[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 144 (Thursday, October 25, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11060-S11075]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Under the previous order, the
Appropriations Committee is discharged from consideration of H.R. 2330
and the Senate will proceed to its consideration.
The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2330) making appropriations for agriculture,
rural development, Food and Drug Administration, and related
agencies programs for fiscal year ending September 30, 2002,
and for other purposes.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
RECESS
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
stand in recess for 30 minutes.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 2:31 p.m., recessed until
3:01 p.m., and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding
Officer (Mr. Nelson of Florida).
Amendment No. 1969
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, pursuant to yesterday's unanimous consent
agreement, I rise to offer the text of S. 1191 as reported by the
Senate Appropriations Committee as a substitute amendment for H.R.
2330, the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies. The
text of S. 1191 is at the desk and I ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], for himself and Mr.
Cochran, proposes an amendment numbered 1969.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is
agreed to.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased to present to the Senate, the
fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill for agriculture, rural
development, the Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies.
This bill was approved by the Appropriations Committee without dissent,
and I hope it will receive the support of all Senators. I believe this
bill strikes an appropriate balance of programs, consistent with the
interests of Senators, to meet the needs of the farm sector, the
environment, and rural America generally; nutrition assistance to our
Nation's most vulnerable citizens; provide adequate resources to the
Food and Drug Administration for protection of our food supply and
other aspects of public health; and to support other national and
international priorities.
This bill provides $73.9 billion in new budget authority for both
mandatory and discretionary programs under our subcommittee's
jurisdiction, and is within our 302(b) allocation. This bill is $2.8
billion below the level provided for fiscal year 2001, and is $78
million below the President's request. Let me restate, this bill is
below the President's request.
Although this bill is $2.8 billion below the level provided last
year, I should explain that the fiscal year 2001 bill included $3.6
billion in emergency spending for natural disaster and market loss
related assistance to farmers and rural communities. No emergency
funding is provided in the bill now before the Senate, and when
compared to the non-emergency spending for fiscal year 2001, we are
providing an increase of approximately $850,000. That amount represents
an increase of slightly more than 1 percent from the previous year.
Before I go any further, I want to publicly thank my friend from
Mississippi, Senator Cochran, ranking member on the Subcommittee, for
his help and guidance. I also want to thank his staff: Rebecca Davies,
minority clerk for the subcommittee, Martha Scott Poindexter, and
Rachelle Schroder. Without their help and expertise, presentation of
this bill to the Senate today would not have been possible. I owe a
great deal of gratitude to Senator Cochran and his staff, as do all
Senators.
Mr. President, when someone refers to this bill simply as the
``Agriculture'' appropriations bill, one might be left with the
impression that it relates only to programs important to the farming
community. While this bill does much to support our Nation's farmers,
it also does much more. This bill provides substantial funding for
agriculture research, including human nutrition research,
biotechnology, energy alternatives, and many other important areas of
inquiry. It also provides increases in conservation programs that
protect our soil, water, and air resources, including examination of
global change, and other critical aspects of environmental protection.
This bill also supports rural communities through economic
development programs and assistance for basic needs such as housing,
electricity, safe drinking water and waste disposal systems, and to
help move rural America into the information age by promoting new
technologies in the area of telecommunications and internet services.
More and more, Americans are seeking relief from the congestion and
sprawl of urban centers, and with the proper tools, rural America holds
great promise for viable job opportunity alternatives. Programs in this
bill do much to help rural communities provide the infrastructure
necessary to create those jobs.
In addition, funding in this bill supports many nutrition and public
health related programs. These include the food stamp, school lunch,
and other nutrition assistance programs such as the Women, Infants, and
Children program--WIC. This bill also provides funding for the Food and
Drug Administration, which includes an increase for the Office of
Generic Drugs to help make lower cost medications available to
Americans as quickly as possible. Funding for the Food and Drug
Administration, and other agencies, included in this bill will also
help guarantee that the food Americans eat is not only the most
nutritious and affordable in the world, but that it is also the safest.
Assistance in this bill does not stop at our shores. This bill also
includes a number of international programs such as Public Law 480,
which provide humanitarian food assistance to people in dire need
around the world. This bill also supports international trade through a
number of programs designed to open, maintain, and expand markets for
U.S. production overseas.
Before I describe some of the specific program included in this bill,
let me offer a few observations in view of recent events. World
headlines this past year have described the devastation to the rural
sector of the United Kingdom and other areas where foot and mouth
disease outbreaks have raged out of control. Should such outbreaks
occur in this country, the effect to the farm sector, and the general
economy, would be staggering. Thankfully, this country has a strong set
of safeguards to keep our shores safe from problems such as foot and
mouth disease. But our safeguards are only as strong as the weakest
part.
More recently, we all witnessed the horrific events of September 11.
Suddenly, we were reminded that the significant concerns were held, in
regard to accidental introductions of exotic pests and disease, may
pale in comparison to what could befall this country by design. This is
true for protection of our food supply, and in order to ensure that our
public health system has the resources for immediate response to any
threat at any time.
Last week, events occurring in the United States Senate, itself,
reminded us of the need to keep strong our nation's defenses in regard
to public health and safety. This bill, with jurisdiction for the food
and Drug Administration, the Food Safety Inspection
[[Page S11061]]
Service, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, numerous
research agencies, and other vital parts of government, place this bill
directly on the front line for safety and security for the American
people.
Our determination is strong, and our commitment is steadfast. This
subcommittee is engaged in the struggle against terror, ignorance, and
injustice, and we will prevail.
We must stay ever vigilant, especially in view of our growing global
economy, and global exposure, to keep USDA, the FDA, and other relevant
agencies alert and well prepared to meet the prospect of invasion by
foreign pests and disease or threats conveyed by any other medium. We
give high deference to items important to national defense, and we must
not lose sight that many of the challenges to our border inspectors,
animal health experts, public health officials, and others play as
important a role in our national defense as do those in our armed
forces.
We on this subcommittee have engaged Secretary Veneman, Secretary
Thompson, and others in an ongoing dialogue so that we can do our best
to understand what resources the various departments and agencies under
the jurisdiction of this subcommittee require. We will continue these
discussions as the administration allocates supplemental resources
already provided by the Congress, and as we consider further
appropriations actions.
As I stated at the outset, I believe this bill provides a proper
balance of priorities within the limitation of resources provided to
this subcommittee. I would like to highlight a few of the programs
supported by this bill:
This bill provides $2.305 billion for agricultural research
activities. This represents an increase of nearly $200 million above
the fiscal year 2001 level, and includes programs of the Agricultural
Research Service--the USDA-in house research agency; the Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service, which supports the
long-standing State and Federal partnership in research and extension
activities; and other research agencies of the Department of
Agriculture. This appropriated amount is in addition to the $120
million also available through the Initiative for Future Agriculture
and Food Systems.
Agricultural production in this country is without parallel anywhere
in the history of the world. Research has made that possible, and is
one of the most important investments we can make to assure that
American farmers continue that success and pass it on to the American
consumer. This bill continues important support for those efforts.
Regulatory and marketing activities at the Department of Agriculture
are strongly supported by this bill, which includes $1.445 billion for
food safety inspection, animal and plant health safety programs,
oversight of marketing transparency and fairness, and other activities.
This level reflects an increase of nearly $100 million above the
previous year.
This bill also includes a number of programs that directly support
the farm sector. USDA farm credit serves the need of farmers in the
acquisition and operations of farms all across this country. It should
be noted, that many of today's farmers are nearing retirement age and
without USDA farm credit programs, it would be very difficult for many
young farmers to acquire the capital necessary to enter into this
important occupation of high up-front costs, and high risk. Farm
programs in this bill including farm credit, mediation, and the cost of
supporting local Farm Service Agency offices, are funded at $1.487
billion, an increase of more than $200 million from last year.
Americans do not only benefit from the abundance and quality of
products grown on the farm, they also benefit from the wise land
stewardship practiced by farmers and ranchers. This bill provides $980
million for conservation programs. This funding, in large part,
provides support to Natural Resource Conservation Service staff, who
provide conservation technical assistance to farmers, ranchers, rural
communities, and others at the local level. This bill also includes a
new account for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, which will
provide assistance to repair the many water conservation structures
located throughout the country that, due to age and condition, now pose
a risk to life and property.
This funding is also in addition to other conservation programs such
as the Conservation Reserve Program and the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program, which have been authorized as direct spending
measures under the 1996 farm bill. This bill also allows the Secretary
of Agriculture to transfer funds from a number of mandatory programs to
provide technical assistance for the Conservation Reserve Program in a
way that does not detract from USDA's ability to provide discretionary
conservation assistance for other ongoing natural resource needs.
It has often been noted that little of the general economic
prosperity of the last decade made its way to rural America. This bill
provides $2.794 billion for rural development programs. This is an
increase of $318 million from the fiscal year 2001 level. Of this
amount, slightly more than $1 billion is for the Rural Community
Advancement Program, which includes the rural water and waste water
loan and grants program, and is an increase of $243 million from last
year's level.
This bill also includes $35.8 billion for domestic food programs, the
largest single area of spending in this bill. These programs include
the Food Stamp Program and Child Nutrition Programs, such as the School
Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. In addition, this bill provides
$4.247 billion for the WIC Program. This amount is an increase of $204
million from last year's level and $110 million above the amount
requested by the President.
In addition to support of domestic programs, funding in this bill
also helps the United States meet international challenges both in the
area of promoting free trade, and our moral obligations to provide
humanitarian assistance. This bill provides $1.128 billion for foreign
assistance and related programs, which is an increase of $38 million
from the fiscal year 01 level. This amount includes an appropriation of
$850 million for Public Law 480 Title II food donations, which is an
increase of $15 million.
Finally, this bill provides $1.217 billion for the Food and Drug
Administration, an increase of $119 million from last year's level. The
Food and Drug Administration provides a vital service to all Americans
in helping protect our food and blood supplies, to ensure the safety
and availability of effective drugs and medical devices, and other
activities that affect American lives and health on a daily basis.
This overview presents only some highlights of programs included in
this appropriations bill. I believe we have a good bill and I want to
again thank my friend, and ranking member, Senator Cochran, for his
invaluable help in putting this bill together. I hope all Senators will
support this bill.
I believe that we can, and we should, move quickly to pass this bill
in the Senate. I know that in years past, controversial subjects have
come up when this bill has been on the floor, resulting in a number of
days being spent on its consideration. I hope that will not be the case
this year due, in part, to the recent tragic events which have occurred
over the past six weeks, and the high state of urgency now before this
Congress on other matters relating to a proper response to those
events.
I hope that we can follow the lead of Senator Dorgan when the
Treasury and general government bill was on the floor earlier. Senator
Dorgan pointed out that there were certain amendments he had planned to
offer which were of great importance to him, but due to their
controversial nature, he deferred introduction of those amendments in
order to ease the passage of that legislation. He was successful, and
that appropriations bill passed the Senate in one day.
I, too, have amendments I had considered offering on subjects
important to me, the people of Wisconsin, and all Americans. However, I
also have chosen not to raise them at this time, and I hope all
Senators will refrain, as Senator Dorgan and I have done on our
respective bills, to avoid any subjects that would result in
controversial, divisive, and lengthy debate. I do not mean to suggest
that any Senator should not exercise any right he or she has, if the
sentiment for that action is strong, but I do hope that consideration
will be given to refrain from actions that will unnecessarily delay or
make difficult the passage of this bill.
[[Page S11062]]
Mr. President, at this time I turn to the Senator from Mississippi,
Mr. Cochran.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend from
Wisconsin in presenting this bill to the Senate today. I first want to
thank him for his hard work and the work of his staff in helping to
draft the bill. It was a pleasure to work with him during the hearings
when we heard from administration officials and others about the budget
requests of the President and the needs of the Department of
Agriculture and the agencies that are funded in this legislation.
I am pleased to report that the amounts of discretionary spending
recommended in this bill are consistent with the subcommittee's
discretionary spending allocations under the Budget Act. In way of
summary of some of the increases that are provided, I thought the
Senate might be interested to know that the bill provides additional
funding over last year's levels to enhance food safety activities,
quarantine inspection activities, and pest and disease control,
including increased vigilance against the entry into this country of
foreign animal diseases.
The amount recommended for the Agricultural Research Service, for
example, will provide enhanced funding for a number of priority
research needs including emerging plant and animal diseases, genomics,
control of invasive weeds and insects, and the development of bio-based
products from agricultural commodities.
In the case of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service, funding increases are recommended for minor crop
pest management and sustainable agricultural research.
The Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources and Conservation
Service has total funding recommended, which includes increases for
conservation operations. These are over and above the President's
request for resource conservation and development programs and a
watershed rehabilitation program.
