[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 112 (Friday, August 3, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8861-S8867]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EMERGENCY AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I join the distinguished chairman of the
Agriculture Committee in saying the fight always goes on for American
farmers. In the Agriculture Committee we have that commitment. And it
is one we take with a great deal of pride and, likewise, with a high
energy level. But today, Madam President, let me just say American
farmers rejoice because a remarkable thing has occurred in this Senate
Chamber this morning. We have come together with our colleagues in the
House to pass a bill, which now, through some effort, will go to the
House, to the President for signature, and to American farmers.
Let me just say the benefits to American farmers are very
substantial. We began this quest because American farmers, according to
the best estimate of the USDA, would receive--without our action--$3
billion less in aggregate cash income this year. We have, by our
actions this morning, sent to American farmers $5.5 billion. We have,
in fact, exceeded the gap and, as a matter of fact, made certain that
agricultural income in America for this year will be $2.5 billion more
than last year.
That has not escaped the attention of a good number of agricultural
organizations that have beneficiaries. The
[[Page S8862]]
American Soybean Association, the National Corn Growers Association,
the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Cotton Council,
and the U.S. Rice Producers Group have all written this morning to the
chairman, with a copy of their letter to me, simply urging the Senate
``to take the necessary action and pass H.R. 2213''--the House bill--
``without amendment and send the bill to the President.''
Each of these groups wrote to the chairman: ``Without timely action,
we face the prospect of missing the budget-imposed September 30
deadline and forfeiting this crucial financial aid.'' I mention that
because I appreciate their commendation of our work and their
encouragement that we do precisely what we have done this morning.
I want to mention that it is important that all Members understand
what we have done; namely, that through the so-called AMTA payments,
$4.622 billion in supplemental payments will be sent to producers in
the next few days; $424 million in market loss payments to soybean
producers and other oilseed producers, who received this assistance
last year, will be distributed in the next few days; $159 million in
assistance to producers of specialty crops, such as fruits and
vegetables, will receive their money through our block grants to the
States.
I make that point because the only way in which money could
conceivably have gotten to any specialty group would have been through
these block grants to States and a distribution after finding the
recipients in each of those States. I make that point because there
always was an illusion that somehow money to specialty crops could come
in some other way, but there are not good lists, the criteria, and the
other aspects that have surrounded the so-called program crops.
Therefore, this was an essential point, if the specialty crop
recipients were to get their money before September 30. And $129
million in market loss assistance will go to tobacco farmers, whose
names and addresses are well known to USDA; $54 million, likewise, to
peanut growers; $85 million for cotton seed; $17 million for wool and
mohair producers; and $10 million of emergency food assistance support.
I make these points because each one of us may have a wish list of
those that we would like to receive money. The purpose of this action,
the reason that both Houses have taken action--and we have done so
unanimously this morning--is that we saw a gap for American agriculture
in total. We have tried to fill the gap. In committing compromises and
bicameral compromises, we have tried to make certain that assistance
came to the normal program recipients since the time of the 1930s, the
specialty crops, and to many others who were identified in previous
supplemental bills of the last 2 years.
I regret there is difficulty with regard to the stance of the
President. I simply want to support the President very strongly in the
action he took.
First of all, he supported the $5.5 billion of payments. He pointed
out, as I have this morning, that if these are to make a difference for
farmers, they need to be received now. They need to make their
appointments with the country bankers as required and make certain that
they stay in business. It is easy enough for us to speculate that if we
did not take action now or if we took action in the by and by, somehow
more might be obtained.
The fact is, more was not going to be obtained for farmers now. The
only way in which money could be obtained was, first of all, following
the budget resolution so a point of order was not entered; secondly,
recognizing that the money destined for next year in the Senate
Agriculture Committee's original bill was very likely to be taken off
the table before it was distributed.
I want to make the point again that we suggested earlier in the
debate: While we are in recess, OMB and CBO are going to come forward
with estimates of our national budget picture. Almost every prediction
is that these estimates will downsize the amount of money that is
anticipated to be coming into the Federal Government, the amount of the
surplus, the amount of money, in fact, for the appropriations bills,
eight of which are still to be considered by the Senate.
Already the distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations
Committee, the distinguished ranking member, Senators Byrd and Stevens,
are cautioning the subcommittees in appropriations not to exceed the
allocations of money they have received. They are cautioning them
because they are pointing out the money simply may not be there.
