[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 112 (Friday, August 3, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8857-S8861]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   EMERGENCY AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, here is the situation, just for the 
benefit of all who are watching and wondering what happened. Basically 
what has happened is that the Senate just took up the House-passed 
Agriculture emergency bill and passed it, and therefore it will be sent 
to the President for his signature. I also point out we still have 
pending in the Senate the bill that was passed by our committee and 
there has been entered a motion to reconsider that has been placed by 
our leader, by Senator Daschle of South Dakota. So at some point when 
we come back it is entirely within the realm of feasibility or 
possibility that this Senate might want to revisit that Senate bill 
because it is clear that the House bill is totally inadequate to meet 
the needs of our farmers across the country.
  I am proud of our committee and the work it did. Keep in mind that 
our committee was not reconstituted or able to do business until June 
29, because the Senate organizing resolution was held up until then. 
And we did not have our full membership until July 10. But our 
committee worked diligently to look at the entire spectrum of farm 
families across America to try to determine what was needed to keep 
these farm families in business, keep their heads above water for yet 
another year until we can get a farm bill passed. The bill we reported 
out met the needs of farmers across America. Yet the White House said 
no.
  I again point out that our committee voted the Senate bill out on a 
bipartisan vote. The Senate voted, again on a bipartisan vote, in favor 
of our bill and the provisions we had in our bill. But the White House 
said no.
  Now we are at the point, because the House has left, they went home, 
and because we need to get this money out, that a gun is held at our 
heads by the White House and by OMB. They are saying if we do not pass 
the House bill, or if we pass something more adequate to the need in 
rural America we may lose even the $5.5 billion the House provided. So 
the gun was held at our heads and the White House refused to 
compromise.
  Yesterday I spoke several times with the head of the Office of 
Management and Budget, Mr. Daniels, I spoke with the President's chief 
of staff, and I spoke with the Secretary of Agriculture to see if they 
would at least meet with us to see if there could be some compromise 
worked out. I said to the President's chief of staff last night: I 
respectfully request a meeting with the President at least to lay out 
our case on why the House bill was inadequate. That meeting was denied. 
So the President decided he would accept only $5.5 billion, which is 
only about three-fourths of what Congress passed in a similar bill last 
year.
  I had a long visit with the head of OMB on the phone last night to 
try to determine why they picked that number. He said: Well, it looked 
as if farm income was a little bit better this year.
  I said: Compared to what? We have had extremely low commodity prices, 
in some cases at about 30-year lows. Now, because livestock receipts 
were up a little bit the ag picture looks a little bit better than it 
did last year, but we are still in the basement. However, the money in 
this bill mainly goes to crop farmers, and they are the ones who are 
hurting the most. They are not only as bad off as last year, but they 
are probably worse off than last year because the prices are still low 
and all of their production costs have gone up--fertilizer, fuel, 
everything. Yet somehow the bean counters down at OMB have said no, the 
House bill is sufficient.
  I will resubmit for the Record at this time letters or statements 
from just about all of the main farm organizations: The American Farm 
Bureau, National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Corn 
Growers Association, the American Soybean Association, the National 
Barley Growers Association and others--all saying that the House bill 
is inadequate. I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.

         [From the Voice of Agriculture, Monday July 30, 2001]

         Farm Bureau Disappointed in House Funding for Farmers

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

[[Page S8858]]

     for fuel and fertilizer. Farmers and ranchers who produce 
     grain, oilseeds, cotton, fruits and vegetables need help and 
     that assistance is needed soon.''
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                                Wheat Growers,

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

                                                Dusty Tallman,

                                   President, National Association
     of Wheat Growers.
                                  ____



                            National Corn Growers Association,

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

                                                    Lee Klein,

                                          President, National Corn
     Growers Association.
                                  ____



                                       National Farmers Union,

                                        Aurora, CO, July 25, 2001.

     Farmers Union Commends Senate on Emergency Assistance Package

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


     National Barley Growers Association (NBGA)--Position Statement


          income and market loss assistance for the 2001 crop

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

                                                     American Farm


                                            Bureau Federation,

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

                                                    July 31, 2001.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The undersigned oilseed producer 
     organizations strongly support the Committee's efforts to 
     complete consideration of legislation to provide Economic 
     Loss Assistance to producers of 2001 crops prior to the 
     August Congressional work period. As you know, funds 
     available for this purpose in FY-2001 must be expended before 
     the end of the Fiscal Year on September 30, 2001. This 
     deadline requires that Congress complete action this week, so 
     that the Farm Service Agency can process payments after 
     enactment.
       As part of the Economic Loss Assistance package, we support 
     continuing the level of support for oilseeds provided in last 
     year's plan of $500 million. Prices for oilseeds are at or 
     below levels experienced for the 2000 crop. Farmers and their 
     lenders expect Congress to maintain oilseed payments at last 
     year's levels.

