[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 167 (Wednesday, December 5, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12400-S12439]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 AGRICULTURAL, CONSERVATION, AND RURAL ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2001--MOTION 
                               TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 1 hour 
of debate, evenly divided between the leaders or their designees prior 
to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to 
the consideration of S. 1731.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I note the chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee is here. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we have 1 hour equally divided; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I look forward to the vote on cloture. I 
hope it will be an overwhelming vote. I hope we can move on this bill 
right away, today. Time is wasting, as they say. The clock is ticking. 
We are here. We are in Washington. We are ready to do business. I 
believe we have a good bill. I believe we have a very good, well-
balanced farm bill. It is a 5-year farm bill. We have reported it out 
of committee. We are ready to bring it to the floor and have it open 
for amendments that Senators might offer.
  It is a 5-year bill. It is a comprehensive bill. I think it provides 
greater improvements to the farm commodity

[[Page S12401]]

and income protection programs. We are strong on conservation, rural 
economic development. Agricultural trade and research has a good 
provision.
  I will have more to say about my distinguished ranking member, 
Senator Lugar, and the great work he has done on agricultural research.
  We have nutrition assistance programs, we have a new title dealing 
with energy, and of course credit titles and forestry titles. It is a 
comprehensive farm bill. I know a lot of the press tends to focus only 
on commodities. Commodities, obviously, are an important part of the 
farm bill. However, this farm bill covers other areas across the United 
States which I will talk more about.
  I thank the ranking Republican member of our committee, Senator 
Lugar, former distinguished chairman of the Senate Agriculture 
Committee. I very much enjoyed working with him and his staff, 
developing this bill. I can say without any hesitation that we have had 
a very high level of cooperation and a bipartisan working relationship 
and collaboration in writing this bill. In fact, all but one of the 
titles of this bill represents a bipartisan agreement. All titles of 
this bill passed in our committee with bipartisan votes.

  That shows we did, in fact, work closely together. We did have a vote 
on the commodity title and even there, there was a bipartisan vote. To 
be sure, it was not the same as on the other titles, but we voted to 
uphold the committee's commodity title.
  Again, as an indication of the broad-based support that we had in the 
committee for the bill, even though there were some who may have wanted 
to change the commodity title we reported the bill out on a voice vote, 
which is in practical effect unanimous.
  Let me point out the legislation is within our committee's budget 
limitations for the new farm bill. We were allowed by the Budget 
Committee $7.35 billion for fiscal 2002, and $73.5 billion for the 10 
years, above the baseline. The bill has been scored within those 
limitations.
  I hope we can move forward and work our way through this bill. As I 
said, we are ready to consider amendments. I am hopeful--and I say this 
with all due respect to Senators. I know people may want to have 
amendments to this that they feel strongly about. I myself in the past 
have felt strongly about amendments to farm bills when they have come 
to the floor. But the important point is to move the bill forward and 
not slow down the farm bill. We should have amendments, debate them in 
a timely fashion, vote on them, and move on.
  I am hopeful we can reach meaningful time agreements on the 
amendments that will be offered to this bill. Of course, I believe it 
is a good bill as it came out of the committee. But I understand there 
will be some who may want to offer amendments.
  Why act now? Why not wait until next year. We have heard some talk 
about waiting until next year for a farm bill. Frankly, farmers around 
the country need to know what the farm program is going to be, and they 
need to know soon.
  A lot of farmers are going to be going to the bankers right after the 
first of the year to get the money they need for their crops, to put in 
their crops. What is the banker going to say? ``What is the program 
going to be? What can you count on?''
  How are the farmers going to fill out the paperwork to go into the 
banker to get the money they need to plant crops if they have no idea 
what the program is going to be?
  That is why it is so important that we finish this legislation and 
give a clear signal to the agricultural community and the agricultural 
credit community just what we are going to have for next year.
  The other reason is--and I will be repeating this data over and over 
again as we go through the debate on the farm bill--that there really 
is a crisis in rural America, since soon after the 1996 farm bill was 
passed.
  In 1996, we had net farm income of $55 billion nationally. Since that 
time, net farm income has fallen to an average of $46.3 billion, a 
decline of nearly 16 percent.
  Had it not been for the sizeable Government payments from the farm 
bill and the additional payments that we in the Congress have made in 
that period, which includes about $30 billion in additional emergency 
payments over those years, if we had not had those payments, net farm 
income would have fallen to less than $30 billion on average.

  Thus, had it not been for the Congress coming in every year on an ad 
hoc basis, the market-generated net returns to farmers would have been 
only 54 percent of what we had in 1996. That is why it is so critical 
we move ahead and get this legislation passed.
  Commodity programs are only part of the reason to move ahead. Several 
of USDA's critical conservation programs are simply out of money. The 
Wetlands Reserve Program, the Farmland Protection Program, and the 
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program are all out of money. I say to 
those who are interested in conservation and want to promote and 
provide for conservation, we need the money now, not next year. That is 
because many of these programs have to be funded on a continual basis.
  Take the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, for example. That is 
not something that should be just stopped and then started. The 
Wetlands Reserve Program is not a program that can be kept in abeyance 
for 9 or 12 months, and then just be started again without real 
negative consequences. These are conservation programs that need 
continual infusions of money for the protection of our endangered lands 
and endangered species.
  The Environmental Quality Incentives Program--the EQIP--to defray 
conservation cost of crop and livestock producers, is far short of the 
resources needed. It is not out of money just now, but the funding is 
inadequate for the need out there. This bill substantially increases 
funding.
  However, if we do not pass the legislation soon, the USDA will not be 
able to carry out the conservation programs adequately during the 
present fiscal year. Also, the bill will help provide very important 
and much needed new help in the areas of rural economic development, 
agricultural trade, research, credit, nutrition, and renewable energy. 
So we need to move ahead without delay.
  At some point later on I will take the time to go through the bill 
and talk about the different commodity and other programs covered in 
the bill, all the various aspects that are in the bill, but I do not 
believe that is necessary right now. We are coming up to a cloture 
vote. I basically wanted to take the floor to say why it is so 
necessary we move ahead and not delay this bill any longer. We have a 
huge decrease in net farm income. We have to address that.
  We have to let the bankers and the farmers know what kind of program 
they can count on next year. But, again, if we do not move this bill 
soon, farmers will be going to the banks and seeking credit for the 
crops they are going to be putting in without knowing what to expect in 
the farm program. That is why we need to move on this legislation right 
now.
  In addition, we need to move on the bill to make sure we keep the 
funding stream going for our necessary conservation programs.
  Mr. President, I want to again publicly thank my good friend and 
ranking member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and 
Forestry, Senator Lugar. He was chairman for more than six years. He 
was a great steward of the committee. He did a great job guiding, 
directing, and leading the Agriculture Committee. I am proud to follow 
in his footsteps as chairman of the Agriculture Committee.
  I again thank him and his staff for all the working relationships 
that we have had in developing this farm bill and in all the other work 
we have been doing on the Agriculture Committee. I want to thank 
Senator Lugar for that great working relationship.
  With that, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield myself as many minutes as are 
required.
  I deeply appreciate the thoughtful comments of my colleague, the 
chairman of our committee. Let me reiterate the importance of what he 
has said on the bipartisan cooperation on major titles. He has touched 
upon them. I shall do so again because each represents superb staff 
work and work

[[Page S12402]]

by Senators to achieve virtually unanimous results: The rural 
development title, the research title, the energy title, the forestry 
title, the trade title, the credit title, and the conservation title.
  With regard to research and nutrition, during the course of the 
debate and events and the will of the Senate to continue with this 
bill, I would want to say more. I believe we can improve both of those 
areas very substantially. We can do so through substantial change in 
the commodity section. So there will be an offset to do that.
  But giving credit where credit is due, a substantial number of titles 
are reasonably settled and I think will meet with the favor of the vast 
majority of Senators.
  The debate we are having during this hour is on a motion to invoke 
cloture so that we can proceed to the Agriculture bill today. 
Therefore, that is the issue on which the Senate needs to focus. The 
question is, Why today? What is the compelling need to proceed to this 
legislation?
  First of all, most Americans who are presently watching television, 
if they are not on the C-SPAN channel watching this debate, are 
watching developments on the war in Afghanistan. They are watching a 
gripping drama in which Americans are at risk.
  There is, in my judgment, a compelling need for us to be discussing 
the defense budget and issues that are involved with terrorism, whether 
they involve a continuation of the insurance industry, for example, or 
other aspects of the war. We are in a war.
  This has been the case really throughout this strange preoccupation 
with the Agriculture bill. I say ``strange'' because the Agriculture 
legislation we now have on the books does not expire until next 
September 30--over 9 months from now. During that period of time, so-
called AMTA payments--fixed payments--will be made to all the farmers 
who are in the program. A seventh year of payments will occur 
automatically. So will loan deficiency payments to farmers who have the 
row crops that are covered by the loan deficiency program. In short, 
the stable safety net that has been sought remains, plus very large, 
fixed payments. None of that changes during the coming months.
  Parenthetically, there is a need, I suppose, to discuss the defense 
budget and to do so in line with things which have occurred in our 
American economy since the first thoughts about a new farm bill began.
  For example, at the time the Senate and House Budget Committees began 
to formulate the resolution last year, I note from the chart that was 
prepared by OMB that the surplus was estimated at $313 billion for the 
fiscal year commencing October 1. As a matter of fact, I recall that 
the President of the United States, during the State of the Union 
Address, discussed surpluses in the future that might approximate $3 
trillion--if one extrapolated further, as much as $5 trillion--and 
suggested how responsibly the Congress might allocate that money. That 
was February. But by May, there were at least some signs of a weakening 
economy seen by the same persons who prepared the chart.
  I look at it here. We now know officially that a recession occurred, 
or started, in March. But this was being picked up by the budget 
officials. They then estimated in May that the surplus would be only 
$304 billion, only incrementally down from the estimate of $313 
billion. But we went on recess in August. Things had changed abruptly 
by the time we returned on Labor Day. By then it was $176 billion for 
the fiscal year commencing October 1.

  Then, in the post-September 11 period, the first time the authorities 
had another chance to take a look at this, $176 billion had evaporated, 
and it was down to $52 billion--just double digits--some distance from 
$313 billion barely 8 months before.
  The head of OMB in an address to the Press Club last week gave the 
very bleak news that for the next 3 years--not just for the year 
immediately ahead of us--there will be deficits in the Federal 
accounts--not $313 billion of surplus, or the $176 billion, or even the 
$52 billion, but red figures.
  The entire farm bill debate in Congress has proceeded almost as if we 
were in a different world from the one in which there is war, 
recession, and deficits.
  Senators with a straight face have said: We were told in the Budget 
Committee a long time ago that there was $73.5 billion above the 
current baseline--$100 billion--allocated to agriculture over a 10-year 
period of time. By golly, we are going to claim it. You can have a war, 
you can have a recession, and you can have deficits, but that 
additional $73.5 billion remains inviolate above any other priorities 
of the country.
  Post-September 11, some Senators who held that point of view became 
nervous. They said: At some point people may begin to make estimates 
that it is gone and that there is no money. But harking back to the 
budget resolution, there is the additional $73.5 billion, and ignoring 
reality, or whatever may transpire now, not for just the next year but 
for 3 years down the trail, if we do not pass a farm bill--and in a 
hurry--somebody may question whether the $73.5 billion is there.
  Indeed, most Americans question it. We have an extraordinary ``Alice 
in Wonderland'' quality about the agriculture debate in which people 
with blinders on ignore the rest of the world, but I think at their 
peril.
  One reason all of this has accelerated is that my distinguished 
colleague, the majority leader, the distinguished member of our 
committee, Senator Daschle--seemed to want to accelerate the farm bill, 
and wanted to see a bill on the floor. He was not alone. It was 
suggested by others that Senators who are moving into reelection phases 
in various farm States did not want to go home without not only 
discussing it but passing it, nailing down that additional $73.5 
billion whether it is there or not. Furthermore, their political 
judgment was there would be liabilities if they did not succeed in that 
quest.
  Each Senator has to be the best judge of his reelection prospects. I 
don't fault anybody who believes they need to proceed to a farm bill 
and spend as much money as the law will allow. And maybe that will help 
that Senator. But I doubt it. I doubt it simply because the political 
facts of life are that this time the American people are looking in on 
the debate. One reason they usually don't look in on these debates is 
they are very complex issues. Most Senators would be hard pressed to go 
through a glossary of agriculture terms that are a part of these bills. 
So they do not try. They do not want to be embarrassed by indicating 
they really do not understand what this is all about. But I think they 
will by the time this debate and the discussion of it is concluded.
  If I were a Senator running for reelection, I would not want to vote 
for cloture today. I would not want to put any stamp on a bill coming 
out of the Agriculture Committee. It contains, in its commodities 
section, bad policy, which will be harmful to agriculture, not helpful.

