[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 112 (Friday, August 3, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8867-S8870]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EMERGENCY AGRICULTURE ASSISTANCE ACT
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I know for me to speak on the floor
about agriculture raises some eyebrows, let's say. I have found that as
I, along with others, have been trying to help my colleague from
Vermont who has been fighting a lonely battle, for Northeast
agriculture. When I spoke in the Democratic caucus, I heard someone
sort of singing ``Old McDonald,'' and other things. So people ask, why
am I so interested in agriculture, coming from a State such as New
York?
For one thing, people forget how much agriculture there is in the
State of New York. We are a large agricultural producer. We rank third
in dairy production. We rank second or third, depending on the year, in
apple production. We are high up in onions and many kinds of specialty
products. In fact--and these are numbers that even surprised me--New
York has 38,000 farmers. That is 13,500 more farmers than Idaho; 10,400
more than Montana; 7,700 more than North Dakota; 5,500 more than South
Dakota; and 28,800 more than Wyoming. So those States which are
regarded as agricultural States have fewer farmers, many fewer, than my
State of New York.
We do have a large city--we have several large cities. Thank God, we
have lots of other kinds of industries. But agriculture is a vital
industry.
The second reason I care about agriculture--and it has been new to
me; 18 years in the House serving a district in a corner of Brooklyn
and Queens, we didn't have any farmers--is meeting the people who do
it. I met one family with a farm in their family in Suffolk County for
12 generations. You look into their eyes and see how hard-working they
are and see how productive they are, and you see the land and God's
beauty in a wonderful way give forth fruits and vegetables and crops.
You see how hard they work and you feel for them.
They are on a frustrating treadmill. It seems they work harder and
harder but survival in agriculture is even more difficult for them. You
look into their eyes and you realize something else. These farmers are
the breeder reactor, the place where American values grow and are
nurtured. It has been so since the Republic was founded, and it still
is. The values of hard work and teamwork and self-reliance and
individuality, for which our country is known and blessed, have started
on the farm.
So even if all the food could be produced somewhere else and it could
be as good and as high quality, I do not think we would want to lose
farmers from America and the American way of life because the two are
so inextricably tied. So I care about agriculture. I care a great deal
about our farmers in New York.
This farm bill, admittedly, does not do what we want. But I want to
tell the farmers that we have gotten a pledge from our majority leader
that the part of this bill that was cut out by the House will be
debated in September. That includes the relief for the apple farmers
that many of us in the Northeast--my colleague, Senator Clinton--and
Senator Levin and Senator Stabenow and the two Senators from Washington
worked hard to get in the bill. That will come back and have another
chance. The provisions the Senator from Iowa put in the bill to deal
with specialty crops and conservation, which affected the Northeast,
will come back as well. I am glad about that.
When the farm bill comes up, we will make our fight for the dairy
farmers, and it is going to be a royal fight because we really care
about them.
What I would like my colleagues to know is, my good friend from
Vermont, who has often been alone in this fight, is now being joined by
many of us. As I mentioned, my colleagues Senator Clinton and Senator
Torricelli are in the fight; Senator Jeffords, of course, has always
been in the fight, as have our Senators from Massachusetts and
Pennsylvania and other States as well. We are going to put Northeast
agriculture on the legislative map.
It will not be good enough to have bills any longer that do not do a
thing for us. I think we have persuaded our Democratic leadership here
in the Senate to do so. We have a bit of work to do in the House. We
have a bit of work to do in the White House. But we are going to do it.
In fact, as I look at this as somebody admittedly new to agriculture,
I would like to make a point to my colleagues. I have never seen a
place where we spend so much money and where there is so much
unhappiness among the recipients. Something is dramatically wrong.
Mr. President, 50 percent or 47 percent of farm income is now
Government. I do not know one other area in the country where that
happens. I am willing to do it because, as I said, I believe in the
family farm and the values that they bring. But can't we come up with a
better way? Can't we come up with a way that makes the family wheat
farmer in North Dakota and the family corn and hog farmers in Illinois
happier than they are now? Can't we as we come up with that come up
with something that includes the dairy farmer in New York or Vermont or
the apple grower in New Jersey or Massachusetts? We have to come up
with a better way because the present way isn't working.
