[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.

                          ____________________