  I think the exception, perhaps, is my distinguished friend from Iowa, 
Senator Grassley. I understand the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, 
Mrs. Lincoln's family may collect some payments from these programs. 
But I receive payments from the programs. The Lugar stock farm ranks 
No. 22 in Marion County in terms of the payments received. How do I 
know? Because the Environmental Working Group has a Web site. The Wall 
Street Journal introduced the country to this just last week. If you 
are curious, you can go into that Web site and find out, down to the 
dollar, how much every farmer in your State has received during the 
period of 1996 to 2000. It will be a revelation.
  Let me just discuss the politics that seems to drive the issue today. 
One prominent farmer in my State, who was named in an article that the 
Associated Press picked up, having taken a look at this Web site, was 
found to have received almost $2.9 million in farm payments in the last 
5 years. That came as a shock to my constituents in Indiana who are not 
farmers. Worse still, this farmer criticized my stand. He said: Lugar 
is way off base; he wants to limit these payments.
  At the time, he had it wrong. He thought I wanted to limit the 
payments to $1 million, say. He said that $1 million does not go as far 
as it used to go. This was shocking. People wrote in to the papers, and 
they had no idea that farmers were receiving subsidies, farm payments--
these very programs

[[Page S12403]]

we are discussing--to the tune of, say, an average of $500,000 or 
$600,000 a year in our State. We do not have farms that are that large. 
This particular farmer was identified as having only 12,000 acres, 
dwarfed by many farms farther to the west of us.
  So this started an interesting debate. The Indianapolis Star has 
written very strong editorials in favor of the comprehensive bill that 
I prepared for the Agriculture Committee debate. The other papers in 
Indiana have, by and large, chimed in. This is not a lonely quest. I 
think I have the majority behind me. I certainly do of those who favor 
conservation and who are deeply interested in the environment and those 
resources, of people who are poor and want to make certain the Food 
Stamp Program works at a time of recession and unemployment, of people 
who are interested in research, not only at Purdue University but 
anywhere else where they know the cutting edge of agriculture is not 
more payments to farmers but research that gives us some hope of 
feeding the world as well as ourselves.
  In the course of all of this discussion of who is getting subsidies, 
some unusual figures have come up. If it is the will of the Senate that 
we must discuss this for a long time, I will have a lot of those. It 
will be exciting, I think, for friends and neighbors to know who is 
receiving what. But let me just give you a capsule summary.
  Eight percent of the farmers of this country identified as having 
commercial farms--single digit 8--receive 47 percent of all the 
payments. It is a very concentrated sort of payment schedule. There is 
another group known as intermediate farmers. These are farmers who have 
roughly 300 to 800 acres--a harder time on that amount of acreage. 
These folks receive about 35 percent of the payments. So you add that 
to the 47 percent, and that takes care of over four-fifths of the 
payments. We have accounted for, say, only 20 percent of the farms in 
this country.
  I never heard one of these debates before without many Senators 
rising to address the Chair and pointing out that farmers in their 
States are desperate, the weather has failed again, the floods, the 
rains, a lack of any trade initiative that seems to make any 
difference, and rock-bottom prices, about the lowest that one has ever 
seen.

  In due course, if necessary, I will cite chapter and verse from 
USDA's very fine publication in which they explain why prices are low 
and why they remain low. I will explain why the bill that Senators may 
or may not wish to debate will drive them lower still. The bill the 
Senate will have passed will stomp down prices. They will have no hope 
of ever getting up. This may not concern Senators who will say, after 
all, the bill provides for fixed payments anyway. It does not matter 
how low the price goes. That is irrelevant, although it is useful in a 
debate to point out that agricultural policy has failed and prices go 
low. Of course, they go low because the very policies give incentives, 
strong incentives, to plant and produce more every year.
  We have very efficient farmers in this country who produce, say, an 
incremental bushel of corn for much less than the loan rate of $1.89. I 
point this out just for the sake of the debate. Every bushel of corn I 
produce on my farm this year--and it would be true of anybody else--is 
going to get at least $1.89. That is not the market price. That is 
irrelevant to the argument except in terms of the Federal payments that 
have to be made. The taxpayers pick up the difference between that 
$1.89 and wherever the market price went.
  Yet these policies are going to drive the market price down further. 
The taxpayer exposure is higher, thus the need for the additional $73.5 
billion for 10 years--a perpetual price crisis for agriculture without 
relief predicted by the very definition of the bill.
  Let me just point out that if, in fact, we were in an income crisis 
situation, that might temper my remarks. But quite to the contrary, the 
Secretary of Agriculture pointed out for our last agriculture debate in 
August--and this is coming to pass--that net cash income to farmers 
this year, 2001, will be $60.8 billion. That compares to $57.5 billion 
last year, $55.7 the year before, $54.8 billion the year before that, 
and even in the record year of 1996, that the chairman has cited, net 
cash income of $57.6 billion, about $3 billion less than this year.
  This is the all-time high. We never had such large net cash income as 
this year. The skeptics will say: Aha, but $20 billion of that comes 
from Federal payments, not the market. You bet. Given the policies we 
have that drive down prices every year, more loan deficiency payments 
are almost bound to come, plus the fact we took action, as the 
Presiding Officer will recall, in August to send another $5.5 billion 
as an emergency tranche, as we have the previous 3 years.
  Some farmers will say we need to have certainty with this bill 
because each year the Senate votes for more money. Do you believe for a 
moment, given the political competition in this body, there will not be 
somebody on the floor of the Senate next June, July, August, suggesting 
we have a crisis at hand and, by golly, we ought to send more money on 
top of the fixed payments as we have done the previous 3 years? That is 
the nature of the debate we are having today.
  The fact is, farm income is at a record level. We have a situation in 
which we are at war, and we have need for money to pay for the war. We 
have a recession in which we have deficits around us. A prudent person, 
seeing we have a farm bill on the books that is going to pay fixed 
payments plus loan deficiencies, would say: This is not the time for 
the debate. That is what I say.
  I hope Senators will not move to proceed to this bill and will not 
vote for cloture on the motion to proceed. I think it would be a 
mistake.
  Having said that, if that mistake is made, let me mention to the 
distinguished chairman that, indeed, we will try to remedy the bill in 
a big way. I have a comprehensive commodity title, a lot to say about 
enhancing nutrition, a lot to say about conservation and research. 
Furthermore, finally, we will get to reform of the sugar program and 
reform of the peanut program and big reform of the dairy program. This 
bill has an egregious dairy section, and Senators are already quoted as 
being dismayed to proceed. It creates in a big way a consumer problem 
throughout America. But this time something very sensitive, the price 
of milk, goes up for everybody. That really is unacceptable.

  Other Senators may also have amendments. This is a list of those we 
already prepared on the bill I gave to the Agriculture Committee. These 
are not figments of the imagination. The amendments are drafted and the 
talking points are ready. I hope it will be an educational experience 
Senators will enjoy and, furthermore, that they will vote with me and 
reform this bill.
  Let me conclude by saying I do hope we will get to the defense bill 
quickly. I take the time I have on the floor to say that I noted with 
some concern--perhaps there will be an explanation for this--in the 
release coming from the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, a note 
that it provides $357 million for former Soviet Union threat reduction, 
the Nunn-Lugar program, a cut of $46 million from the budget request.
  I find that to be inexplicable. At a time in which our President and 
President Putin are talking about reduction of nuclear weapons, in 
which the fundamental thrust of the war is to keep weapons and 
materials of mass destruction from terrorist cells, I am dismayed. I 
want to get to that debate. I think that is serious with regard to the 
world, with regard to our security. That is a real issue.
  In due course, we will discuss the subsidies. Senators will have 
parochial interests, I understand that. But I hope we can hold it to a 
dull roar. I hope there will be some proportion given the deficits of 
the next 3 years, not a 10-year program but a 5-year program which the 
Senate did adopt but which we still have to work on in conference, if 
we come to that point prematurely.
  For all these reasons, I hope the Senate will vote no on cloture, 
that we will get on to the serious business that really faces the 
country in its defense, and that other issues such as this we may be 
able to work out more amicably in the Agriculture Committee or 
elsewhere in the ensuing weeks.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to congratulate the

[[Page S12404]]

distinguished Senator from Indiana. It has been my privilege to serve 
with him now going into my 18th year. I have always admired him. I have 
always thought he was the one reasonable, sane leadership voice on 
agriculture in the Senate. I take a little bit of the time I have this 
morning to say that.
  I am not going to get into the merits or demerits of the American 
farm program or this bill. I can sum up my own feelings by simply 
saying that America's farm program would make an old commissar from the 
Soviet Union puke.
  It is a program which is an embarrassment to logic and reason. It 
chronically encourages overproduction. It hurts the best farmers the 
most. It has no socially redeeming value, and America would benefit 
greatly if we could eliminate the great bulk of the farm program.
  I would say, in sort of the ultimate insult to everything that many 
Members of this body claim to believe in, we literally have a program 
in this bill that builds upon an idea where we drive up the price of 
milk consumed by children, many of whom are from poor families, to pay 
more subsidies to people in the dairy industry who on average have 
assets of over $800,000.
  How that can be justified defies imagination. Yet we constantly are 
engaged in debating compacts which are really conspiracies against 
trade. In this bill, we solve the problem by just giving a whole bunch 
of money to everybody.
  I don't want to debate the demerits of the farm program or this bill. 
I want to make several points.
  First of all, it is December. In the last 25 years, we have not often 
been in session on December 5. We have work to do on serious issues. We 
are at war with terrorism. We have an economy that desperately needs 
attention. We have a handful of appropriations bills that have to be 
passed. Senator Lugar raised the need to debate Defense appropriations. 
God knows, while we are still feeling the shock of the last terrorist 
attack, knowing there may be another, that is the business of the 
Senate.

  The economy is in a recession, or at least we have had a negative 
quarter of economic growth, and almost certainly we will have another 
one. We ought to be debating a stimulus package. We have a very real 
problem with terrorist acts and their impact on insurance. We ought to 
be dealing with that issue.
  Instead we are dealing with extraneous matters in what is a political 
agenda, sort of a political one-upmanship effort.
  What are we doing talking about a farm bill that does not even expire 
for a few more months? What is this about on December 5? Does anybody 
really believe there is any possibility whatsoever, any chance that 
this bill could be finished before we adjourn? Does anybody really 
believe that?
  If we were mean spirited--and, of course, we are not--but if we were 
mean spirited, we would let you get on this bill and make you stay on 
it awhile. But nobody has any intention of staying on it.
  This is all a political one-upmanship to try to bring up a bunch of 
extraneous issues that supposedly have some political saliency. My own 
view is we need to get on with the pressing business of the country. We 
are going to get paid every day next year. This bill doesn't expire for 
a few more months. Let's set it aside, go to the Defense appropriations 
bill, finish these appropriations bills, and make a decision on if we 
can pass a decent stimulus package. If we can, we should; if we can't, 
we should forget about it.
  Can we deal with terrorist threats and the insurance implications of 
them? We ought to do those things and finish our business.
  But why are we bringing up a farm bill which is way over budget, 
which I think the President will veto? There is only one reason. It is 
political. I don't think it makes any sense.
  We have some people on our side of the aisle who want to bring this 
up because they want to offer amendments to it. We don't have anybody, 
as far as I know, on our side of the aisle who is for the bill as it is 
now. The point is, we have all next year to offer amendments. I hope we 
can deny cloture on bringing this bill up and get on with the business 
of the country.
  I am not getting mail here--none of my colleagues are--so I have 
probably 200,000 first class letters. And I will bet you not one of 
them says: Stop what you are doing; stop fighting this war; stop 
worrying about the economy, and raise the price of milk. I don't think 
America is concerned about the farm program right now. The current farm 
program is going to be in effect for a few more months. But they are 
concerned about a lot of work we have not done.
  This is a political stall, in my opinion. We ought to get on with the 
business of the country.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, farmers would have been stunned to have 
heard the speech of the Senator from Texas, because in his world the 
economics of what happens to farmers just doesn't matter. But to 
hundreds of thousands of farm families, the economic downturn started 
for them 5 years ago. They have been in a constant recession. In some 
cases, they have been in a depression for 5 years.
  The Senator from Texas says it doesn't matter, you don't need to do 
the bill now because the farm bill does not run out for 9 months. That 
is really not the case. Effectively, this farm bill expired 4 years ago 
because that is when we started writing disaster assistance packages 
for agriculture because prices were the lowest they had been in 50 
years. So, effectively, the farm bill that is the underlying law was 
altered 4 years ago and each and every year since because of the 
disastrous conditions that exist for American farmers today.
  When the Senator from Texas says this bill is over budget, that is 
false. This bill is not one penny over budget. If he really believes 
what he says, come out here and bring a budget point of order against 
this bill and let's see the ruling that will flow from that. He won't 
do it because the fact is that this bill is not over budget by one thin 
dime.
  The reason we need to write a new farm bill, and do it now, is that 
American agriculture is in deep crisis. This says it very well. On this 
chart is the crop farm index: Prices received and prices paid by 
farmers from 1990 through 2002. The green line on the chart is the 
prices that farmers receive. The red line is what they pay to produce 
those commodities. Just looking at it, one can see there was a rough 
balance until the last farm bill was written. Then the commodity prices 
farmers received collapsed. The prices they paid to produce those 
commodities continued to increase--especially with the energy runup we 
experienced earlier this year. The result is an enormous gap between 
the prices that farmers are paid and what they pay to produce these 
commodities.
  Again, we have the lowest prices in real terms in 50 years. On top of 
that, in the month of October, when the new price index came out, we 
saw the biggest 1-month decline in the prices that farmers receive in 
91 years. The records have only been kept for 91 years. So what we have 
seen is the biggest monthly decline of the prices going to farmers in 
the entire history of the commodity index.
  The harsh reality is that American agriculture is in deep trouble. 
When I talked to the farm group leader and I asked him what would 
happen if this farm bill did not pass with the additional resources 
that have been provided for in the budget, he said it would be a race 
to the auctioneer. He was right because that is what we confront in 
rural America today.
  One key reason for that is our major competitors, the Europeans, are 
supporting their producers at levels much higher than ours. The most 
recent numbers show this. This is the European Union and the amount of 
support they provide per acre to their producers: $313 an acre of 
support. We provide $38 an acre of support. In other words, they are 
outgunning us nearly 10 to 1 in support for their producers. It is no 
wonder American agriculture is in crisis. It is no wonder that if they 
don't get a safety rope, if they don't get something to assist them 
through these difficult times, we will see literally tens of thousands 
of farm families forced off the land. That is the economic reality.

