[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 112 (Friday, August 3, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8849-S8857]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EMERGENCY AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2001
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the order previously entered, the
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 1246, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1246) to respond to the continuing economic
crisis adversely affecting American agricultural producers.
Pending:
Lugar amendment No. 1212, in the nature of a substitute.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the clerk will
report the motion to invoke cloture.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of
rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to
a close the debate on Calendar No. 102, S. 1246, a bill to respond to
the continuing economic crisis adversely affecting American farmers:
Tom Harkin, Harry Reid, Jon Corzine, Max Baucus, Patty
Murray, Jeff Bingaman, Tim Johnson, Edward Kennedy,
[[Page S8850]]
Jay Rockefeller, Daniel Akaka, Paul Wellstone, Mark
Dayton, Maria Cantwell, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln,
Richard Durbin, Herb Kohl.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S.
1246, a bill to respond to the continuing economic crisis adversely
affecting American farmers shall be brought to a close? The yeas and
nays are required under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici) is absent because of a death in the family.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 48, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 273 Leg.]
YEAS--49
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchinson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Stabenow
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--48
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
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
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--3
Boxer
Domenici
Inouye
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays
are 48. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will state the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] enters a motion
to reconsider the vote by which the motion to invoke cloture
on S. 1246 was rejected.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion will be placed on the calendar.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
disaster funding for the klamath basin
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Harkin, for
this opportunity to speak on the drought funding and legislative needs
for the Klamath Basin in southern Oregon.
I understand that the bill currently being considered, the Emergency
Agriculture Assistance Act of 2001, is primarily a bill to provide
money for farmers suffering market loss this year. A market loss, as I
understand it, happens when a farmer receives less money for his crop
than he spent to produce it. But, due to drought, my constituents were
unable to plant their crops.
Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate your understanding that there is a
difference between the economic-based problems we are trying to address
in the current bill and natural disaster related relief in an emergency
or supplemental funding bill later this year, once we know the full
extent of nature's toll on agriculture this season. However, the
Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2001 provided $20,000,000 for farmer
families in the Klamath. How much additional money will the farmers in
the basin be needing?
Mr. WYDEN. In the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2001 Congress
provided $20,000,000 in emergency money for farmer families in the
Klamath. This amount was designed only to keep these farms afloat until
further monetary assistance could be found or until the drought ended.
According to the Klamath Basin Water Users Association, this drought
will cost the Klamath Basin agricultural community at least $200
million above the $20 million provided already. In 2000, the revenue
for agriculture in the Klamath Basin, according to the USDA Farm
Service Agency, was $132 million. The projected income for 2001 is only
$28 million. There is a difference of $104 million in lost revenues
alone. That figure does not include the increased costs my constituents
incurred to get through the drought with their farms intact, such as
well augmentation and cover crop planting to protect topsoil from
erosion.
May I count on the consideration of the Senator from Iowa, the
chairman of the Agriculture Committee and a member of the Agriculture
Appropriation Subcommittee, as I pursue additional funding for the
Klamath Basin farmers at the first possible opportunity?
Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate my friend's pursuit of relief for his
constituents. I can promise to work closely with you concerning fair
drought relief funding for the farm families in the Klamath Basin.
Mr. WYDEN. In addition, there are other solutions for the Klamath
Basin, such as, but not limited to, water conservation, wetlands
restoration and irrigation system updates that will have to be
considered. These may require legislative action. May I count on you to
help me craft appropriate language that will be acceptable in the
upcoming Farm Bill that will begin to address the long term solutions
needed in the Klamath Basin?
Mr. HARKIN. I agree with you that an ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure. Certainly, I will work with you to address possible long
term solutions for the Klamath in the Farm bill.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, this week the Senate has been trying to
pass S. 1246, the Emergency Agriculture Assistance Act, legislation to
provide emergency relief to U.S. farmers and ranchers suffering at this
time. Unfortunately, certain members of the Senate have tried to
politicize, delay, and complicate this very necessary legislation.
Moreover, now that the House of Representatives has adjourned for the
August recess, we may very well be forced to adopt a reduced level of
assistance in order to match the House's lower funding level in a
fashion that meets the President's needs, without a conference
committee. If this must be the case, then I am sure the will of the
Senate will be to adopt less funding for farmers, but I shall vote
against reduced funding for our farmers and ranchers this year because
I know it is not enough to adequately assist crop producers and
livestock ranchers through the 2001 crop year, indeed a fourth year in
a row of near-recession in agriculture.
I have made a quick calculation or two regarding the level of
assistance expected if we indeed enact the House passed assistance
level of just $5.5 billion today. First, the funding for program crops
nationwide will be reduced by around 16 percent. More importantly,
South Dakota's farmers and ranchers stand to lose between $30 and $50
million. The reduced market loss AMTA payment in the House plan is 85
percent of the level in Senator Harkin's plan, indicating to me that
South Dakota farmers would lose around $23 million in these market loss
payments if we adopt the House plan. Moreover, the oilseed payment is
reduced by about $4.5 million under the House plan. Finally, if you
count the assistance we provide to peas, lentils, wool, honey, flooded
lands and conservation programs and total everything up, South Dakota
may realize a loss of between $30 and $50 million under the House plan.
Under the leadership of Senator Harkin, the Senate Agriculture
Committee completed action on the fiscal year 2001 short-term economic
assistance package for farmers and ranchers, providing $7.494 billion,
$5.5 B in fiscal year 2001
[[Page S8851]]
funds plus $1.994 B in fiscal year 2002 funds. The United States
Department of Agriculture, USDA, said they must distribute the fiscal
nyar 2001 funds, $5.5 B in AMTA, by the end of the fiscal year,
September 30, 2001. USDA has indicated the only way they can guarantee
timely delivery of aid is to provide it through the bonus AMTA payment
mechanism. Moreover, my colleague from South Dakota, the Majority
Leader, Senator Daschle has received an assertion from the
Congressional Budget Office, CBO, that Congress has to resolve this
issue before the August recess in order to protect the $5.5 billion set
aside, for fiscal year 2001, for these emergency payments. Nonetheless,
we have had trouble getting a final vote on this assistance package
because some of my colleagues, whom I respect a great deal, are slowing
the bill down because they are upset at the level of funding, $7.4
billion.
