[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 31, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8423-S8429]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        EMERGENCY AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2001--Continued


                           Amendment No. 1190

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous agreement, the time until 3 
o'clock is evenly divided between Senator Lugar and Senator Harkin.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Harkin, I yield 4 
minutes to the chairman of the Budget Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Presiding Officer and my colleague, and I 
thank the chairman of the Agriculture Committee for this time as well.
  Mr. President, I want to address, just briefly, the statements that 
were made by the Senator from Texas about whether or not this bill--the 
underlying bill; not the amendment by the Senator from Indiana but the 
underlying bill--violates the budget, whether it busts the budget.
  I think it is very clear that the bill brought out of the Agriculture 
Committee by the chairman, Senator Harkin, does not violate the budget 
in any way. The budget provided $5.5 billion in fiscal year 2001 to the 
Agriculture Committee for this legislation and provided an additional 
$7.35 billion in fiscal year 2002 for additional legislation to assist 
farmers at this time of need.
  The bill that is in the assistance package provides $5.5 billion in 
2001 and provides $1.9 billion in fiscal year 2002. It clearly does not 
violate the budget in any way. It does not bust the budget. It is 
entirely in keeping with the budget.
  I just challenge the Senator from Texas, if he really believes this 
violates the budget, to come out here and bring a budget point of 
order. That is what you do if you believe that a bill violates the 
budget, that it busts the budget. Let's see what the Parliamentarian 
has to say. We know full well what the Parliamentarian would say. They 
would rule that there is no budget point of order against this bill 
because it is entirely within the budget allocations that have been 
made to the Agriculture Committee.
  This notion of whether or not you can use years of funding in 1 year 
and in the second year is addressed very clearly in the language of the 
budget resolution itself. It says:

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

  These funds were available to be used in 2001, in 2002, in 
legislation today. It goes on to say:

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

  Understanding the difference between a fiscal year and a crop-year.
  The fact is, every disaster bill we have passed in the last 3 years 
has used money in two fiscal years because the Federal fiscal year ends 
at the end of September and yet we know that a disaster that affects a 
crop affects not only the time up until the end of September but also 
affects the harvest in October and the marketing of a crop that occurs 
at that time. So always two fiscal years are affected.
  Finally, the Senator from Texas said that this will raid the Medicare 
trust fund.
  No, it will not. We are not at a point that we are using Medicare 
trust fund money. We are not even close to it at this point. I believe 
by the end of this year we will be using Medicare trust fund money to 
fund other Government programs. I have said that. I warned about it at 
the time the budget was considered. I warned about it during the tax 
bill debate. It is very clear that is going to happen, not just this 
year; it is going to happen in 2002, 2003, and 2004. And in fact we are 
even going to be close to using Social Security trust fund money in 
2003.
  This is not about that. This is about 2001. This is about 2002. In 
this cycle, this part of the cycle, we are nowhere close to using 
Medicare trust fund money. I would like the record to be clear.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 4 minutes.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield time to the distinguished Senator 
from Kansas. How much time does the Senator require?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the distinguished ranking member, and former 
chairman, for yielding me the time. I ask for 15 minutes if I might. If 
I get into a problem, maybe a minute or two.
  Mr. LUGAR. I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered 
by the distinguished former chairman of the Agriculture Committee, 
Senator Lugar. I know agriculture program policy is somewhat of a high-
glaze topic to many of my colleagues. I know many ask questions as to 
the details and the vagaries of farm programs, why we seemingly always 
consider for days on end every year emergency farm legislation and 
Agriculture appropriations, what we now call supplemental Agriculture 
bills.
  In the ``why and hows come'' department, let me recommend to my 
colleagues yesterday's and today's proceedings and in particular 
Senator Lugar's remarks with regard to this bill and, more importantly, 
the overall situation that now faces American agriculture and farm 
program policy. It is a fair and accurate summary that the ranking 
member has presented. In typical Dick Lugar fashion, the Senator from 
Indiana has summed up the situation very well. If you want a 15-minute 
primer in regards to agriculture program policy, simply read the 
Senator's remarks.
  Why are we here? Why are we considering this legislation? The title 
of this legislation is the Emergency Agriculture Assistance Act of 
2001. The name implies to me that the bill is to fund pressing economic 
needs in farm country. We have them. That is what