  It doesn't stop there. When we look at the world agricultural export 
subsidies, this is what we find. This bar

[[Page S12405]]

chart shows who accounts for world agricultural export subsidies. The 
blue part of this pie is Europe. They account for 84 percent of all the 
world's agricultural export subsidies. This little piece of the pie, 
this red chunk, is the United States, which is 3 percent. We are being 
outgunned here 28 to 1. The deck is stacked against our producers. The 
playing field is not level.
  It is no wonder, therefore, that our producers are in deep financial 
trouble. They are saying to us: We need to know now what the rules are 
going to be before we plant the next crop. We need you to tell us of 
what the farm program is going to consist. That is why there is urgency 
today. It has nothing to do with political one-upsmanship, as claimed 
by the Senator from Texas. It has to do with urgent economic necessity.
  The fact is, despite the budget increase, farm support funding is 
projected to decline under this bill. You will hear a lot of talk on 
the floor that there has been this big increase, there has been an 
increase over the so-called baseline. That is the red line on this 
chart. The baseline is the funding that would flow from current farm 
law. You can see that this bill provides more funding than that 
baseline. That is true. What is missing is not what Congress has been 
providing to American farmers the last 4 years. It hasn't been the 
baseline. No. We responded to the crisis by every year passing an 
economic disaster package to help our producers. And this farm bill 
will provide less assistance than farmers have been getting the last 4 
years. That is a fact.
  Over the life of this bill, you can see--that is the green line--the 
support will be in decline. As I said, it is less support than farmers 
have actually been getting in each of the last 4 years because of the 
economic disaster packages Congress has passed in response to the 
economic emergency that exists all across rural America.
  When we look at the Senate bill versus the House bill on commodity 
program funding for the first 5 years of this bill, we see on this 
chart that the Senate bill is somewhat more than the House bill, about 
$2 billion more--$27.1 billion versus $25.1 billion. If we compare the 
Senate and House bill on conservation program funding, we see on this 
chart that the Senate bill is $8.4 billion versus $6.8 billion in the 
House bill. So there is more for conservation, which I think the 
overwhelming majority of the American people support.
  On this chart, on nutrition programs, over the 10-year life of the 
legislation, again, the Senate bill has somewhat more--$5.6 billion 
over 10 years versus $3.6 billion in the House bill--money for the 
basic feeding programs of the Federal Government because we know in an 
economic downturn more people need food assistance. America is a 
compassionate nation and one that responds to the needs of its people.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to allow us to proceed to this bill so 
the Senate can work its will on farm policy, so we have a chance for 
people to vote. There will be amendments, no doubt, to improve this 
bill. We will have a chance to fix the dairy policy that the Senator 
from Texas criticized. I don't think any of us wants the results he 
described. We are going to have a chance to fix that, and negotiations 
are underway to fix that, and it will be fixed. But it won't happen 
unless we get to the bill. It won't happen unless we have a chance to 
debate, discuss, and amend. That is what the cloture motion is all 
about--to give the Senate a chance to act. Rural America needs it. Our 
farmers need it. They are in a desperate struggle for economic 
survival. They are up against the European Union, our major 
competitors, who are spending $90 billion a year to support their 
producers--far more than the United States. It is no wonder we are in 
economic trouble. I urge our colleagues to vote to proceed to this 
bill.
  I recognize the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, who has 
done an absolutely superb job in getting this bill to the floor. There 
is no more difficult challenge than writing a farm bill. The Senator 
from Iowa has done a brilliant job. Let me also recognize the ranking 
member who, while we disagree on farm policy, is one of the most 
thoughtful Members of this body and somebody we all respect.
  My hat is off to the chairman of this committee for what is I think 
one of the most productive performances of any member this year in 
getting this bill to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on our 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes and 40 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from North Dakota for 
his kind words, and I respond in kind by thanking our distinguished 
chairman of the Budget Committee for being not only a valuable member 
of the Agriculture Committee, but for his leadership. The Budget 
Committee allotted us $73.5 billion. I also thank him for continuing to 
point out the dire state of agriculture today.
  When I first spoke, I pointed out that if you discount the added 
money the Congress is providing every year for agriculture, our net 
income right now to farmers is 54 percent of what it was in 1996.
  The leader of the Budget Committee has continually brought to our 
attention that we have to make sure we get this bill done this year to 
provide for the farm economy of this country the amount of money that 
was allocated to us because our farmers and our rural communities need 
that money.
  Rural America is in trouble. Thank God we have good advocates such as 
Senator Conrad from North Dakota who fights for rural America, who 
understands we do not have as many people in rural America as in the 
big cities in California, New York, and other States. The work people 
do in rural America is what keeps this country going. We cannot afford 
any longer to have them on that downward track that the Senator from 
North Dakota pointed out on his chart.
  I thank the Senator from North Dakota for being a great leader on our 
Budget Committee and for providing these funds and making sure we meet 
our obligations. I thank him very much.
  I yield whatever time he may need to the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I need only a few minutes. I am in the 
mood for thanking all three Senators. I, too, thank Senator Conrad. 
Every time I talk to agriculture people in northwest Minnesota, I talk 
about Senator Conrad's work and the fact we need to pass this bill now. 
We have the budget money. It is critically important.
  Frankly, time is not neutral. As I have said before, I have seen more 
broken dreams, broken lives, and broken families in rural America than 
I ever wanted to. This is for real. I thank the Senator from North 
Dakota very much for his work.
  I say to my colleague from Iowa, it is a modern miracle this bill 
came out of committee with strong support. The Senator from Iowa had to 
deal with a lot of different perspectives.
  I forget the figures, but we received an announcement the other day 
that net farm income will be a couple billion dollars a year, a little 
over $3 billion a year if we pass this bill. I saw it somewhere. That 
is what it is about: Trying to get farmers leverage to get a price but 
focus on the environmental credits and CRP and focus on the energy 
section.
  People are so excited about renewable energy, economic development, 
and nutrition. I thank both Senator Lugar and Senator Harkin for their 
leadership. Senator Lugar has done a great job of being so outspoken 
and so tenacious about the importance of nutrition programs. This has 
made a safety net for many vulnerable families in this country and many 
children. This bill has the right balance. We have been doing an awful 
lot of negotiation on dairy, and I believe we are getting there.
  If part of the importance of legislating is to bring people together, 
I think the Chair of this committee, Senator Harkin, has done a 
masterful job. I cannot say I agree with every provision in this bill.
  Mr. HARKIN. I have to say to my friend from Minnesota, I do not agree 
perhaps with every provision in this bill either. This is a balanced 
bill. We have to balance a lot of different interests in this bill.
  I thank my friend from Minnesota for his service on the Agriculture 
Committee. Minnesota is very lucky to

[[Page S12406]]

have both Senators on the Agriculture Committee. We appreciate that.
  I point out to my friend from Minnesota, the factory study showed 
there would be an increased average of $3.2 billion annually.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is what I was saying. That is net.
  Mr. HARKIN. Net farm income.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is important. I certainly hope Senators will vote 
to proceed to this bill. We need to move on and get this work done. I 
thank the Senator.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the 
remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I understand I have 15 seconds remaining. I 
will be brief.
  As Senators prepare for this vote, they must know that if they vote 
for cloture, we are stuck; we are on agriculture and that will continue 
indefinitely unless there is unanimous consent to leave it. I ask my 
colleagues to vote against cloture. The vote on this is no.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we should vote for cloture. Let us get on 
with the farm bill. Let us have the amendments. Let us have time 
agreements. Let us move on. Let us send a signal to rural America that 
we are going to be there for them in their hour of need. I ask Senators 
to vote for cloture.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is yielded back. Under the previous 
order, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the 
pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 237, S. 1731, the farm bill:
         Tom Harkin, Tim Johnson, Bill Nelson, Harry Reid, Byron 
           Dorgan, Fritz Hollings, Richard J. Durbin, Paul 
           Wellstone, Kent Conrad, Tom Daschle, Debbie Stabenow, 
           Tom Carper, Barbara Mikulski, Evan Bayh, Ron Wyden, Ben 
           Nelson, Jean Carnahan, Patty Murray.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 1731, an act to strengthen the safety net for 
agricultural producers, to enhance resource conservation for rural 
development, provide for farm credit, agricultural research, nutrition, 
and related programs, to ensure consumers abundant food and fiber, and 
for other purposes, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are 
required under the rule. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) is absent attending a funeral.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 73, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 352 Leg.]

                                YEAS--73

     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--26

     Allen
     Bennett
     Bunning
     Chafee
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nickles
     Smith (NH)
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lieberman
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the ayes are 73, the nays are 26. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I appreciate the overwhelming support 
that we had from the Senate for moving to the Agriculture bill. 
However, with the rules that we are operating under, that was just a 
vote on cloture on the motion to proceed. Now I understand that we have 
30 hours, under the rules of the Senate, before we have a vote on the 
motion to proceed.
  With that overwhelming vote on cloture, I hope we might collapse that 
30 hours. There is no need for that 30 hours. We might as well have the 
vote on the motion to proceed and get to the bill and let's start 
having amendments and move this bill expeditiously. I see no reason we 
have to have 30 hours of debate right now. We ought to move to the bill 
and let's have the amendments.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his quorum call 
request?
  Mr. HARKIN. I withhold it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                          TERRORISM INSURANCE

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I would like, while we have a 
lull on the farm bill, to take this opportunity to speak on a subject 
that is very near and dear to my heart: What we are going to be doing 
as a nation to address the fact that, as a result of terrorist acts, 
there may be a lack of terrorism insurance on January 1. That is not 
only for commercial lines of insurance, which would be businesses such 
as shopping centers and office buildings, but it could also affect 
homeowners and automobile owners. Since September 11, businesses and 
consumers have suffered great economic losses, and we are reading about 
those repercussions every day. So I would like to address this very 
sensitive topic as we come into the closing days of this session.
  The insurance industry is now saying the clock is running out for 
those businesses that want terrorism insurance because 70 percent of 
reinsurance policies--that is, insurance on insurance, or, in industry 
terminology, reinsurance--70 percent of those reinsurance policies 
expire after December 31, and many insurance companies are threatening 
to cancel policies or to exclude terrorism coverage.
  We simply can't let that happen. Congress must act to make sure that 
insurance is available and affordable. It is the responsible thing to 
do. The problem is that there are so many different ideas on how to do 
it.
  I served for six years as Florida's elected Insurance Commissioner 
and State Treasurer. During that time, we experienced a major 
catastrophe--Hurricane Andrew. This natural disaster, with insurance 
losses totaling $16 billion, proved to be the most costliest in the 
history of this country. The private market was so paralyzed from this 
event that nurturing it back to life proved extremely daunting. 
Insurance companies were not offering new home owners policies; to the 
contrary, they were trying to flee the State of Florida and were 
cancelling policies for those who remained in the State of Florida. 
Fortunately, by establishing a private pooling mechanism, and carefully 
monitoring rate increases, we were able to reinvigorate and stabilize 
the market. Accordingly, in the waning days of this session, I would 
like to offer some of my experience as guidance as we proceed.
  Let me give you an example of what is happening just to set the stage 
as to how serious this is right now.
  The ISO, the Insurance Services Organization, which files policy 
provisions for many insurers, has announced that it is asking for 
terrorism exclusions in insurance policies across the nation.
  That should be the first warning sign. But there are other warning 
signs.
  For example, I will read from the Chicago Tribune of October 28. 
Listen to this:


[[Page S12407]]


       The world's leading insurers, led by Lloyd's of London, a 
     collective name of 108 insurance-writing syndicates, said 
     this month that commercial property premiums would rise by 
     more than 80 percent.