[[Page S8859]]

       For this reason, we support making funds available for 
     oilseed payments from the $7.35 billion provided in the 
     Budget Resolution for FY-2002. This is the same approach used 
     for 2000 crop oilseeds, when $500 million in FY-2001 funds 
     were made available. We only ask that oilseed producers 
     receive the same support, and in the same manner, provided 
     last year.
       Thank you very much for your efforts to provide fair and 
     equitable treatment for oilseed producers in this time of 
     severe economic hardship.
           Sincerely yours.
     Bart Ruth,
       President, American Soybean Assn.
     Lloyd Klein,
       President, National Sunflower Assn.
     Steve Dahl,
       President, U.S. Canola Assn.
                                  ____



                                 National Wildlife Federation,

                                        Reston, VA, July 27, 2001.
     Senator Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate, Chairman, Senate Agriculture Committee, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: On behalf of the National Wildlife 
     Federation (NWF) and its more than 4 million members and 
     supporters nationwide, I would like to thank for your strong 
     leadership in providing significant funding for conservation 
     programs within the Emergency Agricultural Aid Package passed 
     by the Senate Agriculture Committee earlier this week.
       For too many years, conservation programs have been 
     overlooked as viable and sustainable solutions to the 
     emergency needs of agricultural producers suffering from the 
     results of flooding and drought. As you are aware, programs 
     such as the Wetlands Reserve Program and Floodplain Easement 
     Program put needed funds into the hands of farmers at the 
     same time that they take disaster-prone land out of 
     production, reducing the need for future disaster assistance. 
     Thanks to your efforts, such programs will be considered as 
     components of agricultural disaster assistance this year. We 
     look forward to working with you to ensure that this funding 
     is retained during floor consideration of the bill and in 
     conference with the House.
       Once again, we thank you for your work in support of 
     conservation programs.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Mark Van Putten,
     President & CEO.
                                  ____



                            The American Dietetic Association,

                                           Chicago, July 31, 2001.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. 
         Senate, Russell Building, Washington, DC.

     Attn: Karil Bialostosky.

       Dear Mr. Chairman: ADA is writing to go on record in 
     support of several nutrition provisions proposed in the 
     Emergency Agricultural Assistance Act of 2001 (S. 1246). 
     These provisions move programs in the right direction by 
     increasing consumer access to healthful foods. The American 
     Dietetic Association promotes optimal nutrition and well 
     being for all people by advocating for its members--70,000 
     nutrition professionals who are the leading providers of food 
     and nutrition services in the United States.
       All consumers in the United States should have access to a 
     wide variety of safe, affordable and nutritious foods. ADA 
     urges Congress to support agriculture policy and fund 
     programs that help Americans follow a diet consistent with 
     the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The Commodity 
     Purchases provision (Title I, Section 108) and Sections 301, 
     302, 303 and 304 of the Nutrition Title (Title III) move 
     toward that goal.
           Sincerely,

                                          Katherine J. Gorton,

                                                         Director,
                                        National Nutrition Policy.

  Mr. HARKIN. I ask again, Mr. President, who knows better what the 
farmers of America need, OMB and the bean counters or the National Corn 
Growers Association? Who knows better what our farmers need, the people 
down at the White House running around those corridors down there or 
the American Soybean Association and our soybean farmers? Who knows 
better about what our farmers need, the people down at OMB who say we 
only need three-fourths of what we had last year or the farmers of 
America, through their representatives here, who have said time and 
time again the House bill is inadequate?
  To show you how bad it really is, here is a letter dated today to me 
from the American Soybean Association, the National Corn Growers 
Association, the National Association of Wheat Growers, and the 
National Cotton Council, sent to me in my capacity as chairman of the 
Senate Agriculture Committee.
  It says:

       The undersigned organizations are concerned that despite 
     your best efforts to develop an emergency assistance package, 
     the Senate's efforts to respond to the severe economic crisis 
     facing agriculture will be unsuccessful unless emergency 
     agricultural legislation is enacted prior to the August 
     recess. With the House of Representatives already in recess, 
     the only course available to the Senate to ensure that 
     farmers receive $5.5 billion of funds earmarked for 2001 is 
     to pass H.R. 2213 as passed by the House.