We were in a position that if we did not take action now, it is very
conceivable that the money that was destined for American farmers might
not have been there either. The number of claimants, whether in
defense, in health, in education, in all the various aspects of
American life, are very considerable. We have pinned down for American
farmers today money that we want to go to American farmers. We have
done so in a responsible way. We have done so with the support of the
President of the United States and both Houses of the Congress. That is
no minor achievement in an agricultural piece of legislation.
Let me point out one further thing about the President of the United
States; that is, he is determined, as I hope most of us are, to be
responsible with regard to money. We have had years in this body in
which Members were more or less responsible--sometimes less. As a
consequence, large deficits were the result.
In a bipartisan way, we have determined those days ought to be over.
It does require that, finally, we do our very best to conform to the
budget, that we respect the rights at least of all the other claimants
to Federal funds, including taxpayers. The President is simply saying:
I am going to do my duty. If I see things exceeding the budget, I am
going to veto those bills.
He has said that with regard to our Agriculture Committee bill. If it
exceeds $5.5 billion, I am going to veto it. The President said that to
me personally at 3:40 yesterday afternoon, face to face. So there was
no doubt. He did not hide behind a letter from OMB, did not suggest
that unnamed advisers necessarily were speaking for him. He came to the
Capitol twice during this week and talked about the trust he has in
behalf of the American people, all of the American people, for the
integrity of our financial system and the integrity of Social Security
and Medicare and all of the educational plans he has worked with the
Congress to forward and all the plans for health care for the elderly
that he is working with the Congress to forward.
All of these are also our objectives. They fit together only if there
is a certain degree of discipline and order.
The President has said: I am going to provide that. You can count on
me.
His credibility is at stake when he says that. Sometimes Presidents
say, perhaps if this doesn't work out, this and that will occur. This
President said: If this exceeds $5.5 billion, I am going to veto it.
I believed that. This morning, the Senate has believed that. The
House believed that. We have a result in conformity with the budget.
That is a victory for the American people likewise, as well as for
agricultural America.
Now it has, in fact, more money than the year before but some
assurance that we are not going to have fiscal irresponsibility again,
rampant inflation, the difficulties that come when there is not solid
leadership at the top and in this body.
Finally, let me say that it has been a pleasure for me to work on
this bill with members of the Agriculture Committee, our chairman,
Senator Harkin, with the present occupant of the chair, Ms. Stabenow,
with many Members who had diverse views.
One of the aspects of our committee I have found--my service is now
in its 25th year--is that we do have diverse views because we come from
constituents who believe very strongly about these issues and who want
our advocacy and our support. We try to do that. I think we listen to
each other, and we understand that there is not simply one crop in
America that is dominant, that we are a very diverse group in terms of
our interests. It is amazing how we are able to come together for good
results.
I believe we have come together for a good result on this day. I
appreciate, even as I say that--I see the faces and hear the words of
the Members--that not every aspect of this result is in conformity with
what we might have wished would have occurred. I made the admission, as
I was offering an
[[Page S8863]]
amendment the other day--which failed narrowly by 52-48--that this is
not exactly the amendment I would have started with or the one maybe I
would have finished with. Nevertheless, it was an amendment that
reflected the views of Members of the House and many members of our
committee and, in my judgment, was in the realm of the possible. That
is the final criteria for agricultural bills. It takes very little
skill to paint a picture of all of the money that might go to various
States or people or crops or groups in America. Simply to add them up
and say, here is the total, believe me, all of these are good folks and
all need the money. That is true. They are all good, and they all need
the money. Agriculture does not pay well.
The facts of life are that money that goes into agriculture is very
important, not only for the recipients but for our country, for the
continuity of all of our States and small towns in the rural areas that
we try to support.
At the same time, most farmers I know understand that funds are not
available for everything. They want people of common sense to make
certain that there is something at the end of the rainbow as opposed to
blue-sky thinking and more grandiose schemes.
In due course, we are going to have an opportunity, under the
leadership of our chairman, the distinguished Senator from Iowa, to
consider a farm bill this year or next, or whatever the context may be
in the scheduling of the distinguished chairman. I will join him
enthusiastically, as I suspect the occupant of the chair will, as we
take a look at conservation programs that are very important for
America, for rural development programs that are important, not just
for farmers but often for the second income for farmers and their
families and those who are important to agricultural production in
America.