The Foreign Agricultural Service has an increase provided that will
enable that agency to strengthen its market intelligence capabilities
and to better address technical trade issues, particularly those
related to food safety and biotechnology.
I am pleased that the bill contains an increase for the Rural
Community Advancement Program, which is essential to supporting safe
drinking water supplies and waste disposal systems for rural Americans.
Let me point out also that in the case of the nutrition programs, the
total appropriation recommended for the WIC Program is $204 million
more than the 2001 fiscal year level, and it is $110 million more than
the level requested by the President for this next fiscal year, 2002.
The increase was based on more recent data on projected program costs
and participation levels at the time the Senate reported the bill. But
since then, there are indications that the WIC caseload has continued
to increase with the steady increase in unemployment and that
additional funding may be required. I am committed to reexamine this
issue in conference to ensure that WIC is adequately funded for fiscal
year 2002.
Let me also say that in the case of the Food and Drug Administration,
the President requested additional appropriations to cover pay
increases, to prevent mad cow disease, to enhance import inspections,
to enhance adverse events reporting, and food safety activities. This
bill recommends the full amount requested for these activities and also
provides increased funding for generic drugs, orphan products grants,
dietary supplements, and gene therapy tracking.
Food safety continues to be a very high priority of this committee.
The bill provides the funds necessary to ensure that American consumers
continue to have the safest food supply in the world. Not only does
this bill provide increased funds required for meat and poultry
inspection activities of the Food Safety and Inspection Service, it
increases funding for food safety research and for FDA's food safety
activities.
So the bill accommodates increased funding to meet expected higher
WIC participation levels, to control foreign animal diseases and pests,
to provide rural Americans access to affordable housing and a safe
water supply, and to protect the safety of the Nation's food supply. It
is essential for us to consider this expeditiously so we can get this
bill to conference with the House and on to the President for his
signature.
I think Senators should be aware that we are continuing to assess
supplemental funding needs of various programs and activities included
in this bill as a consequence of the terrorist attacks on our Nation.
Mr. President, to reiterate, I am pleased to join my good friend from
Wisconsin in presenting for the Senate's consideration today the fiscal
year 2002 Agriculture, rural development, Food and Drug Administration,
and related agencies appropriations bill.
This bill, as recommended to the Senate, provides fiscal year 2002
funding for all programs and activities of the United States Department
of Agriculture (with the exception of the Forest Service which is
funded by the Interior appropriations bill), the Food and Drug
Administration, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
As reported, the bill recommends total new budget authority for
fiscal year 2002 of $73.9 billion. This is $803 million more than the
fiscal year 2001 enacted level, excluding emergency appropriations, and
$78 million less than the President's fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Just over seventy-eight percent of the total $73.9 billion
recommended by this bill is for mandatory appropriations over which the
Appropriations Committee has no effective control. The spending levels
for these programs are governed by authorizing statutes. These include
not only the payments to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for
net realized losses and fund the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation,
but also appropriations for the Food Stamp and Child Nutrition
Programs.
Roughly 22 percent of the total appropriations recommended by the
bill is for discretionary programs and activities. Including
congressional budget scorekeeping adjustments and prior-year spending
actions, this bill recommends total discretionary spending of $16.1
billion in both budget authority and outlays for fiscal year 2002.
These amounts are consistent with the subcommittee's discretionary
spending allocations under the Budget Act.
I would like to take a few moments to summarize the bill's major
funding recommendations. For the Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS), appropriations of $716 million are recommended, $21 million
more than the fiscal year 2001 level. This provides additional funding
to enhance food safety activities and to cover pay and benefit cost
increases necessary to support the FSIS workforce, including
approximately 7,600 meat and poultry inspectors.
For the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service responsible for
agricultural quarantine inspection activities and pest and disease
control--including increased vigilance against the entry into this
country of foreign animal disease, such as foot-and-mouth and ``mad
cow'' disease--$608 million is recommended. This is an increase of $64
million from the 2001 level.
Appropriations for USDA headquarters operations and for other
agriculture marketing and regulatory programs are approximately $52
million more than the fiscal year 2001 appropriations levels. Included
in this increase is $19 million for information technology investments
in support of the Department's Service Center Modernization Initiative;
and additional $5 million to support the Department of Agriculture's
buildings and facilities and rental payments' requirements; and a $10
million increase for the costs of the Census of Agriculture.
For programs needed to meet the credit needs of farmers, the bill
funds an estimated $3.9 billion total loan level, $800 million more
than last year's level. The amount recommended includes $1.1 billion
for farm ownership loans and $2.6 billion for farm operating loans.
Total appropriations of $1.2 billion are recommended for salaries and
expenses of the Farm Service Agency. This is $121 million more than the
2001 level and the same as the President's budget request. The
additional funding
[[Page S11063]]
will support Farm Service Agency staffing levels essential to keep pace
with heavy county office workload demands due to a weakened farm
economy.
The bill provides total appropriations of $2.1 billion for
agriculture research, education, and extension activities. Included in
this amount is an increase of $26 million from fiscal year 2001 for
Agriculture Research Service (ARS) buildings and facilities; an
increase of $108 million of research activities of the ARS; and a $40
million increase in funding for the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service.
The amount recommended for the Agricultural Research Service will
continue support for essential ongoing research activities and provide
enhanced funding for a number of priority research needs, including
those focused on emerging exotic plant and animal diseases, genomics,
control of invasive weeds and insects, and the development of biobased
products from agricultural commodities.
The recommended funding for the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service includes a $1.4 million reduction
below the fiscal year 2001 level for special research grants; increases
of $1.0 million for minor crop pest management and $3.8 million for
sustainable agriculture research and education; and total funding of
$137 million, a $31.2 million increase, for the National Research
Initiative competitive grants program. Appropriations for formula
programs, including the Smith-Lever, Hatch Act, and McIntire-Stennis
programs, are maintained at the 2001 funding levels.
For conservation programs administered by USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service, total funding of $980 million is provided, $73
million more than the 2001 level and $52 million more than the
President's request. Included in this amount is $802 million for
conservation operations, $48 million for the resource conservation and
development program, $10 million for a new watershed rehabilitation
program, and $7.8 million for the Forestry Incentives Program.
USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service is funded at a program level of
$126 million, $6 million more than the fiscal year 2001 level and the
same as the budget request. The increase provided will enable the
agency to strengthen its market intelligence capabilities overseas and
to better address technical trade issues, particularly those related to
food safety and biotechnology.
In addition, total appropriations of $1 billion are recommended for
the Public Law 480 program, $31 million more than the fiscal year 2001
and budget request levels. This includes $159.3 million for Title I
credit sales, and $850 million for donations of humanitarian food
assistance overseas under Title II of the program.
The bill also provides total appropriations of $2.8 billion for rural
economic and community development programs, along with a total loan
authorization level of $10 billion. Included in this amount is $1
billion for the Rural Community Advancement Program essential to
supporting safe drinking water supplies and waste disposal systems for
rural Americans; $47 million for the Rural Business-Cooperative
Service; first-time funding for rural broadband telecommunications and
television loans; and $42 million to support a total $4.6 billion
program level for rural electric and telecommunications loans.
In addition, the bill devotes additional resources to those programs
which provide affordable, save, and decent housing for low-income
individuals and families living in rural America. Estimated rural
housing loan authorizations funded by this bill total $4.5 billion, a
net increase of $32 million from the fiscal year 2001 level. Included
in this amount is $4.2 billion for section 502 low-income housing
direct and guaranteed loans and $114 million for section 515 rental
housing loans. In addition, $709 million is included for the rental
assistance program. This is $15 million more than the budget request to
provide sufficient funds to meet contract renewal requirements, and $30
million more than the 2001 appropriations level.
Appropriations totaling $35.8 billion, just over 48 percent of the
total $73.9 billion recommended by the bill, will support our nation's
nutrition assistance programs. This includes $10.1 billion for child
nutrition programs, including the school lunch and breakfast programs;
$4.2 billion for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC); $140 million for the commodity assistance
program; $151 million for the needy family and elderly feeding food
donations programs; and $21.1 billion for the food stamp program.
The total appropriation recommended for the WIC program is $204
million more than the 2001 level and $110 million more than the level
requested by the President for fiscal year 2002. The increase
recommended was based on more recent data on projected program costs
and participation levels at the time the Senate reported the bill.
However, since then, there are indications that WIC caseload has
continued to increase with the steady rise in unemployment and that
additional funding may be required. I am committed to reexamine this
issue in conference to ensure that WIC is adequately funded for fiscal
year 2002.
For those independent agencies funded by the bill, the committee
provides total appropriations of $1.3 billion, $122 million more than
the 2001 level. Included in this amount is $70.4 million for the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission and $1.2 billion for the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA). The bill also establishes a limitation of
$36.7 million on administrative expenses of the Farm Credit
Administration.
For salaries and expenses of the FDA, the bill recommends a total
increase of $129 million from the 2001 appropriations level. The
President requested additional appropriations to cover pay cost
increases; to prevent bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or ``mad
cow'' disease); to enhance import coverage and inspections; to increase
the protection of human subjects in clinical trials; to cover
relocation costs and begin the acquisition of a new financial
information system; and to enhance adverse events reporting and food
safety activities. The bill recommends the full amount requested for
these activities, and also provides increased funding for generic
drugs, orphan product grants, dietary supplements, and gene therapy
tracking.
Food safety continues to be a high priority of this committee. This
bill, as recommended to the Senate, provides the funds necessary to
ensure that American consumers continue to have the safest food supply
in the world. Not only does this bill provide increased funds required
for meat and poultry inspection activities of the Food Safety and
Inspection Service, it increases funding for food safety research and
for FDA's food safety activities.
Mr. President, again, only 22 percent of the total
funding recommended by this bill is for discretionary programs subject
to annual control through the appropriations process. As I indicated
earlier, this bill accommodates increased funding to meet expected
higher WIC participation levels, to control foreign animal diseases and
pests, to provide rural Americans access to affordable housing and a
safe water supply. To protect the safety of the Nation's food supply,
and many other pressing program needs.
Mr. President, this bill was passed by the House of Representatives
on July 11, 2001. It was reported to the Senate by the Committee on
Appropriations on July 18, 2001. Appropriations for programs and
activities covered by the bill are now being provided through a
continuing resolution. It is essential that the Senate complete its
consideration of this bill so that we can conference it with the House
and get a bill to the President.
At the same time we work to complete action on the regular
appropriations bill, Senators should be aware that we are continuing to
assess the supplemental funding needs of various programs and
activities included in this bill as a consequence of the terrorist
attacks on our Nation.
Let me close by thanking my staff members who have been identified by
Senator Kohl. I also thank his staff. We worked together in a spirit of
bipartisanship, to be sure that the needs and interests of all Senators
that have been brought to our attention are taken under serious
consideration. I hope we have been able to meet the needs that have
been pointed out to the committee during our work on this bill. We are
prepared to defend this bill.
[[Page S11064]]
There are some suggested amendments about which we have heard. As a
matter of fact, we have a list about two pages long. Most of these are
acceptable, I am happy to say, but there are a few that are not. I hope
Senators who do have amendments that we have indicated we will not be
able to support will refrain from offering them so we can get on to
final passage of the bill and move this legislation along to the
President for his signature.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Kohl and Senator Cochran
for their extraordinary cooperation and leadership on this Agriculture
appropriations bill which funds the commodity and income support
programs for farmers. It funds conservation programs, crop insurance,
regulatory programs ensuring market competitiveness, rural development
initiatives, value-added projects, agricultural research and security
priorities, trade promotion initiatives, food safety, drug and medical
services, and nutritional programs administered by the Department of
Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration. This bill contains
$74.121 billion for these imperative programs which benefit all
Americans.
There is a lot of focus obviously here on farmers and ranchers,
understandably so. Over half of the funding for these programs, in
fact, goes for nutritional programs which benefit particularly low-
income people as well as students all over America.
This important appropriations legislation, of course, is separate
from the farm bill debate which we hope to have on the floor of the
Senate this year. The current farm bill expires next year. It is our
hope to have a new farm bill in place--perhaps this year but certainly
early on next year if this year it is not possible. It will be
critically important that the Congress capitalize upon the resources
that are provided in this appropriations bill and in the budget
resolution to ensure farmers, ranchers, and rural communities that
they, in fact, have an opportunity to prosper and to compete in the
years ahead.
I am proud to serve on the Agriculture Subcommittee which crafted
this product which has come to us in such an excellent bipartisan
fashion. This Agriculture appropriations bill provides very timely
funding for the Department of Agriculture's guaranteed and direct loan
programs for farmers and ranchers, as well as beginning operators.
It provides almost $4 million for State mediation grants. This is an
area that has been of particular concern to me because of multiple
years of income stress in farm country.