[[Page S8424]]

the committee actually set out to do. In the debate, we have heard a 
great deal about how much is enough to address the problems in farm 
country. And certainly with the committee's mark, some $2 billion over 
what was agreed to in the budget and with the possibility of a 
Presidential veto, that debate is absolutely crucial.
  I don't believe any agriculture Senator is looking forward to a 
possible Presidential veto--I hope not--or agriculture becoming a 
poster child in regards to out-of-control spending, porkbarrel add-ons, 
or eating into the Medicare trust fund or, for that matter, Social 
Security.
  It seems to me we ought to stop for a minute and ask: Why are we 
having these problems to begin with? For the third year in a row 
farmers, ranchers, and everybody else dependent on agriculture have 
been trying to make ends meet in the midst of a world commodity price 
depression, not just in the United States but the entire world.
  There are many reasons for this: unprecedented record worldwide 
crops; the Asian and South American economic flu crippling our exports; 
the value of the American dollar, again crippling our exports; and my 
personal view, the lack of an aggressive and consistent export policy, 
highlighted, quite frankly, by the inaction in this Congress with 
regard to sanctions reform and Presidential Trade Authority (PTA).
  If you have in the past exported one-third to one-half of the crops 
you produce and you experience 3 straight years of declining exports 
and increased world production, not to mention what many of us consider 
unfair trading practices by our competitors, you begin to understand 
why the market prices are where they are. Add in very little progress 
ever since the Seattle round in regards to the World Trade 
Organization, and you can understand why we have a problem.
  Now what are we going to do about this? To address this problem, when 
this year's budget resolution was passed, it included $5.5 billion for 
spending in 2001 and $7.35 billion in 2002, with total funding of $73.5 
billion for 2002 through 2011. I might add, if you add in the baseline 
for agriculture, you are talking about another $90 billion. That is a 
tremendous investment, to say the least.
  When we passed the budget, the assumption among virtually all of us, 
and all of our farm groups and all of our commodity organizations, was 
that the funding for 2002--not 2001, the funding for 2002 would be used 
for one of two things: An agricultural assistance package in 2002, if 
needed, or funding for the first year of the next farm bill.
  We should make it very clear to our colleagues, our farmers and 
ranchers, our conservation and wildlife organizations, our small towns 
and cities--we are borrowing from the future when we have $7.5 billion 
in this package. I don't know if it violates the budget agreement or 
not. I don't know what the Parliamentarian would say. Regardless, the 
pool of money available for writing the next farm bill has just shrunk 
by $2 billion. We are robbing next year's funds for this year's 
emergency bill.
  We are going to be left with less than $5.5 billion in 2002 funding. 
Are we prepared to take that step? Apparently some are.
  There are always disagreements on the Agriculture Committee. But I 
think the Agriculture Committee is probably the least partisan 
committee, or one of the least, in the Congress. Certainly in the 
Senate, we have always tried to work in a bipartisan manner. In fact, 
that is how former Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska and I operated when 
we wrote and passed crop insurance reform in the last Congress with the 
leadership and the able assistance of the chairman and the ranking 
member. With all due respect, that has not happened on this 
legislation.
  We were given very short notice on the components of the package, the 
markup itself. When we actually arrived at markup, the legislation was 
not the same language our staff was provided the night before. I will 
not dwell on that, but it is most unfortunate. It is a harbinger of 
what I hope will not happen in regards to the farm bill debate.
  Furthermore, I am deeply troubled that the title of this legislation 
is the Emergency Agricultural Assistance Act of 2001. The name implies 
that the bill is to fund pressing economic and income needs in farm 
country. That is not what we have before us with this proposal.
  In fact, I am deeply concerned that we are providing funding here for 
several commodities that are actually at or above their long-term 
average prices and returns, while also making many programmatic 
changes. We are doing a mini farm bill.
  I want to serve warning. I do not argue that commodities, other than 
the program crops, have not faced difficult times. Indeed, many have 
been in rough times. But let's make it very clear that the program 
commodities, those that are usually receiving the AMTA payments, the 
market loss payments, have stringent requirements that many, if not 
all, specialty crops do not have to meet in order to be eligible for 
payments.
  Chief among these is conservation compliance. To receive assistance, 
a program crop producer has to meet very stringent requirements on 
conservation compliance. In many instances they have spent thousands of 
dollars to meet and maintain these requirements--good for them, good 
for their farming, and good for the environment.
  Today I put colleagues on notice that if we intend to continue making 
payments to commodities that do not meet these requirements, I will 
propose they have to meet the same guidelines as producers of wheat, 
corn, cotton, rice, and soybeans to receive their payments. I thought 
about introducing an amendment on this legislation. That would just 
delay it further and get us into more debate, and I consider it an item 
for the Farm Bill debate. Time is of the essence, so I will not do 
that. I do mean to offer or at least consider it when we debate the 
farm bill. It isn't so much a warning. It is just a suggestion that 
fair is fair. All commodities should be treated equally in their 
requirements to receive payments through the Department of Agriculture.
  Let us also remember exactly why we set aside the $5.5 billion for 
the purpose in the budget. The $5.5 billion is equal to the market loss 
assistance payment we provided last year, and it was to address 
continued income and price problems with these crops.
  What am I talking about? Wheat, 57 cents to 67 cents below the 12-
year average. That is about a 20-percent drop below the 12-year 
average. That is the plight of the wheat producer. Cotton, 7.65 cents 
below the 12-year average, about 12.5 percent below the 12-year 
average. Rice, same situation, even worse--about 27 percent below the 
12-year average, $2.02 per hundredweight below the 12-year average of 
$7.52 per hundred weight. Corn, 47 cents below the 12-year average; 21 
percent below the average price. It is the same thing for soybeans, 26 
percent below the average price.
  In regard to these problems in farm country, I believe we will 
continue to stand and face the same problems, regardless of what farm 
bill we put in place, if we do not get cracking on selling our product 
and having a consistent, regular, predictable, and aggressive export 
program.
  The real emergency bill, as far as I am concerned, other than this 
one, is passing a clean bill to grant the President trade promotion 
authority--the acronym for that is the TPA--and obtaining real 
sanctions reform.
  The distinguished ranking member of the committee, Senator Lugar, has 
had a comprehensive sanctions reform bill proposed for as long as I 
have had the privilege of being in the Senate. I do not argue that 
trade will solve all of our problems. It will certainly help.
  In 1996--this is one of the reasons we are here--ag exports were over 
$60 billion, almost hit $61 billion. Last year, ag exports were only 
$51 billion. Just subtract the difference. It is not a one-for-one 
cost, but one can see $50 billion and $61 billion, not selling the 
product. That is roughly about the same amount we are sending out in 
subsidies the past two or three years. That seems to indicate we should 
press ahead in an emergency fashion in regards to our trade policies as 
well.
  Since 1994, when the trade authority expired, there have been 
approximately 130 bilateral agreements negotiated around the world. We 
have been involved in two of them. We cannot sell

