have sent to the desk--and I ask for its
immediate consideration--is the identical language of legislation that
came from the House of Representatives. It is a bill already adopted by
our friends in the House Agriculture Committee and the House of
Representatives as a whole. It is passed. At some point, probably very
quickly, we will have to come to grips--this week, for example--with
what we will do if we pass legislation different from that which the
House has passed.
The conventional wisdom is, of course, we would have a conference
between Members of the House and Senate. We would try to reconcile our
differences. We would report back to the two bodies at some time during
this week. Presumably because of the emergency, priority would be given
to this conference report. Hopefully, both Houses would pass what we do
and send it to the President.
The President has left no doubt what he will do if in fact this comes
to him in some form with a pricetag higher than $5.5 billion, all to be
spent in this fiscal year. We had, first of all, at the time of our
committee debates, a letter from Mitch Daniels, Director of the Office
of Management and Budget. Mr. Daniels said he would not recommend that
the President sign a bill of more than $5.5 billion in this fiscal
year.
That was fairly mild in comparison to the letter read on the floor by
the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania yesterday, which was
received by many Members and which, after a lot of conversation,
including the President of the United States, rather vividly in much of
it--the letter came to us and said the senior advisers of the President
would advise him to veto the bill if it has more than $5.5 billion and
extends beyond this year. They gave reasons for that, and these are
debatable, and I am sure we will hear debate about them.
Madam President, there is no doubt in my mind, nor should there be in
the minds of other Senators or of the farmers in this country or of
anybody listening to this debate, what is going to occur in the event
we finally come to a conference and we have a result other than
something less or $5.5 billion.

[[Page S8406]]

That being the case, I have suggested to the Senate, and in fact
taken the action of offering it as an amendment, that if we are serious
about coming to a conclusion on this farm bill, we had best at this
point adopt the House language. This is not my language. It is not
pride of authorship. It is not my way or no way. I have already had a
try at it and lost 12-9 in the Ag Committee on what I thought was a
pretty good suggestion. That is another day.
We are now in Tuesday of presumably our final week. The distinguished
majority leader has said we are going to stay at this, not just this
week and this weekend but until we pass a bill. I have no doubt we will
pass a bill. The point I am making is, it had better be one the
President will sign or at the end of the trail we will not have
legislation. We will have an issue. Members may say: The President was
wrong; he should not have done that. The President and his supporters
will affirm that he was absolutely right.
The net effect, however, for farmers listening to all of that, as we
sort out the relative praise and blame, will be that they have no
money. That I start the debate with and will probably repeat several
times because it is a very critical element.
If the House bill which I have offered today as an amendment did not
have a lot of merit, I would not have taken the step this morning to
suggest to my colleagues they adopt something that was without the
merit at least that I believe it has.
I want to offer, as introduction to the discussion of this House bill
and my amendment, a letter that was received yesterday by Trent Lott,
our Republican leader. It was written by three distinguished Members of
the House of Representatives; namely, Charlie Stenholm, the
distinguished ranking member of the Agriculture Committee from Texas;
John Boehner from Ohio; and Cal Dooley from California. They
essentially were authors and major advocates in the House of the
legislation that finally emerged. They say:

It is our understanding the Senate will begin floor
consideration this week on the Fiscal Year 2001 Agricultural
Supplemental Assistance bill. We are writing to urge the
Senate to stay within $5.5 billion provided for FY2001 in the
budget and to approve this measure immediately in order to
provide the assistance prior to September 30, 2001 as
required by the 2002 Budget Agreement.
As you know, the House reported a bill that will spend $5.5
billion to assist our farmers and ranchers this fiscal year.
After much debate in the House Agriculture Committee, we
determined that spending more than $5.5 billion would limit
our flexibility as we write the 2002 Farm Bill. We believe
that if we spend more than the money allowed for fiscal year
2001, we will be borrowing against American agriculture's
best chance for a comprehensive safety net.
Last week the House Agriculture Committee approved a
landmark farm bill that will provide a safety net for our
farmers, fund conservation at an unprecedented levels and
renew our commitment to needy families. Passage of
agricultural assistance legislation beyond $5.5 billion will
imperil these critical needs.
We urge you to remain within the $5.5 billion so that we
can provide long-term solutions for America's farmers and
ranchers. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this
request.

It is signed by the three distinguished Members.
We likewise, Madam President, heard from a good number of our
colleagues on the floor yesterday that they appreciate the point of the
House. They disagree with it--and Members will disagree with a number
of our approaches--in part because all are compromises between
interests that have a lot of merit.
For example, in the amendment I offered in committee, the AMTA
payment was somewhat over $5 billion. In the amendment we are looking
at today, the House legislation, the AMTA payment is somewhat better
than $4.6 billion--about $400 million less. Legislation offered by the
distinguished chairman of our committee, Senator Harkin, offers about
$400 million more in the end.
If we take an example, for the corn farmer--and I admitted yesterday
I am one--this is bad news. Moving from, say, $5.4 billion, or some
such figure in the AMTA payment, even to $5 billion is difficult, and
$4.6 billion is very difficult; likewise, wheat farmers, cotton
farmers, rice farmers. What goes on here? In the old days, the only
crops we were talking about were the program crops as I outlined
yesterday that started in the 1930s. That is the way it has been all
these years.
Now suddenly, in a $5.5 billion bill only $4.6-plus billion is
devoted to us. After all, we farm the majority of the acreage and, in
terms of crops, the majority of the value.
Livestock producers would say: Welcome. We were never in on the deal
to begin with. Program crops meant crops. They did not mean hogs and
cattle and sheep. In fact, we will take a look at this situation. We
are already in some anxiety as, say, cattlemen and people who produce
pork, as we heard in our committee last week.
What do these programs do to feed costs? Is there an input problem
for us already in what agriculture committees have been doing
cumulatively? We thought there might be, and that would be bad news if
one were getting no AMTA payment or consideration. In fact, we are
seeing potential costs increase in the programs to help various people.
My only point is within American agriculture there are many diverse,
even competing, views among those who produce livestock, feed
livestock, and those who produce the feed. If there was one integrated
operation, perhaps it all works out, but as we have heard, many farmers
in America do one or another or various things. So they are all going
to look at this bill and say: What is in this for us?
The amendment I have offered will be a disappointment in that respect
because it is a compromise. It suggests that in order to accommodate a
number of interests, and some say even in the House bill not nearly
enough, there is some division of what might be coming in a more whole
form in the AMTA payment.
I make that point explicitly because on our side of the aisle I have
heard Senators say they want the bigger AMTA payment. I am not so
worried about specialty crops or about poultry or livestock. As a
matter of fact, I am worried about cotton farmers, rice farmers, wheat
farmers, and corn farmers. I understand that. As a matter of fact, this
is a part of the business of legislation, trying to find and meld these
competing interests.
In any event, we have that predicament at the outset, which I admit.
As I said at the beginning, I offered the amendment because I see this
potentially as a way in which we will have a bill. I fear if we do not
have a solution along those lines we will not have a bill.
Let me go explicitly into the amendment that has been offered this
morning. As was suggested by our distinguished Members of the House,
whose letter I read, led by Congressmen Stenholm, Boehner, and Dooley,
on June 26, the House passed H.R. 2213, which provided for $5.5 billion
in broad-based market loss assistance to the Nation's farmers and
ranchers. The assistance must be provided to farmers by September 30 of
this year, the last day of fiscal year 2001.

This market loss assistance is above and beyond $21.7 billion in
payments in fiscal year 2001 that the Congressional Budget Office now
estimates is already being provided to farmers in this fiscal year
under current law commodities support and crop insurance programs.
Excluding the new farm assistance we are now considering, the
Agriculture Department projects United States net cash farm income for
2001 at $52.3 billion, down $3 billion from last year's $55.3 billion.
As I mentioned in the debate yesterday, herein lies the reason at
least the Budget Committees of the Senate and the House allocated the
$5.5 billion for this year. They saw a gap. As I recall, they estimated
the gap then, in January and February, at $3 billion or $4 billion.
With updated figures, we now see an estimate that there is about a $3
billion gap between the $52.3 billion in net cash income last year and
what was expected for this year.
Farm income last year was supported by nearly $23 billion in direct
payments to farmers, which at that time was an all-time high. If we
enact H.R. 2213, the amendment I have offered, in a timely fashion, net
cash farm income for this year, based on the current USDA projection,
would rise to $57.8 billion, $2.5 billion above last year's level. We
will have made up the $3 billion gap and exceeded that by $2.5 billion
with a $5.5 billion expenditure.
H.R. 2213 provides for $4.622 billion in supplemental market loss
payments.

[[Page S8407]]

These are payments to producers enrolled in the 1996 farm bill's
Agriculture Market Transition Act, the AMTA acronym. These farmers have
contracts, and the bill says the payments come to them throughout the
entirety of the 7 years of the bill. That is the AMTA payment, $4.622
billion.
The second provision is $424 million in market loss payments to
producers of soybeans and other oilseeds. My first question on this
provision was: How will the $424 million in these market loss payments
to the soybean and oilseed producers get to them by September 30? The
answer to that question, and that will be roughly the same answer but I
will be explicit all the way through this list, is they are the same
producers who received the money last year.
It was not easy to make the payments last year, and this called for
an enormous amount of research and guidance through the whole process,
but the results of all of that activity are that there is now a list.
The expedition of the payments will be the $424 million goes to those
same people and can be paid, if we make a decision to act this week, by
September 30.
Next comes $159 million in assistance to producers of specialty crops
such as fruits and vegetables. Here we do not have lists of who
received the money last year, and therefore the provision in the House
bill is there would be grants to the States. Now, the States will have
to work out who gets the money within their States, but for the
purposes of this act the money is dispensed by the Federal Government
to the States before September 30. Therefore, technically, it is out of
the Treasury before the fiscal year ends and fits within the $5.5
billion in that way.
That implies a great deal more activity, understandably, for equity
for the specialty crops as it goes to the various States and farmers
work with their State governments.
Then we have $129 million in market loss assistance for tobacco. This
goes to quota holders, who are a well-known group, and payments have
been made to these persons in the past.
The next provision is $54 million in market loss assistance for
peanuts. Likewise, there are quota holders for peanuts, a well-known
list for these producers. The money can be paid to them by September
30.

The same is true for the next provision, $85 million in market loss
assistance for cotton seed; the same for $17 million in market loss
assistance for wool and mohair producers; the final provision in the
House bill is $10 million in emergency food assistance support. This
emergency assistance support will go for commodities for the school
lunch programs and other important and nutrition programs. Those moneys
will be spent before September 30. These are the provisions of the
House legislation. That is the total list of provisions.
H.R. 2213 utilizes the full $5.5 billion in fiscal year 2001 provided
in this year's budget resolution for farm market loss assistance. It
does not touch the $7.35 billion in fiscal year 2002 funds that the
budget resolution also provides either for supplemental farm assistance
for the 2002 crops or to help the Agriculture Committee write a new
multiyear farm bill. That very statement is, of course, the source of
some debate. There are Members who say: Why not reach into the $7.35
billion? After all, it is there. The Budget Committee certainly
mentioned it. Perhaps the Budget Committee, in mentioning it, implied
that the agricultural crisis goes on next year. As a matter of fact,
one can suggest the Budget Committee, in talking about over $70 billion
payments over 10 years, implies the crisis goes on forever, or at least
for 10 years almost at the same level of crisis, maybe with a a few ups
and downs, $10 billion payment one year, $5 billion the next, and so
forth.
If we adopt this thinking, it makes almost no difference when the
money is spent because the crisis goes on and people think if you can't
pick it up in this bill, you might try the Agriculture appropriations
bill and find an emergency there to provide additional funds.
Sponsored by Congressmen Stenholm and Boehner, whom I mentioned
before, the House bill finally represents a bipartisan compromise. It
was not easy to come by. Stenholm-Boehner-Dooley, and others I have
cited, had contending parties within the House Agriculture Committee.
Many people, as I read the debate, asked, What about us? They mentioned
various considerations: if we were sending money to farmers, they
wanted their fair share, including the brokering of all of that, with
payments that could be made physically by the end of this year.
It was not an easy task. Nevertheless, they mastered it in the House.
It came out of committee well over a month ago. Their bill passed the
House of Representatives by voice vote. Perhaps the House Members, by
the time they listened to all of this debate, figured the Agriculture
Committee people suffered enough; that they had undergone the agonies
and did not want a repetition.
It is remarkable that this body takes a very different view. It
appears we are going to have an extensive debate that may go on for
days. The House people were able to do this by voice vote. One reason
they did so is that they heard from farmers, they heard from their
constituents, and the farmers said: Get on with it; we don't want an
argument; we understand you are doing your very best. The House people
understood most of the Members on the floor of the House were not
farmers; they were advocates for farmers. They were doing the best for
their constituents who were farmers, but at some point the constituents
would say; don't overlawyer me; don't over advocate me; try to get on
with a result because September 30 is coming quickly. Now, granted,
such voices will be heard coming from agricultural America to this
body.

As I indicated at the outset, and the reason I offer this amendment,
this amendment offers, I believe, the opportunity to get a result. The
bill before the Senate today, which I have sought to amend, represents
a very different approach that came out of the Senate Agriculture
Committee. The approach is that $1.976 billion in fiscal year 2002
would be spent in addition to the $5.5 billion in the current fiscal
year. A significant portion, therefore, of the fiscal year 2002 budget
authority is used to fund this farm bill provision as opposed to the
emergency that may arise next year or the farm bill which presumably
will come out of our committee and set some charter philosophy for the
future. The House already passed such a bill. We may or may not agree
with it. In any event, they have a pretty full picture now of their
activities.
The bill offered by the distinguished chairman of our committee,
Senator Harkin, for example, provides $200 million for the wetlands
reserve program, WRP; $250 million for the environmental quality
incentive programs, EQIP; $40 million for the farmland protection
program; $7 million for the wildlife habitat incentive program; $43
million for a variety of agricultural credit and rural development
programs; and $3 million for agricultural research. The outlays from
some of these programs would be spread over a number of years, well
beyond fiscal year 2002.
I mention these programs because I support these programs. I have
been a major advocate for agricultural research, not only of the
formula grants to our great universities but cutting-edge research
where anyone can compete to try to go out after the most pervasive
hunger problems on Earth, or go after production problems, genetic
problems, the whole raft of things that are very important for
humanity. I think we ought to be about this in a very serious way. The
EQIP program that I cited is extraordinarily important. It is at least
a way in which our livestock producers can stay alive while meeting the
requirements of the EPA or other environmental considerations that
impinge very markedly on their operations. As we consider the farm bill
in the Senate as a whole, I would be an advocate of doing a great deal
more. I have saluted our chairman, Senator Harkin, for his championship
of conservation programs. Both the chairman and I, as we speak, are
missing a hearing on conservation programs and we regret that because
these are people who are in the field, championing things that we
believe in very strongly.