  That is the Chicago Tribune.
  Then listen to a report that was sent out by Lloyd's of London. I 
quote from the investor newsletter of Lloyd's of London,

       Members of Lloyd's of London:
       Names may now have a historic opportunity for property 
     underwriting following the sharp rise in premiums in the 
     aftermath of the American catastrophe.

  That newsletter added that premiums were at ``a level where very 
large profits are possible.''
  If there is any doubt about some of the shock to the system right now 
because of what is happening with rate increases, let me point out that 
the Wall Street Journal reported that insurance companies are already 
raising premiums by 100 percent or more on some lines of commercial 
insurance coverage.
  These accounts were presented by the Consumer Federation of America's 
insurance expert, Bob Hunter, at a press conference earlier today.
  Bob Hunter also talked about a big reinsurance company, one of the 
giants in Germany, named Alliance. Alliance has announced increases of 
20 to 50 percent, and in some cases increases may reach 200 percent.
  Another example hits close to home for all of our Senators in the 
Northeast corridor:
  It is reported that the cost of insuring Giants Stadium in New 
Jersey's Meadow Lands for terrorism is now being increased from 
$700,000 to $3.5 million.
  That is a fivefold increase. That is a 500-percent increase.
  If that were not enough, the CEO of Zurich Financial Services, which 
is another one of the major giants from Europe which does business 
through subsidiaries here in the United States, told a gathering of 
insurers, on November 27, with respect to the terrorist attacks of 
September 11:

       The industry needed it to operate efficiently. The players 
     who are strong in a responsible manner and are aggressive 
     will be the winners of the next 15 years.

  What we saw in Florida with insurance rate increases after Hurricane 
Andrew seems to be occurring again this time on a national scale with 
huge increases in commercial insurance rates.
  That is why we must act.
  I understand that there are all kinds barriers to progress on this 
issue--people are trying to rewrite the tort laws of this country and 
thus you have a fight that has gone on almost as long as the Republic 
on this issue. If this continues, it is possible that we will not be 
able to pass anything in the next week. I am trying to understand what 
would be the consequence. Will the market respond? But I don't think 
that is the responsible thing. I think the responsible thing for us to 
do is enact a piece of legislation and get it signed into law.
  But I want to say to my colleagues that from all of my experience 
with insurance, as we deal with terrorism insurance we must be ever-
mindful of consumer safeguards:
  Therefore, any bill that we would enact must have three fundamental 
protections for the consumer.
  I think the bill has to have three protections for consumers: No. 1, 
commercial insurers must offer coverage for the risk of terrorism on 
all policies.
  In other words, an insurance company could not clearly say they will 
cover your little two-story office building but not cover your 20-story 
office building. They cannot cherry-pick. There has to be mandatory 
coverage for all on terrorism risk. No. 2, the insurance company cannot 
cancel the terrorism insurance unless it is in the normal course of 
business, such as somebody did not pay their premiums. And No. 3, 
because we not only have to make terrorism insurance available, we have 
to make it affordable.

  Commercial consumers cannot afford these kinds of price increases. 
They cannot afford a 500-percent increase. They cannot afford a 200-
percent increase. They cannot afford what Lloyds of London was saying 
was an 80-percent increase, particularly not if the legislation we pass 
here is going to have the Federal Government picking up most of the 
terrorism risk.
  So I clearly advise all my colleagues in the Senate, the third 
protection is that there has to be a reasonable amount of rate 
increase, and what it can be has to be limited. I have suggested it be 
in the range of about 3 percent, which would produce an additional $6 
billion of premium, and that the $6 billion of premium associated with 
the terrorism risk not being mixed with all the other premiums like on 
fire and theft. Our legislation should require insurers to specify the 
price for terrorism coverage as a separate line item on the policy.
  If we do not carefully monitor proposed rate increases, the insurance 
companies are going to file whatever they want in an increase with 50 
State insurance departments. Then those insurance commissioners, who 
are trying to do a good job, are going to put their actuaries to work 
to see if this is a reasonable filing.
  How do they determine if it is reasonable and not excessive and 
nondiscriminatory, which is usually the statutory standard for 
reviewing a rate increase? They have to have data and they have to have 
experience. We do not have any of that in our 50 State insurance 
departments. Thus, what will happen is, whatever the rate hike is that 
is filed, the insurance departments of the 50 States will not be able 
to say that it is excessive, and they will not be able to prevail in a 
court of law or in an administrative court of law. As a result, the 
practical effect will be that the insurance rate hike that is filed 
will, in fact, be in effect. And it would be 2 or 3 years before you 
could ever start to overturn it.
  What is worse, there are 10 States whose law says that an insurance 
company cannot file a rate until it is approved by the insurance 
commissioner. The legislation that is being contemplated to be passed 
in this body would say, this Federal legislation will supersede the 
State law, so that, in effect, the rate hike takes effect immediately 
even though the State law says, in those 10 States, that the insurance 
commissioner has to approve it first.
  That is a pretty high-stakes ball game. We simply cannot afford for 
this to go on. So what I am going to continue to urge, as I have 
privately--this is my first public statement on this, save for an 
interview I had last week with the Washington Post and save for the 
testimony I gave to the Banking Committee and as a member of the 
Commerce Committee when I had the opportunity to express my thoughts 
there--but so much more is known now as to see what is starting to 
happen in these last few days of this session. This is what we are 
confronting.
  Simply, if we do not watch it, we are going to allow to pass through 
this Chamber, and be accepted by the House, a piece of legislation 
that, in order to take care of the problem of the lack of terrorism 
insurance, will then allow the rates to go sky-high, rates, I submit 
respectfully to all of my colleagues, that will not be able to be 
affordable, particularly by homeowners and by automobile owners.

  Even though the bills being contemplated say this is primarily for 
commercial insurance, they also say, at the option of the insurance 
company, for personal lines of insurance, such as for automobiles and 
homes, they can opt into it. What homeowners' insurance company, if it 
has homes, for example, in the neighborhood of a nuclear power plant, 
is not going to opt in to this kind of protection?
  So what I am saying is, you better watch out. We are about to vote 
for something that is about to mandate huge rate hikes. The Senate and 
the House of Representatives do not normally handle this stuff because 
ever since the 1940s in the McCarren-Ferguson Act, we transferred that 
ability to regulate insurance to the 50 States. Thus, we are not 
familiar with the facts of rate-making and the experience and data as 
to what is excessive in rate increases. We had better watch it.
  From the insurance companies' standpoint, let me tell you, I do think 
they need protection. They cannot simply be asked to accept the 
terrorism risk. There is not an insurance company in the world that 
wants to accept that risk. So in this Senator's personal opinion, I 
believe there is a role for the Federal Government as a backstop for 
the insurance industry accepting this huge potential risk.
  If we are fortunate, if our intelligence apparatus is working, then 
we

[[Page S12408]]

will be fortunate not to have other significant terrorism losses. But 
there is that uncertainty on the basis of what we experienced on 
September the 11th, what we experienced back in the early 1990s when 
they tried to blow up the World Trade Center, what we have seen with 
regard to the Timothy McVeighs of the world and the Oklahoma Federal 
building, and so forth.
  So there is that element of terrorist risk where I do believe 
insurance companies need to be partnered with the Federal Government in 
helping assume that risk.
  We better watch out about the potential price hikes. We know the 
property and casualty insurers are going to be paying about $50 billion 
in claims from September 11. That is a huge payout. But let's remember 
that the companies are going to recover a lot of those insurance losses 
they have paid out in tax breaks where they can carry forward those 
losses and offset them against gains.
  Remember, this is an insurance industry. This is an industry that has 
been very fortunate to be financially flush with cash. In the property 
and casualty field, there is a surplus to the tune of in excess of $300 
billion. In the reinsurance world of just those companies that 
reinsure, there is a surplus in the range of $125 billion. Their 
problem is not a lack of cash; it is the uncertainty of the quantifying 
and the pricing and the spreading of the risk of future terrorist 
attacks.
  In time, I believe, just as we have seen in Florida in the aftermath 
of that catastrophic hurricane that disrupted the entire homeowners 
marketplace, you will see the marketplace--along with the strengthened 
security that we are now imposing, fortunately, in this Nation, and our 
war against terrorism--I think in time that will solve the problem. In 
the interim, we are going to have legislation in the next few days in 
front of this body.

  Remember the three items we ought to look for, for the protection of 
the consumer: No. 1, that there be mandatory coverage for terrorism, 
that they can't red-line and say, I will select your skyscraper but not 
your skyscraper; No. 2, that they cannot willy-nilly just cancel the 
terrorism coverage; and No. 3, that there be a reasonable amount of 
rate increases proportionate to the risk the insurance industry is 
picking up, given the fact that the Federal Government will be picking 
up most of the risk, and not let this be an excuse for rate hikes that 
ultimately will affect the economic engine of this country. If 
insurance becomes unaffordable, the economic engine of this country 
cannot operate because of the need to have the protection against these 
acts of terror.
  I am grateful for the time to speak on a subject that is very 
important to this country. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      NOMINATION OF EUGENE SCALIA

  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise today to express my very strong 
support for the embattled nomination of Eugene Scalia to be Solicitor 
of Labor. I am extremely frustrated, as many of us are on this side, by 
the other side's unwillingness to bring this nomination to the floor 
for a vote.
  Mr. Scalia has been cleared by the HELP Committee and is now 
languishing in limbo with the session fast drawing to a conclusion and 
the window for acting starting to close. There are no good reasons for 
holding up this nomination, for refusing to bring it to the floor.
  May I be permitted to state the obvious? The debate is not about 
Eugene Scalia's qualifications, experience, intelligence, dedication, 
compassion, or any other attribute we would normally consider to 
determine if a candidate should be confirmed. He meets everyone's 
definition of what this position requires. Even those who have opposed 
his nomination are quick to admit he possesses the skills and the 
experience that Solicitors of Labor typically have.
  It seems to me the only basis on which Mr. Scalia is being blocked is 
that those on the other side did not agree with the results of last 
year's election on two levels and with some of the actions this Senate 
has already taken. First they do not like the fact that George Bush 
emerged as the new President, and some are trying to do anything in 
their power to frustrate and impede his administration from pursuing 
its agenda.
  Secondly, because Mr. Scalia's father is one of the Justices of the 
Supreme Court who was in the majority decision which found for George 
Bush in Florida, they are using their disagreement with Justice Scalia 
as a reason to block the confirmation of his son.
  Both of these reasons are shameful, and they should have no place in 
this consideration.
  The opponents of Mr. Scalia have raised other arguments which are 
equally without merit and specious. One of these is that Mr. Scalia is 
not qualified for this role because the Solicitor of Labor must serve 
as the people's lawyer and take up the cause of those whom the labor 
laws and regulations are intended to protect and, because Mr. Scalia 
has represented employers, he is on the wrong side of the equation. 
That argument fails on a number of grounds.
  First, the Solicitor of Labor answers to the Secretary of Labor. The 
Solicitor's role is to advise the Secretary about the arguments 
surrounding the Department's actions and her decisions. This is the 
role this position has played regardless of the administration or party 
in power. While it is an important position, it is not at all the 
policy-oriented position that Mr. Scalia's opponents make it out to be. 
The notion that the Solicitor of Labor is the people's lawyer is a 
straw man argument invented for the sole reason of creating a fictional 
standard that Mr. Scalia's opponents think he fails to meet because he 
has spent his career representing employers in labor issues.
  The second reason this argument fails is that it does not recognize 
the substance of Mr. Scalia's work. Even under this fictional standard, 
Mr. Scalia would qualify. A large part of Mr. Scalia's career in labor 
law has been spent advising his clients, the employers, on how to 
comply with the law and steering them away from mistreating their 
employees under the law. In other words, his career has been focused on 
helping employers treat their employees better in accordance with the 
laws passed by this body. Thus, he has indeed taken up the cause of 
those whom the labor laws are intended to protect.