We are going to take a look, I hope, at nutrition programs that make
a very sizable difference for many Americans beyond production in
agriculture. This scope of our committee's activities is broad, as
broad as food, nutrition, and forestry might imply, and that is
exciting.
I think we are going to have a superb farm bill, and I hope we will
be able to work closely with our friends in the House, with the White
House, with everybody, so we move along together without
misunderstandings and have the best sort of result at the end of the
road with the greatest amount of agreement.
I trust in the course of brokering all of these different ideas there
will be some disagreement, and ultimately we will have to make hard
choices. I am prepared to work on that project with that thought firmly
in mind, and I look forward to it. For the moment, I believe we have
great news this morning for farmers in America but likewise for the
citizens of our country because we have acted in a responsible way. We
will have even better news as we proceed into a new farm bill and take
a comprehensive look at all the ways we might affect the lives of
Americans in a very constructive way.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I know the Senator from New York is next
up to speak, and I ask unanimous consent that I speak for about 3
minutes without jeopardizing her right to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, be added to the list of speakers and be
allowed to speak for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I take this time to express my deep
gratitude to my ranking member, my good friend, the distinguished
Senator from Indiana, to thank him for the graciousness he has given to
me, first when he was chairman and I was ranking member and now when I
am chairman and he is ranking member. I could not ask for a better
partner on the Senate Agriculture Committee than Senator Lugar. We have
worked very closely together.
This legislative disagreement we had here this week again reminds me
of why this is called the crucible of democracy. We grind these issues
out in time and we move ahead, which is what I have always loved about
the legislative process. Friends can differ. We can fight these things
out and work them out, and we move ahead.
I am quite taken by what the distinguished ranking member said about
looking ahead on the farm bill. We have discussed this personally, in
private, many times.
Everything the distinguished ranking member just mentioned is
something I feel strongly about and feel deeply about. I believe we are
going to have many, many opportunities to work together this fall to
fashion a new farm bill, as the distinguished ranking member said, that
looks at the broad spectrum of agriculture beyond just production but
all of the aspects of agriculture.
I am quite heartened by his words and, again, I want the Senator from
Indiana to know how much I really appreciate the many kindnesses he and
his staff have shown to me and my staff through all of the processes of
the changes that have come about this summer, and working on this bill,
and I really look forward to working with him on the development of the
new farm bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I also thank the chairman and ranking
member for not only the work they have done on this bill but the work
they will do on the farm bill this fall. I know this is a difficult
matter.
Both the chairman and the ranking member have outlined the challenges
ahead of us, but I know everyone in this Chamber is ready and willing
to work together to get a result that will be not only fair to our
farmers but will recognize the full extent of both agricultural and
conservation needs that go hand in hand with agriculture throughout our
country.
I rise today to say a few words about agriculture in New York because
I have noticed many of my colleagues are surprised there is agriculture
in New York. Many people, perhaps some in the gallery today, think of
New York and think of New York City. They may fly into LaGuardia or out
of JFK. They do not get a chance to travel throughout the State to see
the beauty of the scenery and to know how important agriculture is to
the livelihood, the economy, and the future of New York.
In every section of New York, even surprisingly in some of the
boroughs of New York City, there are still some agricultural interests.
Much of the State, from St. Lawrence to Orleans, to the entire southern
tier out into Long Island, agriculture remains a critical part of the
fabric of life in New York and is a crucial livelihood for countless
New Yorkers.
In fact, agriculture still is the No. 1 economic sector in New York,
which would come, I suppose, as a surprise to many people from the
Midwest or the South. I have been fortunate, having grown up in the
Midwest--actually in Illinois, right between the chairman and the
ranking member of the Agriculture Committee--to know a little bit about
Midwest agriculture. Then I have been honored to have lived in
Arkansas, for which good friend Senator Lincoln, having come from a
farming family, is a champion, so I know full well how critical
agriculture is in the Midwest, in the South, in the West, but I do not
want anyone in this Chamber or anyone in our country to overlook or
forget how important agriculture is in the Northeast and particularly
in the State of New York.
I received a letter from a farmer in Kent, NY. What he has written
could be written from the chairman's State or the ranking member's
State. I want to read what he said:
I am writing this letter with great concern on behalf of
our family farm. Our family farm was started in early 1900 by
my grandfather and grandmother when they came to America from
England. I started working on the farm as a young man at the
age of 7 by riding with my father and watching how to work
and how to make a living, by providing food for the world in
which we live. Now at age 46, I sit back and try to evaluate
what is wrong with our agriculture picture.