[[Page S8425]]

the product in regards to that. It is very difficult to compete in the 
world market when our negotiators cannot get other countries to sit 
down at the table.
  I am a little disturbed and very concerned in regards to the lack of 
real blood pressure to move ahead on this legislation from the other 
side of the aisle. I am getting the word that trade authority for the 
President might not even be passed this session. It might put it off on 
the back burner. How on Earth can we be passing emergency farm 
legislation to provide assistance to hard-pressed farmers and ranchers 
when we have lost our exports and we cannot sell the product? We have 
to move here, it seems to me, on TPA.
  As we have begun hearings on the next farm bill, I have also 
indicated my support for expanding conservation and rural development 
programs. This farm bill is going to have conservation and rural 
development in the center ring with the commodity title. I stand by 
that support.
  I want to credit the chairman of the committee, the distinguished 
Senator from Iowa, who has shown great leadership in focusing on 
conservation. The increases in funding and the program changes should 
be done in the context of the farm bill where we can a have full and 
open debate. Senator Crapo has a bill that I have cosponsored and 
others have bills. In this bill we have not had a full and open debate 
on the conservation programs in this bill. There are numerous 
provisions in this legislation that either create or extend or modify 
USDA programs, many of which have nothing to do with the financial 
difficulties in rural America.

  This is going to create a problem, not only in the Senate but also in 
regards to the House-Senate conference. The best I can tell, the way 
this legislation is drafted, it is going to require a conference with 
at least three separate House committees, the chairmen of which are not 
exactly conducive to emergency farm legislation. That is not the way to 
create swift and easy passage of what many consider must-pass 
legislation.
  We are going beyond the scope of this legislation by including 
provisions that should be debated and considered openly in the farm 
bill debate. I think we are making decisions that are taking away from 
the 2002 budget for 2001 and reducing either a 2002 emergency package 
or the next farm bill money by $2 billion.
  My last point is this: I am concerned about the tone of some of my 
colleagues in terms of their debate, especially on the other side of 
the aisle, who argue that we on this side of the aisle were responsible 
for holding up this bill and putting agricultural assistance for our 
farmers and ranchers in jeopardy.
  We have already told every farm lender, every farmer and rancher in 
America, that a double AMTA payment was coming. Why? Because of the 
loss in price and income I have just gone over with all of the program 
crops and other crops as well. Every banker knows that. Every producer 
knows that. We have to do it now because the Congressional Budget 
Office, in a letter today, tells us we will lose the money if we do 
not.
  In May, the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, in his position as 
the then-ranking member of the Budget committee, wrote to then-chairman 
Lugar of the committee, asking that the committee move on an 
agricultural assistance package or risk losing the funds.
  Soon after that letter was received, we had a little fault line shift 
of power in this body. The fault began to take place in late May. It 
was completed on June 5, when the distinguished Senator from Iowa took 
over as chairman of the Agriculture Committee.
  Let me repeat that. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle took 
over June 5. The legislation was not brought before the Agriculture 
Committee until last week, July 25, 7 weeks after taking over the reins 
of control, 9 calendar days from our scheduled August adjournment. This 
delay occurred when everybody knew full well we were going to have 
contentious issues, the Dairy Compact, everything, and it could lead to 
a prolonged and substantial debate.
  I see my time has expired. I ask for 2 more minutes.
  Mr. LUGAR. I yield the Senator 2 more minutes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the distinguished Senator.
  We know anytime an ag bill is brought to this distinguished body, we 
are getting into all sorts of controversies and so consequently, 
knowing this, they went ahead and presented a bill $2 billion higher 
than the House version.
  It is $2 billion higher. We have all these other programs we should 
consider in a farm bill. They are good programs. I support the 
programs. It is substantially different in substance from the House 
bill that is going to require a conference with up to three House 
committees.