  Another unsupportable argument against Mr. Scalia has to do with his 
involvement in the OSHA ergonomics regulation debacle. I know something 
about that matter. We in the Small Business Committee spent a good deal 
of time working on that issue. Mr. Scalia represented employers on this 
issue and thus was on the side that ultimately prevailed when both 
Houses of Congress, by bipartisan margins, invalidated that regulation 
last March. May I remind fellow Senators that the vote was 56 to 44, 
with every single Republican and 6 Democrats supporting the resolution 
of disapproval. Why should this be held against him, when he agreed 
with the position we took by a 56-to-44 vote margin? This was a 
resounding victory, perhaps one of the biggest for those of us on this 
side of the aisle on the labor issue.
  The fact that Mr. Scalia was right in his arguments should be to his 
credit. It should be an indication that he understands what the limits 
of government are, what the limits on government should be, and if the 
Department goes too far, it should be reined in.
  I don't need to go through the long list of reasons we won that vote. 
It should be clear that we would not have won with such an impressive 
margin if that rule had not been so horribly flawed. Are we willing to 
say that because the Clinton administration OSHA put an egregiously 
flawed regulation forward, we are not going to confirm Eugene Scalia to 
be Solicitor of Labor because he agreed with the majority in both 
Houses and the President that it should be repealed?
  While all these arguments and discussions about Mr. Scalia's merits 
unequivocably support confirming him, they obscure one of the hidden 
truths about him. He genuinely cares for the people whom he represents 
and will approach the position of Solicitor of Labor ever mindful of 
those who rely on the Department of Labor for protection.

[[Page S12409]]

  Since his confirmation hearing and the subsequent vote approving him 
in committee, we have received a letter from a woman whose case he took 
pro bono--at no charge--which illustrates this point and conclusively 
demonstrates the caliber of person Eugene Scalia is. It is a short 
letter. I will read excerpts from it, and then ask unanimous consent 
that the full text be printed in the Record.
  The letter is from Ms. Cecilia Madan. It begins: I am a deaf, 
Hispanic immigrant and a single mother, working full-time to support my 
daughter. And I have information about Eugene Scalia's handling of a 
labor employment matter involving me.
  She describes how, in 1998, her work environment became increasingly 
hostile, abusive, and difficult for her to bear. In seeking legal 
assistance, she learned she could file an action under civil rights 
laws, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the DC Human Rights Act. 
But every lawyer she consulted told her that even if they were willing 
to take the case on a contingent fee basis, she would have to pay a 
substantial retainer upfront. She simply did not have it. She could 
only afford their consultation fees.
  Then she writes:

       Then a friend of mine recommended that I try the ``pro-
     bono'' program at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, and Mr. Scalia in 
     particular. My brother called for me, to see if I could have 
     an appointment. I was so worried that Mr. Scalia might be too 
     busy and turn me away (after all, I had never heard of him 
     before)! But he agreed to an appointment immediately. At our 
     meeting, Mr. Scalia was so kind, and thoughtful, and patient; 
     he even asked to see a picture of my daughter! I fear I must 
     have rambled a great deal when I told my story, but he didn't 
     seem to mind at all. Our meeting lasted a long time, but he 
     didn't ask for a consultation fee or a retainer, and he told 
     me that he and his law firm would take my case ``pro bono.'' 
     He said that he didn't think a lawsuit (which could take a 
     long time) would be necessary, because often these matters 
     could be resolved through ``firm negotiations,'' which he was 
     fully willing to undertake for me. He made every effort to 
     reassure me, saying that he and his associate would do 
     everything they could to ``resolve this.'' He seemed to sense 
     my extreme anxiety and tried his best to calm my fears. I was 
     able to walk away with confidence and hope.
       The negotiations went on for several weeks, but they were 
     tremendously successful--much more than I had even hoped for. 
     ``Firm negotiations'' is right: The employer agreed to just 
     about everything I had asked for, and ``my lawyers(!)'' got 
     the employer to agree to things I hadn't even thought to ask 
     for!
       Not only did he and his associate negotiate around the 
     employment problems I was facing right then, they took great 
     care to look ahead and watch out for my future interests.
       A few months later, when I was able to get a new job, with 
     a different employer (as a result of the settlement Mr. 
     Scalia got for me), I was impressed to receive brief word 
     from him saying that he had heard of my new job and hoped 
     that my daughter and I were well. . . .''

  She concludes her letter this way:

       Throughout my ordeal, Mr. Scalia went out of his way to 
     help. He seemed especially . . . concerned about not making 
     things worse for me on the job, while he was vigorously 
     defending my rights with my employer. Even though he had 
     never seen me before and even though I could never pay him, 
     simple justice is what he wanted for this employee and worked 
     hard to get, and that is what he got for me. I am so grateful 
     to him for his efforts as my lawyer. . . .

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

                                                  October 9, 2001.
     [Re nomination of Mr. Eugene Scalia to be Solicitor of 
         Labor.]
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, 
         Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am a deaf, Hispanic immigrant and a 
     single mother, working full-time to support my young 
     daughter, and I have information (which I hope will be 
     helpful in considering Mr. Eugene Scalia's nomination to be 
     Solicitor of Labor) about his handling of a labor/employment 
     matter involving me.
       I began full-time work in 1991 for a local employer. By 
     1998, the work environment there had become increasingly 
     hostile towards me, abusive, and difficult for me to bear, 
     and I was terrified that I would lose my job. In desperation 
     (I was heavily in debt and living from paycheck to paycheck, 
     just to make ends meet), I went to several labor-lawyers in 
     the area, who advised that me I could file lawsuits under the 
     1964 Civil Rights Act, the D.C. Human Rights Act, and the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act, based on the facts of my 
     employment situation, on the grounds of my ethnicity/race, my 
     sex, my hearing disability, a medically-diagnosed chronic 
     condition I was suffering from and under treatment for at the 
     time, and my marital/family status. Unfortunately, all of 
     these lawyers--even those who said that they could take the 
     case on a contingency-fee basis-- insisted on my paying them 
     a substantial retainer up front, and I had no money to pay 
     them any more than their consultation fees.
       Then a friend of mine recommended that I try the ``pro-
     bono'' program at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, and Mr. Scalia in 
     particular. My brother called for me, to see if I could have 
     an appointment. I was so worried that Mr. Scalia might be too 
     busy and turn me away (after all, I had never heard of him 
     before)! But he agreed to an appointment immediately. At our 
     meeting, Mr. Scalia was so kind, and thoughtful, and patient; 
     he even asked to see a picture of my daughter! I fear I must 
     have rambled a great deal when I told my story, but he didn't 
     seem to mind at all. Our meeting lasted a long time, but he 
     didn't ask for a consultation fee or a retainer, and he told 
     me that he and his law firm would take my case ``pro bono.'' 
     He said that he didn't think a lawsuit (which could take a 
     long time) would be necessary, because often these matters 
     could be resolved through ``firm negotiations,'' which he was 
     fully willing to undertake for me. He made every effort to 
     reassure me, saying that he and his associate would do 
     everything they could to ``resolve this.'' He seemed to 
     sense my extreme anxiety and tried his best to calm my 
     fears. I was able to walk away with confidence and hope.
       The negotiations went on for several weeks, but they were 
     tremendously successful--much more than I had even hoped for. 
     ``Firm negotiations'' is right: The employer agreed to just 
     about everything I had asked for, and ``my lawyers(!)'' got 
     the employer to agree to things I hadn't even thought to ask 
     for! Not only did he and his associate negotiate around the 
     employment problems that I was facing right then, they took 
     great care to look ahead and watch out for my future 
     interests.
       A few months later, when I was able to get a new job, with 
     a different employer (as a result of the settlement Mr. 
     Scalia got for me), I was impressed to receive brief word 
     from him saying that he had heard of my new job and hoped 
     that my daughter and I were well. We sure are . . . thanks in 
     such great part to him!
       Throughout my ordeal, Mr. Scalia went out of his way to 
     help. He seemed especially to be concerned about not making 
     things worse for me on the job, while he was vigorously 
     defending my rights with my employer. Even though he had 
     never seen me before and even though he knew I could never 
     pay him, simple justice is what he wanted for this employee 
     and worked hard to get, and that is what he got for me. I am 
     so very grateful to him for his efforts as my lawyer. And I 
     hope you soon will give other people in the workforce the 
     opportunity to have him as their lawyer, as Solicitor of 
     Labor.
       Please let me know if you need more information or if I may 
     help Mr. Scalia's nomination in any way.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Cecilia Madan.

  Mr. BOND. I think this simple letter speaks volumes about Mr. Scalia 
and the type of person and the type of lawyer he is. It is a clear 
statement of the values he upholds and the positive impact he believes 
he can have as a lawyer. This is the person President Bush has chosen 
to be his Solicitor of Labor. I truly and honestly believe the 
President could not have found a better candidate, or one who is better 
qualified, better trained, and better motivated. I am thrilled that Mr. 
Scalia is willing to accept the responsibilities of public service, and 
I implore the majority leader to bring this nomination to the floor for 
a vote before we adjourn.
  Every shameful day he remains unconfirmed is another day the 
Secretary of Labor and America's employees do not benefit from his 
abilities and compassion.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. LUGAR. 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. LUGAR. Mr. President, as we are in preparation for a debate on 
farm legislation, I want to call to the attention of the Senate a very 
useful and, in fact, remarkable publication called ``Food and 
Agricultural Policy, Taking Stock for the New Century,'' published by 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture this summer to state the views of 
the Department, and to offer data for Senators and members of the 
public as we began the farm debate.
  I want to quote extensively from chapter 3, entitled ``Farm Sector 
Policy'' because I believe it gives a very

[[Page S12410]]

good outline of USDA's opinions on farm policy as it has progressed in 
our country, and as we hope it may progress through constructive debate 
on this bill.
  Mr. President, the chapter begins by saying that:

       If farmers and farm families all across the country share 
     the same goals and face the same challenges and 
     opportunities, fashioning farm policy today would be 
     straightforward. And, indeed, that is the way it must have 
     seemed in the 1930s, when farm families depended mainly on 
     farm earnings and grew crops and livestock on much the same 
     acreage as their neighbors. Then, policy had a more focused 
     objective--helping to reduce the wide income disparity 
     between farm families and their urban counterparts--and a 
     ``one-size-fits-all'' approach was more appropriate. 
     Supporting field crop prices provided widespread assistance, 
     since most farmers grew some field crops, and helped 
     stabilize the entire sector. The farm sector and all of 
     agriculture are vastly different today, as is much of rural 
     America. Yet our farm policy retains vestiges of the New Deal 
     programs and reflects a time of greater homogeneity across 
     American farms and farm households.

  Today, the farm sector is diverse beyond the imagination of those who 
framed the New Deal legislation. On average, farm family incomes no 
longer lag, but rather surpass those of other U.S. households.
  That, I found, Mr. President, to be a remarkable statement, 
counterintui- tive to much of the debate we have on the subject. I will 
mention again:

       On average, farm family incomes no longer lag, but rather 
     surpass those of U.S. households. Most farms are run by 
     people whose principal occupation is not farming. Markets 
     have changed, too. Domestic demand alone is no longer 
     sufficient to absorb what American farmers can produce. 
     Demand by well-fed Americans grows slowly, with population 
     growth. The promise of new, much-faster growing markets lies 
     overseas, in countries where economic prosperity is emerging 
     for larger numbers of people.
       As a result, the United States must consider its farm 
     policy in an international setting, helping farmers stay 
     competitive while pressing for unfettered access to global 
     markets. At the same time, Americans' expectations with 
     respect to food have moved well beyond assurance of adequate 
     quantities to include quality, safety, convenience, and many 
     more attributes. And expectations now extend to environmental 
     preservation and enhancement.
       More than seven decades of farm policy have provided a 
     rich, full experience upon which to draw as we contemplate 
     appropriate 21st century policies for our industry. The view 
     of policies and programs across their history has proved very 
     instructive, providing invaluable lessons which, at very 
     minimum, can help us avoid the obvious mistakes of the past. 
     History shows us that growth in farm household income was 
     largely due to rapid improvements in productivity, supported 
     by a strong research base, along with better opportunities to 
     market products, including export markets and off-farm 
     employment opportunities.
       Many of the program approaches since the 1930s proved not 
     to work well, or not at all, produced unexpected and unwanted 
     consequences, became far costlier than expected, and have 
     been continually modified over time in the long succession of 
     farm laws. Some major and still highly relevant lessons 
     learned include: History has shown that supporting prices is 
     self-defeating. Supporting prices is self defeating. 
     Government attempts to hold prices above those determined by 
     commercial markets have simply made matters worse time after 
     time. Artificially higher prices encourage even more unneeded 
     output from the most efficient producers. At the same time, 
     they discourage utilization, consequently pushing surpluses 
     higher and prices lower. Costs to taxpayers grew until the 
     point was reached where something had to be done. All too 
     often, that turned out to be finding ways to restrict output.

  The second lesson, Mr. President, of the USDA book is supply controls 
proved unworkable, too.

       These usually involved restricting the amount of land 
     farmed in attempts to reduce output. But the remaining land 
     was farmed more intensively, and supply rarely was cut enough 
     to boost prices to politically satisfactory levels. The 
     programs were costly to taxpayers and consumers and the 
     unused resources were a drag on overall economic performance. 
     But, perhaps the most important of all, limiting our acreage 
     was a signal to our competitors in other countries to expand 
     theirs, and we lost market share that is always difficult to 
     recapture.