In South Dakota, farmers and ranchers continue to struggle from
terribly low commodity prices. While certain prices have improved in
recent months, this short-term recovery in price, really just in the
livestock sector, cannot compensate for nearly 4 years of recession in
farm country. Most crop prices remain at 15-25 year all-time lows.
Moreover, input costs such as fuel and fertilizer have increased
dramatically, wiping out chances for producers to enjoy profits to keep
operations afloat. Corn prices remain around $1.55 per bushel, far
below the $4.50 range when the 1996 farm bill was enacted. Soybean
prices are stagnant at $4.50 per bushel, nearly $4.00 less than soybean
price levels in 1996. While wheat prices have made a very modest price
recovery, they still remain less than $3.00 per bushel, far below the
$5.55 level in 1996. Moreover, due to disease, drought, and winter
kill, many South Dakota farmers had most or all of their winter wheat
crop wiped out completely, so this modest increase in price won't help
them because they may not have a crop to put in the bin.
All this at a time when aggregate production costs, the prices
farmers pay for their inputs such as fuel and fertilizer, are 20
percent higher right now than the prices farmers receive for their
commodities. This price-cost squeeze makes it very difficult to turn a
profit in agriculture today. So, this assistance is badly needed. And
while it is unfortunate that this assistance is necessary, I believe
this aid is critical until Congress can write the next farm bill in a
way that promotes and supports fair marketplace competition and good
stewardship of our land.
Unfortunately, the administration and some Senators want to reduce
the size of this emergency package, suggesting it provides too much
assistance to our Nation's family farmers, or, alleging that it creates
budget problems. Even more ridiculous is the assertion by some that no
funding is necessary in fiscal year 2002 to help farmers. I believe we
need to look at this from the farmers' perspective, a little tractor-
seat common sense if you will, because farmers deal with crop years,
not fiscal years. It all boils down to some in the administration
wanting to implement this assistance based upon how the Government does
business, by fiscal years, instead of how farmers and ranchers do
business, by crop years. We need this assistance to span the current
crop year, and therefore, it must allow for investments over both
fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002.
Further, our budget resolution, which was adopted by Congress and
signed by the President, allows for this funding. The budget resolution
enacted by Congress and signed by the President provided the
Agriculture Committees authority to spend up to $5.5 B in fiscal year
2001, with additional authority to spend up to $7.35 B in fiscal year
2002, for a total of $12.85 B in fiscal year 2001-2002 spending
authority for agriculture. The committees were given total discretion
to spend this money on emergency and/or farm bill programs. However,
for the third time now, Office of Management and Budget, OMB, Director
Mitch Daniels has signaled a possible veto threat if the Senate aid
package totals more than $5.5 billion in fiscal year 2001. A similar
OMB threat was made as the House contemplated $6.5 billion, and despite
efforts to increase the aid in the House, the level ended up at $5.5
billion. It cannot be argued that we are busting any budget caps, or
endangering the Medicare or Social Security Trust funds, because this
money has already been provided by the budget resolution, and it is not
part of the $73.5 billion (fiscal year 2003-2001) ag reserve fund. A
veto is not warranted because the aid total for fiscal year 2001 is
$5.5 billion, precisely the level permitted under the budget
resolution. The fact that an additional $1.9 billion is provided in the
grand total does not matter because it is actually fiscal year 2002
money, which we are permitted to spend under the budget
resolution passed by Congress and signed by the President. The Senate
Agriculture Committee voted to spend $7.4 billion of both fiscal year
2001 and 2002 money because the current, 2001 crop year spans both
fiscal years. It is a subtle, yet, critically important difference
between a crop year and a fiscal year that must be understood in order
to meet the needs of farmers. The 2001 crop year mirrors the 2001
calendar year, while the fiscal year 2001 fiscal year ``expires''
September 30, 2001. Several major commodities must be marketed after
the fiscal year 2001 fiscal year ends, and prices for these commodities
are not expected to magically improve after September 30. Clearly,
there is a necessity to provide economic aid into fiscal year 2002 as
well. In order to provide modest aid in fiscal year 2002, we have
chosen to take a modest $1.9 billion, out of $7.35 billion available in
fiscal year 2002, to help producers through the entire 2001 crop year.
Unfortunately, the administration doesn't seem to understand the
difference between a fiscal year and a crop year. Additionally, we left
around $5.4 B for additional fiscal year 2002 spending if needed.
Last year, as part of the crop insurance reform legislation, Congress
provided a total of $7.14 billion in emergency aid for both fiscal year
2000 and fiscal year 2001, almost exactly the same amount of assistance
we aim to provide this time around. Specifically, $5.5 billion last
year was allocated for bonus AMTA in fiscal year 2000, and, $1.64
billion for other needs in fiscal year 2001. Coincidentally, Congress
and the President understood the need to provide assistance in fiscal
year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 for the 2000 crop year , thus, a
precedent has been set to do it once again. Furthermore, let us not
forget that every major farm organization actually requested at least
$9-10 billion in emergency ag support this year. Our legislation
doesn't provide that total, but it does cover a majority of the
immediate economic distress in agriculture today. I find it ironic that
some in the Senate would rely upon the OMB Director, Mitch Daniels, on
how much farm aid is necessary when what we are trying to pass in the
Senate, $7.4 billion, is supported by farmers, including the following
farm groups; Farm Bureau, Farmers Union, the National Corn Growers, and
the National Assn. of Wheat Growers.