  Speaking of the House, I want to point out the House Agriculture 
Committee passed its version of this assistance package June 20. It 
passed on a voice vote in the House--get it out, get the assistance out 
to farmers. It did not even have a vote. They passed it by a voice 
vote, June 26, a full month before we even held committee markup in the 
Senate.
  I might also point out it was the ranking member of the House, the 
distinguished Congressman from Texas, Charlie Stenholm, who led the 
charge to keep the package at $5.5 billion.
  Let me go through that time line again: The Senator from Iowa took 
the reins of the Committee on June 5, the House Agriculture Committee 
passed the bill on June 20, and the full House passed the bill by voice 
vote on June 26. Yet, we did not even act in the Senate Agriculture 
Committee until July 25. I must ask why we waited, when we knew it was 
must pass legislation?
  We can pass a $7.5 billion. We can go ahead and do that. It will be 
$2 million over what we allowed in the budget. We are robbing Peter to 
pay Paul. Again, we could come up with different names. We can take a 
look at the possibility of a Presidential veto. That is a dangerous 
trail to be on. I do not want to go down that trail. We have an 
opportunity now to vote for Senator Lugar's amendment and keep this 
within budget, keep this within guidelines, and get the assistance to 
farmers.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from 
North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will not spend much time now, but I find 
it incongruous that my colleague from Kansas talks about delay. When we 
tried to bring this bill to the Senate, we had to file a cloture motion 
to proceed to debate the bill. I repeat, we could not even proceed 
without filing a cloture motion--so much for delay. That really is 
pretty irrelevant to farmers out there who are today doing chores, 
hauling bales and plowing ground while worrying whether they will be 
able to continue to operate their family farm.
  The question is: Is somebody going to step in and give them the right 
help and say they matter, and that we want them as part of our future? 
That is the question.
  The phrase was used, if we pass this legislation and deny the 
amendment by Senator Lugar, we will be borrowing from the future. I 
tell my colleagues how to quickly borrow from the future for this 
country, and that is to sit by and watch farm bankruptcies and farm 
foreclosures. Family farms being lost is borrowing from America's 
future as well.
  We stand in suits and ties--we dress pretty well here--talking about 
the agricultural economy in some antiseptic way. None of us has had a 
drop in our income to 1930s levels in real dollars--none of us. Has 
anybody here had a huge drop in income back to 1930 levels in real 
dollars? I do not think so. But, family farmers have suffered a 
collapse of this magnitude to their income.
  We have had people say things are better today on the family farm; 
prices are up; Gee, things are really going along pretty well and 
looking up. If you take 15- or 25-year lows and say prices have 
improved slightly, you could make the case they have improved slightly, 
but you still have dramatically lower income than you have had for many 
years. Another thing that must also be considered is this year's 
dramatically higher input costs, such as fertilizer and fuel prices.
  The only people who, in my judgment, can say things are much better

[[Page S8426]]