  The third lesson of the farm bill is stock holding and reserve plans 
distort markets enormously.

       Isolating commodity stocks from the market when supplies 
     are abundant is attractive for its short-term price stimulus. 
     But, because such stocks eventually must be returned to the 
     market, they limit the recovery of prices in the future. 
     Moreover, time after time, stocks have proved costly to 
     maintain, distorted normal marketing patterns, ceded 
     advantage to competitors, and prove tempting targets for 
     political tampering.

  The fourth lesson is:

       Program benefits invariably prove to be disparate, 
     providing unintended (and unwanted) consequences. The rapidly 
     changing farm sector structure produced a wide array of farm 
     sizes and efficiencies. Many farms were low cost and the 
     programs were of enormous benefit, enabling them to expand 
     their operations. Others did not receive enough benefits to 
     remain viable and thus were absorbed along the way. That 
     situation still maintains to some extent today, even though 
     we now have fewer farms.
       The clarity of these lessons provided several emphatic 
     turning points in national policy. The 1985 farm law proved 
     to be one such point when, after long debate on fundamental 
     philosophy, a more market-oriented approach was adopted. That 
     market orientation was extended in the 1990 farm law, making 
     a less intrusive and expensive role for government in farmer 
     decisionmaking and in the operation of the markets.
       The Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 
     1996--

  A law that currently we have in place--

     proved to be historic in that it removed much of the decades-
     old program structure, provided unparalleled farmer 
     decisionmaking, flexibility through ``decoupled'' benefits, 
     and set a new example throughout the world for providing 
     domestic farm sector support.
       While that approach is arguably still the least distorting 
     of markets and resource use, its direct payments--

  These are the so-called AMTA payments, Mr. President--

     do share some unintended effects with price support programs, 
     namely the artificial inflation of farmland prices. The 
     effect clearly has been exacerbated by the size of payments 
     in recent years, some $28 billion in the last 4 years above 
     the amount provided in the 1996 law.
       While the rise in land prices creates wealth for some, it 
     works to the disadvantage of others. Direct government 
     transfers distort real estate markets, keeping land prices 
     artificially high when commodity prices are low, as we are 
     seeing today. Higher land prices for consecutive years of 
     large program support make it more difficult for beginning 
     farmers by increasing capital requirements. This inflation 
     also makes it more costly for existing farms to expand to 
     achieve size economies, either by purchasing or renting 
     additional acres (since land rents move in tandem with 
     prices). Higher land values do benefit local tax authorities 
     and the collateral base of farm lenders, but add directly to 
     production expenses through higher interest and rental costs. 
     Since the land charge is such an important component of a 
     farmers' total cost, sustained increases in land prices and 
     rents have a decidedly adverse effect on the competitiveness 
     of our farmers in the marketplace compared with those in 
     other exporting countries, a cause of growing concern in 
     recent years.

  To come to the nub of the problem, the farm sector chapter says:

       Squaring Today's Realities With Policies. Because of their 
     historical evolution, current program benefits still are 
     largely directed to specific commodity producers, resulting 
     in only 40 percent of farms being recipients.

  That is a remarkable figure. After all is said and done and the 
payments are made, only 40 percent of farmers receive anything; 60 
percent receive nothing, a fairly large majority.

       And, there still is no direct relationship between 
     receiving benefits and the financial status of the farm. The 
     most financially disadvantaged segment of farmers today is 
     the low-income, low-wealth group.

  And this is defined in appendix 1 of this book. Essentially, the book 
points out that there are commercial farms, intermediate farms, rural 
residence farms, and then they are distributed by size and income.
  In any event, the most low-income, low-wealth group comprises 6 
percent of farms, had an average household income of $9,500, and 
received less than 1 percent of the direct payments in 1999.

       In contrast, 47 percent of payments went to large 
     commercial farms, which contributed nearly half of program 
     commodity production and had household incomes of $135,000.

  These are families, obviously, that are middle class, upper middle 
class, and they received half of the payments.

       Our current broad-scale, commodity-oriented approach to 
     farm support does not recognize existing wide differences in 
     production costs, marketing approaches, or overall management 
     capabilities that delineate competitive and noncompetitive 
     operations. It thus is impossible to provide enough income 
     support for intermediate farms without overly stimulating 
     production by the lower cost, large-scale commercial 
     producers. Even though many intermediate farms and rural 
     residence farms receive some program benefits, only one in 
     four generated enough revenue to cover economic costs. Even 
     more problematic is the inability of these farms to improve 
     their cost efficiency at the same

[[Page S12411]]

     pace as larger commercial operations, whose investment in new 
     technologies and ability to expand are aided by program 
     benefits.
       Another unintended consequence of current programs stems 
     from the increasing disconnect between land ownership and 
     farm operation. While program benefits were intended to help 
     farm operators, most support eventually accrues mainly to 
     landowners in the shortrun through rising rental rates and, 
     in the longer term, through capitalization and to land 
     values.
       Land prices in recent years have been relatively robust, 
     especially in areas producing program commodities, despite 
     concerns about low commodity prices and the future direction 
     of farm programs.
       For many farm operators, renting land is a key strategy to 
     expand the size of business in order to capture the size 
     economics, as evidenced by the fact that 42 percent of 
     farmers rented land in 1999.
       Clearly, operators farming mostly rented acreage may 
     receive little benefit from the program. The impact of income 
     from any source, including program benefits on land values, 
     depends on whether that income is viewed as permanent or 
     transitory. The degree of certainty that the income will 
     continue in the future and even though production flexibility 
     contract payments were intended as transitory when authorized 
     by the 1996 farm bill, subsequent emergency assistance and a 
     70-year history of Government involvement in agriculture have 
     reaffirmed expectation that support will continue in the 
     future.

  Indeed, Mr. President, in both the bills offered by the House of 
Representatives and by the Agriculture Committee of the Senate, the so-
called AMTA payments continue throughout the entirety of the bills.
  There was no expectation that they would be phased out as in the 1996 
farm bill, no anticipation that they would be transitory. As a matter 
of fact, in both bills they are larger, and therefore the impact, which 
has been found in the chapter I am reading, the difficulty for farming, 
is likely to be exacerbated. The 1996 FAIR Act also continued the 
marketing loan program, another evolution of the old price support 
idea, but importantly modified to avoid government stockholding which 
proved so burdensome in times past.
  Marketing loan payments effectively provide a large countercyclical 
component to farm income but distort markets by limiting the production 
response to falling market prices. The program guarantees a price for 
traditional program commodities: Food grains, feed grains, cotton, and 
oil seeds. As market prices have fallen below this guaranteed price, 
total marketing loan benefits have risen less than $200 million in the 
1997 crop to $8 billion for the 1999 and $7.3 billion to date for the 
2000 year crops.
  Since 1996, countercyclical marketing loan benefits have totaled 
about $20 billion. While the current policy made large strides toward 
greater market orientation, a careful evaluation in the context of 
today's diverse farm structure and increasingly consumer-driven 
marketplace still reveals several misalignments among policy goals, 
program mechanisms, and outcome. Improvement could support more 
sustainable prosperity for farmers, agriculture, and rural communities 
without engendering long-term dependence on direct government support.
  I will translate that in many ways to the debate we are now having. 
Essentially, the bill that is before the Senate as reported by the 
Agriculture Committee attempts not only to continue fixed payments for 
10 years without accuracy, thus implying a perpetual agricultural 
crisis the last farm bill in 1996 had in mind, that essentially we 
would move toward more of a market economy and transition payments 
would go to certain farmers who have been in the business.
  This has led to substantial debate in the last 5 years because 
essentially, as many have said, there are landowners receiving payments 
who are no longer farming at all. They literally are not in the 
business. The contract we made with farmers in the 1996 farm bill was 
that if one had a history of planting corn or wheat or cotton or rice--
and eventually soybeans have entered in through a marketing loan 
situation--they receive money on the basis of that history. Thus a part 
of the distortion that the USDA now points out: The payments are 
heavily loaded toward people who own land, but 42 percent of those who 
are actually in the fields this year rent land. They do not own it. 
Their rents are higher. As a result, their net income is lower.
  The policy we have adopted essentially of the fixed payments plus the 
other aspects, the marketing loans, the other countercyclical 
situation, increase essentially the land values. If someone is a 
landholder, that is helpful. As the USDA publication points out, if one 
is a mortgage banker holding a note, the value of that land increasing 
is useful. But for young farmers coming into the business, this is 
potentially disastrous. There is very little entry. For those renting, 
42 percent, certainly they have higher costs year by year.
  Furthermore, as the USDA publication points out, all of this is 
occurring to the benefit of only 40 percent of farmers to begin with. 
The other three-fifths are out of the picture.
  One of the interesting facets of farm debates is many farmers must 
surely believe they are benefiting from this. It is apparent that, 
really, for time immemorial, a minority of farmers have received any 
benefit. A substantial majority are not touched by this, certainly in 
terms of their income.

  In addition, the farm policies, whatever their intent, have 
stimulated overproduction. As USDA points out, essentially the most 
efficient farmers, using the very best of research, using the best of 
machinery and equipment and seed, are able to produce a bushel of corn 
or a bushel of wheat for substantially less than their domestic 
competitors, fortunately for much less than almost all of their foreign 
competitors. Therein lies the advantage of the United States in terms 
of exports.
  The problem comes, to take a very specific example of corn, as I 
mentioned earlier in the afternoon, the loan deficiency payment for a 
bushel of corn in Indiana and in many other locations is $1.89. That 
figure was meant to be a floor. It was anticipated the price of corn 
would be more than $1.89 and seldom would it reach $1.89, but in the 
event that it did, a farmer could be certain of receiving $1.89 
regardless of what the market price might be. The taxpayers generally 
picked up the difference between the market price and the loan 
deficiency payment level, the loan rate at $1.89.
  But what if corn farmers who were very efficient find that they can 
produce additional bushels for much less than $1.89 per bushel? The 
incentive obviously is to produce as much as possible because $1.89 is 
guaranteed for every bushel, and if one is producing for less than 
that, it is a profit on every single additional bushel. That does not 
escape the attention of many of our most efficient farmers, and they 
have increased their production. By and large, they have grown. Other 
competitors have not grown and, as the USDA points out, in many cases 
have either sold their properties or rented them to others who are able 
to obtain better results, I suspect.
  This has led to a certain amount of decline in the number of farmers 
in the country. But as many farm statisticians have pointed out, in 
recent years the numbers of farms have grown in various sectors of our 
society, in large part because many Americans who are professionals in 
the city, or who simply wanted a rural life-style, purchased small 
farms or at least some acreage. They qualify under USDA standards as a 
farm situation if they have $1,000 of sales. That is the cutoff point. 
Many do have $1,000, and many maybe have $10,000 worth of sales, but 
increasingly large numbers, hundreds of thousands of persons, have 
qualified as operating farms on that basis.
  Seventy years ago, no one would have considered attempting to think 
through a farm bill that would be of assistance to all of these 
additional farmers. But as USDA points out, a majority of persons now 
obtain more of their income from something other than farming, even as 
they are classified as one of the 2.1 million farm situations in our 
country.
  I mention that simply because in rhetoric in this debate, or at other 
times, about farm bills, a great deal is said about the plight of the 
small family farmer and saving that person. In fact, I would contend 
most of our farm bills have done a pretty good job of that. There 
literally is a pretty broad safety net but only if you are in certain 
types of farming; namely, the row crops--corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, 
and rice. For instance, if you are a livestock farmer--hogs, cattle, 
sheep--these programs do not pertain to you at all.