Yet some are still suggesting that spending $5.5 billion, most of it
in fiscal year 2001, will be enough to help U.S. family farmers and
ranchers. However, 19 Republicans in the House Agriculture Committee,
including the Chairman Larry Combest, voted against an amendment to
reduce the size of the House package to $5.5 billion because they
believe that $5.5 billion does not go far enough to assist farmers and
ranchers at this time. The vote to reduce the size of this assistance
for farmers to $5.5 billion in the House Ag Committee passed by just
one vote. The House passed emergency package falls short, by 16
percent, on the level of support Congress provided to program crops
last year. Moreover, the Lugar or House plan does not include any
funding for critical conservation programs such as CRP and WRP.
Finally, Chairman Combest and other House Republicans were so concerned
with the inadequacy of the House passed $5.5 billion that they wrote
their ``viewpoints'' or ``concerns'' into the House passed legislation.
Their concerns, accompanying the House farm aid state, and I am quoting
from what House Republicans wrote about their own ag emergency bill
now:
. . .H.R. 2213, as reported by the House Agriculture
Committee is inadequate. . . . .the assistance level ($5.5
billion) is not sufficient to address the needs of farmers
and ranchers in the 2001 crop year. . .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 as reported by the Committee
[[Page S8852]]
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 be at their
expense.
This is very concerning to me. Many of the farmers that will suffer
if we go with $5.5 billion--the wheat, corn, grain sorghum, and soybean
farmers, are trying to make a living in my State of South Dakota. So,
as you can see, these very poignant words prove that the House passed
$5.5 billion level of assistance is woefully inadequate. I will stay
and fight on the Senate floor for increased funding this week to ensure
South Dakota's farmers are assisted with the construction of a more
sturdy bridge over this year's financial problems.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let met first commend the efforts of my
colleagues who are working very hard to deliver some form of Federal
relief to prevent the demise of more of America's family farms.
While this bill provides much needed emergency assistance to certain
sectors of the agricultural community, I am concerned about this bill
for several reasons.
It guarantees very generous Federal subsidies at higher levels than
in previous years even though these same subsidies were eliminated or
intended to be phased out by the 1996 farm bill. It disproportionately
favors large farming operations over smaller ones. It adds $5 billion
to the already $27 billion delivered in supplemental and emergency
spending for farmers since 1999. This is funding in addition to Federal
payments or loans authorized through the 1996 farm bill. While the 1996
farm bill was intended to reduce reliance on the Federal Government,
payments to farmers have increased by 400 percent, from $7 billion in
1996 to $32 billion in 2001.
Again, I recognize that many Americans in the agriculture industry
are facing economic ruin. However, already this year, the Senate has
included $4.7 billion in wasteful, unnecessary, or unreviewed spending
in five appropriations bills. Surely, among these billions of dollars,
there are at least a few programs that we could all agree are lower
priority than desperately needed aid for America's farmers.
I appreciate the agreement of my colleagues to put before the Senate
the House bill that conforms with the agreed-upon budget resolution.
Through this bill, billions of dollars are provided in supplemental
payments to oilseed producers, peanut producers, wool and mohair
producers, tobacco producers and cottonseed producers.
Fortunately, this bill does not include additional egregious
provisions proposed in the Senate version of the bill, such as
continuing subsidies for honey producers, extension of the dairy price
support program, perks for the sugar industry, and various other new or
pilot programs.
Recent indications are that these continuing supplemental payments
that Congress obligates from taxpayer dollars are now paying at least
forty percent, if not more of total farm income. How are we helping the
farming sector to become more self-sufficient? Our actions are only
serving as a crutch to small farmers while fattening the incomes of
large farming conglomerates and agribusinesses. We should learn from
past failures and take responsible action to focus Federal assistance
on a fair, needs-based approach.
This bill passed by unanimous consent today, despite the disagreement
of some of my colleagues who advocated for a much higher level of
supplemental spending. I hope that my colleagues will exercise greater
prudence and fiscal responsibility when we return from the August
recess to consider the agricultural appropriations bill and
reauthorization of the 1996 Farm bill to ensure that such ad-hoc
spending is brought under control.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Agriculture
Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2213, the
Agriculture supplemental bill, that the Senate proceed to its
consideration, that the bill be read the third time and passed, and
that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. I further ask
unanimous consent that S. 1246 be placed on the calendar and that the
previously entered motion to reconsider the failed cloture vote on S.
1246 be in order.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the several
requests.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 2213) was read the third time and passed.
(The bill will appear in a future edition of the Record.)
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. This corrects the fact that the motion to
reconsider was not properly entered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am extremely disappointed that our
Republican colleagues chose to work against us instead of with us to
provide critical financial relief to help farmers and ranchers deal
with the fourth year in a row of low prices. My colleagues' choice to
filibuster the committee bill, which a majority of Senators supported,
was a decision we could not afford.
Unfortunately, it will cost farmers and ranchers across the country.
For my State of South Dakota, that decision to filibuster will cost
producers over $50 million in decreased assistance. But, South Dakota
is not alone. Producers in each and every one of our states are being
deprived of critical assistance because of the actions of my Republican
colleagues.
Why? Because the President and Senate Republicans drew an arbitrary
and partisan $5.5 billion line in the sand.
Even though the budget resolution authorizes the Senate Agriculture
Committee to use $5.5 billion in fiscal year 2001 and $7.35 billion in
fiscal year 2002 to provide economic assistance to producers, and even
though it specifically allows the use of fiscal year 2002 funds to
support the 2001 crop, the President insisted that we spend only $5.5
billion. His rationale ``The farm economy is improving, so farmers
don't need any additional help.''
That is certainly not what I am hearing in South Dakota, and I know
it is not what my colleagues on this side of aisle have heard in their
states. Across the country, poor prices have hobbled producers for 4
years now.
Major crop prices, despite showing slight improvement over last
year's significantly depressed prices, remain at 10 to 25-year lows.
Net farm income minus government payments for 1999 thru 2001 is the
lowest since 1984. Input costs are at record levels, making it more
expensive for producers to do their job than ever before.