are the people who are not getting up in the morning to do chores or 
trying to figure out how to make a tractor work to make a family farm 
operate on a daily basis.
  The question is not so much what does Washington think; the question 
is what do family farmers know. I will tell you what they know. They 
know they are hanging on by their financial fingertips struggling to 
see if their family can stay on the farm when they are receiving 1930s 
prices and paying inflated prices for every one of their inputs when 
putting in a crop.
  The amendment before us is to cut this funding for family farmers by 
$1.9 billion. It is an honest amendment. You have a right to propose a 
cut, and you have a right to say farmers do not deserve this much help. 
It is not accurate to say if this amendment is adopted that farmers 
will receive a double AMTA payment. The fact is, they will not. This 
amendment will reduce the amount of help available to family farmers.
  It is interesting to me that we have had four successive years of 
emergency legislation to respond to the deficiencies of the current 
farm program. I can remember the debate on the farm program--a program 
I voted against. This was nirvana. Boy, was this going to solve all our 
problems. We now know it solved none of our problems.
  Year after year we have had to pass an emergency bill. Why? To fill 
in the hole of that farm program that did not work. We need to get a 
better farm program. We are about the business of doing that. In the 
meantime, we need to save family farmers and help them get across those 
price valleys. Everything in this country is changing. Go to a bank and 
in most places that bank is owned nationally with little branches 
around the country.
  Do you want to get something to eat? In most cases, you are going to 
get something to eat at a food joint that has ``mom and pop'' taken 
down and it has a food chain logo on top.
  Do you want to go to a hardware store? Local hardware stores are not 
around much anymore. Now it is a big chain.
  The last American heroes, in my judgment, are the folks on the farm 
still trying to make a living against all the odds. Sometimes they are 
milking cows, sometimes hauling bales, always doing chores. They also 
put in a crop while praying it does not hail, that they do not get 
insects, that it does not rain too much, that it rains enough. And if 
these family farmers are lucky enough to get a crop, they put it in a 
truck and drive it to an elevator, they find out that the price it is 
worth is really only in 1930 dollars. They find out the food they 
produce has no value. The farmer who risks everything for himself and 
his family is told: Your food has no value. In a world where people go 
to bed with an ache in their belly because it hurts to be hungry, our 
farmers are told their food has no value.
  There is something disconnected in public policy. The question is, 
are family farmers like the little old diner that is left behind when 
the interstate comes through? It is a romantic notion to talk about 
them, but that is yesterday's dream. Is that what family farms are? 
Some think that. Some think our future is mechanized corporate 
agriculture from California to Maine.
  I think the family unit and family agriculture which plants the seeds 
for family values that nourish and refresh our small town and big 
cities--the rolling of those valleys from small towns to big cities--
has always represented the refreshment of character and value in this 
country. Family farms are important to our future.
  This amendment is asking that we cut back by $1.9 billion the amount 
of emergency help that family farmers need just to keep their heads 
above water until we can get them across this price valley. We need a 
bridge across these valleys for family farmers. We need a better farm 
program to provide that bridge. In the meantime, we need this 
legislation and we need to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask that I be yielded 6 minutes from 
the ranking member's time.
  Mr. LUGAR. Will the Senator accept 5 minutes? We are almost at our 
limit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 45 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I will even accept 4 minutes 45 seconds at this point.
  Mr. LUGAR. Very well. I yield that time.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to respond to some of the 
comments made today and strongly urge my colleagues to support the 
effort put forth by Senator Lugar to get this assistance now to the 
family farmers in my State and across this country.
  The Senator from North Dakota just spoke about the need to get this 
help to the family farmers and the people who start the tractors and 
move the bales. That is my family. That is what they do. That is what 
my dad and brother do. My other brother is a veterinarian. We are 
intricately involved in agriculture and have been for generations.
  This help is needed, but I can tell you one thing as well: a rain 
today is much more useful than a rain in November. We need it during 
the growing season. We can use the money today and not in the next 
fiscal year.
  What we are really flirting with is the very real possibility that 
the Senate could say: OK, $5.5 billion is not sufficient. We want more. 
I would like to have more for my farmers, but at the end of the day, we 
put in a higher number than the House and we cannot get to conference 
in time and the President, on top of that, has said he will veto the 
bill if it is over $5.5 billion.
  At the end of the day, instead of getting $5.5 billion or $7.4 
billion, we get zero out of it, and that would be very harmful to the 
farmers across this country--the wheat farmers and the grain crop 
farmers across Kansas. It would be very harmful to my family who is 
looking at a situation where prices have been low and production high 
and where we have not opened up foreign markets.
  I was in Wilson, KS, at the Czech festival talking with farmers 
there. Overall, they appreciate the freedom and flexibility in this 
farm program but would like us to open up some of these markets. They 
say we have not done that in sufficient quantity yet.

  They say as well they need support from the farm program and they 
need it now. They do not need it taking place 6 months from now. If you 
are looking at saying we have $5.5 billion or zero, they will say the 
$5.5 billion, that is what we need to do.
  It looks to me as if we are staring at a very dangerous gamble 
saying: OK, we think we can bounce this number up another nearly $2 
billion, and we are looking at less than a week to do this. In that 
period of time, it has to clear the Senate, get to the House, and the 
President has to say: Yes, you are right, I have changed my mind; it is 
not $5.5 billion; I will jump that number up some.
  I do not think that is a safe gamble at all, and it is not a gamble 
we should make the farmers of the United States and the farmers across 
Kansas take when we are looking at this particular type of difficult 
financial situation in which the farmers find themselves.
  It is responsible for us to support Senator Lugar and what he is 
putting forward to get the $5.5 billion that has been promised. It is a 
responsible thing for us to do, even though we would like to put more 
into the farm program. This we can do; this we should do. I believe 
this is something we must do, and we must do it now.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Lugar amendment. This is the 
type of assistance we can and should get out the door. Let's do this 
now and not gamble on something that might be higher in the future.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of the time, and I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry: How much time is remaining on both 
sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana has 1 minute 10 
seconds, and the Senator from Iowa has 10 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes off my time to the 
Senator from Indiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman for his 
thoughtfulness.