  Increasingly in our farm debates, we have been hearing Senators 
describe

[[Page S12412]]

strawberries, cherries, peaches, nuts, and cranberries. These are 
sometimes known as niche crops, specialty crops, but clearly are not 
crops contemplated by farm bills. No money in these farm bills goes for 
these crops. That has not been very satisfying to most Senators who 
come from States with these constituents.
  The situation now with the specialty crops is, Senators come to the 
floor and ask quite candidly: What is in this farm bill for us? We 
understand from the New Deal days onward, people in cotton, rice, corn, 
and wheat were taken care of; a safety net was there for them. But no 
one thought about us in those days. We are thinking about ``us'' now.
  As a result, the Senate fields annually a large number of disaster 
bills. Somewhere in the United States of America, the weather is not 
good for whoever is doing whatever they are doing. They point out that 
although corn growers or cotton growers are having their problems, the 
strawberry growers and others are also having a very tough time in 
other areas. Or the cranberry situation is a disaster.
  As a result, the plea comes for disaster assistance payments to these 
farmers. The USDA, as a rule, has not been geared up to make these 
payments because there is no particular crop history or there is not a 
tradition of making the payments. As a result, the payments don't occur 
for a while because USDA must establish regulations as to who is 
eligible, how to verify this, and how to audit these situations. 
Nevertheless, as we have had the disaster bills or supplemental bills, 
each summer more and more Senators are finding the focus of these 
disaster bills is not very wide. This is also the case with the farm 
bill. The 40 percent who get the money are not 100 percent; the 
Senators who represent the other 60 percent say: What about us?
  We have had hearings before the Agriculture Committee, and there are 
debates among people in the so-called specialty crops--fruits and 
vegetable and so forth. Some say: Leave us alone. You have pretty well 
mangled other markets. Supply and demand still pertains in what we are 
doing without government supports, without subsidies. As a result, 
there is risk but there is also reward. The market works for us. Don't 
gum it up.
  On the other hand, many well-meaning Senators trying to help 
constituents are not prepared to take that for an answer. They visit 
with many farmers who have had genuine disasters caused by the weather 
or other problems, and they want relief for these constituents. Again 
and again, the disaster bills try to address all of these localized 
problems.
  The so-called stimulus package offered to the Senate--which we are 
not considering for a variety of reasons, and which I gather is now 
grist for the mill, with the overall group discussing this in a 
bicameral way--had about $6 billion worth of agricultural provisions in 
it. Many of them duplicate items in the farm bill we are now 
considering. Perhaps Senators were nervous that the farm bill would 
never get to them, and the urgency, at least as they saw it, was that 
the money in the stimulus package might be spent sooner. Perhaps so.
  We found these same ideas popping up in the debate we had in August, 
when the Senate sent $5.5 billion to farmers in the country, mostly to 
row crop producers, but with a debate on specialty crops and other 
things that ought to be covered to address their particular problems.
  This simply reinforces what USDA has started in chapter 3 of its 
recent policy book; namely, one size doesn't fit all. As a matter of 
fact, the number of farming operations in terms of size, scope, 
altogether the things they are doing, is so diverse, it is very 
difficult for any farm bill to encompass a majority, or even a small 
minority of operations, for that matter.
  This is why, as we have this debate on the farm bill, I look forward 
to the opportunity to offer an amendment to the commodity section. I 
tried to look realistically as to what is occurring on American farms 
today. I am saying that in Federal policy, strawberries and cattle 
should be treated no differently than wheat.
  In essence, we should take a look at the whole farm income. Each 
farmer must file with the Internal Revenue Service the proper returns 
that indicate all income generated on the farm. For many farms that are 
fairly diversified, that have income from cattle, from hogs, perhaps 
some from timber, perhaps some corn and soybeans, sometimes some wheat. 
In the South, more likely it is from cotton or rice, along with the 
livestock. In essence, we are saying, income earned from all 
agricultural production should be treated equally in federal farm 
policy.
  Take the example of a farmer who receives $100,000 a year in 
agricultural sales from all sources. Under the bill I presented to the 
Agriculture Committee, that farmer would declare that income, and he 
would receive a $6,000 credit from the Federal Government (or 6 percent 
of that $100,000) to be utilized in one of three ways. The $6,000 could 
be used to purchase whole farm revenue insurance, guaranteeing 80 
percent of the 5-year income to that farm; in other words, a genuine 
safety net created on the basis of the history of that operation. If 
the farmer has had $100,000 of income 5 years in a row, obviously, the 
average is $100,000, and the farmer would receive a $6,000 government 
credit. This would buy an 80 percent whole farm revenue insurance 
policy, which means that in a case of a disaster or a downturn of 
income, that farmer is guaranteed at least $80,000 of income. That 
premium would be paid for by the $6,000.
  Say the farmer has some money left over. He could utilize that then 
for a so-called farm savings account. A farmer puts the money from the 
Federal Government into this account and he matches it with an 
equivalent amount. At that point, that account remains for a rainy day 
purpose--once again, to stabilize farm income and to offer a genuine 
safety net. Or the farmer may use more sophisticated means of risk 
management. He also has the option to use the $6,000 to purchase other 
risk management or marketing tools that are of equivalent value.
  In essence, we recognize all of agriculture, all of America, all the 
diverse ways in which people make money. We offer a genuine market-
oriented program through a variety of risk management options 
(including whole farm revenue insurance) so that essentially no farmer 
could do worse than 80 percent of his annual income in any kind of 
disastrous year. We encourage savings accounts with a matching 
Government contribution, to increase the farmer's financial reserves 
and enhance the financial viability of the family farm. This has the 
virtue of being relatively inexpensive. That particular virtue has 
escaped the debate thus far altogether, in large part because Senators 
have competed with each other to provide more subsidies for more 
constituents. I understand that urge. But I have also suggested that 
this debate is occurring at a time in which it is prophesied by the 
Office of Management and Budget that we will have 3 years of Federal 
deficits.

  One can say, after all, if we are doing deficit spending into 
deficits for all sorts of other things, the farmers ought to have their 
share of the deficit spending, too. But that is not the way this debate 
began. It began with the thought that we were going to have a $300 
trillion surplus for the coming year and, for that matter, for most of 
the years in the coming decade. I have argued earlier on that the 
outlays, in my judgment, lead to overproduction and lower prices, 
distorted land values, and make it tougher for young farmers, tenent 
farmers, and farmers that rent land.
  But leaving aside that argument, I make the argument now that we do 
not have the money. We have not had the money for some time. It is 
obvious to everybody who has common sense outside the agricultural 
debate. But sometime it will dawn upon most Americans, and they will 
wonder what we are doing here.
  Senators who rush back to their constituents and say, ``I got $173.5 
billion in farm subsidies for you,'' may find some skeptics who will 
say, ``Where was the money? Where did you find the money?''
  The Senator may say, after all, the farmers deserve the same benefits 
as everybody else. There was not any money, but there will be someday. 
Surely, this thing will turn around. Maybe so, maybe not. My 
constituents in Indiana are wondering about this.

[[Page S12413]]

  Two percent of us, and I include myself among this group in Indiana, 
actually are in the farming business. That is a declining number. But 
98 percent are not. Maybe those of us who are in the 2 percent count 
upon the 98 percent never looking into this picture and wondering how 
in the world it is all formulated and why we are receiving money. But 
more and more of the 98 percent are looking into it.
  What is occurring is not a mystery to editorial writers in Indiana. 
They write about it all the time. So do people in the Associated Press. 
So do people who are local reporters. They are reporting how much money 
farmers are receiving in Indiana, county by county, by dollar.
  This comes as a revolutionary surprise. Many farmers are able to 
explain--I try to do so, too--that these payments come because we have 
a farm program which was supposed to be a transition program. We were 
going to move from heavy subsidies to the market in a 7-year period of 
time in the last farm bill. These were transition payments. Other 
payments come, likewise, because of the loan deficiency payment 
business that I just explained. There is a floor price, really, for 
every bushel of corn, every bushel of soybeans.
  Some payments come because of conservation and cooperation by farmers 
to do things that are very helpful as stewards of land and water. So 
there are good reasons for some of these payments. Most constituents 
understand that.
  But they do find it difficult to understand why persons on Indiana 
farms that appear to be very prosperous receive hundreds of thousands 
of dollars from the Federal Government. They are wondering, have we 
missed something here? Was it the argument about the devastation of 
rural America, the loss of income of people, the loss of farms, young 
farmers coming in, and so on? And they wonder how are any of these 
persons helped in the process?
  I am saying that these folks whom we intend to make beneficiaries are 
not in fact helped and have not been for some time.
  Let me conclude this explanation with some principle that I found to 
be useful in an USDA publication, and I commend it to the attention of 
Senators because I think it offers a fairly good foundation for this 
debate on farm policy. As the debate continues, I want to return to 
other aspects that I found especially illuminating in the same 
publication, but I offer this, at least as some basis for an amendment 
I intend to offer in due course in the commodity section, which I 
believe will be constructive, which will be more fair, and which will 
clearly be less expensive, and which has at least some semblance of 
reality, considering the times we are in, fighting a war and recession 
and attempting to do common sense things as Senators.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator 
from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, be recognized immediately upon the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the farm bill as 
it is presented to this Senate, and specifically the dairy part of that 
bill. I rise with the knowledge that some negotiations are going on to 
see if that particular dairy program cannot be improved, at least 
improved from the position of California. The present bill, as drafted, 
before this body, is one, frankly, I cannot support. I cannot support 
it largely because of the dairy provisions.
  I thought it might be helpful if I related my experiences. The 
problem is that some States have many small farms, 60 to 80 cows, and 
other States have larger farms. That is where the subsidies intermesh 
to really create a very difficult playing field for California. 
Essentially the provisions in the agriculture bill that is on the floor 
now would force consumers across the United States to pay $1.8 billion 
more for milk each year. It would drive down essential income to dairy 
farmers who produce the milk contained in most of our Nation's dairy 
products.
  California is the largest dairy State in the Nation. Last year, dairy 
farmers produced 32.2 billion pounds of milk. Over 19 percent plus of 
the Nation's supply comes from California. The industry is a $4.3 
billion industry in the State, and dairy is the largest part--most 
people do not know that--of what is a $30 billion agricultural 
industry. We have 2,000 dairy farms in the State--2,100 to be exact. We 
lead the Nation in the total number of milk cows at 1.5 million. I 
often joke I wish they could vote. The California industry produces 
122,000 jobs and contributes $17.5 billion overall in the economy each 
year.
  These are full-time, year-round jobs in agricultural counties that 
make up the heart of the great California central valley. Dairies 
provide jobs for farmers who grow and ship feed, for farmhands who milk 
the cows, for workers in the processing plants who make our famous 
California cheeses, and for packers, marketers, and many others. In 
fact, in the great San Joachin Valley, one in every five jobs is 
dependent on the dairy industry. If California were a separate nation--
I think most people do not know this--it would rank eighth in the world 
in milk production, fifth in the world in cheese production, and ninth 
in the world in butter production.
  I want to make it clear that we are talking about California more 
than any other State when you talk dairy. So it is simply not possible 
to leave California out of any dairy equation.
  I am aware that the dairy industry, particularly in the Northeast, 
needs government help. I want to make it clear that I can't support 
that help if it greatly disadvantages the dairy farmers in California.
  I think the California Secretary of Agriculture put it best. I would 
like to quote from a letter dated December 3:

       Consumers will see higher prices for fluid milk. In the 
     Senate bill, it is 40 cents more a gallon for milk.
       State law and economics dictate that California's dairy 
     prices must bear a reasonable relationship to milk prices in 
     neighboring regions.

  California law, like it or not, ties us into any pooling agreement 
that might be made.
       As fluid milk prices in surrounding states rise, California 
     fluid milk prices would be increased in a corresponding 
     manner. Unfortunately, the higher milk prices will force some 
     consumers to switch to less expensive--and less nutritious--
     non-dairy alternatives. Dairy processors would be negatively 
     impacted by this loss of fluid milk sales.
       At the same time, California's dairy farmers will also lose 
     under the Senate plan. Increases in fluid milk prices will 
     undoubtedly lead to increased milk production. Once an area 
     covers its needs for fluid milk, the additional milk goes for 
     manufactured product such as cheese, milk powder, and butter. 
     California is the leading producer of both milk powder and 
     butter. California is the second largest producer of cheese, 
     and in fact only 19 percent of California's milk production 
     goes for fluid milk. By simultaneously stimulating production 
     while dampening demand, the Senate plan strikes at the heart 
     of California's dairy economy by severely depressing prices 
     for manufactured dairy products.