We have needed less litigation and more coming together to try to
devise ways for family farmers and ranchers to have an opportunity to
stay on the farm and to pay their debts but to do so outside of long,
protracted legal proceedings. The mediation grants program has been a
proven success. It has now been reauthorized through the year 2005
because of legislation I authored last year allowing agricultural
producers to sort through their disputes with creditors and with USDA
agencies without costly litigation.
Additionally, this legislation provides funding for our ongoing
conservation efforts and programs that compensate farmers while
preventing soil erosion and providing valuable habitat for wildlife.
This Senate bill provides about $985 million for discretionary
conservation programs administered by the Department of Agriculture--
nearly $30 million more than is contained in our counterpart in the
other body, the House of Representatives.
Agricultural research extension and education is another winner in
this bill. Those programs are central to a strong production in the
agricultural industry in my home State of South Dakota and across the
Nation.
The Senate bill contains $2.3 billion for four USDA agencies to
support these activities. Moreover, our bill includes over $1 billion
for the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service,
which is $32 million more than the House bill. Many new value-added and
bioenergy research projects that benefit farmers, and which will
benefit our Nation ultimately, are funded through these programs
carried out by our land grant universities all over the United States,
including specifically South Dakota State University.
Protecting our Nation's crops, livestock, and overall food and fiber
system from pests, diseases, and new bioterrorist threats is, again,
one of the issues that is addressed in this key legislation.
Given the recent and very real bioterrorist attacks on the people of
the United States, including in this very Capitol complex, I am also
concerned that our Nation's food and fiber systems may be vulnerable to
bioterrorism. A host of factors make our crop, livestock, and food
supplies potentially susceptible to the introduction of a bioterror
threat, such as livestock disease, crop fungus, or foodborne illness.
Our research facilities and land grant colleges are in great need of
emergency funding to boost security and accelerate research to protect
our agricultural industry and to protect our Nation as a whole. This
bill provides appropriate funding levels for these facilities given the
timing of committee action, but we may need to consider additional
emergency funding to boost security and research in these important
labs.
Second, our border inspections need to be dramatically increased, and
greater security needs to be placed on imports of commodities,
livestock, carcasses, food ingredients, and ready-to-eat food items.
Less than 1 percent of imported food currently undergoes inspection by
Federal officials. Given the new set of circumstances that we face
regarding anthrax and bioterror, this must change, and it needs to
change with great urgency.
Additionally, many of the major livestock feeding and processing
areas are concentrated in certain regions of our Nation. The
introduction of a biosecurity threat such as foot and mouth disease
could, in fact, spread rapidly in these areas and would create
horrendous problems for the livestock health and economic viability.
Finally, and perhaps most disturbing, Federal agencies, including
USDA, APHIS, FSIS, Customs, HHS, and the Food and Drug Administration,
responsible for protecting our food and fiber system do not adequately
coordinate their efforts, nor do they effectively communicate among
each other or with the agricultural industry or the public. Therefore,
I believe it is going to be imperative that we establish a crisis
communications and education strategy with respect to bioterrorist
threats to our food supply.
My good friend and colleague, Senator Hagel from Nebraska, and I are
working on legislation which we believe complements and coordinates the
efforts I have referred to here. And the funding made available through
this legislation, in fact, will be an important part of that overall
strategy.
I believe this bill takes significant steps to boost current efforts
to begin new initiatives to protect American agriculture from harm. I
thank the chairman and the ranking member in particular for that
effort.
Now more than ever, ensuring economic security in rural America means
that emphasis has to be placed upon initiatives that serve to enhance
the well-being of rural communities throughout our Nation. Rural
development programs within USDA target financial loan and grant
resources to value-added agricultural projects, telecommunications, and
broadband services, telemedicine, distance learning, rule housing, and
rural electric systems.
The Senate bill devotes almost $2.8 billion to rural development. It
is a great amount of investment to these important programs. Again,
these are programs that will make the difference literally between
communities that prosper and communities that die away and that wither
away in our rural development programs. This legislation provides $300
million more for this array of rural development initiatives than is
found in the legislation of our counterpart, the House of
Representatives.
So in area after area, I believe the Ag Appropriations Subcommittee
and the
[[Page S11065]]
Appropriations Committee as a whole have done very well for our Nation,
for our farmers and ranchers, for our consumers, for the economic
vitality of the entire fabric of our country. I applaud the
bipartisanship and the thoughtful work that went into the production of
this appropriations bill.
It is my hope that we will reach an opportunity for final passage on
this bill still today. It is an excellent piece of legislation. I
applaud all who participated and worked so hard to create this quality
piece of appropriations legislation.
I yield back, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Amendments Nos. 1970 Through 1975, En Bloc
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, at this time I have a series of amendments
which I send to the desk that are technical in nature and have the
approval of the ranking member. These amendments are offered on behalf
of the managers of the bill. They are: An amendment regarding
conditions for transfers of funds; an amendment regarding extraneous
language in the 1994 Endowment Fund account; an amendment regarding
empowerment zones and enterprise communities; an amendment regarding
rural utilities programs; an amendment regarding distance learning and
telemedicine; and an amendment regarding administration of rural
utility programs.
I offer this series of amendments en bloc, and I urge their adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], for himself and Mr.
Cochran, proposes amendments numbered 1970 through 1975, en
bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are adopted
en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 1970 through 1975) were agreed to en bloc, as
follows:
amendment no. 1970
(Purpose: To modify conditions for transfers of funds)
On page 5, line 16, strike ``in the event an agency within
the Department should require modification of space needs,''.
On page 5, line 21, after ``appropriation,'' insert ``to
cover the costs of new or replacement space for such
agency,''.
____
amendment no. 1971
(Purpose: To strike extraneous language from the Native American
Institutions Endowment Fund)
On page 15, strike all beginning with ``: Provided,'' on
line 20 down through and including ``purposes'' on line 24.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 1972
(Purpose: To make a technical correction to the rural empowerment zones
and enterprise communities grants program)
On page 47, after ``1997'' at the end of line 2, insert the
following: ``and Public Law 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated
and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 1973
(Purpose: To make a technical correction to the Rural Utilities Service
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account)
On page 47, after ``1936'' on line 20, insert ``(7 U.S.C.
935 and 936)'':
____
amendment no. 1974
(Purpose: To make a technical correction to the Rural Utilities Service
Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program)
On page 49, after ``for'' at the end of line 6, insert
``the continuation of a pilot project for'' and also on page
49, after ``Provided'' on line 11, insert ``further''.
____
amendment no. 1975
(Purpose: To include omitted language regarding administration of rural
utilities programs)
On page 78, after line 2, insert the following:
Sec. . Hereafter, notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Administrator of the Rural Utilities Service shall
use the authorities provided in the Rural Electrification Act
of 1936 to finance the acquisition of existing generation,
transmission and distribution systems and facilities serving
high cost, predominantly rural areas by entities capable of
and dedicated to providing or improving service in such areas
in an efficient and cost effective manner.
Mr. KOHL. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I bring to the attention of all of our
colleagues that this, hopefully, is the last bill we will consider this
week, and when we finish this bill we could look forward to being out
for the balance of the week. So when that occurs depends upon my
colleagues and their willingness to come to this Chamber to bring any
amendments to our attention they may have.
At this time, I am aware of one amendment that I know is going to
come to the floor. I am not aware of what other amendments may come to
the floor, but whatever they are, it is clearly in our common interest
to get those amendments over here at this time so we can consider them.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KOHL. I yield to Senator Reid.
Mr. REID. I say to my two friends, the managers of the bill, Senator
Daschle has announced that if we finish this bill tonight, we will not
be in tomorrow. If we do not finish the bill tonight, we will be in
tomorrow with votes.
We do not have the ability to communicate the way we normally do by
running hotlines because some people cannot be in their office to
receive them. So this is the notice that everyone will get: People have
to come over and present their amendments or the managers will have no
alternative but to move forward on the bill.
We want to be as agreeable, as considerate to everyone as we can, but
there is an effort to complete this bill as soon as we can.
So, I repeat, this is everyone's notice that if you have an
amendment, this is the time to offer it. If you cannot come over
physically, you have to call the cloakroom and tell them you have an
amendment and give the subject matter of the amendment.
Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. STABENOW. I see my colleagues on the floor are ready to proceed.
I defer to my senior colleague, Senator Levin, from Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Amendment No. 1978
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of myself and Senators Murray, Cantwell, Stabenow, Schumer, Leahy,
Snowe, Collins, Clinton, Kerry, Jeffords, and Kennedy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself, Ms.
Collins, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Schumer,
Mr. Leahy, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Jeffords, and Mr. Kerry, proposes an amendment numbered 1978.
Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide market loss assistance for apple producers)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. MARKET LOSS ASSISTANCE FOR APPLE PRODUCERS.
(a) Assistance Available.--The Secretary of Agriculture
shall use the funds, facilities, and authorities of the
Commodity Credit Corporation, in an amount not to exceed
$150,000,000, to make payments, as soon as practicable after
the date of the enactment of this Act, to apple producers to
provide relief for the loss of markets during the 2000 crop
year.
(b) Payment Quantity.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the payment
quantity of apples for which the producers on a farm are
eligible for payments under this section shall be equal to
the quantity of the 2000 crop of apples produced by the
producers on the farm.
(2) Maximum quantity.--The payment quantity of apples for
which the producers on a farm are eligible for payments under
this section shall not exceed 5,000,000 pounds of apples
produced on the farm.
(c) Limitations.--Subject to subsection (b)(2), the
Secretary shall not establish a payment limitation, or gross
income eligibility limitation, with respect to payments made
under this section.
[[Page S11066]]
(d) Applicability.--This section applies only with respect
to the 2000 crops of apples and producers of that crop.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment will assist apple farmers
who have suffered terrible losses in our Nation from fire blight and
other weather-related and economic damage. It has broad bipartisan
cosponsorship. In our State alone, apple farmers have suffered huge
crop losses and damage due to several hailstorms which caused thousands
and thousands of acres of apple trees to be affected by fire blight.
Fire blight is a bacterium that has destroyed fruit trees across
Michigan and across the country. Experts at Michigan State University
anticipate that a quarter of our apple farmers have trees that are
afflicted by fire blight and that then makes them susceptible to
weather-related disasters. Many of our best apple producers have had
disastrously reduced production and decreased revenues for a number of
years. This amendment would provide vital assistance, not just in our
State of Michigan but for apple producers who suffered losses due to
fire blight or other weather-related disasters.
Much of the loss to apple growers is done to weather-related
disasters, but unfair trade practices have also played an important
role in this decline of the apple industry in this country. The
Department of Commerce ruled in 1999 that China had dumped apple juice
concentrate in the United States and that dumping is still causing the
suffering of farmers and apple growers because of those unfair trade
practices.
The unfair trade practices could not have come at a worse time for
our Nation's apple growers who, according to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, have lost about $1.5 billion over the past 5 years,
including $500 million last year alone, due to a variety of factors
including diseases such as fire blight.
In addition to the large number of colleagues on both sides of the
aisle who have cosponsored this amendment, the United States Apple
Association and the American Farm Bureau Federation recognize the dire
situation facing our apple growers, and both of these organizations
have written to a number of Senators, voicing their support for this
much-needed relief.
I ask unanimous consent these letters be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
American Farm Bureau Federation,
Washington, DC, September 24, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Susan Collins,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins and Senator Levin: The American Farm
Bureau Federation supports your efforts to add $150 million
for market loss assistance for apple producers to the FY02
agriculture spending bill.
This is the third consecutive year that apple growers have
had to survive low prices caused by a flood of imports.
Without assistance, American producers will continue to go
out of business, the jobs the industry supports will be lost,
and the safe and reliable domestic supply of fruit will
disappear.
Many in Congress already understand and support the need
for assistance. The Senate Agriculture Committee passed an
agriculture emergency package that contained $150 million for
apple producers earlier this summer. Unfortunately, apple
producers were left out of the final package that was signed
into law.
The FY 02 spending bill passed by the House contains $150
million in emergency assistance for apple producers. Farm
Bureau believes that apple assistance should also be included
in the Senate bill. Inclusion in both bills will assure that
the assistance will reach producers quickly.
Thank you for your work on behalf of our nation's apple
producers. Farm Bureau stands ready to assist you in your
effort.
Sincerely,
Bob Stallman,
President.
____
U.S. Apple Association,
McLean, VA, October 1, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Levin: The U.S. Apple Association (US Apple)
strongly supports your efforts to garner $150 million in
much-needed emergency market loss assistance for America's
apple growers.
Our nation's apple growers are experiencing the worst
economic losses in more than 70 years, having lost $1.5
billion since 1996 and $500 million last year. Unfairly
priced imports of apple juice concentrate, excessive
regulatory costs, stagnant domestic consumption, food retail
consolidation, subsidized foreign competition, diminished
exports and global overproduction have all contributed to the
devastating economic conditions confronting apple producers.