Despite all this, my Republican colleagues insisted on a bill that
provides far less. Less for feed grain, wheat, and oilseed producers in
my part of the country. Less for rice and cotton producers in the
South. Less for specialty crop producers in the Northeast and
Northwest.
And when I say less, I not only mean less than what is in the
Committee's package, but less than what is absolutely needed.
Chairman Harkin worked hard to improve on the House-passed $5.5
billion package. His package provided the full level of last year's
market loss assistance for producers of major crops. It provided
significant funding for specialty crops. It provided a substantial
commitment to agricultural conservation.
Yet, my Republican colleagues filibustered. Why? Are they planning to
go home and tell producers they fought long and hard to provide you
with less?
Now that we are forced to pass the House legislation, we have lost
for too much of what is critically needed for program crops, specialty
crops, and conservation. This is reckless, and it's wrong. America's
farmers and ranchers deserve better, much better.
So, I can't help but feel this country's farmers and ranchers got
shortchanged. But what also troubles me is what the actions of my
Republican colleagues over the past few days mean for the farm bill.
Congress must come together quickly to write new farm policy this year
so we don't have to keep coming back for more ad hoc emergency
assistance, year after year.
Congress must get passed its stubborn refusal to acknowledge the
failures of current farm policy and work together to change it. We need
policies that better address the interests of family farmers and
ranchers. Farmers and ranchers must have an income safety net that can
offset severe price fluctuations, and that can help manage
uncertainties in the marketplace. Such
[[Page S8853]]
policies are critical to long-term survival in an industry in which the
majority of producers operate on margins of less than 5 percent.
I believe there is a lot we can agree on. And by working together, I
am certain there is a lot we can accomplish. I stand ready to work with
my Republican colleagues. But, my colleagues must first choose to stand
up for America's family farmers and ranchers.
I am hopeful they will.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am very disappointed by the Emergency
Agricultural Supplemental that this body has just passed because of the
President's opposition to the much better legislation reported by the
Senate Agriculture Committee and the fact the House of Representatives
already left for the August recess. The Senate has passed a bill that
fails to provide adequate aid to America's farmers and rural
communities. Some on the other side of the aisle claimed that the bill
passed by Senate Agricultural Committee spends too much money in
support of America's farmers and that the farm economy is improving. I
wish that were the case, but the facts in rural America do not support
that assertion. The major farm groups do not agree with that
conclusion, that is why they supported the stronger alternative, the
bill proposed by the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee Senator
Harkin.
As we all know, our Nation's farmers have not shared in the
prosperity which many Americans have experienced over the past decade.
In the past three years, Congress has assisted America's farmers by
providing substantial assistance to agricultural producers. No one, not
least of all America's farmers, likes the fact that annual emergency
agriculture supplementals have seemingly become routine.
Senator Harkin, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, crafted
an impressive bill that addressed the needs of specialty crop farmers,
in a more comprehensive fashion, than does the bill that just passed
the Senate.
The bill that just passed provides nearly a billion dollars less in
AMTA payments for traditional row crops than did the committee version.
In addition, the passed bill makes no real effort to address the
problems faced by farmers in States that do not rely on AMTA payments.
It is difficult for a Senator with a large base of specialty crops to
support it. This bill provides no more than a pittance for specialty
crops. None of this pittance even goes directly to farmers of specialty
crops. We have told farmers that they need to diversify if they are to
succeed, yet the States that have diversified and specialized receive
next to nothing in the House bill.
I am concerned about some of the arguments made to support the
exclusion of funds for specialty crops. In particular, I am troubled by
those who claim that payments should not be made to specialty crops
because aid to producers of these crops cannot be dispensed by the end
of the fiscal year. It was argued that payments should only be made to
crops that can easily receive funds before the end of this fiscal year.
I understand the need to get money to farmers as soon as possible.
However, this money must also not only be distributed promptly it must
be distributed fairly. Providing assistance chiefly to program crops
may be prompt, but it ignores the needs facing many farmers throughout
the Nation. Senator Harkin, and the Senate Agriculture Committee,
drafted a bill that, just like the last three emergency supplementals,
dispensed money credited to two fiscal years. This bill would have
allocated the $5.5 billion in FY01 funds to AMTA payments which can be
dispensed this year, while specialty crops and conservation will be
addressed in fiscal year 2002 monies that are already provided for in
the budget resolution. This bill provides less assistance for row crops
than does the committee, passed bill, and it is unfair to farmers who
do not grow specialty crops.
The passage of this bill will lead to the loss of the following
programs:
$150 million in market loss assistance for apple growers. It is
estimated that apple growers have lost $500 million last year due to
unfair trade and weather related disasters. Furthermore, some estimate
that the industry may lose as much as 30 percent of its farmers this
year without some form of aid.
$270 million in commodity purchases of specialty crops. These
purchases provide food for shelters, food banks and schools, yet that
money, $50 million of which will be used for the school lunch program,
is not in the House version.
The $44 million sugar assessment, which has been suspended the past
two years due to our budget surplus is not waived this year.
$542 million needed to fund conservation programs is excluded from
the House version. As a result many important programs will lie
dormant.
The number of farmers in our nation has been declining for well over
a century. Now, farmers comprise only 1 percent of our population. The
declining number of farmers and the increasing scarcity of Federal
dollars makes it harder and harder to sustain the level of assistance
we provide our farmers. Part of the success of current farm policy is
that programs such as Women Infants Children program, WIC, balance
rural and urban interests and attempt to meet the needs of each
community. Assistance to the agricultural sector must address the
concerns of all Americans if it is to continue at the needed level. The
bill passed by the Senate fails to do that. This trend of narrowly
focused farm programs cannot be sustained. The next farm bill that this
body undertakes must help all Americans while helping farmers. The
committee-passed bill addressed issues important to all of us: hunger,
conservation and energy independence. This bill does not. Gone is the
$270 million allocated for commodity purchases that would have helped
specialty crop farmers, like cherry, bean and asparagus farmers in
Michigan, while providing foodstuffs to school lunch programs, food
banks and soup kitchens that guarantee a healthy diet is available to
all Americans.