There is an argument, which you will hear in due course as the farm
bill is presented, between those who advocate a lot more for
conservation and maybe less for crop payments and subsidies of that
sort and much more for the EQIP

[[Page S8408]]

program that helps livestock people and maybe less for support of
certain crops. Those are the tradeoffs, again, and the difficulties
within the whole agricultural family that we finally have to face. But
it would be very difficult to argue, in the sense that we are
attempting to get emergency money to farmers to pay the county banker
and get the money to them by September 30, that these broad-gauged,
important programs of research and conservation for America belong in
this particular emergency supplemental bill.
Our distinguished Senators will offer: ``They certainly do. And why
not?'' And: ``If we believe in them, why not do more of them?'' And:
``Why not now?''
Earlier in the debate I pointed out one reason, as a practical
matter, is that President Bush has said he will veto the bill if it is
more than $5.5 billion. One way, perhaps, for the distinguished Senator
from Iowa to remedy that is to downsize everything in his package to
about five-sevenths of where he is, get it under $5.5 billion. But
that, of course, then gets into an argument between the people who want
more AMTA payments, crop payments, as well as those who want to take
care of conservation and various other aspects all in this same
emergency bill which is not a full-scale farm bill by any means.
As a result, we have that dilemma, and I come down on the side of
saying we try to do the conservation, the research, the EQIP, and the
farm bill as opposed to the suggestion in this day's discussion.
Let me just comment further that, with the program improvements we
made in the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000--that was the very
important debate on crop insurance--participation in crop insurance has
risen sharply, as we hoped it would. Without repeating even a portion
of that important debate, the point of last year's discussion about
this time was that crop insurance can offer a comprehensive safety net.
For example, take once again a personal, anecdotal experience with my
corn and soybean crops. This year I have about 200 acres each on the
Lugar farm in Marion County in Indiana. We have taken advantage of the
legislation we talked about last year and we purchased the 85-percent
revenue protection. Very simply, this means that our agent takes a look
at the last 5 years of records of production and that gives a pretty
good baseline of what could be anticipated from those fields and,
simply, we are guaranteed about 85 percent of revenue based upon the
average crop prices for those 5 years. At the present time, the average
for the last 5 years is higher than the current price. It may rise and
meet that average.
So, as a corn farmer, for example, I know I am going to get 85
percent of a higher price than in fact is the market now, at least on
the average production I have had. So I do not have the problems of the
bad weather one year, or so forth, affecting that abnormally. The net
effect of that is, as a corn farmer, before I even planted the crop
this year, I knew that x number of dollars were at the end of the
trail--as a matter of fact, a pretty good number of those dollars that
I could expect in a reasonably good year. That is a safety net that is
very substantial any way you look at it.

Many farmers may say: I have never heard of such a program.
That is a part of our problem, the educational component, trying to
understand what crop insurance and marketing strategies, and so forth,
are all about. For instance, once guaranteed this income from that
cornfield, I could be alert for spikes in the market that come along
and make forward sales of corn when prices were up. I am not beholden
to sit there and hope the Lord will provide at the time I ship it in,
in the fall. So I can enhance that 85 percent a whole lot. So can any
corn farmer in America who hears these words this morning and adopts
such a policy.
But we in the Senate and the House provided that. The President
signed it last year. One of the problems of it is that it costs
probably about $3 billion a year. I mention that because that--we are
not debating that this morning--flows right along. It is a part of the
base as well as these AMTA payments that are made, regardless of what
we do, or the loan deficiency payments made at the elevator even as we
speak.
So the safety net already is very heavy. But I mention with those
improvements--and I think they were constructive ones--a part of our
problem remains information dissemination, education on marketing
insurance strategies in the hope that farmers will take advantage of
actions the Congress has already taken.
In addition, as to what we do today, we will be hearing soon from the
Agriculture Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. Typically,
that subcommittee takes a look at miscellaneous disasters of all sorts
throughout the United States. I cannot remember an Agriculture
appropriations bill that did not take into consideration weather
disasters. But sometimes there are other disasters. In other words, it
provides still an additional safety net for events that seem
extraordinary and beyond anything we have considered or that could have
been helped with crop insurance or any of our AMTA payments that flow
whether or not you even have a crop.
Overall, the bill of the distinguished Senator from Iowa, the
underlying bill in this debate, provides $6.75 billion in supplemental
farm assistance for 2001 crops and $750 million in other spending over
2 fiscal years. It leaves, now, $5.35 billion for the supplemental farm
assistance of next year and very likely, in my judgment, will create a
funding shortfall for that farm assistance. Senators can argue maybe no
assistance will be required so why not try it this year. But that is a
value judgment.
The President, the White House, and others, have come to the
conclusion that this year is this year and we ought to look at next
year on its merits because any way you look at it, $2 billion borrowed
from next year theoretically could be spent for anything in America;
there is no obligation to spend that $2 billion on emergencies. For
example, without getting into a debate that is deeper than I want to
get today, by next year people could say: In fact we take very
seriously the problem of prescription drugs for the elderly under
Medicare. We take very seriously Social Security reform. How are you
folks going to pay for that?
We might say: Well, the $2 billion will never be missed. It was
simply a part of a debate we had awhile back. But every $1 billion is
going to be missed when we come to those fundamental issues.
Agriculture is a part of this general amount of $1 trillion that the
President discussed in the State of the Union Address. As he outlined
his assurance to the American people that we have to be thoughtful
about Medicare, about Social Security, about education, and about
health generally, he said there is still this contingency of about $1
trillion from which we make the reforms in Medicare, from which the
supplementary legislation for prescription drugs for the elderly come,
Social Security reform, and agriculture.
There are a number of people in both the House and the Senate
committees who say we had better get busy because when this general
debate gets going, if we have not pinned down the agriculture money on
all four corners for the next 10 years, Katy bar the door. People are
likely to take a look at priorities.
I understand that. This $2 billion reaching across the line is not an
egregious misstep. And clearly one can argue the Budget Committee
provided this liberal interpretation. But $2 billion is $2 billion, and
it is an expenditure. The Senate must determine priorities; the House
has. They have said $5.5 billion, and the President said that is the
only figure he is going to sign. We may, once again, get into that kind
of argument in behalf of farmers. We are strong advocates for farmers.
But farmers, by and large, will say: Pass the bill and cut the checks
because we have an appointment with the banker. You can have your
argument when you come back.
It is a good argument for farmers as well as for other Americans.
The President's advisers in advising the President to veto this bill
made a number of statements with regard to the need for it at this
time. This is an important part of the debate. Members, in fact,
yesterday got into this in a big way. The most common way of getting
into this is for a Senator to address the Chair and say, I have been to
this county seat or that county seat or on my friend's farm. Anybody
who does not

[[Page S8409]]

understand the profound suffering and difficulty has just not been
there and doesn't have eyes to see. All over America people are in
grave trouble. Each one of us from a farm State, as a matter of fact,
could cite hundreds of instances of farmers who are having severe
difficulty. There is no doubt about that. I simply state that as a
basic premise for the debate.
If there were any doubt about it, we would not be debating $5.5
billion of emergency payments on top of over $20 billion of support
that Congress has already voted. That is a lot of money, but I
understand that a vast majority of Senators are in favor of legislation
that would be helpful in this respect. We are not talking about a
situation in which the needs have not been perceived, but at the same
time in reality sometimes people can overstate this. That is always
dangerous to do.
I have found in meetings with farmers around my State that, by and
large, most people do not want to have a cheerful meeting. There are
not a lot of good-news apostles coming forward and pointing out how
well they are doing. In fact, that is totally out of the question.
I made a mistake at a meeting a while back in pointing out that on my
farm we had made money for the last 45 years without exception. You
don't do that, I found out. No one wants to hear that because, as a
matter of fact, it just isn't true for most people. And they would say
that for some it has never been true for the 45 years. They lost money
for all of the 45 years, or at least essentially that is the case. I
hear that.
On the other hand, let me say that essentially there has been some
modest improvement in agricultural America. For example, world markets
that are extremely important to the growth of the U.S. sector show some
promise of increase this year. That is amazing on the face of it. The
reason why our export sales fell out of bed 4 years ago was not because
we were not competitive in this country. The price of rice and the
quality were good, but anybody reading about the Asian economies
understands that they had severe banking difficulties. The IMF even to
this day has not been able to cure it in some instances. As a result,
we lost about 40 percent of our exports to the Asian sector in 1 year's
time. That was a big hit. That really meant that 10 percent of our
exports overall vanished overnight--not through any misdeed of American
agriculture but because of the lack of demand and lack of effective
money to buy it. Much of that has not yet been restored. There is
always the possibility. We wish that the Indonesian economy would get
healthier in a hurry. We are grateful for some good news from Thailand
and South Korea. The Japanese are always big customers but not any
bigger. This is not an economy that is growing. We all are working with
our friends there to try to restore some activity.
In the European case, we have been hit--not on the questions of price
or income but on biotechnology--with essentially all of our corn being
exported and very few soybeans. That is a real problem.
Our export sales fell to $49 billion in 1999 but are forecast to
increase to $53.5 billion in 2001--an increase of $500 million, as a
matter of fact, over the forecast by USDA in February--with livestock
products, cotton, and soybeans accounting for much of the gain over the
previous year. That is truly good news.
Export levels in 2001--the year we are in--are still well below the
record highs of 1996. Primarily in response to these problems that I
have cited in Asia, and production increases by competing exporters
that sometimes are becoming much better at the task, nevertheless,
sales appear to be increasing significantly.
During the first half of fiscal year 2001, the surplus in U.S.
agricultural trade grew to $9.4 billion, almost $2 billion more than
the same period last year. Year-to-date exports are $32.4 billion, $1.8
billion higher than they were during the same time period of last year,
primarily due to $1.5 billion in more shipments of high-value products.
That includes significant gains in livestock and feed, but bulk
commodities have also contributed modestly to that.
Although the intermediate term outlook for agriculture is clearly
uncertain at this point, it is clear that many underlying farm economic
conditions are stronger this year than last year. Farm cash receipts
could be a record high for 2001, driven primarily by a nearly 7-percent
increase in livestock sales while crop sales could increase by as much
as 1 percent. That scenario depends on $15.7 billion in direct payments
from the Federal Government.
Those taking a look at this situation could say that is still not the
real market. The sales are up because the Federal Government already
has put up $15.7 billion, and we are about to put up at least $5.5
billion more. But, nevertheless, it is up rather than down.
As I pointed out earlier, if we had the $5.5 billion in my amendment,
we are clearly going to have a net cash income situation that is at
least $2.5 billion stronger than last year.
The projected increase in sales for 2001 is projected to more than
offset the decline in Government payments and will boost gross cash
income to $234 billion, up slightly with the bulk of the increase from
livestock. Net cash income is forecast to decline $3 billion, as I
pointed out earlier. That is why the $5.5 billion in my amendment takes
care of that, plus $52.3 billion for the year, albeit through the
health of the American taxpayers generally.
Therefore, the outlook for 2001 farm income performance includes:
Livestock sales, up 6.7 percent; Crop sales up 1 percent; gross cash
income up .1 percent; and net cash income down--before we act--5.4
percent. And we remedy that with the $5.5 billion we are about to
adopt, I hope. If you take a look at the balance sheet for agriculture,
that is somewhat more promising.

Overall, the agricultural sector was strong throughout the year 2000,
with part of that strength coming from strong balance sheets. Assets in
2000--the year previous--increased 3.6 percent and reached $1.12
trillion. Farm debt increased 4.1 percent to $183.6 billion. But
farmers' equity increased 1.4 percent to $941.2 billion. For many
observers that is astonishing. This being a year or 2 or 3 or 4,
however you count it, of an agricultural crisis, the net worth of
farmers as a whole has increased every year. It increases this year as
compared to last year. Total farm debt has still stayed well under
constraints at a very modest percentage of that overall equity.
During the mid-1990s, farm debt rose steadily at $5 to $6 billion
annually. That clearly is not the case as farmers were much more
prudent during this particular period.
The value of livestock and poultry, machinery, purchased inputs, and
financial assets are all expected to increase this year, but the value
of stored crops could decline modestly as a part of that asset
situation.
Farm operators and lenders learned during the crisis of the 1980s
that ill-advised borrowing cannot substitute for adequate cash flow and
profits. In addition to gains in farmland values, cautious borrowing
has kept the sector sound.
The farm sector equity growth continues. During the 2001 forecast, we
see a moderate increase in debt, suggesting modest levels of new
capital investments financed by debt, and a very low incidence of farms
borrowing their way out of cash flow problems.
I mention that because of testimony we heard from farmers who need
the $5.5 billion in our amendment. But at the same time, they are
paying back their loans. They are not in a crisis situation with the
country banker. And the country bankers need to make the loans because
they do have a relatively sound market situation.
Land prices: Cash rents reinforce economic strength and suggest
investment is profitable for many farmers. That raises another issue
because, in fact, with land prices rising each year--and I cited
yesterday sector by sector all over the country land prices have been
rising throughout this decade. The young farmer coming into this
picture, trying to buy land or to rent land, with rents going up every
year, has raised some questions about our farm policies.
They have said: You folks in the Senate and the House are busy
sending payments to farmers. They are capitalizing that in the value of
the land. They are charging more rent. How are young farmers such as
ourselves ever going to get in the game?