More and more money--this is another $5 billion--doesn't help our
area. Our fights will come later in September and in October with the
farm bill. But that $5.5 billion isn't making many people happy, even
though they are getting it, because they are still struggling.
Freedom to Farm is a problem. Everyone says it. I tend to agree. But
you know that we had problems before Freedom to Farm, too. As long as I
have been in the Congress, which is from 1981, we have seen more and
more money going to agriculture and our
[[Page S8868]]
family farmers be less and less happy. They are not happy in the
Northeast where we get very little help. They are not happy in the
Middle West and the South where they get a lot of help.
We are going to have to come together and come up with a system that
works that doesn't put 80 percent of the money to huge agribusiness
where they do not need it but directs the dollars at the family farm
and gives that family I talked about as I began my speech, who wakes up
at sunrise and battles the elements and produces God's bounty from the
Earth, a fighting chance.
Let's not continue on this treadmill to nowhere. It is going to
divide us. You see the fissures already. More importantly, it is not
going to help the people we want to help--the family farmer.
I am here today to stick up for the 38,000 New York farmers who work
hard--and many others who depend on them--and the Northeastern farmer
and to say to my colleagues we have to do a lot better in a system that
continually spends more money and produces less happiness among the
people who are its recipients.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I applaud the senior Senator from New York
for his statement. I note that the two Senators from New York have been
in the conferences we held. They fought hard for the interests of the
Northeast and the Atlantic States. It is partly because of that fight
that I have to stand here today to strongly oppose another of the
misguided, unbalanced, and actually archaic plans for emergency
agricultural assistance.
To put it bluntly, not only for Vermont farmers but farmers
throughout the Northeast and Mid Atlantic States, they receive little
or no relief from this package. This package is unbalanced and unfair
to my region, even when it passed the House of Representatives, and it
remains unbalanced and unfair as it passes the Senate today.
Chairman Harkin's bill that passed out of the Senate Agriculture
Committee recognizes the emergency assistance needs for all farmers in
all States. Chairman Harkin's bill has comprehensive assistance for
specialty crops, including desperately needed assistance for our
Nation's apple growers. It also adds needed funding for voluntary
agricultural conservation programs on private lands, programs that the
President chose not to fund this year despite overwhelming needs, and
in spite of critical backlogs in all 50 States.
Conservation assistance funds are critical for cash-poor farmers--
especially in my region of the country--helping farm families comply
with the highest water and soil quality standards to keep their
farmland healthy not only for this year but for next year.
None of those comprehensive specialty crop funds, nor conservation
funds, are found in the bill we just passed.
Senator Harkin's bill also added disaster assistance for the
devastation caused by armyworms in New England and throughout the
country. None of this assistance is in the bill we just passed.
Despite what one may hear, the bill we passed is not agricultural
assistance for all farmers--not by a long shot. It is sodden with
regional disparity. Those of us from the regions that have been
slighted strongly believe that this has to be the last agricultural
bill with such bias. It is not even fiscally responsible.
The bill sends billions of taxpayer dollars--dollars that come from
farm families across the Nation--to a handful of States in the Midwest.
In fact, almost $3 billion of the $5.5 billion in emergency
agricultural assistance--about 50 percent of this agricultural
assistance--will go to only 10 States.
I have to ask, Why? Why does my State of Vermont--a State where
family farmers are in serious trouble, where low prices and poor
weather conditions are forcing farmers to sell their family land--
receive less than four one-hundredths of a percent of this year's
emergency agricultural assistance?
Vermont farmers pay taxes, too. In fact, if assistance in this so-
called agricultural emergency bill were based on the true value of
Vermont's contributions to the Nation's agriculture, Vermont would
receive over six times what I see in this bill.
Farmers throughout the Northeast and Mid Atlantic States pay their
taxes. While those farmers produce almost 7 percent of the Nation's
agricultural products, those farmers receive 1 percent of the $5.5
billion flying out these doors to the Midwest.
Look at Texas. Texas farmers are going to receive about 8 percent of
the $5.5 billion--almost $400 million alone. When all is said and done,
five select States in this country will each receive over $300 million
for this bill. Ten States are going to get over $150 million. The rest
get practically nothing.