Apple growers have invested heavily in efforts to reverse
their economic plight, and are not seeking establishment of a
permanent direct assistance program. As losses continue to
mount, however, as many as 30 percent of America's apple
growers will lose their farms without this much needed ad-hoc
assistance.
As you know, the House-approved agricultural appropriations
bill for fiscal 2002 includes $150 million in market loss
assistance for apple growers. The Senate Agriculture
Committee also approved $150 million in assistance for apple
growers as part of its farm relief package. Unfortunately,
apple producers were left out of the final farm aid bill that
was signed into law this past summer.
Thus, we strongly endorse your efforts to include this
desperately needed emergency assistance in the Senate's
fiscal 2002 agricultural appropriations bill.
On behalf of the 9,000 apple growers and more than 500
individual apple businesses we represent, USApple looks
forward to working with you in support of your efforts to
assist America's apple growers.
Sincerely yours,
Kraig R. Naasz,
President & CEO.
____
U.S. Apple Association: Emergency Market Loss Assistance for America's
Apple Growers
The U.S. Department of Agriculture distributed roughly $100
million in market loss payments to 7,500 apple growers
nationwide, as provided by the 106th Congress to offset 1998
and 1999 crop losses. The amount of assistance each state's
apple growers received is listed below under the column
titled AMLAP. An estimate of the amount of assistance each
state's apple growers would receive under the Levin-Collins
amendment to the fiscal 2002 agriculture appropriations bill,
which would provide $150 million in market loss assistance to
offset 2000 crop losses, is listed under the column titled
AMLAP II.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State AMLAP AMLAP II
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona...................................... $56,037 $1,269,802
California................................... 4,260,406 14,557,946
Colorado..................................... 669,559 1,077,244
Connecticut.................................. 79,301 833,854
Georgia...................................... 153,542 461,868
Idaho........................................ 1,021,370 2,342,670
Illinois..................................... 311,624 1,572,777
Indiana...................................... 301,902 1,349,585
Maine........................................ 538,168 1,611,153
Maryland..................................... 396,696 984,669
Massachusetts................................ 866,463 1,837,375
Michigan..................................... 11,270,241 19,460,081
Missouri..................................... 115,477 1,437,448
New Hampshire................................ 425,351 1,037,184
New Jersey................................... 309,370 1,100,809
New York..................................... 9,546,250 15,846,936
North Carolina............................... 2,444,097 3,533,698
Ohio......................................... 720,304 2,946,600
Oregon....................................... 2,051,102 2,997,096
Pennsylvania................................. 3,798,287 8,587,320
South Carolina............................... 142,275 958,411
Utah......................................... 42,390 1,109,225
Vermont...................................... 451,210 1,350,595
Virginia..................................... 1,918,006 4,854,332
Washington................................... 46,331,907 50,371,268
West Virginia................................ 835,373 2,418,413
Wisconsin.................................... 407,838 2,340,650
All Other States............................. 709,305 1,750,992
--------------------------
Total.................................. 90,173,852 150,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
____
[From the Michigan Farm News, Feb. 28, 2001]
Apple Situation Still Disastrous, Tart Cherries Better
(By Paul W. Jackson)
Options for apple growers whose farms were devastated by
fire blight last year are not good, experts agree. For all
growers, prices continue to be disastrous.
``Prices are considerably below the cost of production,''
said Tom Butler, manager of Michigan Processing Apple
Growers. ``Last year was the third year in a row they've been
through tough economic times.''
Hard times are expected to continue, he said, because apple
juice concentrate imports from Argentina, China and Chile
continue at below $5 per gallon. Also, there's domestic
competition to worry about.
``Washington state continues to be a real competitor in
selling fresh applies at low prices, and they're using big
promotions,'' he said. ``That makes it difficult to get our
apples, particularly red delicious, into the marketplace.''
The general state of depression in the apple industry is
worse in southwestern Michigan, where fire blight led to a
federal disaster aid program, a market loss assistance
program and a tree replacement program. But farmers are still
waiting for money from those promises, said Mark Longstroth,
Michigan State University (MSU) District Extension
horticultural and marketing agent in the Van Buren County
office.
``That aid was supposed to come in January, but it's stuck
in Washington (D.C.),'' he said. ``Complaining to your local
FSA (Farm Service Agency) office won't help. Complain to your
legislators.''
While farmers wait for disaster aid, Longstroth said he's
been telling growers who uprooted significant chunks of apple
tree acreage to plant alfalfa this year.
``Don't be in such a big hurry to replant apples,'' he
said. ``Lease the ground for soybeans or corn, or plant
alfalfa to help amend the soil. That might give a grower the
best opportunity to look at what apple varieties might be
best if he wants to replant trees in a year or two.''
[[Page S11067]]
Rumors that many apple farmers are considering vegetable
crops on the vacant ground concerns vegetable growers in the
area who already face tight margins.
``I have no problem with them growing vegetables if they're
already growing them,'' said Ron Goldy, MSU Extension
district vegetable agent for southwestern Michigan. ``They
already have established relationships in the market chain.
They'll talk to their brokers to decide if they can produce
five to 10 more acres,'' he said. ``But if they don't have
those relationships and they try to get into vegetables,
there's potentially no place to send their crops. I'd say
that they're better off renting the ground and maybe getting
$50 an acre for corn or soybeans. Or, there's nothing wrong
with the ground being vacant for awhile.''
Other potential solutions for southwestern Michigan apple
growers seem to have dried up. Rumors that Lawton's Welches'
plant and parent company National Grape Cooperative was
seeking more grape growers aren't true.
``We were looking for more grape ground, but the board of
directors cancelled that call,'' said John Jasper, the co-
op's area manager for Michigan. ``We did pick up some apple
acreage over the last few years, so our needs are filled
right now.''
For apple growers who hope to survive last year's fire
blight problems this year, the recommendation from MSU is to
refrain from nitrogen fertilizer, prune oozing cankers and
pray for cool spring weather.
The waiting game might be a good one to play as well,
Longstroth said. Nurseries are having trouble meeting demand
for replacement trees, and a wait might help growers know
what they should or should not plant in a year or two.
Tart cherries the tart cherry industry is not great, but
there is light at the end of the tunnel, said Phil Korson,
with the Cherry Marketing Institute in DeWitt.
``We feel that a great opportunity for us is in cherry
juice. It's a huge market to capture, it uses a lot of
cherries and it gives consumers the cherry's anti-
inflammatory properties in the most natural way,'' he said.
Value-added products like that have been emphasized by the
Institute for a number of years, Korson said.
``We've worked on things from brandy to beers, to dried
cherries and nutraceuticals,'' he said. ``That's a real
opportunity for the future, and we have ongoing projects at
MSU and in Texas. Amway Corp., (A Michigan-based company)
plans to go to clinical trials this year to extract anti-
inflammatory properties from cherries. The work originally
done at MSU was to identify compounds that have anti-
inflammatory properties. The second part is the technology
used to extract those properties. Those were licensed by
Amway, and this year they bought balaton cherries (a variety
new to the state) to extract those properties, and they'll
take that to clinical trials within the next year.''
Promotion of cherries as a beneficial food has been part of
what brought the tart cherry industry out of its near
disastrous overproduction just a few years ago. And while the
2000 crop was up--and prices down--a promotion program in
Europe, along with health promotions to boost domestic sales
and more than 50 million pounds in sales to the school lunch
program is bringing back strong optimism.
``I think there's a lot of optimism in the cherry market
today,'' Korson said. ``We've invested heavily in research in
Mexico, Japan and Europe, and we look in the future to expand
that network to Korea, Taiwan, Turkey and Poland, to name a
few. There will be years when we'll have too much fruit, but
there are ways to offset that. Among them are expansion of
value-added products for the cherry industry, and marketing
the health benefits of cherries globally.''
____
[From the New York Times, New York, NY, June 23, 2001]
Where Apples Don't Pay, Developers Will
(By Lisa W. Foderaro)
MILTON, N.Y.--In their sun-drenched orchard here in Ulster
County, where the McIntosh and Red Delicious apples are still
the size of cherries, father and son should be a whirlwind of
activity this time of year: spraying and thinning the trees
at Hudson Valley Farms, lining up labor for harvest.
Instead, they will let the fruit fall to the ground this
fall. And they are spending their days indoors, in dry
contract negotiations with housing developers for the sale of
all 650 acres of their orchards--preparing the obituary, in
essence, of a family business that stretches back to the
1920's.
``This is the first time in my life that I have not had a
crop to tend to,'' said Bill Palladino, 58, who owns Hudson
Valley Farms with his son, Jeff, 31. ``It's definitely a
naked feeling. You get emotionally attached to your trees,
your orchards, your way of life. You miss that.''
That is becoming a familiar refrain in Ulster County, the
second largest apple-producing county in a state that is
second only to Washington in apple production. Decisions like
the Palladinos' reflect enormous changes here and for
struggling apple growers around the country.
After several years of losing money in a depressed market
that has devastated apple farmers nationwide, the Palladinos
and at least five other growers in the county are selling
out. They are taking advantage of the wave of suburban sprawl
lapping at the edges of this county 75 miles north of
Manhattan.
In the process, a county where bosky ridges and clear
creeks always seemed a safe distance from the city, a place
where understated hamlets have captivated permanent residents
and weekenders alike, is wondering what the shriveling of the
apple industry will bring.
``It's a big concern--that all this green space will be
turned into development,'' said Suzanne Hauspurg, who, with
her husband, Dan, owns the Inn at Stone Ridge. Trying to
protect their corner of Eden, the two recently bought a 110-
acre apple orchard behind their inn that a builder had been
considering.
The apple growers here are not cashing in so much as they
are staving off financial ruin. They say that money that
arrived last week from the federal government, part of
nationwide program to compensate growers for market losses
with a maximum payment of $28,295, represents a tiny bandage
when what they need is a tourniquet. Some are equally
unimpressed with a state program that helps counties buy
development rights from farmers but that has yet to produce
any final agreements that would keep Ulster land in
agriculture.
Since the early 1990's, farmers across the country have
suffered as production costs have risen and apple prices have
fallen: the result of a worldwide glut of apples, imports
of cheap apple-juice concentrate from China, and a
continuing consolidation among retailers that reduces
farmers' bargaining power. In addition, countries like
South Africa, Chile and New Zealand have emerged as major
exporters of fresh apples to the United States.
Last year, the United States International Trade Commission
voted unanimously to put punitive antidumping duties on apple
juice concentrate from China. But some growers say Chinese
concentrate is still cheaper than American, even with the
imposition of the 52 percent duty.
``Not since the Great Depression have apple growers
sustained such losses,'' said Kraig Naasz, president and
chief executive officer of the United States Apple
Association in McLean, Va. He said that nationwide, apple
farmers have lost $1.5 billion in the past five years. ``This
coming harvest may mark the last for as many as 30 percent of
the nation's apple growers,'' he said.
In the Hudson Valley, insult was added to the national
economic conditions by catastrophic hail storms that wiped
out a third of the apple crop last year. The year before, a
damaging hurricane punctuated a summer of drought in which
farmers spent copiously to irrigate their orchards.
The for-sale signs popping up across Ulster County's
orchards are not new, but they mark a startling acceleration
of a trend that began more than a decade ago. In 1985, 104
farms covered 11,629 acres in Ulster County. By the end of
1996, the most recent year for which statistics are
available, the number of farms had fallen to 63 on 8,632
acres.
Apple farming has continued to dwindle since then, with
production ending on more than 1,500 acres in the last year
alone.
``You could probably call most growers, and they've got
pieces of land up for sale,'' said Michael J. Fargione, an
educator with Cornell Cooperative Extension, a program of
Cornell University that provides research information and
educational programs to farmers. ``I'm not sure people are
aware of the critical point we're at in terms of the
potential for the loss of farms.''
Most of the remaining orchards are particularly attractive
to developers because they lie in towns like Lloyd,
Marlborough and Plattekill on the county's eastern edge,
closer to the train lines across the Hudson River that lead
to New York City. In recent years, as Orange County to the
south and Dutchess County to the east have seen a surge in
home construction, Ulster has drawn professionals in search
of lower prices and open space.
``Ten or twenty years ago, people would say: `I have a 40-
minute commute. Isn't that long?' '' said Seth McKee,
associate land preservation director of Scenic Hudson, an
environmental organization in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., that is
assisting Ulster County in its effort to buy development
rights from farmers. ``Now they say: `I have an hour commute.
Isn't that great?' The development pressures in Ulster are
not quite what they are in southern Dutchess, but that
doesn't mean it's not going to become that way.''