The conservation programs included in S. 1246 but not in the bill we
just passed would have prevented erosion, preserved green space,
increased wildlife habitat and ensured a clean water supply. Currently,
in the State of Michigan there are three farmers who apply for every
open slot in Federal conservation programs. These farmers will now have
to wait even longer to participate in these programs.
I commend the chairman and the Senate Agriculture Committee for the
hard work they put into the Agriculture Supplemental Bill which they
reported to the Senate. The bill passed by this body, because the
President's opposition to the better alternative left us no choice,
ignores the needs of specialty crop producers and fails to fund farm
programs that have the broader effect of helping all Americans.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to express my extreme
disappointment with the agriculture supplemental assistance package the
Senate passed today.
This week, the Bush administration did a great disservice to our
nation's farmers, to rural communities, and to agricultural
conservation programs around this nation. The administration's veto
threats forced the Senate to pass a bill that does not meet the needs
of farmers in my State.
In fact, this bill is completely inadequate to meet the needs of our
farmers and rural America. The bill abandons our apple producers. It
abandons our pea and lentil producers. And it rejects a fair emergency
payment to our wheat producers.
It didn't have to be this way. Senator Harkin worked with many of our
colleagues to draft a balanced $7.4 billion emergency economic package.
I fought hard to include $150 million in emergency payments for apple
producers. I worked to include $20 million in assistance for dry pea
and lentil producers. And many Senators worked together to ensure that
wheat and other program crop producers received an emergency payment
equal to what they received last year.
The Harkin bill was balanced, fair, and fiscally responsible. It
deserved to become law. Yet, throughout this debate, the Bush
administration steadfastly threatened to veto any bill larger than $5.5
billion. Today, President Bush won, and our farmers lost.
Instead of the Harkin bill, the Senate passed the House agriculture
supplemental bill. We passed it because the President will sign it. We
passed it because further delay threatened the
[[Page S8854]]
availability of $5.5 billion in emergency relief. We did not pass it
because it's the best bill possible.
The President's veto threats have cost Washington state producers
$103 million. Let me repeat that: According to the Senate Agriculture
Committee, President Bush's veto threats will cost Washington State
producers an estimated $103 million in assistance. That includes the
$50.3 million in assistance our apple growers would have received under
the apple aid package.
I would like to thank Senator Harkin for his support for specialty
crop producers. Senator Harkin worked tirelessly to help all regions
and all producers. In my opinion, he could not have put together a more
balanced and fair package.
I would also like to thank Senator Daschle. Senator Daschle is
committed to working with us to address the shortfalls in the House
bill. I look forward to working with him to complete the unfinished
business we began this week.
This fight is not over. I would urge my colleagues to return from the
August recess ready to pass an agriculture aid package that is balanced
and fair to America's farmers.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise regarding the Senate's passage of
H.R. 2213, the House-passed Emergency Agriculture Assistance Act.
There is a great need for economic assistance in farm country. There
is no disagreement about that fact.
There has been no disagreement that we will spend the $12.85 billion
provided in the budget for agriculture in fiscal years 2001 and 2002.
The question has been on when and how we will spend it.
I wanted to pass an emergency bill with more emergency money than was
in the House-passed bill. I was willing to work toward a compromise
that met the current needs of our farmers--even if that meant spending
a small portion of the fiscal year 2002 funding.
I had asked for Senate action on this supplemental since before the
House passed its emergency assistance package on June 26th--more than a
month ago. But, time ran out.
The House bill does not fund all the needs of Idaho's farmers and
ranchers. It is not a perfect solution, but it is a necessary one. We
now have a good start in providing short-term assistance to our
producers. I hope we can build on that when we return in September.
We should move quickly to a farm bill. A fair and effective national
food policy that recognizes the importance of a safe, abundant,
domestic supply of food.
Farmers and ranchers across the country are looking to us to pass
legislation that will: provide a safety net to producers, increase the
commitment to conservation, bolster our export promotion programs,
continue our commitment to agricultural research, and, find innovative
ways to address rural development needs.
These are pressing needs. These are important needs, and the chairman
of the Senate Agriculture Committee tried to address many of these
needs in the economic assistance package. Now that we have allocated
the $5.5 billion for fiscal year 2001, I hope that we can now focus our
efforts on the farm bill.
I look forward to working in cooperation with the chairman and
ranking member of the Agriculture Committee to craft a fair and
effective bill as expeditiously as possible.
But, as those of us who worked on the 1996 Farm Bill know, the farm
bill alone will not solve all our problems. We must continue to pursue
tax reforms, address unfair regulatory burdens, and move toward free
and fair trade. Our producers are being handcuffed by unfair foreign
competition and barriers to exports, it is time this stopped.
I hope the recent debate on the emergency supplemental has raised
awareness of the needs in agriculture. I hope this has prodded us to
action on the farm bill. And, I hope we can work together for the needs
of not just agricultural producers, but the consumers that benefit from
efficient, safe, domestic food production.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment
that funding in the Committee-passed bill that is important to Maine is
no longer a reality. While the emergency agriculture assistance bill
the Senate passed today provides $2 million for Maine, including
$850,000 for a State grant for specialty crops, gone is the possibility
of conferees making any decision to reauthorize or extend the Northeast
Interstate Dairy Compact.
Gone is the $5 million for Maine for incentive-based voluntary
agriculture conservation programs. Gone is the $270 million for CCC
commodity purchases for Northeast specialty crops for the federal
nutrition programs, such as wild blueberries, cranberries, and
potatoes. Gone is $150 million in Apple Market Loss Assistance, of
which $1.6 million would have gone to apple growers in Maine. Gone is
the $25 million for disaster payments for the recent devastation from
armyworms, some of which would have gone to Maine hay farmers.