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

                                                   August 3, 2001.
     Re Emergency Assistance for Agriculture.

     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The undersigned organizations are 
     concerned that despite your best efforts to develop an 
     emergency assistance package, the Senate's efforts to respond 
     to the severe economic crisis facing agriculture will be 
     unsuccessful unless emergency agricultural legislation is 
     enacted prior to the August recess. With the House of 
     Representatives already in recess, the only course available 
     to the Senate to ensure that farmers receive $5.5 billion of 
     funds earmarked for 2001 is to pass H.R. 2213 as passed by 
     the House.
       In order to avoid the very real possibility these budgeted 
     funds will be lost, we urge the Senate to take the necessary 
     action and pass H.R. 2213 without amendment and send the bill 
     to the President. Without timely action, we face the prospect 
     of missing the budget-imposed September 30 deadline and 
     forfeiting this crucial financial aid.
       With prices of many commodities even lower than 2000, with 
     increased costs for fuel and other inputs, and with severe 
     weather in some regions, U.S. farmers need this assistance 
     package more than ever. It is imperative that Congress 
     complete its work right away.
       Thank you for your consideration of our request.
           Sincerely,
       American Soybean Association.
       National Corn Growers Association.
       National Association of Wheat Growers.
       National Cotton Council.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again, I want you to know how proud I am 
to have stood side by side with the American Soybean Association, the 
National Corn Growers Association, the National Association Of Wheat 
Growers, and the National Cotton Council. We have fought side by side 
to respond to the dire needs of our farmers in America.
  But, as this letter shows, we have a gun held to our heads. If we 
don't pass that House bill today, we risk losing even that amount of 
money.
  We have this confrontation. I had hoped that the President would be 
willing to meet with us to seek some reasonable compromise. After all, 
this President came to town saying he wanted to be a conciliator. He 
wanted to work together in a bipartisan fashion to seek compromise. We 
want to seek compromise. The House passed $5.5 billion. We passed $7.5 
billion. We were willing to meet and discuss and work out some 
compromise. The White House was unwilling to meet and unwilling to 
compromise.
  I have heard time after time speeches on the other side of the 
Senate. I have heard from my Republican friends saying how bad it is in 
agriculture and how much we need this assistance. But, obviously, the 
President has said no.
  In my conversations with the head of OMB last night, I kept saying: 
Why? For what reason is it $5.5 billion or nothing? He said that is our 
number--5.5. It was almost like a mantra. He said: It is 5.5, and we 
are not going to budge from it.
  It is one thing to have a strong position, but it is another thing to 
have a position in which you have taken a strong stand that does not 
correlate with the facts. The facts are that farmers and rural America 
need a lot more help than what this House bill provides.
  Again, I point out what the difference between the House-passed bill 
and the Senate bill means for our farmers around America. These are the 
payments that would go out to farmers in a number of States in this 
country.
  In this column, we see what the Senate bill would provide. We see in 
this column the House bill. The comparisons are just on the commodity 
title, but do not include the specialty crop purchases or House bill 
specialty crop payments to states. This is how much each State will 
lose because the President refused to compromise.
  Washington State will lose $103 million for their farmers. That is 
the difference between what the Senate bill had and what the House bill 
had. Washington State farmers will get $75 million from the House bill. 
We had $178

[[Page S8860]]