Our cost of production has gone through the roof as fuel,
labor and growing mandates are taking our profit out of the
picture. Our fresh fruit apples, after being packed out of
storage, have a slim chance to exceed the cost of production.
Our vegetable operation, along with our grain crops, are in
the same position, due to
[[Page S8864]]
commodity prices that are lower than 25 years ago, but yet
fuel prices alone have more than doubled in 15 months.
He goes on to write:
Usually, there is always one commodity that excels each
year to offset the poorer priced ones, but that has not
happened in the past year. Your first response is to get your
cost of production down and to establish a higher yield, but
we have exhausted all of these options. Every time we have a
potential for a commodity price increase, one of our
competitors ship across the borders, keep prices low and here
we sit in New York just trying to survive.
I have a great deal of pride and want to do my part to keep
agriculture the number one industry in our County of Orleans,
State of New York. Let us get agriculture out of this
situation and back on track immediately.
I could not agree with this gentleman more. What I hope we are going
to be able to do, as the chairman, the ranking member, and the
committee members craft their farming bill for this fall, is to make
sure those of us who may not be on the committee but who represent
farmers and a farming State, no matter how difficult that may be for
some to believe, will also be at that table because we have to be heard
on behalf of our farmers.
I want to point to this chart. In 1964, there were 66,510 family
farms. In 1997, we are down to 31,757. Certainly, some of those farms
were lost because New York grew. The county I live in became pricey,
choice real estate for people who wanted to live near New York City. We
are fighting to preserve the farmland we still have left in Westchester
County.
We know there were inevitable changes. No one is arguing against the
inevitability of change that is going to take farmland out of
production, but in many parts of our State we lost population. There
was not population pressure forcing people into the country, therefore
doing away with available farmland. We lost farmland because our
farmers were not given a fair shake, were not given the tools with
which to compete.
As we look at the farm bill, I hope we are going to also look at the
important essential role farmers play in conservation, preserving our
rural countryside, making it possible to have high water quality and
wildlife habitat. I know if it were not for farmers all up and down the
Midwest and the South, there would not be as many ducks to hunt every
year. I know farmers have played a critical role in preserving wildlife
habitat for hunters and for the enjoyment of so many other people.
Farmers have a role not only in producing quality, affordable food,
but also improving water quality and wildlife habitat, restoring
wetlands, and protecting farmland from further development. I hope we
are going to get some of that conservation assistance in the farm bill
coming this fall. I would have preferred by far the bill that came out
of the committee in the Senate. That was not possible because of the
President's veto threat. That is what the ranking member just
explained. I deeply regret that.
As the chairman, Senator Harkin, pointed out, this would not have
busted the budget. This was forward funding that would have gone into
next year. The dollars then could have been distributed not only to
help our farmers but also to do the conservation work that they do for
all of us.
I want to mention also that we have some crops in New York that do
not produce a lot of money, less than $10,000, but we are proud of
them. We have a lot of orchards in New York, going from 6,931 in 1964
to 2,436 in 1997. We still are proud of our apple growers. We are proud
of our speciality crops.
In May, there was an article in the Washington Post about the plight
of apple growers in Albany, NY. It told how this past March Susan and
Gary Davis auctioned off the machinery they used to tend orchards and
vegetables on a farm that had been in their family for a century. They
said: You feel like you are letting them down, both past generations
and your own children. But they just could not keep up with the costs,
and their farm manager finally said he could not do it anymore. The
grower gave up and moved to find a livelihood somewhere else.
We know we have to do more to make farming a viable alternative for
those who are willing to put in the long hours, are willing to do the
work that gives us a safe food supply. I consider food security part of
national security. Certainly that is true when it comes to the
speciality crops and also when it comes to dairy in New York.
Our dairy farmers are down to 8,732 farms. I bet a lot of people did
not know there were 8,700 dairy farms in New York. We are the third
largest dairy producing State in America, and we are proud of that
fact. But we have to have some help. We have to be able to compete with
our neighbors to the north, with our neighbors to the south, and with
our neighbors to the west.
Milk is New York's leading agricultural product, creating almost $2
billion in receipts. We rank third behind California and Wisconsin. Our
dairy farmers are probably the hardest working farmers, maybe the
hardest working small businesspeople, one will find anywhere. It is a
24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week job. I was visiting with some of our dairy
farmers on the shores of Lake Champlain. They have been there for
seven, eight, and nine generations. This is a difficult, tough job. We
should not make it any harder. We should be proud of those who are
willing to do this work, and we should find ways to support them
because it helps all of us.