Gone is the $20 million for fiscal year 2002 for the Senior Nutrition
Program, called Senior Farm Share in Maine. This is a program for low
income elderly that allows them to obtain shares with which to purchase
locally produced produce throughout the growing season.
Out of a $5.5 billion package passed by the Senate today, the State
of Maine will receive approximately $2 million. I am deeply troubled by
the unbalanced and unfair emergency agriculture bills Congress
continues to pass that almost totally ignore the farmers in my State of
Maine and throughout the Northeast. My votes on this emergency
agriculture funding bill reflect my true disappointment that once,
again, funding for farmers and rural communities in Maine and the
Northeast was left out. As we begin to work on the 2002 farm bill, I
hope my colleagues are willing to work with the Northeast Senators to
rectify this unbalance and this unfairness.
I am also disappointed that the legislation does not include the
Dairy Consumers and Producers Protection amendment, which as a free-
standing bill is sponsored by 37 of my colleagues from New England and
throughout the Mid-Atlantic states and the Southeast.
This legislation reauthorizes the very successful Northeast
Interstate Dairy Compact. As my colleagues are, by now, no doubt aware,
the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact will expire on September 30 of
this year if it is not reauthorized by Congress.
The compact has unquestionably been of great benefit to preserving
our dairy farms, while also assuring consumers a continuous, adequate
supply of quality local milk at a stable price . . . saving consumers
money overall by helping to stabilize milk prices . . . and generally
helping regional economies. In my home State of Maine alone, our 463
dairy farms produce products valued at $100 million, and provide
employment for approximately 2,100 Mainers.
The compact grew out of the need to address a fundamental problem in
the New England dairy farming community--the loss of family dairy
farms, which was largely the result of increased production costs,
coupled with price volatility in the milk market. Farm milk prices have
fallen more than five percent in real dollars since 1985, and New
England dairy farmers have struggled with this decline.
However, 5 years ago, New England dairy farmers were able to
stabilize the effects of this decline when Congress passed the Compact
as part of the Freedom to Farm Act, and it was implemented by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Since then, the Northeast Interstate Dairy
Compact has provided a reliable safety net for small family farmers
throughout New England by helping to maintain a stable price for fresh
fluid milk on supermarket shelves.
Now, I know that one of the chief arguments made by detractors is
that the compact is harmful to consumers. The facts, however, tell a
different story.
For consumers, the compact translates to the addition of a small
increment in the price of milk--a recent University of Connecticut
study put the cost at 2.5 cents per gallon. Indeed, rather than
overcharging New England milk drinkers, the compact has instead
resulted in milk prices ranking among the lowest and most stable in the
country. And it's no small point that Federal nutrition programs, such
as the Women, Infants, and Children Program, or WIC, are held entirely
harmless under the Compact. In fact, the advocates of these federal
nutrition programs support the compact and serve on its commission.
[[Page S8855]]
In return, the compact has paid off with lower, more stable dairy
prices in New England that more fairly reflect farmers' costs. As
testimony proved at the July 25 Judiciary Committee hearing held by
Senator Leahy of Vermont, the existence of the Northeast Dairy Compact
has had a tremendous, positive impact--without threatening or otherwise
financially harming any other dairy farmer in the country.
In response to my recent request, the Departments of Agriculture
throughout New England sent me data that clearly shows that the compact
has slowed the rate of dairy farm reductions in the New England Dairy
Compact area. These letters show that in the 3 years prior to the
compact's establishment, New England lost 572 dairy farms, compared to
408 farms in the 3 years since its implementation. Even during this
period of historic lows in milk prices, 164 fewer farms left the
business.
How has this worked? Under the compact, whenever the Federal
Government's minimum price falls below that of the Northeast Dairy
Commission, which administers the compact, dairy processors are
required to pay the difference to farmers. Moreover, the compact has
given dairy farmers a measure of confidence in the near term for the
price of their milk so they have been willing to reinvest in their
operations by upgrading and modernizing facilities, acquiring more
efficient equipment, purchasing additional cropland and improving the
genetic base of their herds. Without the compact, farmers would have
been far more hesitant to do these things--if at all--and their lenders
would have been much less willing to meet their capital needs.
And the compact has protected future generations of dairy farmers by
helping local milk remain in the region and preventing dependence on a
single source of milk--from outside the region--that can lead to higher
milk prices through increased transportation costs, as well as
increased vulnerability to natural catastrophes.
All this has been accomplished without threatening or otherwise
financially harming any other dairy farmer in the country. In fact,
more than 97 percent of the fluid milk market in New England is self-
contained within the area with strong markets for local milk because of
the demand for freshness and high transportation costs to ship milk in
from other areas.
In short, the compact provides a fairer value for dairy farmers, and
protects a way of life important to New England--a win-win situation
for everyone involved, at no cost to the Federal Government. Let me
repeat--the costs of operating the compact are borne entirely by the
farmers and processors of the compact region, at absolutely no expense
to the federal government.
Moreover, the compact provides environmental benefits
through preservation of dwindling agricultural land and open spaces
that help to combat the growing problem of urban sprawl, particularly
near large cities. As a July 29, 2001 Boston Globe editorial pointed
out, ``A wide range of environmental organizations back the compact,
seeing it as a defense against the sprawl that often occurs when
beleaguered farmers sell out to developers.''
The amendment offered by Senator Specter of Pennsylvania would have
permanently authorized the Northeast Compact, as well as giving
approval for states contiguous to the participating New England states
to join, in this case, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Delaware,
and Maryland. It would also have granted Congressional approval for a
new Southern Dairy Compact, comprised of 14 states--Alabama, Arkansas,
Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West
Virginia.
Why did the amendment include all of these States--half the country?
The answer is that dairy compacting is really a States rights issue
more than anything else, as the only action the Senate needs to take is
to give its congressional consent under the Compact Clause of the U.S.