Some may say we passed this bill to expedite funds to our Nation's
farmers. I think they are speaking of only a small number of farmers in
only a very small, select number of States. They should be saying a
small number of farmers in a small number of select States will get one
heck of a lot of money, but to make it fair every other State will be
allowed to pay the bill. That is really what they are saying. All of us
will pay the bill so a small number of States can get the benefit.
What bothers me is this goes on year after year after year. We have
had disaster relief bills. We in the Northeast paid with our taxes a
substantial part of the bill to try to help the country. But when we
have had disasters I have never seen the return.
We ``expedite funds to our Nation's farmers,'' as they say. They are
not talking about Vermont farmers; they are not talking New Jersey
farmers, or farmers throughout the Northeast and Mid Atlantic States,
or the farmers in States with specialty crops not covered in the skewed
State grant formulation we took from the House bill.
We had a chance to even out the bias--at least to help all farmers in
all States. As I said, we have taken an easy in irresponsible route to
simply pass an unbalanced and unfair House bill. We have dismissed the
true needs of specialty crop States, and we have dismissed the
essential conservation programs that truly help my region's farmers.
Sadly, once again, we are being left out in the cold.
In fact, for that matter, even on the basis of this we get a bum
deal. We get even worse because the dairy compact was left out of it.
If you are a proponent of States rights, regional dairy compacts are
the answer. They are State-initiated, they are State-ratified, and they
are State-supported programs that assure a safe supply of milk for
consumers.
I received a letter signed by 22 Governors, Republicans and
Democrats--I believe there is even an Independent in there--who are
endorsing the dairy compact bill Because it would ratify the compacts
that their States have negotiated among themselves.
If you support interstate trade, regional compacts are the answer.
The Northeast Dairy Compact has prompted an increase in sales of milk
into the compact region from neighboring States.
If you support a balanced budget, then regional compacts are the
answer. Why? Because the Northeast Compact does not cost the taxpayers
a single cent, which is a lot different from some of the farm programs
that are being boosted up by billions of dollars in this bill.
If you support farmland protection programs, regional compacts are
the answer. In fact, that is why major environmental groups have
endorsed the Northeast Dairy Compact; they know it helps preserve
farmland and prevents urban sprawl. I recently received a letter from
33 environmental, conservation, and public interest membership
organizations supporting the dairy compact amendment.
Lastly, of course, if we are worried about consumers, then we ought
to like regional dairy compacts. Retail milk prices within the compact
region are lower on average than in the rest of the Nation where they
do not have a compact.
The dairy compact has done what it is supposed to do: It has
stabilized widely fluctuating dairy prices; it has ensured a fair price
for dairy farmers; it has made it possible for farm families to stay in
business; and it has protected consumers' supplies of fresh milk.
Unfortunately, though, this is a policy debate that pits dairy
farmers who go to work every single day trying to
[[Page S8869]]
make a living against some of the Nation's most powerful corporations.
It pits consumers and communities that treasure the open space and
quality of life that local dairy farming offers, against those who can
spend millions of dollars on ads and lobbyists here in Washington.
We should not stay in the way of these State initiatives that protect
farmers and consumers without costing taxpayers a cent.
Dairy compacts are one of those issues where Members have very strong
views even though we all share the same core beliefs. We all want to
support our dairy farmers and we all believe that they should be able
to earn a decent living for their families. We all want ample supplies
of fresh milk, at reasonable prices, for our States' consumers. Unlike
agricultural commodities such as wheat, corn, and soybeans, milk is
highly perishable.
When a dairy farmer brings the milk to market, that milk has to be
sold right away, or it quickly loses its value. It can't be set aside
in a silo. For big processors, that's just fine. They can buy milk at
distressed prices and store it away to make cheese or powdered milk or
ice cream. But that setup hurts farmers, who work incredibly hard just
to make a living, and consumers, who want farmers around to supply
fresh milk for the store shelves.
As a nation we have tried several remedies to cut through this knot,
and the record is proving that regional compacts are the most sensible
and workable answer yet. And unlike other legislative remedies that
come with price tags, and often hefty ones, compacts cost Federal
taxpayers nothing.
Milk is one of those unusual foods where the spread between what
farmers get paid for their labor, and what consumers pay for the
product, is huge and increasing throughout the Nation.