[[Page S8427]]

  I hope Senators will support my amendment and vote no against the 
tabling motion. I ask them to do this because I believe it is the only 
way in which farmers are going to receive any money.
  I will go over the situation again. If we adopt the House language, 
we do not have a conference, and that is very important, because in a 
conference with the House, other items could arise that are of concern 
to Senators. As it is, we know the parameters of the bill as we see 
them. Adoption by the Senate of the House language means we have no 
conference, the President signs the bill, and the money goes to the 
farmers.

  We have received from the CBO assurance that this bill must be 
successfully conferenced and passed by the Senate and the House before 
we recess, and the President must sign it in the month of August or 
there will be no checks. None. Senators need to know that.
  The fact is, we have a difference of opinion. But the specialty crops 
are cared for by the House bill. The AMTA payments are cared for--not 
in the quantity that persons in either of these categories wish to 
achieve but this is emergency spending. It is our one opportunity to do 
it.
  I am hopeful, in a bipartisan way, we will reject tabling; we will 
pass the amendment; we will go to the President, united with the House; 
and we will get the money to the farmers. This is very important, as 
opposed to having a partisan issue, as opposed to discussing how sad it 
was that somehow we miscalculated, how sad it was, indeed, for the 
farmers that we were attempting to help.
  Finally, I believe we are doing something responsible. I believe we 
are filling in the gap for income, and our estimates are that farmers 
will have less this year, and we are going to make certain they have 
more; that country bankers are paid and they can count on it; and that 
farmers will plant again and they can count upon it. Any farmer 
listening to this debate wants us to pass the bill today and to move on 
with the House and the President. They do not want haggling over who is 
responsible, which party really cares more, which crop should have had 
something more, or an opportunity for mischief to occur in the 
conference, in which finally the whole issue revolves on something 
other than what we have been talking about today.
  I plead with my colleagues, in a bipartisan way, to reject tabling 
and to support the Lugar amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, it is not easy to say the amendment 
offered by my good friend from Indiana should be defeated because he is 
my good friend and I know he is doing this in good faith. We have 
talked about this and I know he feels deeply this is the way we should 
go. Quite frankly, as we all are friends on the Senate floor, we differ 
sometimes on how we ought to proceed and what is needed to meet the 
needs of our constituents. I respectfully dissent from that position 
that my friend from Indiana has taken.
  I believe the $5.5 billion passed by the House is inadequate. I am 
not just saying that. Read the letters I have had printed today from 
the American Farm Bureau, the National Wheat Growers, the National Corn 
Growers, the National Soybean Association, and on and on and on. Every 
one of them is saying it is inadequate; that we have to provide the 
same payments to our farmers this year as we did last year.
  I have heard talk that the markets have improved. That is not true. 
The livestock sector has gone up a little bit; that is, the livestock 
sector but not the crop sector. We hear the aggregate income has gone 
up.
  Mr. President, say we are in a room of 10 people and we are talking 
about prescription drug benefits for the elderly. We have 10 people in 
the room and you put Bill Gates in the room. All of a sudden you say 
the aggregate income in the room is $1 billion per person so why do you 
need benefits under Social Security? That is what they are saying.
  Yes, aggregate income has gone up because of the livestock sector, 
but that has not happened with the crop sector. Because of the increase 
in the price of fuel and fertilizers, farmers today are in worse shape 
than they were last year.
  The House bill provides 85 percent of the support level we provided 
last year and the year before. The bill the committee reported out--and 
it was not a straight party line vote either --the bill we reported out 
provides for 100 percent of what they got last year and the year 
before. As I said, all of the groups we have received letters from 
support this position.
  I ask that by unanimous consent a letter from the National Cotton 
Council of America be printed in the Record, along with a position 
paper from the National Barley Growers Association, and a letter dated 
today from the Oil Seed Federation, the American Soybean Association, 
the National Sunflower Association, and the U.S. Canola Association.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    July 31, 2001.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The undersigned oilseed producer 
     organizations strongly support the Committee's efforts to 
     complete consideration of legislation to provide Economic 
     Loss Assistance to producers of 2001 crops prior to the 
     August Congressional work period. As you know, funds 
     available for this purpose in FY-2001 must be expended before 
     the end of the Fiscal Year on September 30, 2001. This 
     deadline requires that Congress complete action this week, so 
     that the Farm Service Agency can process payments after 
     enactment.
       As part of the Economic Loss Assistance package, we support 
     continuing the level of support for oilseeds provided in last 
     year's plan of $500 million. Prices for oilseeds are at or 
     below levels experienced for the 2000 crop. Farmers and their 
     lenders expect Congress to maintain oilseed payments at last 
     year's levels.
       For this reason, we support making funds available for 
     oilseed payments from the $7.35 billion provided in the 
     Budget Resolution for FY-2002. This is the same approach used 
     for 2000 crop oilseeds, when $500 million in FY-2001 funds 
     were made available. We only ask that oilseed producers 
     receive the same support, and in the same manner, provided 
     last year.
       Thank you very much for your efforts to provide fair and 
     equitable treatment for oilseed producers in this time of 
     severe economic hardship.
           Sincerely yours,
     Bart Ruth,
                                 President, American Soybean Assn.
     Lloyd Klein,
                               President, National Sunflower Assn.
     Steve Dahl,
     President, U.S. Canola Assn.
                                  ____