million in our bill for Washington State farmers. Washington farmers 
are going to be hurt and hurt badly. So will their community banks; so 
will the auto dealers; so will the hardware stores; the feed stores; 
and, everyone else in those small towns all over the State of 
Washington.
  In Iowa, in my home State, farmers will lose $91.47 million because 
the President said no, again just on the commodity title and not 
counting conservation, for example.
  In Minnesota, they will lose $82.7 million; Texas, $82.4 million. In 
the President's home State, farmers are going to lose $82.42 million.
  In Illinois, they will lose $81.6 million. In Nebraska, they will 
lose $65.2 million; Kansas will lose $61.7 million for their farmers; 
North Dakota, $60.7 million; California, $52.5 million; Arkansas will 
lose $43.9 million for their farmers; Indiana will lose $40.12 million; 
Louisiana, $32 million; South Dakota, $32 million; Missouri, $31 
million; Michigan, $31 million; Ohio, $29 million; Montana, $24 
million; Wisconsin, $24 million; Idaho, $23.9 million; Oklahoma, $22.8 
million; Mississippi, $22 million.
  That is what the House bill is going to cost the farmers in those 
States because the President said no. The President is determined that 
the House bill was sufficient to take care of the farmers in those 
States.
  Time and time again I see the President visiting farms. How many 
farms is he going to have to visit before he gets the picture and 
before he understands what is happening in rural America?
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter of 
March 13 sent to the Honorable Pete Domenici, chairman --at that time--
of the Budget Committee. It was signed by 21 Members of the Senate 
asking that the 2001 Agriculture Market Transition Act payment be the 
same as it was last year. The letter went on to say how bad things are 
in rural America with high production costs, fuel, fertilizer, and 
interest rates with projections that farm income will not improve in 
the near future. It says:

       We believe it is vitally important to provide at least as 
     much total economic assistance for 2001 and 2002 as was 
     provided for the 2000 crop.

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

                                               Washington, DC,

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

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, nothing has changed. I can only assume my 
friends on the other side of the aisle would like to have had more 
money for our farmers. They would like to have had the Senate-passed 
bill to provide 100 percent of AMTA because this is what they asked 
for. That is what we put in the Senate bill. But, obviously, the 
President said no. The President said no; farmers had enough.
  I also point out what else was in our bill in terms of conservation. 
Our bill provided funding for a number of USDA conservation programs. 
The Wetlands Reserve Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, 
and Farmland Protection Program are all in jeopardy because the House 
bill has zero dollars for conservation.
  Let me show you what it is in terms of all of the funding for these 
programs.
  Here is the Wetlands Reserve Program. Right now the total backlog is 
about $568 million. In our bill, we had $200 million for the Wetlands 
Reserve Program to cut that in half. Here are the top 10 States that 
need funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program.
  I see my friend and colleague from Arkansas, a distinguished member 
of our committee, here in the Chamber. Arkansas has $89 million in 
backlog for the Wetlands Reserve Program. These are all eligible 
enrollments. But we don't have the money for it. At least our bill 
would have cut that almost in half.
  Iowa, my State, $81.9 million; California, $78.9 million; Louisiana, 
$69 million; Mississippi, $18 million. All of these States have 
backlogs for the Wetlands Reserve Program. The House provides zero 
dollars. That puts the Wetlands Reserve Program in jeopardy.
  We have the Farmland Protection Program to help buy easements to keep 
our farmland in farmland rather than in urban sprawl. The total U.S. 
backlog is $255 million. We had $40 million in our bill, which coupled 
with money from the States, local governments and non-profit 
organizations would have helped a lot to save farmland. The House bill 
had zero dollars for that.
  Under the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, the backlog is $14 
million. We had $7 million in our bill, again to cut that backlog in 
half.
  Here are all the States with all of the backlogs that we could have 
helped in the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program.
  Lastly, Environmental Quality Incentives Program, with a backlog of 
$1.3 billion. We had $250 million in our bill to reduce that down.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
four charts showing the backlogs in USDA conservation programs for a 
number of States.

[[Page S8861]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                        Wetlands Reserve Program

                  [Total U.S. Backlog = $568,772,170]


                             top 10 states

Arkansas....................................................$89,102,486
Iowa.........................................................81,965,541
California...................................................78,988,416
Louisiana....................................................69,656,427
Missouri.....................................................41,111,255
Florida......................................................27,539,000
Minnesota....................................................25,017,968
Illinois.....................................................24,986,434
Michigan.....................................................20,500,000
Mississippi..................................................18,173,136

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation 
Service.
                                  ____



                      Farmland Protection Program

                  [Total U.S. Backlog = $255,677,581]


                             top 10 states

California..................................................$47,692,183
New York.....................................................33,760,639
Maryland.....................................................29,531,511
Florida......................................................18,799,852
Pennsylvania.................................................15,908,572
Delaware.....................................................12,926,040
Kentucky.....................................................12,290,000
Michigan.....................................................11,579,235
New Jersey...................................................10,692,132
Massachusetts................................................10,465,820