[[Page S8410]]

We say: We will try to give you some low-cost loans. And the
Presiding Officer, from his background in finance, will immediately
recognize that these policies have some contradictions. On the one
hand, we are doing our very best to boost income and the net worth, the
balance sheets. I pointed, with pride, to the fact that we have some
strength here. But it is not strength to everybody. The competing
sectors, once again, are fairly obvious once you get to the fissures in
our farm policy.
Nothing we do today will remedy that problem specifically. We are
talking about an emergency. We are plugging in the net income, but it
is all a part of this picture of well over $20 billion of Federal
payments and who gets them, how are they capitalized, how does that
work out in balance sheets, and for which farmers.
These are important issues. The chairman of our committee has had to
try to resolve that within the committee. I salute him. As chairman for
the 6 previous years, I had that responsibility. It is not easy, as you
take a look around the table just in the Ag Committee, quite apart from
the Senate as a whole. Therefore, I have had modest arguments in favor
of the amendment I offer today. It is clearly not meant with the wisdom
of Solomon. It is a pragmatic approach to how we might get action on
the Agriculture bill as opposed to having a monumental argument for
many hours and perhaps a veto at the end of the trail.
Let me just simply say that clearly the bill the Senator from Iowa
has offered is different from the House bill--significantly different--
and no less a group than the White House people have pointed out the
difference and indicated the action they would take if that difference
was not resolved.
So my hope is that essentially Members will gather as much of this
together as they wish and try to distill at least the picture of
agriculture in America that I have suggested and come to a conclusion
that the amendment I have offered in a way--hopefully, with as much
equity as possible on both sides of the aisle, and for farmers all over
America--resolves our problem.
It would be unseemly to try to point out all the other scenarios that
could happen if my amendment is not adopted. But let me just describe
very clearly a part of the task ahead of us if we do not adopt the
House language.
Whatever we adopt has to have a conference. I have cited that the
bill the Senate Agriculture Committee passed the other day, maybe
inadvertently, appears to touch at least three different House
committees that have jurisdiction over some of this material. Maybe all
of them will be happily cooperative in these final days, but I am not
certain that is the case.
As I take a look at the chairmanships, the ranking members, and the
general views of some of these committees--and they are not all Ag
Committee people--they have other views. Maybe the distinguished
Senator will excise various items and try to get these folks out of the
picture. That would be helpful.
I have suggested he might downsize all of his items by five-sevenths
and get it under $5.5 billion. Maybe that is a pragmatic solution to
that. As he does so, of course, he will run into the same problem I
have. He will run into people who want a bigger AMTA payment, and say:
By golly, I am not going to vote for that bill unless the AMTA payment
is at least as it was last year and the year before. I can't go home
and see my cotton farmers and my corn farmers with anything less.
Whether we have any money or not, I am going to fight to the very last
hour to get that dollar, if I can.
Or you run into the so-called specialty crops people. Strawberry
farmers have said: We have not been in on this business before. Why
not?
Apple growers will say: We have a special problem this year. Without
some payments, it is curtains for us.
It goes down through the line. So the chairman has to face all these
people. He has already promised the AMTA people that they get the same
as last year. That takes almost all the $5.5 billion. It is no wonder
that the bill spills beyond $5.5 billion. It is--without any
disrespect--a collection of the wish lists of members of the Ag
Committee thrown together, listed ad seriatim. When you add up the
total, it happens to come to $7.4 billion-plus.
You can say: Why not? But I am suggesting the ``why not.'' I think it
is fairly clear it does not come close to our friends in the House. It
does not come close to the requirements of the President to sign the
bill. Although it may satisfy Members who say we have to go home and
say we did the very best we could, that will not satisfy American
farmers who, in the end result, do not get the money.

Let me just add, if there is anybody in this body with a perverse
belief that we should be doing nothing here--in other words, in his or
her heart of hearts who says, why are we having another farm debate; Is
there no end of expenditure that is required?--if such a Member exists
who perversely says, these folks, out of their own overlawyering and
overadvocacy, will kill each other off, the net result at the end of
the day will be zero expenditure, and that is a good result because
that leaves $5.5 billion for something else in life that is more
important--there could be a problem.
I suppose my suggestion would be, if there is not a constructive
majority on my amendment, those folks will be interspersed with those
purporting to be friends of farmers and suggesting more and more. The
two extremes will finally get their wish, which is no bill.
I am not one of them. In a straightforward way, we have offered a
pragmatic solution--not my own bill, not one that I find has
extraordinary merit, but one that I believe has enough merit to be the
basis for a good conclusion of a lot of difficulty in farmland and a
lot of difficulty we have as legislators. It is something to broker all
the interests of America into this particular situation.
At the appropriate time, I am hopeful Members will vote in favor of
the amendment. I have been advised that there may in due course be a
motion to table my amendment. Some have suggested that would offer at
least a clue of the strength of how we are doing. I hope that will not
come too soon, before Members really have considered what our options
are, because I predict, in the event my amendment is tabled and no
longer really is a viable possibility, almost all of the possibilities
that follow are fairly grim.
If, for example, other amendments should be adopted that are more
than $5.5 billion or the basic underlying bill, which is about 7.4, the
odds of that becoming legislation are zero. Members need to know that
at the outset. There has never been a more explicit set of messages
from the White House before we even start. One could say, well, let's
taunt the President; let's sort of see really what he wants to do. That
is not a very good exercise, given 3 days of recess and the need for
these checks by September 30.
In addition, if my amendment fails, this I suppose offers open season
for anybody who has an agricultural problem in America. If this is
going to be a failing exercise, why not bring up a whole raft of
disputes, try them on for size, sort of test the body, and see what
sort of support there is out there as a preliminary for the farm bill.
This really offers spring training for arguments that might be out
there in due course. We might try out a whole raft of dairy amendments,
for example, try to resolve that extraordinary problem, all on this
bill with both sides predicting filibusters that curl your hair
throughout the whole of August, not just the whole of this week, or we
could try out other experiments that have been suggested as Members
truly believe we ought to discuss the trade problems and work out
priorities with Social Security or Medicare and how we do those things.
Given the rules of the Senate, you could say, why not? Is anybody
going to say it is nongermane? Does anybody really want to bring the
thing to a conclusion?
I simply do want to bring it to a conclusion. I am hopeful that after
both parties, both sides of the aisle, have considered the options,
they will adopt my amendment, and we will swiftly join hands with the
House and the President and give assurance to American farmers, which,
as I understand, was the beginning of our enterprise.
I thank the Chair and the Senate for allowing me to make this
extensive presentation.

[[Page S8411]]

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to address the amendment offered by
the Senator from Indiana, the distinguished ranking member of the
Senate Agriculture Committee, someone for whom I have enormous respect
and listen carefully when the Senator from Indiana speaks on a subject.
He has always done his homework, and he has a clear view. In this
circumstance, I regret to say I have a different view.
As I look at the history over the last 3 years of the assistance
bills we have passed in the Senate for agriculture in these situations,
this is a very modest bill. In fact, it is significantly less than we
have passed in each of the last 3 years.
The amendment offered by the Senator from Indiana is precisely what
passed in the House. It is exactly the legislation that comes to us
from that body. The chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, the
Republican chairman, has, in his written views on this bill, said it is
inadequate, has pointed out that this bill would provide $1 billion
less than what we have passed in the last 3 years--$1 billion less than
what has been passed each of the last 3 years to assist farmers at a
time of real economic hardship. And as the Republican chairman of the
House Agriculture Committee pointed out, this is at a time when farmers
face the lowest real prices since the Great Depression.
The hard reality here is that prices for everything farmers buy have
gone up, up, and away, especially energy prices, and yet the prices
they receive are at a 70-year low in real terms. That is the situation
we confront today. That is the hard reality of what we face today. The
decision we have to make is, are we going to respond in a serious way,
or are we going to fail to respond?
I hope very much that we will just look at the record. This chart
depicts it very well. The green line is the prices farmers paid for
inputs. The red is the prices farmers have received from 1991 through
2000. Look at the circumstance we have faced. The prices farmers have
paid for inputs have gone up, up, and up. The prices farmers have
received have declined precipitously.
That is the situation our farmers are facing. We can either choose to
respond to that or we can fail. I hope we respond. I hope we respond
quickly because the Congressional Budget Office has told us very
clearly: If we fail to respond this week, the money in this bill will
be scored as having been passed and effective in the year 2002. In
effect, we would lose $5.5 billion available to help farmers.
There has been a lot of suggestion that things have been improving
lately. I don't know exactly what they are talking about in terms of
improvement. We have searched the markets to try to find where these
improvements are occurring.
There has been modest improvement in lifestock. We do not see
improvement in the program crops or the nonprogram crops, the things
that are really covered by this bill.
Let me go back to what the chairman of the Agriculture Committee in
the House of Representatives said about this very amendment, this
precise legislation, that is before us now. This is the Republican
chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. He said: H.R. 2213 as
reported by the Agriculture Committee is inadequate in at least two
respects:
First, the assistance level is not sufficient to address the needs of
farmers and ranchers in the 2001 crop-year.
Second, the bill's scope is too narrow, leaving many needs completely
unaddressed.
This is the Republican chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the
House of Representatives talking about the very legislation being
offered by the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee in the
Senate today.
This is, again from the House Agriculture chairman, at a time when
real net cash income on the farm is at its lowest level since the Great
Depression, and the cost of production is expected to set a record
high. H.R. 2213, that has precisely the same provisions as are being
offered by the Senator from Indiana, cuts supplemental help to farmers
by $1 billion from last year to this year. Hardest hit will be wheat,
corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, rice, soybean, and
other oilseed farmers since the cuts will come at their expense.
I say to my colleagues, if they are representing wheat farmers, if
they are representing corn farmers, grain sorghum, barley, oats, rice,
soybean, and other oilseed farmers, to vote for the amendment of the
Senator from Indiana is to cut assistance to their producers at the
very time they are suffering from this circumstance.
The prices they pay are increasing each and every year. The prices
they receive are plunging.
The House Agriculture Committee chairman went on to say, H.R. 2213,
the bill that was reported by the House committee, the identical
language which has been offered here, also fails to address the needs
of dairy farmers, sugar beet and sugar cane farmers, farmers who graze
their wheat, barley and oats, as well as farmers who are denied
marketing loan assistance either because they do not have an AMTA
contract or because they lost beneficial interest in their crops.
The House Agriculture chairman went on to say, earlier this year, 20
farm groups pegged the need in farm country for the 2001 crop-year at
$9 billion. We do not have $9 billion available to us. We have, under
the budget resolution, $5.5 billion available to us, and that is what
the bill from the Agriculture Committee provides, $5.5 billion this
year, $1.9 billion out of what is available to us next year in 2002.
What the amendment from the Senator from Indiana would provide is
$5.5 billion this year, period. It is not enough. It represents,
according to the Republican chairman of the Agriculture Committee in
the House, a billion dollar cut from what we did last year. That is not
what we should do.
The House Agriculture Committee chairman went on in his report to
say, those who championed this legislation, as reported in the
committee, argued in part a cut in help to farmers this year is
necessary to save money for a rewrite of the farm bill, but the fly in
the ointment is many farmers are deeply worried about whether they can
make it through this year, let alone next year.
That is what we are down to in farm country across America. We are
down to a question of survival. In my State, I have never seen such a
loss of hope as has occurred in the agricultural sector, and it is the
biggest industry in my State. If one were out there and they were
paying for everything they buy, all of the inputs they use, every input
going up, up, and up --if this chart extended to 2001, it would be more
dramatic--we would see the prices going up even further.

On the other hand, if we looked at the prices for everything one sold
going almost straight down, they would be hopeless, too.
This chart does not show just the last 6 months. This pattern of
prices is since 1996. These are not Kent Conrad's numbers. These are
the numbers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The pattern of the prices which farmers receive is virtually straight
down, and the prices they pay have been going up, up, up.
I do not know what could be more clear. We have an obligation to
help. We have an obligation to move this legislation. We have a
requirement to move this legislation this week, not just through this
Chamber but through the whole process. It has to be conferenced with
the House, and the conference report has to be voted on before we go on
break or we are going to lose $5.5 billion. The money will be gone
because the Congressional Budget Office has told us very clearly if
this bill is not passed before we leave on break, they will score this
legislation, even though it is being passed in fiscal year 2001, as
affecting 2002 because they say the money cannot get out to farmers
before the end of the fiscal year.
It is all at stake in this debate we are having, and I urge my
colleagues to think very carefully about what they do in these coming
votes.
I will close the way I started, by referring to the report of the
chairman from the House Agriculture Committee, who said very clearly
the identical legislation, which is contained in the amendment from the
Senator from Indiana, is inadequate. This is the Republican chairman of
the House Agriculture Committee, and he calls the

[[Page S8412]]

amendment being offered inadequate in at least two respects: First, the
assistance level is not sufficient to address the needs of farmers and
ranchers in the 2001 crop-year.
Second, the bill's scope is too narrow, leaving many needs completely
unaddressed.
Finally, he said, clearly this legislation, precisely what we are
going to be voting on in the Senate, cuts supplemental help to farmers
by $1 billion from last year to this year. We are cutting at the time
we see a desperate situation in farm country all across America. It
does not make sense. It is not what we should do. We ought to reject
the amendment by the Senator from Indiana.
I thank the Chair, and I suggest we move forward.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Budget Committee for pointing out the letter we received from the
Office of Management and Budget, which is not signed, but it is from
the Office of Management and Budget and says: ``The President's senior
advisers would recommend he veto the Senate bill we have before us
based upon improvements in agricultural markets. Stronger livestock and
crop prices means that the need for additional Federal assistance
continues to diminish.''
I grant that livestock prices are a little bit higher. Are crop
prices better than last year? Yes, but last year was a 15-year low. So
it has come up a little bit. We are still at a 10- or 12-year low in
crop prices. Simply because they were a little bit better than last
year's disastrously low prices does not mean we don't have a need for
additional farmer assistance. We do need it desperately.
It seems to me if that is the advice the President is getting, he is
getting bad advice. I hope the President--he is the President; he does
make the final decision--will look at the low crop prices we have all
over America, and not only low crop prices, that is just looking at one
thing. Crop prices may be marginally better than last year, but the
input costs have skyrocketed.
We all know what has happened to fuel prices and fertilizer prices.
They have skyrocketed. So the gap between what the farmer is receiving
and what he is paying out continues to widen, as indicated in the chart
of the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.
The President's advisers do not really know what is happening in farm
country.
The Senator from North Dakota read from the report of the Agriculture
Committee. I reemphasize that the chairman of the House Agriculture
Committee, a Republican, Larry Combest from Texas, along with 17
members of the House Agriculture Committee, said their bill was
inadequate for two reasons: One, it is not sufficient to address the
needs of farmers and ranchers; second, the scope is too narrow, leaving
many needs completely unaddressed.
He points out that earlier this year 20 farm groups pegged the need
for the 2001 crop-year at $9 billion. The farmers represent, according
to Larry Combest's letter, the views of 17 members of the Agriculture
Committee. The farmers they represent had every reason to believe the
help this year would be at least comparable to the help Congress
provided last year. Producers who graze their wheat, barley, and oats,
as well as producers who are denied marketing loan assistance--either
because they do not have an AMTA crop or they lost beneficial interest
in their crops--need help, too.
As this process moves forward, the letter continues, we will work to
build a more sturdy bridge over this year's financial straits, straits
that may otherwise threaten to separate many farmers from the promise
of the next farm bill.
If all we are going to do is adopt the farm bill the House passed,
there is no bridge. They are saying they hope the Senate might do
something else so we can work on building that bridge.
A letter dated March 13, 2001, to the Honorable Pete Domenici,
chairman of the Committee on the Budget, is signed by 21 Members of the
Senate on both sides of the aisle: Senators Cochran, Hutchison, Breaux,
Landrieu, Bond, Sessions, Lincoln, Shelby, Bunning, Helms, McConnell,
Craig, Cleland, Inhofe, Thurmond, Fitzgerald, Miller, Frist, Thomas,
Hutchinson, and Hagel.
It says:

Specifically, since conditions are not appreciably improved
for 2001, we support making market loss assistance available
so that the total amount of assistance available through the
2001 Agricultural Market Transition Act payment and the
Market Loss Assistance payments will be the same as was
available for the 2000 crop.