In New England, what farmers get paid has been fairly stable since
the dairy compact began working in 1997, and that is one of its great
successes. But what processors and stores charge for milk has greatly
increased since 1997--not just in New England, but in the rest of the
Nation. Consumer prices are lower in new England than in much of the
rest of the country and that the $10,000 to $20,000 in added annual
income has helped keep New England farmers in business who otherwise
would have had to leave farming.
There is a hidden risk right now to consumers and farmers in New
England--and the rest of the Nation. This is the growing concentration
of processors in the milk industry.
In New England, Suiza Foods is rapidly trying to cinch a stranglehold
on milk supplies. In some parts of New England they already control 70
to 80 percent of the fluid milk supply. They have swept in, bought
processing plants in New England, and then closed them--elimiating
competition.
The ascent of Suiza is nothing less than stunning. In a few short
years, Suiza has gained its dominant position in the milk processing
business. I showed you three charts a couple days ago showing the
incredible increase in the dominance of Suiza in just a few years. Even
worse, if its purchase of Dean Foods is approved, a strong case can be
made that Suiza is on the verge of becoming a monopoly in the milk
processing business. I have asked the Department of Justice and its
Antitrust Division to closely monitor Suiza's surging market dominance,
and I again call to their attention the urgency of doing that.
But equally remarkable is the fact that Suiza is also now in the
process of consolidating a dominant position as the chief purchaser of
milk from farmers. Simply put, in many parts of the country, Suiza
Foods is the dominant customer--if it is not the only customer--for
farmers' raw milk to be used for fluid processing. Suiza Foods is now
dominating both the purchase and the sale of fluid milk in this
country. Suiza is becoming--all at once--both a monopolist and a
monopsonist in the fluid dairy marketplace.
Suiza Foods is a new type of market force. I have searched our
antitrust case law for a name for this type of combined market power.
There is no adequate name on the books for what Suiza has become, as I
called them in a recent Judiciary hearing, and on the Senate floor,
they are ``suizopolies.''
How can suppliers and consumers defend themselves from a giant firm--
this Suizopoly--that controls both the purchase of a product--from
thousands of suppliers with little bargaining power--and its sale to
millions of consumers?
The best way is the dairy compact; it gives the public some control
over access to milk, it assures fresh, local supplies of milk, and it
gives farmers some ability to earn a living income.
I also want to respond to seven myths about the compact that the big
processors have spent millions of dollars to promote, through years of
lobbying and advertising and campaign contributions. They were
trumpeting many of these myths before the compact was enacted, and they
have not changed their songsheets, even though the compact has done
just what it was supposed to do, proving their arguments dead wrong.
This first myth is that dairy compacts are milk taxes that hurt
consumers. As you have just heard, concentration, is the major cause of
consumer price increase in the milk sector.
And, a recent independent study funded by USDA determined that
industry profit taking--including profit taking by Suiza--and cost
increases not related to the compact, are responsible for more than 90
percent of the increase in retail prices in New England since the
compact was implemented. This leaves less than three cents of a gallon
of milk attributable to the compact.
A recent GAO report requested by Senator Feingold and myself says to
all: It compares the prices of a gallon of 2 percent milk in Boston and
Milwaukee for last year. The wholesale price of milk in Boston was
$2.03. The wholesale price in Milwaukee was $2.08--five cents more than
in Boston. So you would expect retail prices to be about the same for
Boston, or slightly less, than for Milwaukee.
However, Suiza controls around 70 percent of the milk supply in
Massachusetts and a greater amount in Boston. The average retail price
listed by GAO is $2.74 in Boston for a gallon of milk but only $2.26 in
Milwaukee.
Obviously, the compact does not cause the difference--the wholesale
prices for Boston are lower than in Milwaukee, as the GAO makes clear.
The GAO report also shows that for most of the cities they examined,
the consumer prices in the compact region were lower.
There is a myth that the dairy compact has harmed nutritional
programs such as WIC, school lunch, school breakfast, and food stamps.