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation 
Service.
                                  ____



                  Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program

                   [Total U.S. Backlog = $14,447,989]


                             top 10 states

Oregon.......................................................$1,129,115
Texas.........................................................1,100,000
Florida.......................................................1,040,000
West Virginia.................................................1,030,472
Arkansas........................................................920,000
Colorado........................................................770,000
Maine...........................................................650,000
Michigan........................................................613,434
Alabama.........................................................548,000
South Dakota....................................................529,395

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation 
Service.
                                  ____



                Environmental Quality Incentives Program

                 [Total U.S. Backlog = $1,378,348,711]


                             top 10 states

Texas......................................................$175,615,986
Oklahoma.....................................................60,684,644
Georgia......................................................55,908,744
Arkansas.....................................................53,263,407
Kansas.......................................................49,142,061
Montana......................................................46,421,056
Kentucky.....................................................44,107,218
Nebraska.....................................................42,912,850
Tennessee....................................................40,772,836
Virginia.....................................................39,795,591

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation 
Service.

  Mr. HARKIN. These States have tremendous backlogs and needs in the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program to help clean up the water and 
conserve resources in these States. We had about $\1/2\ billion in our 
bill to help all of the States meet the environmental standards and 
needs in States.
  Many of the farmers in these States have to meet environmental 
standards, and even without requirements, farmers and ranchers strive 
to take care of the land. They want to do their best to be good 
stewards. In many cases farmers are doing this out of their own pockets 
with their own machinery and their own time.
  I believe we need to help them. We need to help these farmers meet 
these environmental standards. Yet the House bill provides nothing.
  It is too bad that the President would not even meet with us and 
would not try to work out some decent compromise. We were willing. The 
President said, no. They made their point they were only going to have 
$5.5 billion for our farmers; they were not going to have any 
conservation.
  We also wanted to broaden this bill out to address the needs of our 
specialty crop producers in America, the people who raise peas and 
lentils and apples and all the other fruits and vegetables that are 
part of our great bounty that we have in this country. These farmers 
are hurting, too. We tried to help them. The House bill does a little 
bit, but hardly anything at all, to help these beleaguered farmers.
  Lastly, I want to say--and I want to make this point one more time, 
as I made it to OMB and to the White House--the $7.5 billion that we 
had in our bill fully complied with the budget. No budget point of 
order would lay against our bill. We had $5.5 billion in fiscal year 
2001. We used $2 billion of the $7.35 billion that was allowed us in 
2002. We did not bust any budgets. We stayed within the budget. We met 
our obligations, and we met our obligations both to fiscal 
responsibility and also our responsibility to the farmers of this 
country.
  So I will close by saying that the fight goes on. This Senator, and I 
am sure many other Senators in this body, are not going to give up. The 
President got his way because he has the veto.
  I am hopeful that we can work with the White House in August and in 
September, and going into this fall, on two things. One is to shape and 
fashion a new farm bill that will get us off the failed policies of the 
past. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the Freedom to Farm bill 
has failed, and failed miserably. We need a new farm bill. We need a 
new vision of agriculture in America. We need a farm bill that will 
move us into the 21st century.
  I look forward to working with the administration and with the 
Secretary of Agriculture, for whom I have the highest regard and 
respect, to fashion that new farm bill.
  I also hope that as we go into the fall, we should come back and see 
what we might need to fill the gap between the end of September and 
whenever the farm bill is passed. The House bill we passed shorted 
farmers in Iowa and across the nation. The market loss and oilseed 
payments were cut back. The specialty crops were left out. Conservation 
was left out. Some assistance to our dairy farmers was left out. I hope 
we can come back in September--maybe early October--and revisit this 
and, hopefully, have the help and the support of the White House at 
that time to at least fill in that gap. That is what we tried to do in 
this bill, to fill in the gap from the end of September until such time 
as the farm bill is passed and enacted to make sure that our programs 
for conservation were not interrupted, and to make sure that farmers 
were taken care of.
  The fiscal year may end on September 30, but the crop-year does not. 
Farmers need help in October and November.
  So hope springs eternal. The fight goes on. We will never give up the 
fight to provide the kind of assistance and support that our farmers 
and our farm families need--and not just those in the Midwest, but 
those in Michigan and New York and Washington State and all over this 
country, to make sure that those farm families are able to continue and 
to provide the agricultural products that we need for our country.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________