Finally, I hope my colleague, Senator Schumer, and I are able to
convey as clearly and, hopefully, persuasively as possible that when
agriculture is discussed, New York should be at the table. I thank
everyone in this Chamber for giving us the opportunity to have our
farmers receive the same help that all of our farmers in America need.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, there is a sigh of relief all
throughout farm country in regard to passage of this emergency
assistance. We avoided a partisan train wreck, losing the money, taking
the money from next year's farm bill, and or next year's emergency
assistance. I regret that it came to this. This is a trail we really
did not have to take.
When you serve on the Agriculture Committee--and I have done that in
the House and Senate--you have the opportunity to serve on one of the
most nonpartisan committees in the Congress.
With the events of the past week, I deeply regret what some have
referred to as partisan milk that got a little sour and curdled a
little bit. But, we have cleaned it up and we have made some progress.
We have an old expression in my hometown of Dodge City, KS: If you are
riding ahead of the herd, it's a good thing to take a look back now and
then to make sure it is still there.
I say to my colleagues, the reverse is also true. We have done that
today. It is a good idea for both sides to take a look and tell your
leadership when you are about to be driven off an emergency assistance
cliff along with our farmers and ranchers. We avoided that today, and
that is a positive step.
We had the possibility of endangering emergency funding for our
farmers and ranchers. I was worried some would have preferred an issue
as opposed to a bill. We were about to saw off the branch that supports
our farmers and hang all of us in the process.
Here is the deal. If the majority had prevailed, the bill would have
had to be conferenced with the House. If we simply check the lights in
the House, they are out of town; they are gone. I went over to the
House last night during the debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights. I
met with both the Agriculture Committee chairman, Larry Combest, and
the ranking member, Charlie Stenholm, both good friends, not to mention
the members of the House Agriculture Committee. They were adamant, and
I mean adamant--put that in bold letters--in support of the statement
they released a day or two ago. Their statement--not mine--said:
For the sake of our farmers, the U.S. Senate must put
politics aside and realize the critical importance of passing
the 2001 crop assistance bill immediately, so that the
process can continue and a bill can be sent to the President
for signature.
The House statement went on:
The House Ag Committee, anticipating this need, acted early
and responsibly, passing a bill out 6 weeks ago.
That is now 7 weeks.
This bill was passed by the House on June 26--
Unanimously on a voice vote--
and was immediately sent to the Senate where it languished.
If payments are not
[[Page S8865]]
made before September 30 of this year then $5.5 billion that
was fought for and budgeted for farmers will disappear. At
this critical time, we must all put our agendas aside and
concentrate our efforts on providing the needed assistance
for farmers. It is unwise to encumber the bill with
unnecessary, nonemergency items like increased conservation
spending when our farmers' livelihoods hang in the balance.
The process must move on.
My friends, those were the words of the Chairman and Ranking Member
in the House. We have done that. I think it is a step in the right
direction.
I point out that one of the reasons the House was so adamant, why
they were so upset, is that the House Agriculture Committee passed a
new farm bill out of committee last week, and it uses the $2 billion
extra that was in the Senator from Iowa's approach for their farm bill.
I do not know how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would
have proposed, or we would have proposed, to reconcile the difference.
I am not sure what the farm bill will look like in the Senate, but I
do not think we want to propose the House cut their own farm bill in
terms of target price, AMTA payments, loan levels. Obviously the
farmers of wheat, corn, cotton, rice, and soybean in North Dakota,
South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, and Kansas would not have
supported that move.
I say it again: We were about to borrow from the future. We did not
do that.
I will sum up what I think happened in this situation. I think it
could be a good lesson learned.