That is just fine with Dennis and Diane Chaissan, apple
farmers who are now subdividing their 350 acres of orchards.
They shut down their apple operation in 1999. He got his
real estate license; she went back to school for a
master's degree in education administration.
``We didn't see a future in it,'' Mr. Chaissan said of the
apple business begun by his grandfather in 1910. ``Over the
last 10 years or so, prices have been stagnant or going down.
I didn't see a return on the money, and I didn't want to
continue. Looking back, I think it was the best decision we
ever made.''
Mr. Chaissan, a trim 46-year-old with a salt-and-pepper
mustache, chose a profession that neatly positioned him to
take advantage of his top asset: land. Apple orchards are
selling for between $3,000 to $10,000 an acre, depending on
the location and factors like slope and drainage. But with
zoning approvals in place for housing, the land becomes much
more valuable.
The Chaissans hope to sell four two-and-a-half-acre
building lots in the hamlet of Clintondale for $25,000 to
$100,000 each. The
[[Page S11068]]
lots, still covered with trees bearing young Empire and
Cortland apples, have magnificent views of the Shawangunk
Mountains to the west.
Like other growers, Mr. Chaissan, who works for Colucci
Shand Realty in Gardiner, N.Y., could not make the economics
of apples work. According to the New York State Apple
Association, a bushel of apples that sold for $14 in the mid
1990's now sells for $9. Mr. Chaissan figures that each
bushel would cost him about $11 to produce. ``Right now
growers are pounding their heads against a wall,'' he said.
``They can't make money, and they see no way out.''
His career switch was shrewd in another way, too. Mr.
Chaissan represents a few of his fellow apple farmers now
selling some or all of their orchards. One potential client
is Jeffrey D. Crist, a fourth-generation apple grower who
owns 500 acres of orchards, half in Ulster County and half in
Orange County.
Mr. Crist is weighing a $2.3 million offer from a developer
for 227 acres of orchards in the town of Hamptonburgh in
Orange County. ``At this point, we're not planning to get out
of the business, but we can grow apples just as easily on
less valuable land farther away from New York City,'' Mr.
Crist said.
Still, Mr. Crist said his first priority was to pay back
his creditors. ``I've got loan payments from last year's
growing season that are unpaid,'' he said, adding that
revenues were down a half previous year. ``We wouldn't invest
in other land if it looked like we were going to lose money.
The industry picture would have to improve.''
Ulster County is now trying to buy development rights from
farmers under a state program that would ensure that the land
is reserved for agricultural use even if it is sold. But the
process is slow. Two years ago, 17 farmers in the county
applied, and the state, which contributes 75 percent of the
purchase cost, chose two. But those two farmers, both apple
growers in Clintondale, have yet to sell.
``It's possible I won't go through with it,'' said Phil
Hurd, an owner of M.G. Hurd & Sons, a 250-acre apple and pear
operation dating to the 1890's. ``My land is owned by several
family members, and it makes it difficult to come to
agreement. The program restricts you to farming, which you
can't make a profit on, so it's a double-edged sword.''
Mr. McKee of Scenic Hudson says conservation programs like
these do not happen overnight. ``It's time-consuming to have
the farmers think about all the possibilities and put it into
an agreement that is perpetual,'' he said. ``They rely on
this land for their livelihood.''
But as a resident of Ulster, Mr. McKee also knows that time
is a luxury neither the county nor the apple industry has.
``It's very painful to watch the impact of suburban sprawl
heading north, but that's all the more reason why these
programs are vital,'' he said. ``For weekenders and local
folks who have been here for generations, it's the loss of a
sense of place. For the farm families, it's hard to watch
what used to be a vast expanse being nibbled away.''
____
[From the Loudoun Times, Leesburg, VA, Aug. 15, 2001]
Va. Apple Producers Face Many Pressures
Market worries, hail and oversupply are causing tough times
for apple growers in Virginia and other apple-growing states.
Producers in both the fresh fruit and processing sectors
are suffering greatly, according to Giles County orchardist
Bill Freeman.
``There's pressure from all sides. Things have gone
downhill for several years, but it's really become a struggle
to stay ahead. We're going to have to find different ways to
market our product and keep it moving despite complications
and competition,'' Freeman said.
``Apple production is quickly becoming a nonprofit
industry,'' said Richard Marini, a Virginia Cooperative
Extension horticulture specialist at Virginia Tech. ``There's
really a worldwide overproduction, and apples have become a
global market.''
Virginia is the nation's sixth largest apple producer,
generating cash receipts of about $40 million in 1999. There
are fewer than 300 commercial growers in the Old Dominion.
Most are located in Frederick County, other parts of the
Shenandoah Valley and Virginia Piedmont, and in Southwest
Virginia.
Estimated losses in national apple production between 1995
and 1998 are $760 million, according to the U.S. Apple
Association, and the average price received by growers in
January dropped to its second lowest level in more than 10
years.
``Washington (state) has really increased production in the
past several years with the thought that they could export
them. But larger production and exports from China and much
of Asia has prevented that,'' Marini said.
In an effort to aid struggling producers, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture began sign-ups March 1 for its
Apple Market Loss Assistance Program. Payments were made on a
grower's first 1.6 million pounds of production in either
1998 or 1999.
``The program is similar to other programs for other
commodities, but it's the first of its kind for apple
producers. Many producers have realized that it's going to be
necessary for their survival at this point, explained Spencer
Neale, senior assistant director of the Virginia Farm Bureau
Federation Commodity/Marketing Department. ``If a producer
has never relied on assistance before, it's a path they may
tend to be reluctant to go down now.''
Freeman said this year's assistance ``has kept us going for
another year, but I'm not sure that it's not just prolonging
the agony.''
The government is currently working on another program for
apple producers that could provide $150 million in
assistance. ``Despite the assistance that's provided to help
producers, it all comes down to supply and product price,''
Neale said.
In addition to market concerns, Virginia apple producers
have suffered problems from numerous hailstorms in recent
months, agriculture officials said.
____
[From the Sun Journal, Lewiston, ME, Aug. 8, 2001]
Apple Growers' Aid Dropping
(By Glen Bolduc)
since 1996 the nation's apple growers have suffered over $1.5b in
market losses.
TURNER--Apple trees used to grow on 850 acres of his farm.
Now there's only 500 acres of the fruit.
``We're getting smaller fast,'' said Harry Ricker, owner of
Ricker Hills Orchards.
The only thing growing seems to be the bills.
``The wholesale apple business has not been profitable for
years now,'' Ricker said. ``Our industry has gotten to the
point where we need to worry about ourselves.''
Since 1996 the nation's apple growers have suffered over
$1.5 billion in market losses. This past growing year alone
has cost them nearly $500 million.
``The apple industry is suffering the worst economic
conditions in 70 years,'' said Kraig Naasz, president of the
U.S. Apple Association in McLean, Va.
Not since the Great Depression have apple growers suffered
such monetary loss, and Naasz estimates that 30 percent of
the nation's apple growers will retire their industry this
year if help isn't provided in some form.
``We're in trouble,'' Ricker said, ``and we need some
government help.''
government aid
Last week the U.S. Senate caved in to President Bush's veto
threat and approved a $5.5 billion agriculture assistance
bill that was $2 billion less than the House version.
Republican Susan Collins of Maine was one of the senators who
voted in favor of the trim; Olympia Snowe voted in favor of
the House version.
About $50 million of the $2 billion cut from the original
draft would have been used to supplement the market loss of
apple growers. But the approved version still provides $169
million to states for various needs.
``The funds would have been well utilized,'' said Ned
Porter, deputy commissioner of the Maine Department of
Agriculture. ``However, we're not out of the fight yet.''
The House has currently approved another farm aid bill that
will provide about $150 million--an estimated $900,000 for
Maine--in market loss assistance.
Although the bill still has to wait for Senate and White
House approval next month, Naasz said he expects it to pass.
``It looks very promising,'' he said.
But Don Ricker, father of Harry Ricker, said that a lot of
times the funding never comes.
``Typically the Congress passes all these bills, and they
get a lot of press, but then it just dies,'' he said. ``You'd
think that I was living high with all these handouts.''
Ricker's orchard was awarded farm assistance in a 1998
bill, but the check didn't come until June 2000.
why the hard times
The cause of the economic stress is all in the politics of
sale and trade, Naasz said. ``The reasons are many and mostly
beyond the control of apple growers.''
In the last 10 years, the nation's price for apples has not
risen.
``I can't go on,'' Dimock said. ``We're simply not getting
for our crop what it takes to produce it.''
Rising costs in fuel, chemicals, and labor are not being
met adequately, and the cost for apples in the United States
is dropping even further because of foreign imports.
China produces four times the amount of the United States,
and recent years have seen prices for American apples drop
from eight cents a pound to 1 cent a pound as the overseas
product floods the American market.
``This stuff goes in cycles,'' Ricker said. But once the
American market is profitable again for apple growers,
``we're not going to be here to do that.''
Besides government assistance, Naasz said, other remedies
will have to include raising apple prices, placing limits on
imports and increasing marketing campaigns.
``It's encouraging consumers to eat that apple a day for
health,'' he said.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, our growers have invested heavily in their
efforts to reverse their economic plight. They are not seeking the
establishment of a permanent direct assistance program. However, unless
we take some interim action here, as many as 30 percent of American
apple growers are going to lose their farms. So this ad hoc assistance
which we are struggling to achieve is essential if we are going to
avoid that calamity.
The fiscal year 2001 agricultural supplemental appropriations bill
that
[[Page S11069]]
emerged from the committee included funding of $150 million for our
Nation's apple growers. That provision, which came out of the
committee, had to be dropped at the last minute if we were going to get
a bill passed at all. So the Senate version of the bill had to be
dropped, which included that assistance. Instead, the House bill was
adopted which at that time did not include the assistance.
What has happened subsequently is the following. The House bill now
has $150 million for our Nation's apple growers, and it will go to
conference whether we adopt this amendment or not. We have had
discussions among ourselves, the sponsors of this amendment, as to what
would be the best approach to take.
I will yield the floor at this time, but I simply want to say this--
and I want to speak to my good friend from Wisconsin in a moment. Our
goal is to achieve this assistance one way or the other--either on this
floor or in conference--by our giving the House provision the final say
in this matter.
I am going to have a colloquy in a few moments with our friend from
Wisconsin.
At this time there are a number of other cosponsors of this amendment
in the Chamber who I hope can now be recognized before that colloquy
takes place.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment by
the Senator from Michigan. This is an extremely important measure. The
Senator from Michigan aptly described what has happened to our apple
farmers across the country. In my home State of Washington, it has been
a tremendous disaster with the economic loss for the young families who
are working diligently to try to make ends meet in this industry for
the last several years. It has been heartbreaking to watch.
The Senator from Michigan talked about the dumping of apple juice
concentrate by China, which contributed to the decline in our apple
growing communities. Severe weather conditions this year have caused
horrendous problems for these orchardists who have been struggling for
the last few years anyway. The loss of markets in Asia, because of the
Pacific Rim crisis, precipitated this dramatic loss for many farmers in
the State of Washington.
The Senator from Michigan described the process that we have been
going through. Senator Cantwell from my home State and I worked hard
with the Senators from Michigan, New York, Maine, Vermont, and
Massachusetts on the emergency supplemental bill to provide $150
million for the apple industry in this country. That support was not
included in the Agriculture Appropriations bill when it came out of
committee because we fully expected the Administration and the House to
support this as an emergency supplemental measure. Unfortunately, they
did not. As a result, in August Congress recessed without the money in
the emergency agricultural supplemental. This bill is now coming to the
floor, and it is absolutely essential for our farmers.
Senator Cantwell and I have traveled around our State. We have seen
the tremendous pain and loss among our farmers, and we have seen the
hardships they are experiencing today.
My grandfather, back in the early 1900s, lived in central Washington
and was part of the apple industry. I can tell you, when I was growing
up I remember driving across central Washington and seeing our
tremendous, beautiful orchards. I was so proud to be from Washington
State. Today, as a Senator traveling around the world, I am proud to be
able to talk about bringing our apples into markets worldwide--both for
our economy and for establishing great relationships with countries
everywhere. The apple is the symbol of the State of Washington.
It is upsetting for me to visit central Washington today and see so
many abandoned orchards. Many of the orchards have been bulldozed
because farmers can't sell their apples for a fair price.
Add to that the weather conditions of this year with the drought that
has occurred in the State of Washington and the severe hailstorms we
have seen. That means we will not have these orchards in the future if
we don't provide assistance this year in the Agriculture appropriations
bill. I am committed to providing it, along with my colleague from
Washington State, and the Senators from Michigan, New York,
Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine. All of us have worked hard together
with our chairman, who has been a great advocate and supporter.