     National Barley Growers Association (NBGA)--Position Statement


          Income and Market Loss Assistance for the 2001 Crop

       The Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 budget resolution provides $5.5 
     billion in additional agricultural assistance for crop year 
     2001 and an increase of $73.5 billion in the agriculture 
     budget baseline through 2011. The budget resolution also 
     provided flexibility in the use of a total of $79 billion. 
     Because agricultural prices are not improving and production 
     costs continue to escalate, NBGA believes it will be 
     difficult to fully address the chronically ailing agriculture 
     economy if Congress provides no more than $5.5 billion in 
     assistance.
       Although projections show a rise in farm income, this is 
     largely due to the fact that analysis project livestock cash 
     receipts to rise from $98.8 billion in 2000 to $106.6 billion 
     in 2001. At the same time, cash receipts from crop sales are 
     up less than $1 billion.
       Further, producers continue to face historic low prices and 
     income as well as increased input costs. In 2000, farm 
     expenditures for fuel and oil, electricity, fertilizer and 
     crop protection chemicals are estimated to increase farmers' 
     cost $2.9 billion. This year, USDA estimates those expenses 
     will rise an additional $2 billion to $3 billion while farm 
     income continues to decrease. These issues affect every 
     sector of agriculture.
       We urge Congress to mandate that the Secretary of 
     Agriculture make emergency economic assistance for the 2001 
     crops in the form of a market loss assistance payment at the 
     1999 Production Flexibility Contract (PFC, or AMTA) payment 
     rate as soon as practicable prior to the end of FY01.
       We believe this additional assistance will help addresses 
     the serious economic conditions in the farm sector and does 
     not jeopardize the House and Senate Agriculture Committees' 
     ability to develop effective new long-term farm policy in the 
     near future.
                                  ____

                                          Natiional Cotton Council


                                                   of America,

                                    Washington, DC, June 18, 2001.
     Hon. Larry Combest,
     Chairman, House Agriculture Committee, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your efforts on the behalf 
     of US agriculture. It is

[[Page S8428]]