June 5, my colleagues on the other side take over control of the
Senate and the Senate Agriculture Committee. June 20, the House
Agriculture Committee passed its bill. This is the emergency assistance
bill. June 26, the full House passed the bill on a voice vote. June 28
to July 24, 6 hearings were held in the Senate Agriculture Committee on
the farm bill and other issues no hearings or meetings on the
assistance package were held during this time. July 25 we went to
markup. Late July 27, the bill is brought up for debate; July 30
through today, this moment, debate on the legislation. July 31, the CBO
sends a letter to the Senate stating 2001 funds will be scored in 2002
if the bill is not passed before the August recess. July 31, the House
Agriculture Committee Chairman Combest and Ranking Member Stenholm
asked the Senate to please approve the House-passed bill and get the
money to farmers and ranchers. August 1, Mr. Combest and Mr. Stenholm
make strong statements that I don't have to go into, again asking the
Senate to pass the House bill. August 2, CBO verbally confirmed to me
what they stated in their previous letter of July 31: The bill must be
passed before the August recess or they will score the money going out
in fiscal year 2002. Again this morning, CBO staff again confirm to my
staff that the Senate bill, as written, must be passed before the
August recess in order for the money to be scored in fiscal year 2001.
I think that lays out the facts.
Again, the point was, delay. In August, there is going to be a new
budget estimate. I think we all know about the rhetoric and the
legislation that will be flying around in September and October with
any emergency or additional spending bumping against the trust funds.
Do we really want to be considering a package like this with
amendments, saying we cannot use the money because it will allegedly
come from Social Security? Do we want agriculture in that position? Do
we want farmers and ranchers being the poster people for raiding Social
Security? I don't think that is a very good idea.
Finally, you can't have it both ways. Further delay of trade
authority for the President and getting a consistent and aggressive
export policy will certainly mean a continued loss of market share and
exports. We have to sell our commodities. If we don't, it means there
will be calls for another emergency bill next year. I hope we don't
have to have that, but we may. And this money and this emergency bill,
or at least in the proposal offered by the distinguished chairman,
would have taken money from that account.
I was very worried this morning. I thought Senators could, maybe
would, take this issue and ride with it, that we would have gone
squarely into a boxed canyon and fired off our shotguns of partisan
rhetoric, whoop and holler as to who was to blame. Some of that has
been said on the Senate floor. Or we could have passed the House
version, and we did, of emergency relief and get assistance to hard-
pressed farmers and hopefully begin bipartisan work on the next farm
bill.
I have been through six farm bills. You can always have an issue or
you can always have a bill. It is basically that simple. In this
regard, without question, I think the decision reached spared
agriculture and that means the assessments will be forthcoming.
There used to be a chairman in the House Agriculture Committee in
Texas, Bob Poage, an outstanding chairman, great chairman. People used
to ask Bob, when a farm bill came to the floor of the House, Mr. Poage,
Mr. Chairman, is this the best possible bill? And he would say, no; but
it is the best bill possible.
In a gesture of friendship and bipartisanship with the distinguished
chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, the distinguished ranking
member, and other members of the Agriculture Committee, the
distinguished acting Presiding Officer is a very valued member of the
committee. Let's work together on this. Let's not go down this road
again. Let's work in a bipartisan matter for farmers. I pledge I will
do that. I pledge to the chairman I will do that. This morning was not
a pleasant experience for any of us. But we did the right thing as of
this morning.
To reiterate:
Mr. President, this is a partisan trail that we did not have to take.
When you serve on the Agriculture Committee, you have the opportunity
to serve on one of the most nonpartisan committees in the Congress.
With this standoff, I deeply regret the spilled partisan milk, and its
gotten pretty sour.
There is an old expression we have in my home town of Dodge City,
KS--``If you are riding ahead of the herd it's a good thing to take a
look back now and then to make sure its still there.''
My colleagues, the reverse is also true. It would be most timely and
a good idea this morning for the herd across the aisle to look ahead
and tell your leadership that you are about to be driven off an
emergency assistance cliff--along with our farmers and ranchers.
Those who are endangering emergency funding for our farmers and
ranchers, those who apparently prefer an issue to emergency farmer
relief are about to saw off the branch that will support farmers and
hang all of us in the process. Here is the deal.
Obviously, should the majority prevail, this bill would have to be
conferenced with the House. Check the lights over there, the House is
gone. I went over to the House last night during the debate on the
Patients' Bill of Rights and met with both Agriculture Chairman Larry
Combest and Ranking Member Charlie Stenholm, not to mention many
members of the House Agriculture Committee.
They are ADAMANT in support of the statement they released just a day
or two ago. That statement, theirs--not mine--said this:
The Senate Majority Leader is diverting attention with a
fast shell game to quickly switch blame for the Senate not
finishing its work on farmer assistance on time. Close of
business set for early August has been scheduled since the
beginning of the year. Against this well publicized early
August deadline, the Senate has had the House-approved bill
languishing for over a month now. There has been absolutely
nothing keeping the Senate Agriculture Committee from moving
on its own package, rather than waiting until the last
minute. The Senate's search for an excuse on a past-due bill
must mean they fear going home to face the music from
constituents.