Further, the letter says:

In addition to sluggish demand and chronically low prices,
U.S. farmers and ranchers are experiencing rapidly increasing
input costs including fuel, fertilizer and interest rates.

Further reading from the letter:

With projections that farm income will not improve in the
near future, we believe it is vitally important to provide at
least as much total economic assistance for 2001 and 2002 as
provided for the 2000 crop.

I ask unanimous consent this be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, March 13, 2001.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington,
DC.
Dear Pete: We are writing to request your assistance in
including appropriate language in the FY02 budget resolution
so that emergency economic loss assistance can be made
available for 2001 and 2002 or until a replacement for the
1996 Farm Bill can be enacted. Specifically, since conditions
are not appreciably improved for 2001, we support making
market loss assistance available so that the total amount of
assistance available through the 2001 Agricultural Market
Transition Act payment and the Market Loss Assistance
payments will be the same as was available for the 2000 crop.
We understand it is unusual to ask that funds to be made
available in the current fiscal year be provided in a budget
resolution covering the next fiscal year, but the financial
stress in U.S. agriculture is extraordinary.
According the USDA and other prominent agriculture
economists, the U.S. agricultural economy continues to face
persistent low prices and depressed farm income. According to
testimony presented by USDA on February 14, 2001, ``a strong
rebound in farm prices and income from the market place for
major crops appears unlikely . . . assuming no supplemental
assistance, net cash farm income in 2001 is projected to be
the lowest level since 1994 and about $4 billion below the
average of the 1990's.'' The USDA statement also said . . .''
(a) national farm financial crisis has not occurred in large
part due to record government payments and greater off-farm
income.''
In addition to sluggish demand and chronically low prices,
U.S. farmers and ranchers are experiencing rapidly increasing
input costs including fuel, fertilizer and interest rates.
According to USDA, ``increases in petroleum prices and
interest rates along with higher prices for other inputs,
including hired labor increased farmers' production expenses
by 4 percent or $7.6 billion in 2000, and for 2001 cash
production expenses are forecast to increase further. At the
same time, major crop prices for the 2000-01 season are
expected to register only modest improvement from last year's
15-25 year lows, reflecting another year of large global
production of major crops and ample stocks.''
During the last 3 years, Congress has provided significant
levels of emergency economic assistance through so-called
Market Loss Assistance payments and disaster assistance for
weather related losses. During the last three years, the
Commodity Credit Corporation has provided about $72 billion
in economic and weather related loss assistance and
conservation payments. The Congressional Budget Office and
USDA project that expenditures for 2001 will be $14-17
billion without additional market or weather loss assistance.
With projections that farm income will not improve in the
near future, we believe it is vitally important to provide at
least as much total economic assistance for 2001 and 2002 as
was provided for the 2000 crop.
Congress has begun to evaluate replacement farm policy. In
order to provide effective, predictable financial support
which also allows farmers and ranchers to be competitive,
sufficient funding will be needed to allow the Agriculture
Committee to ultimately develop a comprehensive package
covering major commodities in addition to livestock and
specialty crops, rural development, trade and conservation
initiatives. Until new legislation can be enacted, it is
essential that Congress provide emergency economic assistance
necessary to alleviate the current financial crisis.
We realize these recommendations add significantly to
projected outlays for farm programs. Our farmers and ranchers
clearly prefer receiving their income from the market.
However, while they strive to further reduce costs and expand
markets, federal assistance will be necessary until
conditions improve.
We appreciate your consideration of our views.
Sincerely,
Thad Cochran, John Breaux, Kit Bond, Blanche Lincoln, Jim
Bunning, Mitch

[[Page S8413]]

McConnell, Max Cleland, Strom Thurmond, Zell Miller,
Craig Thomas, Chuck Hagel, Tim Hutchinson, Mary
Landrieu, Jeff Sessions, Richard Shelby, Jesse Helms,
Larry Craig, James Inhofe, Peter Fitzgerald, Bill
Frist, Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Mr. HARKIN. The bill reported from the Agriculture Committee meets
everything in this letter, signed by all these Senators, sent to
Senator Domenici. We have met the need. We have provided for the same
market loss assistance payment this year as provided last year.
The House bill that Senator Lugar has introduced as an amendment
provides 85 percent of what was provided last year; the Agriculture
Committee bill provides 100 percent. I hope Senators who sent this
letter earlier to Senator Domenici recognize we met these needs; we
provided 100 percent, exactly what they asked for, the same as
available for the 2000 crop.
As Senator Conrad pointed out, the gap, as pointed out in the letter,
in rapidly increasing input costs, fuel, fertilizer, and high interest
rates, still means farmers have a big gap out there between prices they
are receiving and what they are paying out.
Ms. STABENOW. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARKIN. I am delighted to yield to my colleague from Michigan, a
valuable member of the Agriculture Committee.
Ms. STABENOW. I take a moment to thank the chairman for his
leadership in putting forward a bill that is balanced and that meets
the criteria laid out, the needs expressed by Members on both sides of
the aisle. I thank the Senator for putting together a package
addressing those crops that are not considered program crops but are in
severe financial situations.
One example in the great State of Michigan, among many, are our apple
growers who have needed assistance and received assistance--late but
did receive assistance--last year. I am deeply concerned when we hear
as much as 30 percent of the apple growers in this country will not
make it past this season. If we are to look at their needs for, not the
fiscal year, but as the Senator eloquently stated in the past, the crop
year, and the needs of the farmers, it means the version that came from
the Senate committee needs to be the version adopted.
I ask my esteemed chairman, it is my understanding in the amendment
before the Senate, there is not a specific loss payment for apple
growers; is that correct? I could address other specialty needs in
dairy, sugar, and a whole range of needs in the great State of
Michigan, but is it true that this does not, as the Senate Agriculture
Committee bill does, put forward dollars specifically for our apple
growers? It is my understanding this amendment adopted by the House of
Representatives would not address the serious needs of America's apple
growers.
Mr. HARKIN. I respond to my colleague from Michigan, she is
absolutely right, there is nothing in the House bill providing any help
for the tremendous loss, 30-some percent loss, that apple producers
have experienced in this country. We are talking about apple producers
from Oregon, from Washington, Michigan, to Maine, Massachusetts, New
York, Pennsylvania, all who experienced tremendous losses.
Under the AMTA payment system, they don't get money, but they are
farmers. They are farmers.
Many are family farmers and they need help, too. So I think, I say to
my friend from Michigan, what Larry Combest and the 17 others who
signed the ``additional views'' on the House bill said was that the
bill was too narrow in scope. There are a lot of other farmers in this
country who are hurting, who need some help.
So, yes, I say to my friend from Michigan, we provided $150 million
in there to help our apple farmers. That is a small amount compared to
the $7.5 billion in the total package. But it is very meaningful. It
will go to those apple producers, and it will save them and keep a lot
of them in business for next year, I say to my friend from Michigan.
I especially want to thank the Senator from Michigan for bringing
this to our attention. To be frank, I don't have a lot of apple growers
in Iowa. We have a few, but not to the extent of many other States. It
was through the intercession and the great work done by the Senator
from Michigan that this was brought to our attention, the terrible
plight of our apple farmers all over America. I thank her for sticking
up for our family farmers.
I just have a couple of other things. The Lugar amendment, the House
bill, strikes out all the money we have for conservation. It strikes
all the conservation money out. Earlier this year--June 14 of this
year--130 Members of the House of Representatives, including many
members of the House Agriculture Committee, wrote a letter to Chairman
Combest and Ranking Member Stenholm. They said:

We believe conservation must be the centerpiece of the next
farm bill.

They talk about the farm bill, but, they said:

We should not leave farmers waiting while a new farm bill
is debated. We urge you to work with the House Appropriations
Committee to increase FY 2002 annual and supplemental funding
for voluntary incentive-based programs. In particular, we
urge you to use 30 percent of emergency funds to help farmers
impacted by drought, flooding and rising energy costs,
through conservation programs. Currently, demand for the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program exceeds $150
million. Demand for the Farmland Protection Program exceeds
$200 million, demand for the Wetlands Reserve Program exceeds
$350 million, and demand for the Wildlife Habitat Incentives
Program exceeds $150 million.

That is signed by 130 Members of the House.
I have to be honest; we didn't meet 30 percent of the emergency funds
but we did put in about 7 percent, if I am not mistaken--a little over
7 percent. The Lugar amendment gives zero for conservation--zero.
Again, these are family farmers. Many of these farmers do not get the
AMTA payments that go out, but they are farmers nonetheless and they
need help. Certainly we need to promote conservation because a lot of
these farms simply will lie dormant if we do not provide this
assistance in this bill.
There are two other things I want to point out. I have a letter I
received today from some Members of the House--two Members. The House
bill passed by 1 vote. The House Agricultural Committee passed out the
Lugar amendment. What Senator Lugar is putting out there is the House
Agriculture Committee bill. It passed by 1 vote. I have a letter from
two members of that committee who voted on the prevailing side. Listen
to what they said:

Dear Chairman Harkin: Although we supported H.R. 2213--The
Crop-Year 2001 Agricultural Economic Assistance Act--as it
passed the House of Representatives, we applaud the
comprehensive approach you have taken in the aid package
passed by the Senate Agriculture Committee to address the
many diverse needs of agricultural and rural communities.
By including additional funding for conservation programs,
nutrition, rural development and research, many farmers in
rural communities who do not benefit from the traditional
commodity programs will receive assistance this year. In
particular, the $542 million you included for conservation
programs will help reduce the $2 billion backlog of
applications from farmers and ranchers who are waiting for
USDA assistance to protect farm and ranchland threatened by
sprawling development and critical wetlands and riparian
areas for wildlife habitat, water quality, and floodplains.

Signed by Representative Ron Kind and Representative Wayne Gilchrest.
I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Washington, DC,

July 31, 2001.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Harkin: Although we supported H.R. 2213--The
Crop Year 2001 Agriculture Economic Assistance Act--as it
passed the House of Representatives, we applaud the
comprehensive approach you have taken in the aid package
passed by the Senate Agriculture Committee to address the
many diverse needs of agriculture and rural communities. We
look forward to working with you to reconcile the competing
measures in order to ensure that we meet the diverse needs of
both our family farmers and the overall environment.
By including additional funding for conservation programs,
nutrition, rural development and research, many farmers and
rural communities who do not benefit from the traditional
commodity programs will receive assistance this year. In
particular, the $542 million you included for conservation
programs will help reduce the $2 billion backlog of
applications from farmers and ranchers who are waiting for
USDA assistance to protect farm and ranchland threatened by

[[Page S8414]]

sprawling development and critical wetlands and riparian
areas for wildlife habitat, water quality, and floodplains.
Earlier this year, 140 House members called on the House
Agriculture Committee to ``not leave farmers waiting while a
new farm bill is debated'' and instead allocate 30 percent of
emergency funding to conservation programs this year. Your
conservation package will maintain critical conservation
programs before the farm bill is reauthorized. Without this
additional funding, the Wetlands Reserve Program, Farmland
Protection Program, and Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
would cease to operate. It is our hope that the conferees
will view conservation programs favorably during conference
proceedings.
We believe this short-term aid package should reflect the
needs of all farmers in this country and set the tone for the
next farm bill by taking a balanced approach to allocating
farm spending among many disparate needs.
Sincerely,
Ron Kind,
Wayne Gilchrest,
Members of Congress.

Mr. HARKIN. Then I have a letter also today saying:

Dear Senator Harkin: I am writing to you today to express
my support for the comprehensive approach you have taken in
drafting the Senate agricultural economic assistance bill. In
providing important funds for nutrition and conservation, the
agriculture economic assistance package recognizes that the
jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee goes beyond the
critically important task of providing economic support for
producers of commodities.
I urge you to ensure that the bill reported out of the
Senate retain these vitally important resources and look
forward to working with you to ensure that any bill sent to
the President is similarly cognizant of the broad array of
issues before the Agriculture Committees of the House and
Senate.
Eva M. Clayton, Member of Congress.

I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Washington, DC,

July 31, 2001.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Harkin: I am writing to you today to express
my support for the comprehensive approach that you have taken
in drafting the Senate agriculture economic assistance bill.
In providing important funds for nutrition and conservation,
the agriculture economic assistance package recognizes that
the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee goes beyond the
critically important task of providing economic support for
producers of commodities.
In providing funds for important nutrition programs such as
the Senior Farmers Market and the Emergency Food Assistance
Program, the Committee acknowledges its responsibility to
ensure that American children live free from the specter of
hunger. Additionally, by providing important resources for
farmland conservation and environmental incentive payments,
the Committee recognizes the important fact that the
degradation of our natural resoruces and the decay of vitally
important water quality and farmland are emergencies that
affect our rural communities and thus are deserving of our
immedate attention.
I urge you to ensure that the bill reported out of the
Senate retain these vitally important resources and look
forward to working with you to ensure that any bill sent to
the President is similarly cognizant of the broad array of
issues before the Agricultue Committees of the House and the
Senate.
Sincerely,
Eva M. Clayton,
Member of Congress.