     clear your leadership has raised the level of awareness of 
     the stark economic reality facing US agricultural producers 
     both in the US Congress and the Administration. As the House 
     Agriculture Committee addresses the various needs of the US 
     agricultural sector in its markup for emergency assistance, 
     the National Cotton Council supports the allocation of at 
     least $5.5 billion for market loss assistance payments. This 
     amount is sufficient to provide economic assistance in the 
     form of a market loss assistance payment at the 1999 AMTA 
     payment rate and is the minimum necessary for an effective 
     response to the continued economic crisis that pervades the 
     entire cotton industry. Even this amount will result in less 
     total assistance than was provided to producers in 2000.
       U.S. cotton producers have seen prices paid for all inputs 
     rise by 10% since 1999, as measured by USDA. Prices in U.S. 
     agricultural commodity futures markets are trading 55% to 65% 
     of the values present in 1995. For cotton, the December 
     contract on the New York Board of Trade (NYBOT) averaged 63 
     cents per pound from mid May to mid June in 2000. For the 
     last 30 days the December 2001 contract on NYBOT has averaged 
     just 47 cents. The squeeze on cotton producers is incredibly 
     intense.
       The National Cotton Council testified in February seeking 
     total support for producers in 2001 to be no less than that 
     provided in crop year 2000. In the specific case of cotton, 
     the combined 2000 crop year AMTA and market loss assistance 
     was 15.21 cents. A market loss assistance payment of 7.88 
     cents in 2001 is a solid move to toward last year's level of 
     combined support. This assumes the entire $5.5 billion 
     allocated for 2001 in this year's budget resolution is 
     dedicated to market loss assistance. Any reduction below $5.5 
     billion for market loss assistance further harms the US 
     agriculture production sector.
       The National Cotton Council seeks additional funding for 
     other critical issues facing our industry, including (1) 
     cottonseed assistance; (2) elimination of the 1.25 cent Step 
     2 threshold; and (3) use of a modified base for the 
     calculation of market loss assistance payments. Low 
     cottonseed prices plague the industry for the third year in a 
     row and cut substantially into producer income. For the past 
     2 crop years Congress has recognized the impact of low 
     cottonseed prices on producers and ginners and provided 
     cottonseed assistance payments. Offers for 2001 new crop 
     cottonseed are as low as those faced in the most recent 2 
     years.
       The National Cotton Council seeks elimination of the 1.25 
     cent threshold in the Step 2 competitiveness provision. The 
     U.S. textile industry is reeling from the impact of textile 
     and apparel imports associated with a strong dollar. U.S. 
     mills used 11.4 million 480-lb. bales of US in cotton in 
     1997, but current use rates are under 8.5 million. U.S. 
     exports of raw cotton are also hampered by the strength of 
     the dollar. Improved competitiveness in the face of external 
     forces is critical to the economic health of the U.S. cotton 
     industry.
       The National Cotton Council also seeks relief for producers 
     whose recent planting history differs substantially from the 
     acres enrolled in the production flexibility contracts (PFC). 
     The use of the PFC base for delivery of supplemental market 
     loss assistance speeds payments to producers, but may not 
     adequately address losses associated with actual production. 
     The NCC proposal will not slow delivery of market loss 
     assistance payments, but provides producers with an option to 
     apply for additional assistance based on a modified base 
     calculation. This enables the committee to more closely align 
     production with supplemental assistance without slowing the 
     delivery of this critical aid.
       We understand there are many legitimate requests for 
     assistance given the continued economic stress throughout 
     agriculture. We urge you to develop a balanced package and to 
     include these initiatives if sufficient funds become 
     available now or at a future date and the ability of the 
     Committee to write effective long term farm policy, 
     consistent with the Council's and other groups' testimony, is 
     not jeopardized.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James E. Echols,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. HARKIN. All we are saying is that we have a tough situation in 
agriculture. There is no reason why we shouldn't provide 100 percent of 
payments. That is what we did in our bill.
  I point out the House bill initially started out at $6.5 billion. An 
amendment was offered to put it at $5.5 billion, and it passed by one 
vote. Two of those who voted sent me letters, which I have included in 
the Record, saying they want a more comprehensive bill, one that 
includes the Senate's provisions.
  I say the responsible thing to do is to meet the needs of our 
constituents, our farmers, and our farm families around the country.
  We also made the bill broader. In other words, we didn't just look at 
the program crops. We looked at a lot of other crops: the crops in the 
Northwest, the peas and lentils and chick peas, we looked at apples and 
what is happening to our specialty crops there. There are a lot of 
other farmers in the country who are hurting and who need assistance. 
We included them, also. I don't see why we should leave them out.
  We made 100 percent of payments but we reached out. We also put in 
some strong conservation measures. The Lugar amendment leaves out all 
of the conservation provisions we put in the bill. The people that need 
that conservation are all over this country, anywhere from Georgia, to 
Washington State and California, to New York and Maine.
  These conservation moneys do two things: They help our farm income, 
and they help our farmers. But they also help all in society by 
cleaning up our water and cleaning up our air and soil runoff. The 
conservation funding would lie dormant for the Wetland Reserve Program, 
the Farmland Protection Program and the Wildlife Habitat Improvement 
Program.
  I think we are doing the responsible thing. I believe if we were to 
pass the committee-passed bill--and I believe the votes are here--and 
go to conference with the House, we can be back from conference with 
the House, I would hope, no later than tomorrow night, perhaps by 
Thursday. We would have a good conference report, one that could be 
broadly supported. I believe the President would do well to sign that 
bill.
  Again, we will probably have to make compromises in conference. I 
understand that. I point out to all who will be voting, there is three 
times the amount of help to specialty crop producers in our underlying 
bill as in the Lugar amendment. To my friends on both sides of the 
aisle, I say we included moneys for crops all over this country. We 
didn't just single out one or two.
  I am hopeful we can table the amendment offered, I know in good 
faith, by my friend from Indiana. But we have to meet our needs. We 
have to meet the needs of our constituents.
  I make one final point: The committee bill is in full compliance with 
the budget resolution. We did exactly what the Budget Committee allowed 
us to do: $5.5 billion is spent before September 30; the other moneys 
in the next fiscal year. That is exactly what the budget resolution 
allows.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). It is now 3 o'clock. Under the 
previous order, the Chair recognizes the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to table the Lugar amendment and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 261 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--48

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

[[Page S8429]]

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, could I have the attention of our 
colleagues.

                          ____________________