In another statement on July 31:
For the sake of our farmers, the U.S. Senate must put
politics aside and realize the critical importance of passing
the 2001 crop assistance bill immediately so, that the
process can continue and a bill can be sent to the President
for signature. The House Ag committee, anticipating this
need, acted early and responsibly, passing a bill out 6 weeks
ago. This bill was passed by the House on June 26, and was
immediately sent to the Senate where it has languished. If
payments are not made before September 30 of this year, then
$5.5 billion that was fought for and budgeted for farmers
will disappear. At this critical time, we must all put our
agendas aside and concentrate our efforts on providing the
needed assistance for farmers. It is unwise to encumber the
bill with unnecessary, non-emergency items like increased
conservation spending when our farmers' livelihoods hang in
the balance. The process must move on, and the Senate must
act.
[[Page S8866]]
I would also point out that the House Agriculture Committee passed a
new farm bill out of committee last week. It uses this $2 billion for
2002 funding on the new farm bill.
How do my colleagues on the other side propose to reconcile this
difference? I'm not sure what the farm bill will look like in the
Senate. But would they propose the House cut the target price, AMTA, or
loan levels in its proposal? Will the wheat, corn, cotton, rice, and
soybean farmers in North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa,
Arkansas, and other States support that move?
I will say it again, we are borrowing from the future if we pass this
bill as it is currently written.
Mr. President, let me sum up:
June 5: My colleagues on the other side take over control of the
Senate and Senate Agriculture Committee.
June 20: House Agriculture Committee passes its bill.
June 26: The full House passes the bill on a voice vote.
June 28 to July 24: Six hearings in the Senate Agriculture Committee
on the farm bill and other issues. No hearings or meetings on this
assistance package.
July 25: Mark-up.
Late July 27: Bill is brought up for debate.
July 30 through today: debate on this legislation.
July 31: CBO sends letter to the Senate stating 2001 funds will be
scored in 2002 if the bill is not passed before the August recess.
July 31: House Agriculture Committee Chairman Combest and Ranking
Member Stenholm ask the Senate to approve the House passed bill and get
our money to our farmers and ranchers.
August 1: Mr. Combest and Mr. Stenholm accuse the Senate majority
leader and chairman of obstructing the passage of this important
legislation.
August 2: CBO verbally confirmed to me what they had stated in their
previous letter of July 31: the bill must be passed before August
recess or they will score the money going out in FY02.
Mr. President, I believe that lays out the facts.
Again, the point is the delay. In August, there will be a new budget
estimate. And we all know the rhetoric and legislation that will be
flying around here with regard any emergency or additional spending
bumping against trust funds. Do we really want to be considering this
package with amendments saying we cannot use the money because it
allegedly will come from Social Security. Do we want agriculture in
that position?
Finally, let me say you cannot have it both ways on the other side of
the aisle. Further delay of trade authority for the President will
certainly mean continued loss of market share and exports. That means
another emergency bill next year. And, this money robs that account.
Now, Senators can take the issue and ride with it, squarely into a
box canyon and fire off our partisan pop guns and whoop and holler as
to who was to blame. Or we can pass the House version of emergency
relief and get the assistance to our hard pressed farmers and hopefully
begin bipartisan work on the next farm bill.
We can have an issue or we can enact emergency assistance, it is that
simple. In this regard, without question the decision reached this
morning will spare agriculture further delay and will provide the
assistance needed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I came to the floor last night in a
great deal of frustration, and now I come to the floor in a great deal
of disappointment. This morning, the Senate moved forward on an
emergency assistance package for farmers that most in this body know is
inadequate. We have done something. We have moved forward, as many
people have said, because the House has left or because the President
drew a line in the sand.
That is not what our job in the Senate is. Our job in the Senate is
to do the best we can possibly do. Is this bill the best we can do?
Absolutely not. I don't think there is a Senator in this Chamber who
thinks we have done the best job we could do on an Agriculture
emergency supplemental bill. That is amazing to me.
We approved a bill that most Members know is not going to provide
even the minimum of support that our farmers and our communities, our
rural communities, our community banks, and our rural economies really
need. Our program crops said from day 1 of this year they needed AMTA
payments at 100 percent of the 1999 level.