I thank the Senator from Wisconsin. He understands the plight of our
farmers. He is committed to working with us to ensure this assistance
is there for our farmers. It is essential for a way of life in
Washington State and across this country. It is essential for a product
that is important to my home State and to many others. I believe it is
essential for the future of this industry that we have this help and
assistance from this Congress this year in this appropriations bill.
I thank the Senator from Michigan for offering this amendment. I
thank our Chair, Senator Kohl, for his support and his assistance. I
look forward to working with my colleagues to be sure we don't lose
these important farmers and this important resource for our country.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise also to support this very
important effort and very important amendment.
I, first, thank my senior colleague and friend from Michigan for his
ongoing leadership in this effort to support our apple growers in
Michigan and across the country, and my colleagues who are joining us
in the Chamber certainly have been at the forefront of this battle.
We really have had two strategies. One is to focus on research for
apple fire blight. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the
ranking member for their ongoing efforts. There are dollars in this
bill for apple fire blight research. That continues to be a priority. I
thank him for his vision and his support because in the long run we are
hoping the research will allow us to be able to find ways for our
farmers to eradicate this terrible disease that is so afflicting the
apple growers across the country.
In the meantime, we know that in the last 5 years apple growers
across our country have lost $1.5 billion. Last year alone, $500
million was lost as a result of this effort.
We are talking about a serious disease affecting a very important
Michigan industry and national industry.
I am very hopeful that we can come together and support the $150
million effort. I am very pleased that the House has finally recognized
this and is supporting this effort in the House bill.
Let me stress one more time that originally we had this supplemental
funding in the emergency supplemental that we passed. As a member of
the Agriculture Committee, we worked very hard with colleagues to get
that money in the Senate bill. I appreciate everyone's efforts at that
time. Unfortunately, we were not able to pass the Senate bill. We were
not able to address it earlier, which we had hoped would happen.
Now we find ourselves in a situation where we are seriously in need
of addressing this as quickly as possible. This amendment is absolutely
critical. I hope we will have the support of colleagues.
While I have the floor, I also want to say one more time a thank you
to our leader, the chairman of the subcommittee, and the ranking member
for a number of different issues in this bill that are important to
Michigan--the focus on the eradication of bovine disease and specialty
crop research in other areas are very important. I very much appreciate
the fact they are willing to undertake this issue and support our apple
growers. It is absolutely critical to our economy and to the economy of
many, many States.
I yield the floor. Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak, along with my
colleagues from Michigan and Washington who have eloquently talked
about the important need of helping the apple industry--not just those
States mentioned but all across the Nation. We
[[Page S11070]]
are trying to move forward on an Agriculture appropriations bill. We
have the opportunity in that process to express the failure of last
August when we actually had the means by which to help legitimate apple
growers across the country in the emergency supplemental.
I very much appreciate the efforts of the Senator from Wisconsin to
help us bring attention to this issue. The current House version of
this bill includes $150 million in apple assistance. We need to match
that assistance.
As my colleagues have stated, this industry, particularly this year
for us in the State of Washington, has just been devastating, largely
due to the fact we have had the second worst drought on record in our
State. Not only have farmers been without all the resources they need,
but the high cost of energy in those areas where farmers have been able
to irrigate has made this a very difficult year.
We have already seen how important the apple industry is in our
State. Over 183,000 people are employed in that industry. But every one
of these family farms are on the brink, and they need help now.
Current prices are 40 percent below the cost of production. Between
1995 and 1998, apple growers lost approximately $760 million due to
questionable import practices involving such countries as China and
Korea--in addition to stiff export tariffs.
They also face increases in the price of diesel fuel. Prices are up
20 to 30 percent over last year. The cost of running electricity pumps
that these farmers use is expected to rise as much as 150 percent.
Our farmers have been facing all of these things, and some are very
close to bankruptcy.
So I very much appreciate the Senator from Wisconsin in his efforts
to make sure this issue gets addressed as we move through the process,
and I very much appreciate his efforts earlier this year in making sure
the Senate version of the supplemental included this support.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the previous
speakers on this issue.
I would like to declare that I will fight for them in conference. The
House of Representatives has the money in their bill, and that fact
will give us the opportunity to meet this need of apple growers. The
Senators from the States of Michigan, Washington, New York, Maine,
Massachusetts, and Vermont have been very persuasive, most effective,
and, frankly, relentless in this cause on behalf of their apple
growers.
This bill was voted out of the Appropriations Committee in July, and
we fully expected the White House and the House of Representatives to
fund this urgent need for apple growers in the agricultural
supplemental. In fact, the Senate had done that. That is why it isn't
in this bill. And the budget allocation precludes me from putting it in
now. That is why I am declaring I will fight for it in conference
instead. I very much appreciate the advocacy of the Senators from those
States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Edwards be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the good Senator from Wisconsin has really
worked with us on so many issues. I appreciate very much what he has
just said. With that assurance, I am satisfied, and I intend to
withdraw this amendment. I think, however, there may be another speaker
on this amendment. I will not withdraw it if there is another speaker.
I will withhold that at this time.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Michigan,
I am very supportive of his amendment, but I was going to speak to
another one and would love to be added as a cosponsor to this
amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. We welcome that.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Oregon
be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1978 Withdrawn
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I withdraw this amendment at this time,
with thanks to Senator Kohl and also Senator Cochran. I have had a
chance to speak with Senator Cochran, who has been so helpful on a
whole host of issues in the agricultural area. While we had a minor
disagreement in the area of missile defense, in so many other areas we
have worked together on issues. I hope we can work together on this
issue as it proceeds to conference.
I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to withdraw the
amendment. The amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Wisconsin in
thanking the Senator from Michigan for his action. I know it is a
serious problem, and it has been well identified. The Senator from
Oregon has an interest in it as well.
There are other agricultural activities that are similarly situated.
We have heard from the Senator from Wyoming, for example, on the plight
of the livestock industry; there are problems in some other specific
areas of the country because of drought--all of which are in need of
special assistance and special economic assistance in this time of
hardship.
So all of these interests are going to be considered. They should be
considered by the Congress as we work to reach an agreement in
conference on this bill.
I am happy to join with the Senator from Wisconsin in assuring those
who talked about the apple industry and the problems they have that
their interests will be carefully considered. I hope we can work out a
provision in this bill in conference that will be satisfactory with
them.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Amendment No. 1981
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today, again, to raise my
voice on behalf of the farmers of Klamath Falls, OR, and the Klamath
Falls Basin that includes northern California in equal numbers.
I first thank my colleagues of the Senate and of the entire Congress
for the $20 million that was allocated on an emergency basis to help
these farmers to stave off foreclosure.
My colleague, Senator Wyden, and I pointed out at the time that it
was probably a tenth of what was actually needed, and that is proving
to be the case, because the wolves of foreclosure are at the doors of
many farms right now. The reason is simply that they were denied a
season of farming. You can imagine what it would mean if the Federal
Government took away the means by which any of us makes a living for a
year and how we might survive. The truth is, we cannot. No one saves
that money. The way farms operate, they do not have those kinds of
margins.
So what I am doing today is seeking an additional appropriation to
help them; it comes in two requests: One, it is to provide these 1,400
farm families with an additional $38 million in direct assistance; in
addition to that, $9 million for activities to improve water storage
and water quality in the Upper Klamath River Basin.
I have searched for offsets. I found one. I am willing to work with
the Congress on making these dots connect, but I am identifying it as
an offset: the sale of Pershing Hall in Paris, France. It is along the
Champs Elysees. It is owned by the Department of Veterans Affairs. It
is empty. We are paying taxes on it. It is exceedingly valuable real
estate. It is run down. It is vacant.
I am asking that we sell this building and that we use this money to
help these farmers. It will generate at least this amount of money, and
more. I am simply saying that, in very real terms, this money is needed
now while it is being wasted in Paris.
The people of Oregon generally have the highest rates of unemployment
in America, but certainly the pain is felt more acutely in Klamath
Falls than any place of which I can think.
So I ask for consideration of my amendment. I look forward to working
with the chairman and the ranking
[[Page S11071]]
member, both of whom have expressed support for my cause on this issue.
And I thank them for that. I also thank my colleague, Senator Wyden,
for his equal partnership in the effort to try to salvage 1,400 great
family farms.
I yield the floor, Mr. President, and thank you for the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I come to this Chamber today to join my
colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith. One can debate whether we have
found precisely the right offset. Senator Smith and I have scoured the
budget and intend to work closely with the chairman of the subcommittee
and the chairman of the full committee and, of course, the ranking
minority members as well, so as to ensure that this is addressed at the
proper time in the proper way.
But as Senator Smith has correctly said, what I think is not
debatable is the fact that there is a world of hurt, a world of pain in
the Klamath Basin in the State we represent. We have scores and scores
of farmers in that part of the State who are on the ropes as we speak.
These are people who have worked hard all their lives. That have
played by the rules. They have done nothing wrong. But clearly, now, as
a result of policies that ensure we can find water for all the uses
about which people of Oregon and people of this country feel strongly--
agriculture, environment, conservation--there is a tremendous crunch in
our part of the country.
Senator Smith and I have spent many hours in recent weeks working to
forge a coalition between agricultural interests, environmental
interests, the rural communities--all of the stakeholders--the tribes,
and all of the parties who feel so strongly about this.
The reason we come to the floor today is that we want to work with
the Appropriations Committee--particularly the chairman, Senator Kohl,
and Senator Cochran, who have been very gracious to us in working on
Klamath issues in the past--so we can get this urgently needed
assistance.
It is our understanding that there are some questions about exactly
from which account this should come. Senator Smith has been very clear,
in making our initial remarks, that we intend to work with both the
subcommittee and the full committee to ensure this offset does come
from the appropriate account.
What is not debatable is how grave the need is. We have farmers who
are not going to survive. They are not going to be there a few months
down the road, if we can't get the assistance through this amendment
the two Oregon Senators offer today.
I thank Chairman Kohl and Senator Cochran. We are going to be working
closely with them and with the chairman of the full committee and the
ranking minority member, Senator Stevens, so that we can find the funds
needed so urgently in the Klamath Basin and we can give a little bit of
hope at this critical time to those families who are suffering today
and are worried about whether they are going to be able to farm
tomorrow.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask for adoption of the
amendment.
Mr. REID. I couldn't understand the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has not yet been proposed.
Mr. REID. What did the Senator from Oregon say?
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I am asking for consideration of our amendment.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I object. I would like to make a statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. KOHL. We do not have a copy of the amendment. However, we do
understand that the offset of which they speak falls in the
jurisdiction of another subcommittee. We need to confer with that
subcommittee and the Congressional Budget Office. We did provide $20
million to the Klamath Basin in the spring supplemental. No other
disaster assistance has been provided by this committee. If we accept
this amendment, then others will seek additional assistance which our
allocation cannot provide.
This is a very difficult amendment for this committee to support. In
fact, we will not support it.
In addition, I am fairly certain that the offset they are discussing
does not fall within this committee's jurisdiction. I humbly and
respectfully suggest that they pursue a different avenue than
requesting a vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask for the amendment's
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Smith], for himself and Mr.
Wyden, proposes an amendment numbered 1981.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide assistance for farmers and ranchers in the Klamath
Basin, Oregon and California)
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
``In addition to amounts otherwise available, $38,000,000
from amounts pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 713a-4, for the Secretary
of Agriculture to make available financial assistance to
eligible producers in the Klamath Basin, as determined by the
Secretary.
``$6,600,000 will be available for the acquisition of
lands, interests in lands or easements in the Upper Klamath
River Basin from willing sellers for the purposes of
enhancing water storage or improving water quality in the
Upper Basin.
``$2,500,000 will be available through the rural utilities
account to fund the drilling of wells for landowners
currently diverting surface water upstream of Upper Klamath
Lake, Oregon.
``Funding for this program will come from the sale of
Pershing Hall, a Department of Veterans' Affairs building in
Paris, France.''
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I would like to work with the
chairman and the ranking member to find the offset that works and that
would win the support of the chairman and ranking member. I thank them
both.
Mr. KOHL. We would be happy to accommodate the Senator with respect
to his last comment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Amendment No. 1981 Withdrawn
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw the amendment that is now pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is
withdrawn.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, while we are waiting for amendments to be
offered, I wanted to make a couple of comments about this subcommittee
bill and talk about the work done by Senator Kohl and Senator Cochran
on this bill.
As always, as I have indicated before, a lot of difficult work goes
into putting together the Agriculture appropriations bill. Senators
Kohl and Cochran work very well together. I, for one, appreciate their
cooperation and their assistance. I think they have put together a good
piece of legislation.
There are two issues that I have on previous occasions brought to the
floor during the consideration of this legislation. One issue we
discussed last year on this bill, among other things, is the
reimportation of prescription drugs. This issue deals with drug prices,
and what we can do to lower those prices.