Constitution, Article I, section 10, clause 3, to allow the 25 states
to proceed with their two independent compacts.
Consider 24 other States with Maine's and you have a reflection of
all of the Northeast and Southern Compact legislators--and all of their
Governors--who have requested nothing more than congressional approval
to ``compact''.
All of the legislatures in these 25 States, including Maine, have
ratified legislation that allows their individual States to join a
Compact, and the governor of every State has signed a compact bill into
law. Half of the States in this country await our congressional
approval to address farm insecurity by stabilizing the price of fresh
fluid milk on grocery shelves and to protect consumers against volatile
price swings.
Altogether, these 25 States make up about 28 percent of the Nation's
fluid milk market--New England production is only about three and a
half percent of this. This is somewhat comparable to two States of
Minnesota and Wisconsin which together make up to 24 percent of the
fluid milk market. California makes up another 20 percent.
Detractors have also claimed that compacts encourage the over-
production of milk, but again, the facts say otherwise. In the nearly
four years that the compact has been in effect, milk production in the
Compact region has risen by just 2.2 percent or 100 million pounds of
milk. In Wisconsin alone, milk production increased by almost 900
million pounds, or 4 percent. Nationally during this identical period,
milk production rose 7.4 percent.
And finally, those who oppose this compact assert that it discourages
trade between compact and non-compact states. To the contrary, dairy
compacts require farmers from inside and outside the compact region to
receive the compact price. An OMB study found that trade in milk in the
compact region actually increased by 8 percent 1 year after the compact
was implemented--further, 30 percent of milk sold in the compact region
was produced outside the compact region in the State of New York.
As we work on the fiscal year 2002 Agriculture appropriations, and
the 2002 farm bill, I hope that my colleagues realize that should the
Compact Commission be shut down even temporarily while Congress
grapples with its extension, it cannot magically be brought back to
life again. It would take many months if not a year to restore the
successful process that is now in place. I do not want to gamble with
this process in such as manner that endangers the livelihoods of the
dairy farmers of Maine.
During debate on this bill, according to the chairman of the Senate
Agriculture Committee, Mr. Harkin, the compact amendment offered was
not germaine to this particular bill. According to the Senator from
Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, an extensive debate is needed on the compact
reauthorization. Since the farm bill is an appropriate vehicle for this
debate, I would hope these Senators will work with me to extend the
Northeast Compact until such time as the 2002 Farm bill is completed.
The bottom line is, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact has
provided the very safety net that we had hoped for when the compact
passed as part of the omnibus farm bill of 1996. Mr. President, the
Dairy Compact has helped farmers maintain a stable price for fluid milk
during times of volatile swings in farm milk prices . . . the consumers
in the Northeast Compact area, and now in the Mid-Atlantic area and the
Southeast area, have shown their willingness to pay a few pennies more
for their milk, none of it at government expense, if the additional
money is going directly to the dairy farmer and environmental
organizations have supported dairy compacting as a means to help to
preserve dwindling agricultural land and open spaces.
I urge my colleague not to look success in the face and turn the
other way, but to support us for a vote on the compacts that half of
our states support.
Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the following material be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
State of Maine, Department of Agriculture, Food & Rural
Resources,
Augusta, Maine, July 3, 2001.
Senator Olympia J. Snowe,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Snowe: We have worked closely on the
reauthorization of the Northeast Dairy Compact. I am grateful
for your
[[Page S8856]]
efforts and I know Maine's dairy farmers are as well. I
understand that the issue of reauthorization is coming to the
top of the Congressional agenda. I want to reiterate how
critical the Compact is to dairy farmers in Maine and the
region, and to provide you with the latest facts.
There are 463 dairy farms comprising 220,000 acres in
Maine. These herds, which total about 42,000 animals, produce
milk valued at more than $100 million annually. Those farms
directly employ 1,389 people. There are 1,486 indirect jobs
attributable to the dairy industry.
Maintaining the number of dairy farms, not just the number
of cows, is important to Maine. Dairy farms are an important
and in some cases, the only contributor to small town
economies. The contribution is vital to maintaining an
economically viable rural environment.
The Compact was designed to assure the continued viability
of dairy farming in the Northeast and to assure an adequate,
local supply of milk. The Compact has met both goals.
More than $139.4 million has been distributed through
December 31, 2000, to dairy farmers in the region since the
Compact's inception, of that $13.7 million has gone to Maine
dairy farmers. In the five years leading up to the Compact
the number of dairy farms in Maine dropped to 514 from 614, a
16 percent decrease. In the five years since the Compact the
loss was only 9 percent, from 514 to 463.
At the same time, WIC programs in the region have received
$4 million and the school lunch programs across the Northeast
have received $700,000. These payments are made under the
Compact to hold harmless those who need milk most.
The Compact creates milk-price stability and farmers
receive a fair price. By maintaining the viability of dairy
farming, it creates economic stability in rural New England.
The money from milk checks is spent at local feed stores,
equipment dealers and deposited at local banks. By helping to
keep families on working farms, the Compact preserves
farmland. The people of Maine when asked about public policy
have consistently ranked the conservation of open space as a
high priority.
The benefits of the Compact, and the balances it creates,
are all provided with no tax dollars. I proudly support the
reauthorization of the Northeast Dairy Compact and strongly
encourage your continued support.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Spear,
Commissioner, Department of Agriculture.
____
New Hampshire, Department of Agriculture, Markets & Food,
June 27, 2001.
Senator Olympia J. Snowe,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator Snowe: You have asked for comment on the
impact of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact on the
stability of the dairy industry in New Hampshire.
Since the Compact's inception in July 1997, the number of
farms producing milk for the commercial market in this state
has declined from 187 to 176. Several of these farms have
exited because of death of the operator; the land of these
farms in most cases is being operated by a neighboring
farmer.