Mr. HARKIN. These are two people who voted for the House-passed bill,
which only passed by 1 vote, I might add.
So I would say there is a lot of support in the House of
Representatives for what we have done in the Senate Agriculture
Committee. I believe what we have done truly does provide that bridge.
I will close this part of my remarks by just saying we have a limited
amount of time. We need to get this bill out. We need to go to
conference, which we could do tomorrow. If we can get this bill done
today, we can go to conference tomorrow. I believe the conference would
not last more than a couple of hours, and we could have this bill back
here, I would say no later than late Wednesday, maybe Thursday, for
final passage, and we could send it to the President.
I believe his senior advisers notwithstanding, the President would
listen to the voices here in the House and the Senate as to what is
really needed.
I also ask unanimous consent to print a news release in the Record
that was put out by the American Farm Bureau Federation dated June 21.
It says:

The House Agriculture Committee's decision to provide only
$5.5 billion in a farm relief package ``is disheartening and
will not provide sufficient assistance needed by many farm
and ranch families,'' said American Farm Bureau Federation
President Bob Stallman.
We believe the needs exceed $7 billion.

This is according to Mr. Stallman, president of the American Farm
Bureau Federation.
I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Farm Bureau Disappointed in House Funding for Farmers

Washington, DC, June 21, 2001.--The House Agriculture
Committee's decision to provide only $5.5 billion in a farm
relief package ``is disheartening and will not provide
sufficient assistance needed by many farm and ranch
families,'' said American Farm Bureau Federation President
Bob Stallman.
``We believe needs exceed $7 billion,'' Stallman said.
``The fact is agricultural commodity prices have not
strengthened since last year when Congress saw fit to provide
significantly more aid.''
Stallman said securing additional funding will be a high
priority for Farm Bureau. He said the organization will now
turn its attention to the Senate and then the House-Senate
conference committee that will decide the fate of much-needed
farm relief.
``Four years of low prices has put a lot of pressure on
farmers. We need assistance to keep this sector viable,'' the
farm leader said.
``We've been told net farm income is rising but a closer
examination shows that is largely due to higher livestock
prices, not most of American agriculture,'' Stallman said.
``And, costs are rising for all farmers and ranchers due to
problems in the energy industry that are reflected in
increased costs for fuel and fertilizer. Farmers and ranchers
who produce grain, oilseeds, cotton, fruits and vegetables
need help and that assistance is needed soon.''

Mr. HARKIN. I have a letter dated July 11 from the National
Association of Wheat Growers that said:

However, given current financial conditions, growers cannot
afford the reduced level of support provided by the House in
H.R. 2213. Wheat farmers across the nation are counting on a
market loss payment at the 1999 PFC rate. Thank you for your
leadership and support.
Dusty Tallman, President of the National Association of
Wheat Growers.

What is in our bill provides to wheat farmers across the country a
market loss payment at the same rate they got in 1999.
I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

National Association

of Wheat Growers,

Washington, DC, July 11, 2001.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Chairman, Senate Agriculture Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Harkin: As President of the National
Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG), and on behalf of wheat
producers across the nation, I urge the Committee to draft a
2001 agriculture economic assistance package that provides
wheat producers with a market loss payment equal to the 1999
Production Flexibility Contract (AMTA) payment rate.
NAWG understands Congress is facing difficult budget
decisions. We too are experiencing tight budgets in wheat
country. While wheat prices hover around the loan rate, PFC
payments this year have declined from $0.59 to $0.47. At the
same time, input costs have escalated. Fuel and oil expenses
are up 53 percent from 1999, and fertilizer costs have risen
33 percent this year alone.
Given these circumstances, NAWG's first priority for the
2001 crop year is securing a market loss payment at the 1999
PFC rate. We believe a supplemental payment at $0.64 for
wheat--the same level provided in both 1999 and 2000--is
warranted and necessary to provide sufficient income support
to the wheat industry.
NAWG has a history of supporting fiscal discipline and
respects efforts to preserve the integrity of the $73.5
billion in FY02-FY11 farm program dollars. However, given
current financial conditions, growers cannot afford the
reduced level of support provided by the House in H.R. 2213.
Wheat farmers across the nation are counting on a market loss
payment at the 1999 PFC rate.
Thank you for your leadership and support.
Sincerely,
Dusty Tallman,
President.

Mr. HARKIN. I have a letter from the National Corn Growers
Association:

Dear Chairman Harkin: We feel strongly that the Committee
should disburse these limited funds in a similar manner to
the FY00 economic assistance package--addressing the needs of
the 8 major crops--corn, wheat, barley, oats, oilseed,
sorghum, rice and cotton. . . .

[[Page S8415]]

Again, we urge the Committee to allocate the market loss
assistance payments at the FY99 production flexibility
contract payment level for program crops.

Our bill does exactly that. The House bill only puts in 85 percent.
I ask unanimous consent the letter from the National Corn Growers
Association be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter ws ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

National Corn Growers Association,

Washington, DC, July 23, 2001.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Russell Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Harkin: We write to urge you to take
immediate action on the $5.5 billion in funding for
agricultural economic assistance authorized in the FY01
budget resolution.
The fiscal year 2001 budget resolution authorized $5.5
billion in economic assistance for those suffering through
low commodity prices in agriculture. However, these funds
must be dispersed by the US Department of Agriculture by
September 30, 2001. We are very concerned that any further
delay by Congress concerning these funds will severely hamper
USDA's efforts to release funds and will, in turn, be
detrimental to producers anxiously awaiting this relief.
We feel strongly that the Committee should disperse these
limited funds in a similar manner to the FY00 economic
assistance package--addressing the needs of the eight major
crops--corn, wheat, barley, oats, oilseeds, sorghum, rice and
cotton. It is these growers who have suffered greatly from
the last two years of escalating fuel and other input costs.
The expectation of these program crop farmers is certainly
for a continuation of the supplemental AMTA at the 1999
level.
Again, we urge the Committee to allocate the market loss
assistance payments at the FY99 production flexibility
contract payment for program crops. We feel strongly that
Congress should support the growers getting hit hardest by
increasing input costs.
Sincerely,
Lee Klein,
President.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have another piece from the National
Corn Growers Association in which they say the National Corn Growers
Association is optimistic about the Senate Agriculture Committee's $7.5
billion emergency aid package.
I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From NCGA News, July 26, 2001]

NCGA Optimistic About Senate Agriculture Committee $7.5 Billion
Emergency Aid Package

The Senate Agriculture Committee yesterday approved a $7.5
billion emergency aid package for farmers in the current
fiscal year, championed by Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA).
A substitute amendment offered by Richard Lugar (R-IN),
ranking member, failed by a vote of 12-9. Lugar sought an aid
package totaling $5.5 billion, similar to what the House
Agriculture Committee passed in late June.
The package approved yesterday will provide help to program
crops such as corn, as well as to oilseeds, peanuts, sugar,
honey, cottonseed, tobacco, specialty crops, pulse crops,
wool and mohair, dairy and apples. The Senate package is
expected to move to floor consideration at anytime, where
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) may offer an amendment to curb the
overall spending while maintaining emergency spending for the
major commodities.
Because the aid packages passed by the Senate and House are
markedly different, a conference committee will be scheduled
to craft a compromise.
``This development places even more pressure on Congress to
act expeditiously, because any aid package approved by
Congress must be done soon so that the USDA can cut checks
and mail them to farmers before fiscal year ends on September
30, 2001,'' said National Corn Growers Association (NCGA)
Vice President of Public Policy Bruce Knight.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have a release from the National
Farmers Union, in which they say:

The National Farmers Union today applauded the Senate
Agriculture Committee on its approval of $7.4 billion in
emergency assistance for U.S. agriculture producers.

I ask unanimous consent that the material be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Farmers Union Commends Senate on Emergency Assistance Package

Washington, DC, July 25, 2001.--The National Farmers Union
(NFU) today applauded the Senate Agriculture Committee on its
approval of $7.4 billion in emergency assistance for U.S.
agriculture producers. The bill provides supplemental income
assistance to feed grains, wheat, rice and cotton producers
as well as specialty crop producers. The Senate measure
provides the needed assistance at the same levels as last
year and is $2 billion more than what is provided in a House
version of the measure. NFU urges expeditious passage by the
full Senate and resolution in the House/Senate conference
committee that adopts the much needed funding at the Senate
level.
``We commend Chairman Tom Harkin for his leadership in
crafting this assistance package,'' said Leland Swenson,
president of NFU. ``We are pleased that members of the
committee have chosen to provide funding that is comparable
to what many farmers requested at the start of this process.
This level of funding recognizes the needs that exist in
rural America at a time when farmers face continued low
commodity prices for row and specialty crops while input
costs for fuel, fertilizer and energy have risen rapidly over
the past year.''
The Senate Agriculture Committee approved the Emergency
Agriculture Assistance Act of 2001 that provides $7.4 billion
in emergency assistance to a broad range of agriculture
producers and funds conservation programs. It also provides
loans and grants to encourage value-added products,
compensation for damage to flooded lands and support for bio-
energy-based initiatives. The funding level is the same as
what was provided last year and is comparable to what NFU had
requested in order to meet today's needs for farmers and
ranchers. The House proposal provides $5.5 billion.
``We now urge the full Senate to quickly pass this much-
needed assistance package,'' Swenson added. ``It is vital
that the House/Senate conference committee fund this measure
at the Senate level. As we meet the challenge of crafting a
new agriculture policy for the future, today's needs for
assistance are still great. We hope for swift action to help
America's farmers and ranchers.''

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have another letter, dated today, from
the American Farm Bureau Federation:

Dear Senator Harkin: The American Farm Bureau Federation
supports at least $5.5 billion in supplemental Agricultural
Market Transition Act payments and $500 million in market
loss assistance payments for oilseeds as part of the
emergency spending package for crop year 2001.

Our bill does that. Senator Lugar's amendment does not.
They state further:

We also believe it is imperative to offer assistance to
peanut, fruit and vegetable producers. In addition, it is
crucial to extend the dairy price support in this bill since
the current program will expire in less than two months.
All over this country agriculture has been facing historic
low prices and increasing production costs.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter, dated today, from Mr. Bob
Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, be printed
in the Record.
Again, I point out that our bill meets these needs. The House bill
does not. Our bill provides the assistance to peanut, fruit, and
vegetable producers, and we do, indeed, extend the dairy price support
program beyond its expiration date in 2 months.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

American Farm

Bureau Federation,

Washington, DC, July 31, 2001.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Chairman, Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington,
DC.
Dear Senator Harkin: The American Farm Bureau Federation
supports at least $5.5 billion in supplemental Agricultural
Market Transition Act payments and $500 million in market
loss assistance payments for oilseeds as part of the
emergency spending package for crop year 2001. We also
believe it is imperative to offer assistance to peanut, fruit
and vegetable producers. In addition, it is crucial to extend
the dairy price support in this bill since the current
program will expire in less than two months.
All over this country agriculture has been facing historic
low prices and increasing production costs. These challenges
have had a significant effect on the incomes of U.S.
producers. At the same time, projections of improvement for
the near future are not very optimistic. We appreciate your
leadership in providing assistance to address the low-income
situation that U.S. producers are currently facing.
We thank you for your leadership and look forward to
working with you to provide assistance for agricultural
producers.
Sincerely,
Bob Stallman,
President.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have a letter from the Food and
Research Action Center.

We urge you to continue your leadership in support for the
nutrition programs contained in S. 1246.

Our bill does it. The House bill doesn't.

[[Page S8416]]

It is signed by James D. Weill, president of the Food and Research
Action Center.
I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Food Research & Action Center,

Washington, DC, July 30, 2001.
Senator Tom Harkin,
Chairman, Senate Agriculture Committee, Russell Senate Office
Bldg., Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing you about S. 1246. The
Emergency Agricultural Assistance Act of 2001.
As in the House bill, S. 1246 authorizes an additional $10
million for expenses associated with the transportation and
distribution of commodities in The Emergency Food Assistance
Program (TEFAP). The Senate version also devotes additional
dollars to support school meal programs targeted to low-
income children; increases the mandatory commodity purchases
for the School Lunch Program; and provides additional funding
for Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Programs.
We urge you to continue your leadership and support for the
nutrition programs contained in S. 1246. We also thank you
for your leadership earlier this month in the hearings on
nutrition programs in the Farm Bill, and look forward to
working with you on important food stamp improvements later
this year in that bill.
Sincerely,
James D. Weill,
President.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have a letter from the National
Association of Farmers' Market Nutrition Programs.

I am writing to express the strong support of the National
Association of Farmers' Market Nutrition Programs to include
$20 million for the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Pilot
Program in S. 1246.
For States and Indian Tribal organizations administering
the SFMNPP, an early decision by Congress and administration
to continue this small but vital program is of the utmost
importance. States and Tribes faced a very short timeframe
for application and implementation of this program last year
and would be greatly benefited by quick action to renew this
new but very popular program.

It is signed by Mike Bevins, President of the National Association of
Farmers' Market Nutrition Programs.
I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

National Association of Farmers'

Market Nutrition Program,

Washington, DC, July 31, 2001.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Chair, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Senate Russell Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Harkin, I am writing to express the strong
support of the National Association of Farmers' Market
Nutrition Program (NAFMNP) to include $20 million for the
Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Pilot Program (SFMNPP) in S.
1246, the Emergency Agricultural Assistance Act of 2001. We
understand consideration of this legislation on the Senate
floor is imminent.
For states and Indian Tribal organizations administering
the SFMNPP, an early decision by Congress and the
Administration to continue this small but vital program is of
the utmost importance. States and Tribes faced a very short
time frame for application and implementation of this program
last year and would be greatly benefited by quick action to
renew this new, but very popular program.
We urge you to include the $20 million earmarked in S. 1246
for the SFMNNP in your final version of the bill.
Sincerely,
Zy Weinberg,
(For Mike Bevins, President).

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have a letter from the American School
Food Service Association.

Dear Senator Harkin: Specifically, we strongly support
section 301 to preserve entitlement commodities during the
2001-2002 school year for schools that participate in the
National School Lunch Program.

That is in our bill, and it is not in the House bill.
It is signed by Marcia Smith for the American School Food Service
Association.
I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

American School Food

Service Association,

Alexandria, VA, July 31, 2001.
Re: S. 1246.