Wrong again. The fact is that the Compact Commission requires
compensation to State WIC and school lunch programs for any potential
impacts. In fact, if anything it has overcompensated the WIC program,
as noted in the 1998 OMB study. A letter from the Massachusetts WIC
Director says this:
The Commission has taken strong steps to protect the WIC
Program and the School Lunch program from any impacts due to
the compact. . . . Because of this, our WIC Program was able
to serve approximately 5,875 more participants with fresh
wholesome milk without added costs. . . .
The New England Compact Commission has exempted school breakfast and
lunch programs from any pricing impacts due to milk price regulation.
Commissioner Kassler of Massachusetts tells me in writing that
``without the compact, this [regional New England] milk shed will
dwindle and milk would be brought in from greater distances and at
greater costs.'' Those greater costs have been estimated in the range
of from 20 to 67 cents per gallon.
There is also a myth that dairy compacts are unconstitutional price-
fixing cartels. This is my favorite example of twisted logic. I believe
my opponents' argument goes something like this:
Interstate compacts would be unconstitutional if the
Constitution didn't explicitly contain a clause allowing the
creation of interstate compacts with the consent of Congress.
By operation of the compact clause, States explicitly have the
opportunity to solve regional problems in this constitutionally
permitted way. United States Federal courts have recognized the
Northeast Dairy Compact as a constitutional exercise of congressional
authority under the commerce and compact clauses of the U.S.
Constitution.
[[Page S8870]]
There is a myth that dairy compacts are barriers to interstate trade.
Dairy compacts encourage greater competition in the marketplace by
preserving more family farms and increasing trade.
An OMB study concluded that trade into the compact region actually
increased after implementation. And I would also point out that farmers
in non-compact States, like New York, or even Wisconsin, are perfectly
free to sell their milk in the compact region at compact rates. New
York dairy producers are benefiting today by doing just that. Indeed,
if Wisconsin were to trade places with New York, Wisconsin farmers
would gain the benefit of the compact.
There is also a myth that dairy compacts encourage farmers to
overproduce milk and will lead to a flood of milk in the market. The
fact is that the dairy compact regulatory process includes a supply
management program that helps to prevent overproduction. In 2000, the
Northeast Dairy Compact States produced 4.7 billion pounds of milk, a
0.6 percent decline from 1999.
In the nearly 4 years that the compact has been in effect, milk
production in the compact region has risen by just 2.2 percent.
Nationally during this same period, milk production rose 7.4 percent.
In Wisconsin milk production rose over 4 percent.
There is a myth that dairy compact only help bigger farms at the
expense of smaller ones.
Just like most commodity programs, the compact benefits all
participants. Also, 75 percent of the farms in New England have fewer
than 100 cows.
The worst myth is that the dairy compact has not been successful.
The success of the Northeast Dairy Compact is undeniable.
Let me just close with this.
Mr. President, when I was a young man--actually even before my
teens--I thought how much I would love being in the Senate. Why?
Because every State has two Senators. A State with a large population,
a powerful State such as the Presiding Officer's State, or a small,
rural State such as mine each get two. The one place where every State
is equal, supposedly, is in the Senate; two Senators.
I thought what a joy it would be to represent my native State of
Vermont in the Senate; and it has been. I love the Senate. I have so
much respect for Members on both sides of the aisle.
I think of the Senate as a place where the country can come together,
where regional interests can be represented, and, of course, where
States can maintain their identity, certainly, and where we have an
obligation to help each other. And we have.
Whether it be earthquakes in California or floods in the Midwest or
defense programs in the Southeast, and on and on, the Senators from my
part of the country have supported providing assistance to those parts
of the country. I could give a million different examples. But there
seems to be one area where that effort to help each other always falls
apart: The Northeast Mid-Atlantic States, when it comes to agriculture
disaster programs.
We are always there. We are like the fire brigade that answers the
call in the middle of the night. We show up all the time, show up all
the time to protect those other ``houses.'' It would kind of be nice
if, just once, when it is our ``house'' on fire, some of those we have
helped throughout the years could come and maybe help us put out the
fire. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Leahy). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, let me begin by saying how honored I am
to have a chance to rise while the distinguished Senator from Vermont
is in the chair. I concur strongly with the majority of the arguments
made by the Senator about the fairness of how our agricultural
activities in our country are distributed. Sometimes our agricultural
emergencies in the Northeast are lost sight of when we get around to
supporting our family farmers and agricultural activities.
____________________