But focusing solely on change in the numbers of farms may
be a mistake, for we have seen a period of stability in
production come during the time the Compact has been in
effect. With a measure of confidence in the near term price
of milk our farmers have been willing to reinvest in their
operations by upgrading and modernizing facilities, acquiring
more efficient equipment, purchasing additional cropland and
improving the genetic base of their herds.
Without the Compact's role in milk pricing during periods
when Federal Order prices were at rock-bottom lows our
farmers would not have had the courage to modernize and
improve their operations and their lenders would not have had
the willingness to meet their capital needs. If there had
been no Compact, I would expect that by now we would be down
to 130 or even fewer farms.
The investments made in our dairy enterprises as a
consequence of the stability brought by the Compact serve our
New England consumers by helping to assure reliable sources
of fresh milk at reasonable cost.
Sincerely,
Stephen H. Taylor,
Commissioner.
____
Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management,
Providence, RI, July 2, 2001.
Senator Olympia J. Snowe,
Russell Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Snowe: I am responding to your recent letter
requesting information regarding the positive effects of the
Northeast Dairy Compact on protecting and maintaining dairy
farms.
Rhode Island has a healthy, though limited dairy industry,
and is considered a consumer state. While the number of dairy
farms in Rhode Island is small in comparison to other Compact
states, their viability is important to our agricultural
economy, and they additionally have important benefits for
open space protection, wildlife habitat etc.
In terms of pure numbers, there are currently 23 active
dairy farms in Rhode Island, down from 32 at the initiation
of the Compact in 1997. In 1983 there were 123 dairy farms,
which reveals that 6.5 farms were lost per year on average
prior to the Compact, and that rate has declined to 2.3 farms
lost per year since inception of the Compact.
It was not anticipated or expected that the Dairy Compact
would end the loss of dairy farms. Significant other factors
contribute to farm losses (in general) which put pressure on
the viability of the farm (ie. death of the operator, tax and
estate issues, development pressure, loss of tillable land
etc).
What the Dairy Compact has clearly done, from our
perspective and the specific testimony of Rhode Island dairy
farmers, is to improve the business climate of the farm,
enabling farmers to better withstand pressures which before
often brought about the downfall of the farm. This is
evidenced by the decline in farm losses after initiation of
the Compact. It is our observation that the dairy farms which
remain are more viable, more stable, and a better business
risk for lenders, which has allowed operations to modernize
and other improvements to occur which improve the farm's
chances for survival in coming years.
I hope this information and perspective is useful. Please
contact me if I can further assist.
Sincerely,
Kenneth D. Ayars,
Chief, RIDEM/Division of Agriculture.
____
Connecticut Department of Agriculture, Office of the
Commissioner,
June 22, 2001.
Senator Olympia J. Snowe,
Russel Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Snowe: The people of Connecticut have been
consistently supportive of the Northeast Dairy Compact.
Connecticut is a state of 3,000,000 persons and about
3,000,000 acres. It is a state with a great deal of
diversity, with an economy that has evolved from one that was
agriculture based to an industrial society and today is on
the way to becoming a high tech Mecca. Yet dairy farms remain
an integral part of the state's quality of life.
Why do Connecticut citizens support the Compact?
Because 70% of the working landscape in the state is
utilized by dairy farmers;
Because of the state's 225 dairy farms, 60% open their
farms to the public to tour the farm, visit a pumpkin patch,
milk a cow, pet a calf, enjoy a hayride, go through a corn
maze, or just take a quiet walk in a meadow to observe
wildlife;
Because dairy farms have become important school systems
that use in class and on farm visits to bring real-life,
hands-on experience to the science and math curriculum;
Because of the $60 million farmers received from the
Compact three percent went to support WIC programs and one
percent to reimburse school lunch programs;
Because during the five years since the Compact has been in
place, the attrition of dairy farms dropped (64 in the five
years prior, 47 in the five years after); and
Because in the Dairy Compact area, consumers have enjoyed
some of the lowest retail milk prices in the country.
I support the Northeast Dairy Compact because a stable milk
price is as beneficial to our state's consumers as it is to
our processors, retailers and farmers.
Thank for your support of this important, groundbreaking
legislation!
Sincerely yours,
Shirley Ferris.
State of Maine--Joint Resolution Memorializing the Congress of the
United States To Reauthorize the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact
Whereas, Maine has nearly 500 dairy farms annually
producing milk valued at over $100,000,000; and
Whereas, maintaining a sufficient supply of Maine-produced
milk and milk products is in the best interest of Maine
consumers and businesses; and
Whereas, a University of Connecticut study, done while the
Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact has been in existence,
concluded that from July 1997 to July 2000, the price of milk
to the consumer increased 29c of which 4 1/2c went to the
farmer; and
Whereas, Maine is a member of the Northeast Interstate
Dairy Compact; and
Whereas, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact will
terminate at the end of September 2001 unless action is taken
by the Congress to reauthorize it; and
Whereas, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact's mission
is to ensure the continued viability of dairy farming in the
Northeast and to assure consumers of an adequate, local
supply of pure and wholesome milk and also helps support the
Women, Infants and Children program, commonly known as
``WIC''; and
Whereas, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact has
established a minimum price to be paid to dairy farmers for
their milk, which has helped to stabilize their incomes; and
Whereas, in certain months the compact's minimum price has
resulted in dairy farmers receiving nearly 10% more for their
milk than the farmers would have otherwise received; and
Whereas, actions taken by the compact have directly
benefited Maine dairy farmers by not diminishing the farmer's
share; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That We, your Memorialists, respectfully urge and
request that the United States Congress reauthorize the
Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact; and be it further
[[Page S8857]]
Resolved, That suitable copies of this Memorial, duly
authenticated by the Secretary of State, be transmitted to
the Honorable George W. Bush, President of the United States,
the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives of the Congress of the United States, each
member of the United States Congress who sits as chair on the
United States House of Representatives Committee on
Agriculture or the United States Senate Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, the United States
Secretary of Agriculture and each Member of the Maine
Congressional Delegation.
____________________