Senator Tom Harkin,
Senate Hart Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Harkin, On behalf of the American School Food
Service Association, thank you for your leadership with the
Emergency Agricultural Assistance Act of 2001 (S. 1246),
which the Senate Agriculture Committee approved and sent to
the full Senate for consideration.
Specifically, we strongly support Section 301 to preserve
entitlement commodities during the 2001-02 school year for
schools that participate in the National School Lunch
Program. Without this provision, any participating school
that received bonus commodities from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture would have its entitlement commodities under the
NSLP reduced. As you know, this would result in a de facto
funding cut of between $50 million and $60 million for the
NSLP during school year 2001-02. Further, with an eye to
Conference, ASFSA does not support a block grant approach to
the distribution of commodities.
On behalf of ASFSA's members and the children we serve,
thank you again for your leadership on this important issue.
Please let me know if there is anything else we can do to
further S. 1246.
Sincerely,
Marcia L. Smith,
President.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, to sum up--and I will come back to this
later on--we looked at the Nation as a whole. We looked at all farmers
in this country. All farmers need help, plus there are others in rural
communities who need help. There are conservation programs, as was
pointed out by a letter I read from the 130 Members of the House, that
need to be continued beyond the end of this fiscal year. We addressed
all of these needs, and we did it within the confines of the budget
resolution.
Each Senator on that side of the aisle or on this side of the aisle
who is opposed to our bill could raise a point of order. But no point
of order lies against this bill because it is within the budget
resolution. Therefore, there is no reason for the President to veto it,
unless he simply does not want our apple farmers to receive help, or to
extend the dairy price support program, or to help some of our peanut
and cottonseed farmers, and others who need this assistance, or perhaps
he doesn't think we should have a nutrition program.
Quite frankly, we have met our obligations to provide for the full
AMTA payment for fiscal year 2001--the full AMTA payment. The House
bill only provides 85 percent.
I say to my fellow Senators, if you want to provide the same level of
assistance to farmers this year under AMTA as we did last year, you
cannot support Senator Lugar's amendment. That will wipe it out and
make it only 85 percent, which is what the House bill does.
I hope after some more debate we can recognize that we have met our
obligations in the Senate Agriculture Committee. This is the right
course of action to take for this body and for the President to sign.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I want to yield to my friend, the
Senator from Idaho, but first I wish to make a couple of remarks. One
is that if you came in here and you were listening to the difficulty
that some talk about in getting this job done prior to the time the
$5.5 billion disappears, then you would imagine the thing to do is to
go ahead and have a bill similar to the House. Then it would be there,
and we would come back with the other $2 billion, which is in the
budget for next year. It isn't as if this is a long time off. It is
right there, and it can be done. It isn't as if it isn't going to
happen. It will happen. We are taking out next year's and putting it in
this year. You can bet that there will be a request to replace that
with new money next year.
It is sort of an interesting debate. It is also interesting that the
House version includes $4.6 billion in AMTA payments.
There was mention by the Senator from Michigan that it didn't go
beyond that. Actually, there is $424 million in economic assistance for
oilseeds; $54 million in economic assistance for peanut producers; $129
million for tobacco; $17 million for wool and mohair; $85 million for
cottonseeds; and $26 million for specialty crops, which is for the
States to disperse. Over $3.5 million goes to Michigan which could go
to apple growers. This idea that somehow the people have been left out
is simply not the case.
I now yield to the Senator from Idaho.

[[Page S8417]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. REID. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous
consent request?
Mr. THOMAS. Of course.
Mr. REID. Madam President, this has been cleared with Senator Lugar,
Senator Harkin, and both leaders.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:30 p.m. today I be
recognized to move to table Senator Lugar's amendment, and that the 15
minutes prior to that vote be equally divided between Senators Harkin
and Lugar.
Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I think I will object simply to talk
with the others to see if they need more time. I hope they do not. But
at this moment, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for
yielding. I will be brief, for I have sat here most of the morning
listening to both the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from Iowa
discuss what is now pending.
There is no question in my mind--and any Senator from an agricultural
State--that we are in a state of emergency with production agriculture
in this country. I certainly respect all of the work that the chairman
of the Senate Ag Committee has done, the authorizing committee. I no
longer serve on that committee, but my former chairman and ranking
member of the Ag Appropriations Committee is in this Chamber, and I
serve on that committee. So I have the opportunity to look at both the
authorizing side and the appropriating side of this issue.
Clearly, I would like to hold us at or near where we were a year ago.
At the same time, I do not believe, as we struggle to write a new farm
bill, that we should write massive or substantially new farm policy
into an appropriations bill that is known as an Emergency Agricultural
Assistance Act. There is adequate time to debate critical issues as to
how we adjust and change agricultural policy in our country to fit new
or changing needs within production agriculture.
I have been listening to, and I have read in detail, what the
Senator, the chairman of the Ag Committee, has brought. You have heard
the ranking member, the Senator from Indiana, say he is not pleased
with what he is doing today. In fact, the amendment that he offered in
the committee--one that I could support probably more easily than I
could support the amendment he has offered in this Chamber today--is
not being offered for a very simple reason; it is a question of timing.
The chairman of the authorizing committee but a few moments ago said:
If we pass this bill today, we can conference tomorrow. We can go out
and have it back to the floor by Thursday or Friday of this week.
I would think you could make a statement like that if the House and
the Senate were but a mile apart. We are not. We are 2,500 to 3,000
miles apart at this moment. We are $2 billion apart on money. The
chairman of the authorizing committee has just, in a few moments,
discussed the substantial policy differences on which we are apart. And
I am quite confident--I know this chairman; I have served on
conferences with him; he is a tough negotiator; he is not going to give
up easily, as will the House not give up easily on their positions,
largely because we are writing a farm bill separate from
appropriations, as we should.
But both sides have spilled into the question of policy as it relates
to these vehicles. What we are really talking about now, and what we
should be talking about now, are the dollars and cents that we can get
to production agriculture before September 30 of this fiscal year.
I happen to be privileged to serve on leadership, and we are
scratching our heads at this moment trying to figure out how we get
this done. How do we get the House and the Senate to conference, and
the conference report back to the House and the Senate to be voted on
before we go into adjournment, and to the President's desk in a form
that he will sign?
I do not think the President is threatening at all. I think he is
making a very matter-of-fact statement about keeping the Congress
inside their budget so that we do not spill off on to Medicare money.
We have heard a great deal from the other side about the fact that we
are spending the Medicare trust fund. But this morning we have not
heard a peep about that as we spend about $2 billion more than the
budget allocates in the area of agriculture.
So for anyone to assume that getting these two vehicles--the House
and the Senate bills--to conference, and creating a dynamic situation
in which we can conference overnight and have this back before we
adjourn on Friday or Saturday, to be passed by us and signed by the
President, is, at best, wishful thinking.

We are going to have a letter from OMB in a few moments that very
clearly states that this has to get done and has to get scored before
the end of the fiscal year or we lose the money.
The ranking member of the Ag Appropriations Committee, who is in this
Chamber, and certainly the chairman of the authorizing committee, do
not want that to happen, and neither does this Senator. In fact, I will
make extraordinary efforts not to have it happen because that truly
complicates our budget situation well beyond what we would want it to
be, and it would restrict dramatically our ability to meet the needs of
production agriculture across this country as we speak.
I am amazed that we are this far apart. The House acted a month ago.
We have been slow to act in the Senate. And now it is hurry up and
catch up at the very last minute prior to an adjournment for what has
always been a very important recess for the Congress.
I will come back to this Chamber this afternoon to talk about the
policy differences, but I think it is very important this morning to
spell out the dynamics of just getting us where we need to get before
we adjourn, I hope, Friday evening late. And I am not sure we get there
because we are so far apart.
The chairman talks about passing the bill this afternoon, assuming
that we would table the amendment of the Senator from Indiana; then
this would pass, forgetting there are other Senators in the Cloakrooms
waiting to come out and talk about an issue called dairy compacts, and
the Northeast Dairy Compact legislation or policy authority ending at
the end of September, with no train leaving town between now and then
that gets that out. And to assume that is going to be a simple debate
that will take but a few hours, I would suggest: How about a day or 2
to resolve what is a very contentious issue? I know I want to speak on
it. I know a good many other Senators do. We do not want to see our
Nation divided up into marketing territories that you cannot enter and
leave easily, as our commerce clause in the Constitution would suggest.
So those are some of the issues that are before us today and tomorrow
and the next day. That means as long as we are in this Chamber debating
this bill on these very critical issues, it will not be in conference.
And those very difficult policy issues and that $2 billion worth of
spending authority will not get resolved where the differences lie.
So let us think reasonably and practically about our situation. The
clock is ticking very loudly as it relates to our plan for adjournment
and our need to get our work done, and done so in a timely fashion.
I do not criticize; I only observe because much of what the Senator
from Iowa has talked about I would support. But I would support it in a
new farm bill properly worked out with the dynamics between the House
and the Senate, not in appropriating legislation done in the last
minute, to be conferenced in an all-night session, or two or three, to
find our differences, and to work them out. I am not sure we can get
there. If we can't, we lose $5.5 billion to production agriculture.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, this morning I was very impressed by
the comments made by the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar.
At the markup session of our Committee on Agriculture, I had come to
that session with a compromise that I was prepared to offer because I
thought it would more nearly reflect the programs Congress provided for
emergency

[[Page S8418]]

or economic assistance to farmers in the last two crop-years.
We had testimony in our Appropriations Committee from the chief
economist and other high-ranking officials at the Department of
Agriculture that the situation facing farmers this year is very
similar--just as bad--as it was last year and the year before. So the
record supports the action being taken by the Congress to respond to
this serious economic problem facing agricultural producers around the
country.
It was the Appropriations Agriculture Subcommittee during the last 2
years that had been given the responsibility, under the budget
resolution, for writing this disaster or economic assistance program.
And we did that. The Congress approved it. It was signed and enacted
into law. And the disbursements have been made.
This year the budget resolution gave the authority for implementing
the program for economic assistance to the legislative committee in the
Senate, the Agriculture Committee. I also serve on that committee. The
distinguished Senator from Iowa chairs that committee, and Senator
Lugar is the ranking member and former chairman of that committee. I
have great respect for all of my fellow members on the committee, but I
have to say that arguments made this morning, and the proposal made
this morning at the beginning of the debate by Senator Lugar, to me,
are right on target in terms of what our best opportunity is at this
time for providing needed assistance to agricultural producers.
The facts are that the House has acted and the administration has
also reviewed the situation and expressed its view. We have the letter
signed by Mitch Daniels, the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget, setting forth the administration's view and intentions with
respect to legislation they will sign or recommend to be vetoed. If we
are interested in helping farmers now, in providing funding for
distressed farmers to help pay loans from lenders, to get additional
financing as may be needed, if that is our goal, then the best and
clearest opportunity for providing that assistance is to take the
advice and suggestion of Senator Lugar and vote for the alternative he
has provided, which is the House-passed bill.
It obviates the need to conference with the House, to work out
differences between the two approaches, which is necessarily going to
delay the process. To assume that that conference can be completed in 2
or 3 days and funds be disbursed in an appropriate and efficient way is
wishful thinking. It is no better than wishful thinking. I do not think
producers would like to take that chance under the conditions of
distress that exist in agricultural communities all over this country
today.
If we could take a poll now among those who would be the
beneficiaries of this legislation, I am convinced most would say: Let's
take the House bill now, use the budget authority for new farm bill
provisions that will strengthen our agricultural programs for the
future, into the next crop year and beyond, so that we can guard
against, in a more effective way, the distresses that confront farmers
today. But for now, to deal with the emergency and the problems of
today, let's pass a bill that will put money in the pockets of farmers.
That is the object, not to improve conservation programs which can be
done in the next farm bill. Of course, we are going to reauthorize
these conservation programs. But doing it with $1 billion gratuitously
from the budget resolution that provides for economic assistance to
farmers, that is not direct economic assistance to farmers. That is an
indirect benefit, of course, to agricultural producers and to society
in general, but it is not money in the pockets of farmers, as the
House-passed bill provides and as the Lugar alternative before the
Senate today provides.
I had hoped there could be a way to provide exactly the same
assistance we provided last year and the year before. I crafted an
amendment I was prepared to offer in the Senate Agriculture Committee
that would do just that.
My amendment would provide for $5.46 billion for market loss
assistance to farmers. This is the same level of support farmers have
received for the past 2 years. My amendment provides an additional $500
million for oilseed assistance, which is the same as last year, and $1
billion for aquaculture and other specialty crops. This is a total
amount of $6.475 billion, and it represents approximately half of the
Agriculture budget for both fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002
combined.
The $7.5 billion reported in the bill by the Senate Agriculture
Committee contains nearly $1 billion for programs that do not provide
direct economic assistance to farmers. Why argue about that? Why argue
about that in conference and spend some amount of time delaying the
benefits that farmers need now?
My suggestion is, the best way to help farmers today is to pass the
Lugar substitute. It goes to the President, and he signs it. We can't
write the President out of this process. He is involved in it. He has
committed to veto the bill as reported by the Senate Agriculture
Committee. Nine of us voted against it; 12 voted for it. But we are
asking the Senate today to take another look realistically at the
options we have.
Let's not embrace what we would hope we could do. Let's embrace what
we know we can do. I don't care how many charts you put up here to show
how bad the situation is in agriculture, you are not going to change
the reality of the House action and the President's promised action.
We are part of the process and we have a role to play--right enough--
and we can exercise our responsibilities when we rewrite the farm bill.
If there is an indication that additional assistance is needed later
on, we can take that from the budget resolution which provides for
economic assistance for farmers in the 2002 crop year. We can do that.
We don't have to solve every problem facing agriculture or conservation
on this bill today. We can do what we can do today, and farmers
understand that. They don't fall for a lot of political grandstanding.
They don't spin all the charts that you can put up on the floor. That
doesn't help them a bit. They know how bad it is. What they want is
help now. To get help now, let's vote for the Lugar substitute.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a section-by-section
analysis.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Amendment to the Emergency Agriculture Assistance Act of 2001--Section-
by-Section

Title I

Section 101--Market Loss Assistance
Supplemental income assistance to producers of cotton,
rice, wheat, and feedgrain producers eligible for a
Production Flexibility Contract payment at the 1999 AMTA
payment levels, totaling $5.466.
Section 102--Oilseeds
Provides $500 million for a supplemental market loss
assistance payment to oilseed producers totaling $500
million.
Section 103--Peanuts
Provides peanut producers of quota and additional peanuts
with supplemental assistance of $56 million.
Section 104--Sugar
Suspends the marketing assessment from the 1996 Farm Bill
for the 2001 crop of sugar beets and sugar cane at a cost of
$44 million.
Section 105--Honey
Makes non-recourse loans available to producers of honey
for the 2001 crop year at a cost of $27 million.
Section 106--Wool and Mohair
Provides supplemental payments to wool and mohair producers
totaling $17 million.
Section 107--Cottonseed Assistance
Provides assistance to producers and first handlers of
cottonseed totaling $100 million.
Section 108--Specialty Crop Commodity Purchases
Provides $80 million to purchase specialty crops that
experienced low prices in the 2000 and 2001 crop years. $8
million of the amount maybe used to cover transportation and
distribution costs.
Section 109--Loan Deficiency Payments
Allows producers who are not AMTA contract holders to
participate in the marketing assistance loan program for the
2001 crop year. Raises the Loan Deficiency payment limit from
$75,000 to $150,000.
Section 110--Dry Peas, Lentils, Chickpeas, and Pecans
Provides $20 million for the 2001 crop year.
Section 111--Tobacco
Provides $100 million for supplemental payments to tobacco
Farmers.