As I understand it, in the House of Representatives in their
Agriculture appropriations bill, there is a provision dealing with the
reimportation of drugs that will come to conference this year. It is my
intention not to offer an amendment in the Senate on this matter this
year--not because it is not important because it is very much so, but
as we all know too well, a number of things have happened at this point
to change our focus. Other events have happened in this country that
have caused us to focus on other serious issues dealing with terrorism
and so on. I think this is not the point at which we ought to go off
into the medicine importation debate. Therefore, I
[[Page S11072]]
will not offer an amendment dealing with the reimportation of
prescription drugs.
However, let me say this issue will not go away. It is still
critically important. The issue will be alive in conference because
there is a provision in the bill sent to us by the House of
Representatives. One of the reasons we--myself, Senator Jeffords,
Senator Stabenow, Senator Snowe, Senator Wellstone, and a number of
others of us--have worked on the issue of prescription drug prices and
reimportation is that prescription drugs are priced higher in the
United States than anywhere else in the world. You see a prescription
drug sold across the counter in this country to the American consumer
at the highest price in the world. That is not fair.
I have told colleagues of my experience in taking a group of senior
citizens from North Dakota up to Emerson, Canada, just 5 miles across
the North Dakota-Canadian border. In a little one-room pharmacy in
Canada, you can buy the same prescription drugs sold in Pembina, ND.
The only difference is price--same drug, same pill, put in the same
bottle, manufactured by the same company. You can buy it for 50-percent
or 70-percent less across the border in Canada than you can in the
United States. That is not fair to the American consumer, and it is not
fair pricing.
We all know spending on prescription drugs is increasing
dramatically--15, 16, 18 percent a year, year after year. The American
people--particularly senior citizens--are very concerned about this.
One of the proposals we had offered previously was to say: If this is a
global economy, why can that not work for everybody, why not for all
Americans? Why can't an American citizen or, yes, an American
pharmacist, or a distributor get access to cheaper drugs in Winnipeg,
Canada, and bring them back and pass the savings along to the American
consumer?
Let me give a couple of examples. Cipro, a drug most of us now know
about, is used to treat infections. In recent days, we have seen that
it has been given to thousands of people who have been exposed to
anthrax. The average wholesale price in the United States is $399 a
bottle. You can buy Cipro in Canada at $171 a bottle. Let me say that
again. A bottle of Cipro--same strength, same number of tablets--in
Canada costs $171, but when you buy it in the United States, it is
$399. Why more than twice as expensive in the United States? Why does
the American consumer pay more than twice as much for the same drug,
put in the same bottle, made in an FDA-approved plant? Does that make
sense?
Or take the example of Zocor. A football coach tells us on television
in an advertisement that I suppose I have seen 500 times that Zocor
would be great to lower your cholesterol. The average wholesale price
in the United States is $3.82 for one 20-milligram tablet. In Canada,
it is $1.82. Fair? I don't think so.
Zoloft is used to treat depression. In the United States, it is $2.34
per 50 milligram tablet. In Canada, the exact same tablet costs $1.28.
Fair? I don't think so.
For every dollar we spend for the same prescription drugs in this
country, the Canadians spend 64 cents; the Swedes pay 68 cents; in
Great Britain it costs 65 cents; and in Italy, 51 cents. That is what
is angering the American people and propelling a number of us to say if
this global economy is to work, why can't it work for all Americans?
Why can't a pharmacist from Grand Forks, ND, access the same
prescription drug produced in an FDA-approved plant and bring it back
and pay half the price and pass the savings along to the consumer in
this country. I offered an amendment of this type last year. We went to
conference. We actually succeeded in getting this agreed to in
conference. And both the Clinton administration and the Bush
administration Secretaries of Health and Human Services said they would
not implement this legislation because they said it would not, among
other things, save money. Let me ask if there is anybody who has gone
past the third grade who doesn't understand that, if you buy Cipro in
the United States and pay $399 a bottle and are only required to pay
$171 a bottle in Canada, that you can't save money by buying the bottle
from Canada.
I guess the only people who think that are the two successive
Secretaries of Health and Human Services. I don't know what kind of
math they taught in their schools, but I went to a school with 40
students in all 4 high school grades. There were 9 in my senior class.
I studied the highest math they offered, and I can understand that this
saves money, and there is no Secretary of any Agency in the Federal
Government who can convince us otherwise.
Nonetheless, neither administration will implement it. The result is
a law that was passed last year is not yet implemented. For reasons I
discussed before, we will not offer the amendment on this piece of
legislation. But this will be a conferenceable issue because a
provision is coming from the House on the Agriculture appropriations
bill, and we will resolve this then. It is, I think, an unusual time in
our country's history, as we wage a fight against terrorism and deal
with a range of issues, so that perhaps this is not the right time to
have a full-scale debate about this issue. But there will probably
never be a right time, and there will be a time when we must force this
again on behalf of the American consumer, to ask how do you justify
this? How do you justify drug companies charging the highest prices to
the American consumers out of any consumers in the world? How do you
justify doubling and tripling the price? How do you justify to a woman
who has breast cancer that she ought to pay 10 times more money for
Tamoxifen purchased in the United States than in Canada. How do you
justify that to somebody fighting cancer, who has to fight a pricing
policy for prescription drugs that is wrong?
The answer is that you cannot justify it. That is why this Congress,
sooner or later--and I hope sooner--will deal with that subject.
Now, Mr. President, there is one other issue on which I have
traditionally offered an amendment on this subcommittee. Again, I will
not because I understand we are not able to do it this year for a
number of reasons. Each year, in recent years, we have had to offer
amendments to the Agriculture appropriations bill on the floor of the
Senate trying to provide some weather disaster and economic relief.
Why? Because the Freedom to Farm bill was miserable, a miserable
failure. It was a disaster, in my judgment. So each year, because it
was not countercyclical, it didn't provide help when farmers needed
it--or enough help--as we saw commodity prices collapse. We had to try
to put some sort of disaster relief in the bill, both weather and
economic. We normally described it as emergency spending. We went to
conference and boosted it.
I would say the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from
Mississippi were instrumental in making all of that assistance
available to family farmers in this country. I commend them for that.
We will likely, in some areas of the country, again this year, need
some weather disaster assistance. I understand that in Montana, Idaho,
Wyoming--and some other areas that colleagues have talked about--there
has been drought. And in some other areas, too much rain has fallen. I
expect there won't be a weather disaster amendment this year to this
appropriations bill because I don't think the money exists or the
emergency category exists to accommodate that. But there will be an
economic stimulus package that will be discussed and considered, and it
seems to me that one of the things that might be considered would be a
livestock and crop loss assistance for disaster aid to those who
suffered disasters.
In fact, it is stimulative because that money gets in the hands of
producers who then are able to use that immediately to deal with the
debts they have and put that money on the main street of our small
towns and cities across the country.
So as we move along, even though this subcommittee will not carry
these two amendments in its markup this year, it is my hope both of
them will continue to be considered, one in conference because it will
come from the House, and the second, I hope, perhaps in the stimulus
package when we have an opportunity to consider that in the Senate.
Finally, there are a lot of provisions of this Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee bill that are critically important dealing
with research and
[[Page S11073]]
other matters relating to American agriculture. Our agriculture in this
country ought to be a source of enormous pride to all of us. In my
judgment, family farmers in America are America's economic all-stars.
Yet they have had an awfully tough time year after year as commodity
prices have collapsed. One part of trying to help them is not only
trying to write a new farm bill, which we should do and we ought to do
soon. In fact, we ought to bring a farm bill to this Chamber within a
matter of weeks. But, one part of assistance in addition to that farm
bill is to provide the kind of research help that will allow family
farmers the ability to have access to new seeds--disease-resistant
strains of seeds--to make them more effective and reduce risks. That is
what much of this bill is about, investment and research.
I again say thanks to the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, and
Senator Cochran from Mississippi. It is always a pleasure to work with
them. They do a good job, and I am proud of them.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have had a number of inquiries in both
cloakrooms about how this bill is moving along, and it is moving along
fine. The two managers are working on what amendments can be accepted,
which ones cannot be accepted. That list should be completed relatively
soon, within the next half hour, hopefully.
The only amendment outstanding, other than what the managers are
working on, it is believed, is the Harkin amendment. He is working with
Senator Nelson of Nebraska to see if they can work out language on that
amendment. If not, Senator Harkin would offer that amendment. As I
understand it, Senator Nelson of Nebraska would move to second degree
that amendment.
As I said, they are trying to work out that amendment. So Senators
should be advised, we hope, within the next hour or so, and with a
little bit of luck, we can complete this legislation. If someone has an
amendment and they have not been able to work with the managers, have
not had the opportunity to offer the amendment, they should come over
because we are going to wrap up this bill totally as soon as we
complete what the managers are working on, and the Harkin amendment.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have been waiting here while a couple of
our colleagues are trying to resolve some differences in the Cloakroom
on an amendment. It is taking them a while so it gives me an
opportunity to say a bit about an amendment that I have offered to this
bill the last 2 years and which the Senate has accepted both time. I
have not offered it this year and will not this evening. I wanted to
explain why.
That amendment deals with the shipment of food and medicine to Cuba
and the ability of American farmers to sell food to Cuba. In the last 2
years I offered amendments to this appropriations bill that would have
eliminated the embargo that now prevents American farmers from selling
food to Cuba.
As you know, the American embargo of Cuba has been a failure for 40
years. That embargo has included restrictions on the shipment of food
and medicine to Cuba. I have said for several years it is morally
wrong, in my judgment, for us to use food and medicine as a weapon. It
is not right for us to use food and medicine as part of an embargo. It
doesn't injure Fidel Castro. He has never missed a meal because we
don't ship food to Cuba.
Our allies, the Canadians and Europeans and others, of course, are
able to sell food and other goods to Cuba. It is just the American
farmer who is prevented from accessing that markets.
Twice I have offered amendments to fix the problem. The first year my
amendment got hijacked because the conference got abandoned and the
leaders would not allow it to resume because they knew I had the votes
in conference to end the embargo on food and medicine shipments to
Cuba. The second year the House of Representatives changed the language
and boasted they had solved the problem, but of course they did not.
What they provided was that food could be shipped to Cuba, except the
sales could not be financed even with private financing. So we still,
in fact, have an embargo on food shipments to Cuba. There are no food
shipments happening between this country and Cuba. So the U.S.
government still tells our farmers: You pay the cost of this embargo.
You cannot be part of the Cuban market for food. You can't be a part of
it, the Canadians can, the Europeans can, but you can't because we have
an embargo of which you are going to pay the cost.
This is unfair to farmers. And I don't think it is a moral policy for
our country to use food as a weapon.
Let me say, finally, the provision that was completed last year
started the right way in the Senate with my amendment. We did the right
thing. It got watered down and then perverted in the conference, and
those who did it that boasted that this really solved the problem. A
year later we know it did not.
I would say by this time next year, when I certainly will again offer
this amendment in the Senate, it will be quite evident that what they
boasted of last year never materialized at all. Farmers were still
paying the price for this embargo.
We have had plenty of experience with embargoes on food. It ought not
be a lesson we need to learn two or three times. Shooting ourselves in
the foot doesn't really solve much of the problem. As I indicated,
Fidel Castro has never missed a meal because of the embargo. He does
just fine. It is our family farmers who suffer.
If necessary, I will offer an amendment to fix this problem again
next year. I would like to do so now. However, I think this is not the
time. It is late in the year. We should have passed this appropriations
bill weeks ago. If I offered this amendment this evening, we would be
off into a debate that would last many hours. But I would like to
remind my colleagues that I have offered it for the last 2 years. I
will offer it again, and some of my colleagues on this appropriations
subcommittee will join me the next time we go around.
In deference to the work that we need to do and the times we are in,
I think it is important for all of us to work together to try to find a
way for us to avoid the kind of controversy that divides us hour after
hour after hour. We have been through all of that.
I wanted to explain why I am not going to offer that amendment this
evening. But be sure to keep tuned because it will be offered again.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to discuss for a few moments
the fundamental problem with this appropriations bill and then talk a
little bit about the pork that is again prevalent and on the increase
in this appropriations bill.
First of all, I want to talk about Federal subsidies, where they go,
who should be receiving them, the largess of the Federal Government
taxpayers' money under the present setup, how we are going to work
subsidies, and how the money is distributed.
Earlier this year, the General Accounting Office released a report
that details some very critical information on the disturbing trends of
federal farm assistance. The GAO reports that over 80 percent of farm
payments have been made to large- and medium-sized farms, while small
farms have received less than 20 percent of the payments.
In 1999, large farms, which represent about 7 percent of all farms
nationwide with gross agricultural sales of $250,000, received about 45
percent of federal payments. These payments average about $64,737.