In February, when we started going to the administration, saying we
are going to need an emergency Agriculture supplemental bill, we are
going to need 100-percent AMTA at 1999 levels, we are going to have to
have it; our bankers are saying they are making loans to our
agricultural producers based on the fact they are going to get 100
percent at 1999 levels, the administration and others came back and
said: Wait until we get through with this tax bill. Then they said:
Well, wait until we finish with the education bill. Then we will deal
with it. And then: Let's wait until we get past the Patients' Bill of
Rights and we will deal with it. Wait, wait, wait until we get back
from the Fourth of July recess.
And guess what. We made the mistake of believing them and we waited
in good faith, thinking at the end of the road the administration would
have the same consideration for production agriculture as those who
have grown up in it. Guess what. We were wrong. We were wrong. We
thought they would come in good faith from the administration and work
with Members on this.
Have they? No. People have said: I am tired; it is time for vacation.
Let's go home.
Our specialty crops needed more money for commodity purchases and
other forms of support. All of our production farmers needed
assistance. Where were we? The administration says farm income is at an
all-time high. Guess what. Do you know why it is at an all-time high?
Because the rural economy has been in the tanks for years. Their energy
costs are at an all-time high and rising. Their fertilizer input costs
are at an all-time high. Their energy costs, diesel--name it--implement
costs, the costs of buying machinery, and the costs of meeting
environmental regulations, every one of them is at an all-time high,
and many of our States have producers whose farmer income, 50 percent
of it, is government payment. Why? Because we have not provided for our
agricultural producers in terms of good, solid, trade opportunities and
global marketplace shares because we have not taken into consideration
what it means to those individuals to produce a safe and abundant and
affordable food supply for those who enjoy it.
We enjoy the most environmentally sound agricultural products in the
world coming out of this country. That is all going away unless we make
an obligation to production agriculture, that when it comes time to
being there for them, we will be there, instead of just saying all year
long: Just wait. Just wait until we get through all of these other
things and then we will be there for you.
I look at some of my local spinach growers in Arkansas who are not
far from local canneries yet find it impossible sometimes to market
their spinach just down the road because they can be outbid by spinach
that is coming in from Mexico, grown with chemicals we banned over 10
years ago.
What are we doing for production agriculture, to make sure that you
and I will continue to have that environmentally well grown product for
our children and for future generations? What is our response? Give
them less than they need, close up shop, and fly home for vacation.
Why? Because the House is going home, we can't do anything.
Well if the House jumps off the bridge, are we going to jump off the
bridge, too? What if the administration says it is just not that
important; we are not going to come over to negotiate with you to come
to some middle ground that is going to provide our producers the 100
percent of AMTA from 1999 levels that we promised them back in
February? I don't know. I reject that. I still believe I am here to do
the best job I can possibly do for those American producers. I reject
the argument that it is too late. I reject the argument that we cannot
give them what they need.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). The time of the Senator has
expired.
[[Page S8867]]
Mrs. LINCOLN. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. LINCOLN. I reject the argument that we cannot stay here and
fight for our American producers and our farmers.
Farmers themselves say that government is just waiting until they die
away, that the family farmer is gone and we can just depend on
corporate America to provide us what we need.
I look around at some of the fights I have been fighting this year on
behalf of aquaculture and fish farmers in Arkansas. They are having to
compete with misleading labeling from other countries that are claiming
they are producing that kind of product which we produce here, a farm-
raised, grain-fed product, when we know what is coming in the country
from Vietnam is not that. It is raised on the Mekong River under
unbelievable environmental conditions. Yet it has been sent to this
country in misleading ways and sold to the consumers here.
We are dealing with a crisis in agricultural production. I come to
the floor saddened. As I look around at this body, I realize that the
Members of the Senate years ago used to travel here from their home
farms in faraway States and spend the time that they did to debate the
issues of this country, all the while still remembering where they came
from, the heartland that they represented, the communities and the
agricultural producers. In my home State of Arkansas, when that farmer
is out in the field and he is bringing in his crop, he is picking
cotton or he is combining beans or he is combining rice and gets to the
end of a long hot day, and the Sun is setting and he sees a
thunderstorm coming out of the west, do you know what. He doesn't pack
it up and go home. He turns the lights on, on his combine, and he keeps
going, because he believes in producing for the American people and the
world the safest, most abundant and affordable food supply in this
world, and he does no less.
I, for one, think the Senate could do better. I think we must.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
____________________