Title II

Section 201--Equine Loans
Allows horse breeders affected by the MRLS (Mare
Reproductive Loss Syndrome) to apply for U.S. Department of
Agriculture Emergency Loans. No CBO score.

[[Page S8419]]

Section 202--Aquaculture Assistance
Provides $25 million to assist commercial aquaculture
producers with feed assistance through the Commodity Credit
Corporation.

Title III

Section 301--Obligation Period
Provides the Commodity Credit Corporation the authority to
carry out And expend the amendments made by this act.
Section 302--Commodity Credit Corporation
Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the Secretary
shall use The funds, facilities, and authorities of the
Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out this Act.
Section 303--Regulations
Secretary may promulgate such regulation as are necessary
to implement this Act and the Amendments made by this Act.
____

Cochran Amendment

Senate

FY 01 Spending (Budget).................. $5.5 billion.
Market Loss Payment.................... 5.466 billion.
Cottonseed Assistance.................. 34 million.
------------------------------
Subtotal FY01........................ 5.5 billion.
==============================
FY02 Spending:
Oilseed Payment........................ 500 million.
LDP eligibility for 01 crop year....... 40 million.
Peanuts................................ 56 million.
Sugar (suspend assessment)............. 44 million.
Honey.................................. 27 million.
Wool and Mohair........................ 17 million.
Cottonseed............................. 66 million.
Tobacco................................ 100 million.
Equine Loans........................... 0
Commodity Purchases.................... 80 million.
Aquaculture............................ 25 million.
Peas, Lentils and Pecans............... 20 million.
Double LDP Limit for 2001 Crop......... 0
------------------------------
Subtotal FY02........................ 975 million.
==============================
Total................................ 6.475 billion.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I thank Senator Cochran for his great
statement.
The question before the Senate is: do we want a reasonable package
that will help farmers now that is within our budget, that we set out
funds for, that can be delivered next week, or do we want a political
issue that comes from a proposal which is full of provisions that have
nothing to do with direct aid to farmers, that dramatically expands
spending on programs that have nothing to do with an agriculture
emergency, and a program that will almost--well, it will certainly be,
since the President has now issued the veto message--be vetoed?
Ultimately, people have to come down to reaching a conclusion in
answering that question.
What I would like to do today is make a few points. First, Senator
Cochran is right. If we want to get aid to Texas and Mississippi and
Iowa farmers next week, we need to pass the bill that passed the House
or something very close to it. And passing the bill that passed the
House, which can go directly to the President, which can be signed this
week, is the right thing to do.
The second issue has to do with non-emergency matters in an emergency
appropriations bill. I could go down a long list, but let me mention a
few.
Changing the conservation reserve program: Maybe it needs to be
changed, but do we have to do it in an emergency bill where we are
trying to get assistance out the door by October 1? I think, clearly,
we do not.
Expanding a yet-to-be-implemented program about farmable wetlands: I
don't understand, in an emergency bill, expanding a program that has
never gone into effect. Maybe we will want to expand it after it goes
into effect, and we know what it is. But, A, I can't imagine we would
want to do it now, and, B, why would we want to clutter up an emergency
farm bill that desperately needs to become law this week or next by
getting in that debate here?
Expanding subsidies for paper reduction in lunch programs: Maybe we
need to increase subsidies for reducing the amount of paper that is
expended in serving school lunch programs. Maybe that is a worthy
objective. But why are we doing it on an emergency farm bill? I know of
no critical shortage of paper in making plates and cups. So far as I am
aware, we are capable of producing virtually an infinite quantity, not
that that would be desirable public policy, but the point is, what does
this have to do with the emergency that exists on many farms and
ranches throughout America? The answer is nothing.

Additional funding for the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Pilot
Program: That may be a meritorious program. If I knew more about it, I
might think it was one of the most important nutrition programs in
America. On the other hand, maybe I would not think it is even
meritorious if I knew more about it. The point is not whether it is
meritorious or whether it is not; the point is, it has absolutely
nothing to do with an emergency on farms and ranches all over America,
and it has no place in an emergency farm bill.
Making cities eligible for rural loan programs and credits: I guess
other things being the same, I do not think cities of 50,000 ought to
qualify for programs that are aimed at helping rural America. I have a
lot of cities of 50,000. Just looking at it, it does not strike me that
this is a great idea, but it may be a great idea. Maybe I just do not
understand.
The point is, what does this have to do with the emergency that is
occurring in bank loans that our farmers and ranchers all over America
are having trouble paying? It has absolutely nothing to do with it, and
it should not be in this bill.
There is an increase in funding bioenergy loan subsidy programs in
this bill. Maybe bioenergy should receive additional funding. Maybe it
receives too much funding. The point is, what does that have to do with
an emergency in rural America? What does it have to do with farmers and
ranchers trying to make that payment on that loan at the local bank? It
has nothing to do with it, and it should not be in this bill.
Paying researchers at USDA beyond the civil service scale: I think
highly of researchers. Some of my best friends are researchers. I used
to be a researcher. Maybe this is God's work, changing the Civil
Service Act to let researchers at the Department of Agriculture make
more money. The point is, should we not look at that in the context of
civil service? Shouldn't this be looked at by the committee that has
jurisdiction, the Governmental Affairs Committee? Isn't this something
on which we ought to have a fairly substantial debate? Are we going to
do this at all the labs in America? Are we going to do it at the
Department of Energy? Are we going to do it in oceanography? Is this
the beginning of a major program?
No one knows the answer to this. I do not even know if a hearing ever
occurred on this subject.
The point is, whether it is meritorious or not, what does it have to
do with this farmer in plain view making that payment at the bank? It
basically has to do with the pay of people who are fairly well paid.
Maybe they are not paid enough.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the crisis in rural America.
This is something that ought to be dealt with next year.
This brings me to the second point I want to talk about, and that is
the $2 billion we are spending in this bill above the amount we said we
were going to spend in the budget.
I have sat in the Budget Committee and I have sat in this Chamber and
have heard endless harangues about how we are about to spend the
Medicare trust fund--how dare we spend the Medicare trust fund.
My response has been, there is not a Medicare trust fund. We are
running a surplus in Part A, we are running a deficit in Part B, and so
there is no surplus, but that is not the point. The chairman of the
Budget Committee has given us endless orations pleading that we not
spend the Medicare trust fund, much less the Social Security trust
fund. In fact, in committee and in the Senate Chamber, he and others
have endlessly harangued about not spending these trust funds. Yet I
hear no harangue today.

We are in the process today of considering a bill that is $2 billion
above the amount we included in the budget to spend in fiscal year 2001
for the agriculture emergency--$2 billion above the amount we have in
the budget.
Having harangued endlessly about every penny we spend, every penny we
give back to the taxpayer in tax cuts is imperiling the Medicare trust
fund, where is Senator Conrad today? When we are in the process of
adding $2 billion of spending above the budget, does anybody doubt that
when the re-estimate comes back in August, when the new projections of
the surplus come forward, given the economy has slowed down, does
anybody doubt this $2 billion will come out of exactly the same

[[Page S8420]]

Medicare trust fund about which we have heard endless harangues? Does
anybody doubt that?
No, they do not doubt it, but where are the harangues today? Those
harangues were on another day focused on another subject. The harangues
were against tax cuts, but when it is spending, there are no harangues.
Lest anybody be confused, I do know something about the Budget
Committee, having been privileged to serve on that committee in the
House and the Senate. I understand the rules. Basically, the budget is
whatever the chairman of the Budget Committee says the budget is.
We have before us a bill that is $2 billion above the amount we wrote
in the budget for fiscal year 2001, but the chairman of the Budget
Committee says it is okay to take $2 billion from 2002 and spend it in
2001 because in 2003, we can take the same $2 billion and spend it in
2002. Actually, we cannot. If he reads his own budget, he will see that
in 2003, unless we have a sufficient surplus so that all funds are
going into the Medicare trust fund and the Social Security trust fund
and reducing debt or being invested, we will not be able to make the
shift from 2003 to 2002.
One can say, as Senator Conrad did yesterday, that he makes the
determination in advising the Parliamentarian that this does not have a
budget point of order. So by definition, if he says it does not have a
budget point of order, it does not have a budget point of order, but
does anybody doubt it violates the budget?
We wrote in the budget $5.5 billion, black and white, clear as it can
be clear, that is how much we were going to spend. Now we are spending
$7.5 billion, but it does not bust the budget? Why doesn't it bust the
budget? Because the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad,
advises the Parliamentarian that it does not bust the budget. He is the
chairman of the Budget Committee, so how can it bust the budget when he
says it does not bust the budget?
The pattern is pretty clear. Senator Conrad is deeply concerned--
deeply concerned--about spending these trust funds as long as the money
is going for tax cuts, but the first time we bring to the Chamber an
appropriation that clearly busts our budget, that spends $2 billion
more than we wrote in the budget, that is all right because Senator
Conrad said it is all right. He said it does not bust the budget
because we are going to take the $2 billion from next year.
If that creates a problem in writing the farm bill, I say to three
Members who will be very much involved in writing the farm bill,
Senator Conrad has the solution: It is no problem, just take the $2
billion from 2003. There will be a problem, as I pointed out.
Basically what we have before us is an effort to take $2 billion and
to spend most of it on non-emergency programs that do not affect
directly the well-being of farmers who are in crisis today in a clear
action that busts the budget.
I want to say this, not to go on so long as to be mean or hateful
about it. I do not mind being lectured. I get lectured all the time. I
guess I am about as guilty as any Member of the Senate in lecturing my
colleagues. It comes from my background where I used to lecture 50
minutes Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and an hour and 15 minutes on
Tuesday and Thursday. My students paid attention because they wanted to
pass.

Here is the point: I don't see how any Member of the Senate who
stands idly by and watches us spend $2 billion more than we pledged in
the 2001 budget that we were going to spend on this bill, how that
Member can remain silent or support that effort and have any
credibility ever again when they talk about concern over deficits or
spending trust funds.
Ultimately, the debate is: Is it words or is it deeds? Are you really
protecting the budget when we are on the floor spending $2 billion more
than we said we were going to spend in the budget?
It seems to me if you vote for this $7.5 billion appropriation--it is
an entitlement program and an authorization, in addition to the $7.5
billion--if Members vote for this $7.5 billion spending bill, which
violates that budget by spending $2 billion more than we committed to,
you cannot ever, it seems to me, have any credibility again in arguing
you are concerned about the deficit or that you are concerned about
spending the Medicare or Social Security trust fund.
There is no question when the August re-estimates come in, this $2
billion is going to come right out of the Medicare trust fund. We will
have a vote. If Members want to live up to the rhetoric in saying we
don't want to spend that trust fund, and we don't want to bust the
budget, Members can vote for the Lugar amendment because it has three
big advantages: First, it will become law this week, the President will
sign it; and, second, it doesn't bust the budget. Third, it doesn't
take money out of the Medicare trust fund.
I think every argument that can be made that should carry any weight
in this debate is an argument for the Lugar amendment. I urge my
colleagues not to get into an argument that will delay the assistance
to our farmers and ranchers. We are going to debate a farm bill in the
next fiscal year. I don't know whether we will pass one or not. We are
going to debate one. Why start the debate by taking $2 billion we have
to finance a new farm bill and spend it now on non-emergency items, by
and large? Why not live within the budget today, get a bill to the
President that he can sign, let him sign it this week, and let the
money next week go out to help farmers and ranchers.
In the next fiscal year, after October 1, we can debate a new farm
bill. It is at that point that many of these issues need to be decided.
If Members do not want to bust the budget and Members want this bill
to become law, and become law soon, vote for the Lugar amendment. I
intend to vote for the Lugar amendment. I intend to oppose the
underlying bill. It violates the budget. It spends $2 billion more than
we pledged to limit spending in the budget. I intend to resist it as
hard as I can. I think it sends a terrible signal that here we are,
despite all our high-handed speech about spending trust funds and
living within the budget, and we come to the first popular program that
we voted on and now we are busting the budget by 40 percent. Forty
percent of the funds in the bill before the Senate represents an
increase in spending over the budget that we adopted. That is a
mistake.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Lugar substitute. I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I am surprised to hear the Senator from
Texas talk about how this does not comport with the budget resolution.
The Senator from Texas is a member of the Budget Committee. The Senator
from Texas must know full well the budget allows $5.5 billion for the
Agriculture Committee to expend in fiscal year 2001. The Budget
Committee also gave instructions to the Agriculture Committee that the
Agriculture Committee could expend up to $7.35 billion in fiscal year
2002.
The reason that a point of order does not lie against this bill is
not because of what the Budget Committee chairman said but because of
the way the budget was written and adopted by the Senate when under the
control, I might add, of my friends on the Republican side. I didn't
hear the Senator from Texas say at that time when the budget was
adopted we shouldn't be doing this--that we should only adopt $5.5
billion for 2001 and nothing for 2002. I didn't hear the Senator from
Texas at the time the budget was adopted get up and rail against that.
So there it is. We have it in the budget that this committee is
authorized to expend up to $7.35 billion in fiscal year 2002.
I say to my friend from Texas, we didn't do that. We didn't expend
$7.35 billion; we expended about $2 billion of that $7.35 billion that
will be spent in fiscal year 2002.
The Senator from Texas surely knows we are not spending any 2002
money in 2001. We are spending 2001 money prior to September 30, but
the other $2 billion, about, is spent after October 1, which is in
fiscal year 2002 and is allowed under the budget agreement adopted by
the House and the Senate.
I didn't hear the Senator taking issue at that when the budget was
adopted. We are only doing what is within our authority to do.
Again, the Senator from Texas also went on at some length to read
about

[[Page S8421]]

some of the programs in the bill. I refer to last year's bill when we
passed emergency assistance. There was a lot of extraneous stuff put in
there because it was felt it was needed.
Carbon cycle research was in last year's bill; tobacco research for
medicinal purposes; emergency loans for seed producers; water systems
for rural and native villages in Alaska; there is the Bioinformatics
Institute for Model Plant Species in last year's ``emergency'' bill,
along with crop insurance and everything else.
I point out to my friend from Texas, there are no new programs in
this bill, not one. In last year's bill there was a new program put in
that probably, I suppose, we could have said should not have gone in
the farm bill, but I thought it was reasonable and it was put in at
that time on a soil and water conservation assistance program which was
a brand-new program included in the emergency bill last year. I did not
hear last year the Senator from Texas getting up and saying that the
emergency bill should not include those. He is saying that this year.
Again, we made no changes, and we made no policy changes. There is
one technical correction included, and I had to smile when I heard the
Senator talk about the paperwork reduction in the school nutrition
program. Actually, that was requested by the House Committee on
Education and the Workforce. They actually requested we do that to take
care of a problem in paperwork. We said it sounds reasonable. We might
as well do it. Why not take care of it?