Seventeen percent of farms that are medium-sized with gross sales
between $50,000 and $250,000, received 45 percent of all payments.
Payments average $21,943.
Let me repeat that.
[[Page S11074]]
Seven percent of all the farms are now getting 45 percent of all the
payments. Seventeen percent of farms that are medium sized and with
gross sales between $50,000 and $250,000 receive 45 percent of all
payments. Payments average $21,943.
What does this mean? Generally, small farms--with gross sales under
$50,000--received only 14 percent of the payments, despite the fact
that small farms make up about 76 percent of the farms nationwide. Most
of these payments average about $4,141. That is about 6 percent of the
total amount made available to large farms.
There is something wrong here. Seventy-six percent of all the farms
get 14 percent of the payments. Seven percent of the farms receive 45
percent of the payments.
Where is the rhetoric about the small and family farmer?
The GAO also concluded that:
The percentage of payments received by the large, very
large, and nonfamily farm types increased from 1993 and
decreased for other farm types. These farms also experienced
substantial increases in the average payment that they
received in 1999.
Large and very large farms received about 22 percent of the
payments in 1999, with average payments ranging from $51,000
to $85,000.
If we take a look at what has happened with the Freedom to Farm bill
and with the substantial amount of emergency and supplemental payments
Congress has delivered since 1998, the trend seems to indicate that
small farmers are receiving less and less federal assistance. In 1995,
small farms received 29 percent of payments. By 1999, small farms
received 14 percent.
Thus far, between 1999 and 2001 alone, Congress has designated more
than $30 billion in emergency or supplemental spending for farm relief.
While the 1996 farm bill was intended to reduce reliance on the Federal
Government, payments to farmers have increased by 400 percent, from $7
billion in 1996 to $32 billion in 2001. I think we should all be
concerned about where this money is really being spent.
By some reports, even the likes of Ted Turner and pro basketball
star, Scottie Pippen, have been recipients of Federal subsidies. At
least 20 Fortune 500 companies and more than 1,200 universities and
Government farms, including State prisons, received Government checks.
Such corporate giants as Riceland Foods, Inc., based in Stuttgart,
Arkansas, took in a mammoth $32 million in Federal subsidies and a
large conglomerate farm, Missouri Delta Farms received $7 million.
Who pays the tab for these payments? The American taxpayers.
I don't know how you justify a $32 million subsidy to one
organization, one corporation, and call it assistance to the farmer.
Let's call it assistance to major corporations. Let's call it for what
it is.
What I think we ought to do is support the hard-hit family farm
operations. Any entity that earned more than $1 million in annual
revenues does not justify the expenditure of taxpayer dollars.
I remind my colleagues the American public is very much aware of the
actions we are taking when asking the taxpayers to subsidize farmers.
Many others among the American public have expressed similar concerns.
Let me point out a few statements:
Representative Ron Kind, Wisconsin in the St. Paul Pioneer Press,
July 2001:
Why are we throwing these billions of dollars at these few
farmers, which is only leading to an increase in production,
and an oversupply, and commodity prices plummeting? 90% of
the current farm funding is going to less than one-third of
the producers in this country, who are located in 15 states.
You can imagine that those 15 states are represented on the
Agriculture Committees, where there is a prevailing attitude
to keep the status quo.
Mark Edelman, Iowa State University Extension to Communities, October
1999:
While targeting federal assistance to medium and small
farmers and those that are financially vulnerable is often
discussed during the outbreak of a farm crisis, the bulk of
the emergency payments are not distributed according to those
criteria. Up to this point, Congress and farm interests have
not been willing to target the bulk of the farm program
payments in ways that exclude or penalize larger farmers, or
that arbitrarily reward medium, small or financially
vulnerable farmers.
Elizabeth Becker, New York Times, May 2001:
Supporters of farm subsidies, which were enacted in the
Depression, argue that they needed to save the family farm.
But government documents indicate that the prime
beneficiaries hardly fit the image of small, hardscrabble
farmers. Because eligibility is based on acreage planted with
subsidized crops in the past, the farmers who have the
biggest spreads benefit the most.
Chuck Hassebrook, Center for Rural Affairs, Nebraska, July 2001:
The single most effective step Congress could take to
strengthen family farms would be to stop subsidizing large
farms to drive their neighbors out of business.
In a recent Wall Street Journal article (October 3, 2001), called
``Nuts to You,'' a story outlines the federal government's continuing
love affair with federal subsidies.
In short, at a time when voters want Congress to be
serious, we're seeing Washington at its worst. Once upon a
time, it was possible to argue that farm supports kept small-
time growers on the land. But nowadays they are little more
than huge wealth transfers from average taxpayers to well-to-
do farmers, many of whom work the land only part-time.
Based on the amount of a crop produced, these subsidies go
to big landholders who collect the cash and then buy up the
land around them to collect still more. According to one
recent study, only 10 percent of all farmers get 61 percent
of all of the federal subsidies. Florida's Fanjul family has
made a killing in sugar, another crop vital to the war
effort.
Even my colleague and distinguished chairman of the Senate
Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin, criticized current farm policies
for sending a greater share of Government subsidies to large farms
instead of the more vulnerable smaller farms and for making it more
difficult for young people to go into farming by driving up land
values.
In reviewing the General Accounting Office report, Senator Harkin was
quoted in the Des Moines Register, July 2001, as saying that the GAO
report ``proves that we can and should be doing more to ensure that
these payments are distributed fairly.'' And Senator Harkin further was
quoted as saying, ``[T]he bottom line is we must have a fairer system
for providing support to farmers in the next farm bill.''
More recently, the administration stepped into the debate to urge the
Congress to curb its appetite for Federal subsidies and extend more
benefits to smaller farming entities. The administration's report makes
several important points to the Congress, including this particular
comment:
Even the most carefully designed government intervention
distorts markets and resource allocation, produces unintended
consequences, and spreads benefits unevenly. We cannot afford
to keep relearning the lessons of the past.
However, we are not reauthorizing the farm bill today. The Senate
will consider legislation to reauthorize the Freedom to Farm bill in
the coming year. However, what we are considering today is equally
important, the approval of annual spending for USDA to support farming
entities.
When considering any spending measure, we are obligated to ensure the
fair and appropriate spending of billions of taxpayer dollars. If we do
nothing to ensure equity today in this agriculture appropriations bill,
the ultimate outcome is that half of this money will go to the large
and very large farming operations, many of them agribusinesses, with
little left for small to medium farmers that might demonstrate a
greater need. It is time to change this alarming trend.
Mr. President, I am, once again, greatly disappointed to report the
amount of flagrant porkbarrel spending in this bill. This year's
Agriculture spending bill includes $372 million in questionable
earmarks, exceeding last year's level by $136 million. Unfortunately,
it appears that the porkbarrel ``business as usual'' attitude reigns
once again.
Few of the annual appropriations bills are more loaded with
unrequested, low-priority earmarks than this one. Despite the urging
from the administration to eliminate the excessive special interest
earmarks in the Agriculture appropriations bill, the appropriators
tacked on 395 of the usual garden-variety, special interest earmarks.
I, obviously, will not go through all 395, but let's take a look at
the top 10 porkbarrel projects in this year's Agriculture
appropriations bill.
My colleagues will note that all of these earmarks are specifically
designated to a specific State or a specific entity:
[[Page S11075]]
No. 10, $150,000 for potato breeding research at Aberdeen, ID;
No. 9, $250,000 for a beaver control program in Louisiana;
No. 8, $50,000 specifically for the Oregon Garden;
No. 7, $300,000 to the Tick Research Unit at Kerrville, TX;
No. 6, $500,000 for the Honey Bee Laboratory in Baton Rouge, LA;
No. 5, $300,000 for a coyote control program in West Virginia. That
one particularly interests me since in my home State we have a lot of
coyotes. I do not see any money in there for the control of coyotes in
the great State of Arizona or in any place else in the Southwest, but
perhaps, as in most cases, with a lot of appropriations bills, there is
a unique problem in the State of West Virginia.
No. 4, $750,000 to Western Kentucky University to examine the use of
chicken litter as a fertilizer or nutrient source. I hope there is a
careful division between those two choices. It could have serious
consequences. But I am sure the folks at Western Kentucky University
are well equipped to make sure there is no overlap between using
chicken litter as a fertilizer or as a nutrient source.
No. 3, $435,000 for weed control in North Dakota. They must have a
terrific problem out there in North Dakota because year after year we
find this weed control money going to the great State of North Dakota.
I hope they get it under control soon. Of course, no other States,
obviously, in the view of the appropriators, have a weed problem--
except in the great State of North Dakota.
No. 2, $90,000 to study the use of acoustics in aquaculture research
at the National Center for Physical Acoustics; and then,
No. 1, $500,000 for the Montana Sheep Institute--$500,000 for that
institute of higher learning in Montana, which obviously is very badly
needed up there.
Even the reliable earmarks for the National Center for Peanut
Competitiveness and shrimp aquaculture are included. I believe that the
National Center for Peanut Competitiveness is doing very well because
we continue, every year, to make sure that peanut competitiveness is
one of our highest priority projects. I will supply for the Record the
many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars that have been
devoted to peanut competitiveness.
Funding has never been requested for the National Center for Peanut
Competitiveness, yet it has been funded by the appropriators for 5
years. And shrimp aquaculture in Arizona and other States has been a
consistent beneficiary of taxpayer dollars for 9 years. Unfortunately,
there is little explanation included to justify why targeted Federal
dollars for earmarked projects are more important than other programs
to protect food safety or more directly support farm programs in the
bill.
This is a spending spree. So far this year more than $8.5 billion of
pork has been included in 10 appropriations bills, including this
Agriculture spending bill.
We are at war. We must do better and heed the words of the Office of
Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels, who said:
Everything ought to be held up to scrutiny. . . .
Situations like this can have clarifying benefit. People who
could not identify a low priority or lousy program before may
now see the need.
Apparently, we are not heeding Mr. Daniel's words. And I do not
believe that anyone can say there are no low-priority items in this
bill before us.
I urge my colleagues to work harder to curb our habit of funneling
resources to provincial ventures. Serving the public good should
continue to be our mandate, and we can only live up to that charge by
keeping the process free of unfair and unnecessary spending that unduly
burdens the American taxpayer.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am constrained to say a few words in
defense of the committee's decisions with regard to the total overall
spending in this bill. It is below the President's budget request.
Twenty-two percent of the funds in this bill are discretionary; 78
percent of the funds in the bill are mandatory--mandatory, meaning
there is legislation directing the spending be made to those that are
defined as eligible for the benefits under the law, under statutes that
have been passed by Congress and are now the law of the land.
So the subcommittee, in working to identify the appropriate levels of
funding, has to look at the law, provide the funds that the Department
of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the other
agencies funded in this bill say will be due and owing by the
Government under statutes that require the money to be paid.
Here is an example of one of the programs. It is the Women, Infants,
and Children Nutrition Program. The participation in that program is
defined by law. The eligibility for participation is defined by law. If
someone is eligible and presents themselves to a facility where the
program is administered, they are entitled to the benefits. They are
entitled to medical care. They are entitled to food supplements. And
the funding for that has to be appropriated. So this bill contains
funding for the WIC Program.
I mentioned, in earlier comments, that we may have to appropriate
more money in a supplemental later on for the WIC Program because
participation is outstripping the predictions. So far this year, in
this new fiscal year that started October 1, we can see the trend is
such that we may not have appropriated enough money for that program.
The Senate will approve that request if it comes from the Department,
if it comes from the President, for a supplemental for that program.
Food Stamps is another program. Because of higher rates of
unemployment than we had last year, the Food Stamp Program
participation has begun to increase. So there are increases for those
program activities.
There are farm programs, as the Senator correctly described, that
require the payment of dollars to those who are eligible for support in
agricultural production. That also is defined by law.
We don't decide how much each person gets in this appropriations
bill. That has already been decided when we passed the farm bill. This
bill provides the funds to the Department to make the program dollar
payments that are required by law to the eligible beneficiaries.
On the discretionary funding side, the 22 percent of the funds in
this bill over which we did have total control, we came in under the
President's budget request. That is the point I wanted to make on that.
On the part of the budget the Congress controls and on which this
Appropriations Committee is making decisions with respect to dollar
amounts, we are under the President's budget request.
So to accuse the committee of throwing money around that is not
needed, funding programs that are not justified, doesn't hold up when
we look at the exact spending levels compared with the budget request,
compared with the economic conditions, compared with the statutes that
require funding for specific purposes under the law.
The committee has done a good job, in my opinion. That is why the
Senator from Wisconsin and I are proud to present this bill to the
Senate today, and we hope the Senate will support it.
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. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________