Again, there are no new programs, no new changes. All there is is one
technical change in the CRP program, but in last year's emergency
package there were a number of technical fixes and changes. There were
new programs, as I pointed out. There were changes in eligibility. All
that was done. We do not do that, basically, in this bill. There are no
new conservation programs. All we are doing is funding the ones that
are out of money.
I do want to at least address myself very briefly to another issue. I
heard some of my friends on the other side say: Yes, we do have a dire
situation in agriculture; yes, farmers are hurting; yes, it has not
gotten any better since last year. But because Mr. Daniels, the head of
OMB, has said he would recommend a veto, we can't meet the needs of
farmers out there.
I ask my colleagues, who knows agriculture better, Mr. Daniels or the
American Farm Bureau Federation? Who knows agriculture better, the
National Corn Growers Association or Mr. Daniels? Who knows agriculture
better, the National Farmers Union or Mr. Daniels? Who knows
agriculture and their needs better, the National Wheat Growers
Association or Mr. Daniels at OMB?
I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle who understand
that we have some real unmet needs out there, we really have some
farmers all across America who are hurting, as we have heard from all
of their representatives. I say to them: Call on the President. Don't
let Mr. Daniels speak for you. I say to my friends who understand
agriculture, who understand the needs out there: Call up President Bush
and say we need this package.
I have heard Senators on the other side--not all of them, but I have
heard some of them say we need this assistance; we need the kind of
money we are talking about; but because there has been a threat of a
veto, we cannot do it.
I daresay that if Senators who hold that view were to call up the
President and say: Mr. Daniels is wrong on this; we need this money;
farmers desperately need it, I, quite frankly, believe the President
would listen to the Senators here who represent agricultural States
rather than Mr. Daniels.
I don't know what Mr. Daniels' background is. I don't know if he is a
farmer, if he comes from a farm or not. I don't know, but I don't think
he understands what is happening there in agriculture.
Last, there was a statement
made--I wrote it down--``political grandstanding.'' I resent the
implication that what we are doing is political grandstanding. We took
a lot of care and time to talk with Senators on both sides of the
aisle. I talked with Representatives in the House of Representatives.
We met with farm groups to try to fashion a bill that did two things:
It met the requirements of the Budget Act and, second, met the needs
farmers have out there.
I really resent any implication that there is political
grandstanding. We may have a difference of opinion on what is needed
out there. I can grant there may be some differences of opinion on
that. But that is why we have debates. That is why we have votes. But
in no way is this political grandstanding. This is what many of us, I
think on both sides of the aisle, believe is desperately needed in
rural America.
Since it is desperately needed, I hope my friends on the other side
of the aisle will contact the President and tell him this is one time
he needs to not listen to the advice of Mr. Daniels but to listen to
the advice of our American farmers, their Representatives here in
Washington, and the Senators who represent those farm States.
I yield the floor. I see my friend from Nebraska is waiting to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, before you recognize the Senator from
Nebraska, I have a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent
that I be recognized to move to table Senator Lugar's amendment at 3
o'clock this afternoon and the 45 minutes prior to that vote, after our
conferences, be equally divided between Senators Harkin and Lugar, and
that no other amendments be in order prior to that vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I rise in support of this
legislation, S. 1246, and in opposition to the amendment offered by my
good friend, Senator Lugar. I know he is attempting to do what he
thinks is best. That is what this honest debate should be about--what
is best for American agriculture and how we can best meet those needs.
I notice my good friend, Senator Cochran from Mississippi, has a view
that is a little different from that of Senator Lugar in that he had
prepared an amendment of about $6.5 billion but is supporting Senator
Lugar in his effort at $5.5 billion. But it points out that there are
honest differences of opinion, even on the other side.
The reason I support S. 1246 is that it is a balanced bill and one
that takes into account the diversity of agricultural interests all
over this country. It recognizes that the major commodities are in
their fourth year of collapsed prices, yet at the same time recognizes
that economic assistance cannot and should not go just to program
crops, it must reach further, to add additional farmers who are
suffering and who do not happen to grow wheat, corn, or rice.
On a parochial level, the bill before us holds several provisions
that are important to Nebraskans. It is no exaggeration to say that
agriculture is the backbone of Nebraska's economy, for one of every
four Nebraskans depends on agriculture for employment. It has been an
ongoing source of concern for me that when the rest of our economy was
booming, production agriculture was on the decline.
As do other Senators, I regret having to supplement our farm policy
with billions of dollars of additional emergency assistance every year.
So it is, in fact, high time to move on with the writing of a new farm
bill for just that reason.

But until then, we have to be here to help those who produce food,
who feed our Nation. This bill does that. This bill provides for an
additional AMTA, or Freedom to Farm payment, at the full $5.5 billion
level, which is what producers in Nebraska want. It is what producers
all across our country want and what they expect us to provide. The
bill passed by the House does not do so, and any package that spends
just $5.5 billion cannot do so. I believe that is unacceptable.
This bill provides for assistance for oilseeds, which are not a
program crop. It suspends the assessment on sugar, which is critical to
the beleaguered sugar beet growers of western Nebraska and other parts
of our country. And it beefs up and in some cases reinstates spending
for vital conservation programs, all of which face long-term

[[Page S8422]]

and growing backlogs and many of which would expire if not extended by
this bill and were left for a farm bill later this year or next year.
In some cases my good friend from Texas points out some programs that
do not, I suspect, seem to be quite as much of an emergency. But I
think the good Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, answered that and said
that in every emergency bill you might question the urgency or
emergency of certain aspects of it but we ought not to let that get in
the way of passing a bill that deals with emergency needs.
This bill also offers eligibility for LDP payments to producers who
are not enrolled in the current farm program, a provision which I
strongly support and which makes an enormous difference for the small
number of producers who need this provision. In fact, Senator Grassley
and I introduced legislation to this effect earlier this year and I am
grateful to Chairman Harkin for including this provision. This morning
I received a call from a constituent about this issue. So, for those
who are eligible, there is no more important provision in this bill.
Finally, I commend the chairman for including funding for value-added
development grants. This program was first funded last year, and it has
been very popular in Nebraska. In fact, I know we have several grant
requests under preparation for this funding, including one for a
producer-owned pork processing and marketing facility. This is exactly
the kind of program that we all talk about and want to encourage.

I am happy to support this package and know it will find wide support
in Nebraska from farm groups and from farmers all over our State and
our country.
It is beyond me why some Senators and the administration are so
staunchly opposed to this bill. In fact, it provides a payment for a
single crop year but stretching over two fiscal years, and it is within
the budget constraints.
I can't find a way to explain to Nebraskans when prices are no better
than last year's why the assistance provided by Congress should be cut.
I can't find a way, and I don't intend to try to find a way to explain
that. It just simply won't sell.
The Director of OMB suggested in his letter that the spending should
decrease because farm income is up. That certainly may be true for our
cattle producers. But this assistance flows primarily to row crop
producers and others who are not enjoying such good fortune. How can I
explain to my constituent who called this morning saying that he
qualified for LDPs on his farm last year but he doesn't merit any
assistance this year?
My point is that the tunnel vision approach that we must spend
exactly and only $5.5 billion ignores an awful lot of needs in each and
every one of our States.
I am not willing to say that the needs of producers who grow corn in
Nebraska are more important than those who grow chickpeas or to the
dedicated hog producers who are working diligently to process and
market their own pork that we can't find a way to afford the value-
added loan program that offers them their best chance to get off the
ground. How can I say to them that they will have to wait for the farm
bill and maybe there will be funding available after that?
This bill before us attempts to balance the needs across commodities
and across the country. I think it is a great effort. I hope we can
convince the House of its merits.
There was a statement that some of the payments will be direct but
some will be indirect, as though there is some distinction there of any
importance. The fact that we are able to get direct and indirect money
into the pockets of farmers today is what this is about. That is what
the emergency requires, and that is what this bill does.
As a fiscal conservative, I want to economize but not at the expense
of America's farmers. I support this bill because I think it, in fact,
will do what we need to do for agriculture on an emergency basis and
give us the opportunity in a more lengthy period of time to come to the
conclusion about what the ongoing farm bill should be and do that not
on an emergency basis but on a long-term basis and a multiyear basis.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Nebraska. I
associate myself with all of Senator Nelson's remarks.
I can't wait to write a new farm bill. I jumped on this Agriculture
Committee when there was an opening because I have hated this ``freedom
to fail'' bill. We have had a dramatic decline in farm prices and farm
income.
I thank the Senator from Iowa for this emergency package. I rise to
speak on the floor to strongly support what our committee has reported
out to the Senate.
Let me say at the very beginning that I don't like the AMTA payment
mechanism. I am disappointed that we have to continue to do it this
way.
From the GAO to what farmers know in Minnesota and around the
country, a lot of these AMTA payments have amounted to a subsidy and
inverse relationship to need. The vast amount of the actual payments to
farmers to keep them going goes to the really large operations and the
mid-sized and smaller farmers do not get their fair share.
I also believe that a lot of younger farmers who were hurt by the low
proportion of payments that go to them are also hurt as younger
farmers. We need more younger farmers.
I believe all of this should be changed. The Senator from Iowa knows
that. But I also think we have to get the payments out to people.
Let me say to colleagues that I am not prepared to go back to
Minnesota and say to people in farm country that we didn't have the
money to provide the assistance to you.
I think it is a shame that people are so dependent on the Government.
People hate it. What they want is some power or some leverage to get a
decent price in the marketplace. I believe in this farm bill that we
are writing in the Senate Agriculture Committee. We should do so. I
also believe that there should be a strong effort in the conservation
part of this legislation.
I think there ought to be a section that deals with energy, and there
ought to be a section dealing with competition. We ought to be talking
about put putting more competition into the food industry.
I am becoming conservative these days in the Senate because I want to
put more free enterprise into the free enterprise system. I want to see
us take antitrust seriously. I want to see us go after some of these
conglomerates that are muscling their way to the dinner tables and
forcing family farmers out--and, by the way, very much to the detriment
of consumers.
This emergency package has some very strong features. First of all,
thank goodness, this is an emphasis on conservation and conserving our
natural resources. From the CRP Program, to the Wetland Reserve
Program, to Environmental Quality Incentive Programs, we are talking
about programs that need the additional funding. We are talking about
programs that are win-win-win: win for the farmers, win for Pheasants
Forever, win for Ducks Unlimited, some of the best environmental
organizations you could ever run across; a win for consumers; and a win
for the environment.
Our Catholic bishop wrote a statement about 15 years ago entitled
``Strangers and Guests.'' He said we are all but strangers and guests
in this land. They were looking at soil erosion and chemical runoff
into the water.
The focus on conservation in this emergency package is just a
harbinger of the direction we are going to go because this next farm
bill is going to focus on land stewardship, on preserving our natural
resources, on conservation, and on a decent price for family farmers as
opposed to these conglomerates.

I believe what we have in this emergency package is extremely
important. I thank my colleague from Iowa for an extension of the Dairy
Price Support Program. It is important to dairy farmers in Minnesota
and throughout the country. The program was due to expire this year. At
least it is an effort to stabilize these mad fluctuations in price.
If you have a lot of capital, it is fine if you go from $13.20 per
hundredweight to $9 per hundredweight. But if you do not have the
capital and the big bucks, you are going to go under.
I think it is important to have that.
I thank my colleagues. The growers in the Southern Minnesota Sugar
Beet

[[Page S8423]]

Cooperative are going to receive benefits under the 2000 crop
assistance program through this legislation. These are sugar beet
growers of southern Minnesota who suffered because of a freeze in the
fields last fall. They tried to process the beets. They tried to do
their best. They couldn't make the money off of it. Frankly, without
the assistance in this package, they wouldn't have any future at all.
Again, what is an emergency? From my point of view, if you can get
some benefits to people who find themselves in dire economic
circumstances through no fault of their own, and you can make sure that
they can continue to survive today so that they can farm tomorrow, then
you are doing what you should do.
That is what this package is all about. I fully support it.
As much as I like my colleague from Indiana and as much as I think he
is one of the best Senators in the Senate, I cannot support his
substitute amendment.
I hope we will have strong support on the floor of the Senate for
this package of emergency assistance that comes to the Senate from the
Senate Agriculture Committee.
By the way, we need to move on this matter. We need to get this
assistance out to farmers. We don't need to delay and delay because
then we are playing with people's lives in a very unfortunate way. We
really are. This is the time for Senators to have amendments, as
Senator Lugar has. This is a time for Senators to disagree. That is
their honest viewpoint. But it is not a time to drag this on and on so
that we can't get benefits out to people who without these benefits are
not going to have any future at all. We cannot let that happen. We
cannot do that to farmers in this country.

I yield the floor and 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. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________