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

                                     California Department of Food


                                                & Agriculture,

                                 Sacramento, CA, December 3, 2001.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: I recently wrote to you expressing 
     concern about the proposed changes to the federal dairy 
     system and its impact on California. While this proposal has 
     changed since that letter, its impact remains negative for 
     California's consumers and dairy producers.
       The new plan, contained in S. 1731 as of this writing, 
     would apply to only the federal order program. However, it 
     would have enormous consequences to this state.
       Consumers will see higher prices for fluid (drinking) milk. 
     State law and economics dictate, that California's dairy 
     prices must bear a reasonable relationship to milk prices in 
     neighboring regions. As fluid milk prices in surrounding 
     states rise, California fluid milk prices would be increased 
     in a corresponding manner. Unfortunately, the higher milk 
     prices will force some consumers to switch to less 
     expensive--and less nutritious--non-dairy alternatives. Dairy 
     processors would be negatively impacted by this loss of fluid 
     milk sales.
       At the same time, California's dairy farmers will also lose 
     under the Senate plan. Increases in fluid milk prices will 
     undoubtedly lead to increased milk production. Once an area 
     covers its needs for fluid milk, the additional milk goes for 
     manufactured product such as cheese, milk powder, and butter. 
     California is the leading producer of both milk powder and 
     butter. California is the

[[Page S12414]]

     second largest producer of cheese, and in fact only 19 
     percent of California's milk production goes for fluid milk. 
     By simultaneously stimulating production while dampening 
     demand, the Senate plan strikes at the heart of California's 
     dairy economy by severely depressing prices for manufactured 
     dairy products.
       This is the case even though the Senate plan will primarily 
     increase production in other parts of the country. 
     Manufactured dairy products may be easily stored and 
     transported. Accordingly, the markets for these products are 
     nationwide so that even if increased production were limited 
     to other regions, California's prices for its manufactured 
     products will drop significantly.
       The Alliance of Western Milk Producers estimate that over 9 
     years the bill would have the impact of reducing California 
     dairy farmer's revenue by approximately $1.5 billion. At the 
     same time, California consumers would pay an additional $1.5 
     billion in higher retail milk prices. The Alliance estimate 
     seems reasonable using the analysis completed earlier by the 
     University of Missouri's Food and Policy Research Institute. 
     Our economists concur with these estimates.
       Without question, dairy policy offers some of the most 
     contentious issues in agriculture. The sole positive 
     attribute of the Senate plan is that it has united 
     California's dairy consumers, producers, and processors in 
     opposition to the proposal. Whatever it does for the rest of 
     the country, it is bad for our state.
       I thank you and your staff for all of your efforts on 
     behalf of Californians. If I may be of any assistance to you 
     on this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to 
     contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                     William (Bill) J. Lyons, Jr.,
                                                        Secretary.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I said that California families under 
the Senate bill will pay 40 cents more per gallon of milk. That is 
according to the California Department of Food and Agriculture. That 
represents a net cost to the industry of $1.5 billion over the 9 years 
of this bill.
  Do we really want to make it more expensive for parents to provide 
calcium to their children? Do we want to deprive the elderly of 
nutrition that strengthens bones, fights cancers, stops osteoporosis? 
Do we want to make families cross milk off their grocery list because 
it costs too much? I don't think so.
  For Californians, the legislation is a double-edged sword. Not only 
will a mother in Los Angeles be paying more every week at the grocery 
store, but a father who runs a dairy farm in Modesto will see his 
income slashed, if this bill becomes law. For one co-op, this 
represents a loss of $71,000 per dairy farm.
  The payment formula may be complicated and crafty, but the winners 
and losers are clear. California is targeted by this bill to be a 
loser.
  Like other goods, a higher price established for fluid milk by law--
not the market--will cause families to buy less, as I said, and cause 
suppliers to get an improper price signal to produce more. If there is 
too much drinking milk in the marketplace, it spills over to compete 
against milk used to produce cheese, butter, milk powder, and other 
dairy products.
  Prices for milk are based on how the milk is used, which is referred 
to as ``ultimate utilization.'' Since over 80 percent of the milk in 
California is used to produce these dairy products, any excess milk 
will drive down the prices received by California dairy producers. 
Other States with small dairies can take advantage of government 
subsidies no matter what the milk goes for. But States such as 
California are excluded under their proposal because dairy farms have 
large herds. The average size of the 2,100 herds in California is 656 
cows.
  Again, this is an attempt to take money from California to give it to 
other States.
  Dairy producers estimate they are going to lose $1.5 billion over the 
next 9 years if the provisions in the Senate farm bill are enacted into 
law.
  Let me read a couple of letters from California's dairyland.
       Jim Tillison, Chief Operating Officer of The Alliance of 
     Western Milk Producers, writes that the dairy program in the 
     Farm Bill ``is bad for California's consumers and it is bad 
     for California's dairy farm families.'' He estimates, ``the 
     net loss of revenue from manufactured milk will decrease 
     California dairy farm family income by $1.5 billion over the 
     next 9 years.'' The Alliance of Western Milk Producers is a 
     trade association that represents California dairy 
     cooperatives. Together, Alliance member cooperatives market 
     approximately 50 percent of the milk produced in California 
     both as raw milk and as processed dairy products.

  Rachel Kaldor, Executive Director of the Dairy Institute of 
California, a state trade association representing the manufacturers of 
over 70 percent of the fluid, frozen, and cultured dairy products in 
California, writes, ``any legislation which creates federal price 
floors, production limits and income redistribution--national pooling--
is bad news for California.''
  In another letter, Gary Korsmeier, Chief Executive Officer of 
California Dairies Incorporated reports, ``the milk prices for 
California farm milk used in cheese, butter, nonfat milk powder and 
other dairy products, would drop by $2.9 billion dollars.'' Korsmeier 
predicts the average dairy farmer in the cooperative would lose $71,000 
per year. California Dairies Incorporated is a member of the Alliance 
of Western Milk Producers. Formed from the merger last year of three 
California dairy cooperatives, California Dairies' 700 members account 
for about 40 percent of California's milk production.
  I could go on and on. I can talk about lower milk consumption, 
increased milk production, and dramatically increased government 
expenditures on the dairy program. I can talk about another layer of 
bureaucracy and exacerbation of regional disparities. I can talk about 
providing another chance to pit big producers against small producers 
and reduction in the percentage of producer income that is derived from 
the market. I can talk about contradicting congressional intent for the 
current program, setting up regional supply management boards, and 
increases in assessments on dairy producers.
  The dairy program is a bad part of this farm bill.
  I would like to read into the Record the agricultural groups that 
oppose the dairy provisions currently in this bill: California Farm 
Bureau Federation, Alliance of Western Milk Producers, Western United 
Dairymen, California Dairies Incorporated, Milk Producers Council of 
California, Montana Dairy Association, Dairy Producers of New Mexico, 
Idaho Dairymen's Association, Oregon Dairy Farmers Association, Texas 
Association of Dairymen, Utah Dairymen's Association, and the 
Washington State Dairy Federation.
  It is not only California, it is a number of Western States that 
would be seriously impacted by the dairy provisions of this bill.
  Let me say in conclusion that a national dairy policy that strikes at 
the heart of California's dairy industry and other Western State dairy 
farmers is not an option. I cannot support a farm bill that harms 
California. I hope the negotiations going on to try to come up with 
another formula to meet this concern are successful.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the unanimous consent agreement to 
recognize the Senator from North Dakota. But I also notice that he is 
not present at this time. I ask that the unanimous consent agreement be 
rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong 
support for the consideration of the passage of a farm bill this year. 
We have been discussing and debating and moving forward with a number 
of pieces of legislation, but, in my home State of Arkansas, there is 
no piece of legislation more important than the pending farm bill.
  Two major issues that have been discussed are biosecurity and 
economic stimulus. For my State, the farm bill addresses both of these 
issues. I urge my colleagues to move forward with this legislation 
expeditiously.
  I commend Chairman Harkin for holding a markup this year and not 
bowing to those voices that said we should delay this.
  While I do not claim that the Harkin bill is my preference on a 
number of issues, I am pleased that the Agriculture Committee worked so 
hard and so diligently in getting a bill out of committee this year. I 
hope the full Senate will now act expeditiously.
  For rural America and for most of Arkansas, an economic stimulus 
package must be tied to agriculture. To talk about passing an economic 
stimulus package and not doing a farm bill, for the State of Arkansas 
simply does not make sense. For Arkansas, the two complement one 
another and are intricately related.

[[Page S12415]]

  The agriculture industry in Arkansas has been in distress over the 
last few years due to a combination of high energy prices, low 
commodity prices and difficulties in opening up foreign markets to 
American goods.
  Agriculture and agriculture-related activities account for a full 25 
percent of my State's economy and provide $5 billion in farm income. It 
is Arkansas's single largest industry. Farming is, in many ways, the 
lifeblood of my State. It is imperative that a new farm bill be passed 
this year, which is why many of us have worked so hard to push for the 
completion and passage of a farm bill while we are still in session 
this year.
  Fewer and fewer farmers in my State are able to continue farming due 
to, not a recession, but a depression that the agricultural sector has 
experienced over the last few years. While the rest of the economy grew 
and benefitted during the late 1990s, agriculture was one of the very 
few industries that actually suffered during this time.
  Let me share with my colleagues just a few of the statistical facts 
regarding the farm economy in my State over the last few years. These 
are Arkansas-specific numbers from the USDA.
  In 1996, the price for rice was $10.20 per hundredweight. For the 
year 2000, that price was $5.70 per hundredweight. In 1996, for the 
entire rice crop production in Arkansas, the value was $733 million. In 
the year 2000, the value of production had dropped to $490 million.
  Next, let me share the statistics on cotton. In 1996, the price was 
71 cents a pound. In the year 2000, the price had dropped to 56 cents 
per pound. In 1996, the cotton crop value of production was $555 
million. By the year 2000, that had dropped to $388 million.
  In 1996, for wheat, the price was $4.38 per bushel, but, in the year 
2000, the price had dropped to $2.40 per bushel. In terms of the value 
of production, in 1996, the wheat crop was valued at $293 million; by 
the year 2000, it had dropped by more than half to $142 million.
  For soybeans, a major commodity crop in Arkansas, the price was $7.34 
per bushel in 1996; in the year 2000, the price had dropped to $4.90 
per bushel. In 1996, the value of production was $824 million; in the 
year 2000, the value of production dropped to $407 million.

  Overall, the net farm income for agricultural production in my State 
has gone from about $2 billion in 1996 to just over $1.5 billion in the 
year 2000. That is a decline of nearly half a billion dollars. In a 
small rural State such as Arkansas, that impact is devastating.
  It is my sincere hope that we can get a farm bill into conference, 
get it passed, and signed by the President this year.
  There are few issues that are followed as closely or scrutinized as 
completely as agriculture policy. The Agriculture Committee was given 
the very great responsibility of creating a farm bill that will 
determine the direction of agriculture policy and the assistance 
available for farmers and rural communities over the next 5 years.
  In committee, there were a lot of compromises that were reached. In a 
bill of this scope, with the impact it will have on rural America, it 
is never possible to please everyone. The goal of this farm bill, from 
the beginning, was to re-craft a failing policy and provide the 
assistance and certainty that our producers must have.
  This policy is extremely important. In many cases, it will determine 
whether or not farmers in the State of Arkansas will be able to plant 
next year, and, in an even broader sense, it will determine if many of 
the hard-working farm families in Arkansas will be able to continue to 
work their land and make a living.
  Over the past 4 years, rescuing the farm economy has cost over $30 
billion in emergency Federal farm aid. It is quite clear that our 
current farm policy is not working. It has been an ad hoc policy. We 
have been forced to address short-comings annually. The current policy 
has been devoid of certainty--creating instability in the farm economy 
across this country. It has resulted in farmers never really being sure 
of what Congress is going to do, and it has resulted in Congress having 
make ad hoc emergency assistance as needed from year to year.
  It is imperative that we end the annual struggle where Congress must 
find money and make available large numbers of emergency funds to 
support our nation's farmers due to insufficient agricultural policies. 
We must recognize the needs of our farmers and address them.
  My views, and the views of a few other Members, were made quite clear 
with the introduction of S. 1673. I still believe that the bipartisan 
compromises we came to in that bill would provide the type of 
assistance our farmers need while providing a healthy framework for 
agriculture policy in the future.
  This is indeed a unique time in our Nation's history. Now, more than 
ever, our country is looking to its leaders for guidance and support. 
Our national security has been tested, and our economy is in need of a 
stimulus. Throughout all of this is the need for strong, comprehensive 
policies that reflect the needs and priorities of our country.
  I do not need to tell this body that agriculture is one of these 
priorities and that a strong, responsible, and well-crafted farm bill 
will ensure the assistance our farmers and rural communities need while 
providing the stability and certainty they must have to continue over 
the next 5 to 10 years.
  While I have been pleased with the steady progress we have made with 
the farm bill over the last few weeks, I urge my colleagues to push 
hard to complete the consideration of the bill so we can provide for 
the needs of our nation's farmers.

  Over the last few weeks there have been reports criticizing farm 
policy and criticizing the various farm bills. Despite these reports, I 
would argue that strong farm policies are absolutely essential to 
assure the safe, abundant, and affordable food supply we enjoy in this 
country. The farm policy of the past may not have been perfect, but it 
is that which has given the American people the safest, most abundant, 
and most affordable food supply in the world. Our farmers are, in fact, 
the best in the world. This is a testament to their hard work and their 
commitment to advancing agriculture. But their hard work must be joined 
by sound agriculture policy.
  I realize the diversity of agriculture in different parts of this 
country. However, I also realize a farm bill is just that, it is a farm 
bill meant to reflect and address the needs of our agricultural 
communities. Numerous titles of this bill address key issues of rural 
America, but if farmers are not farming, what will happen to those 
communities then? What will happen to the seed dealers, the bankers, 
the car dealers, and a whole host of industries directly reliant upon 
the farm economy?
  As you are all aware, there are numerous proposals out there to 
address the farm sector's needs. While I worry that the best possible 
policy might not emerge, I do believe we will make improvements to our 
current policy. I am firmly behind moving forward and completing a farm 
bill this year. It is a must for our farmers. I believe that, in the 
end, we will work to provide for the needs of our nation's producers.
  In terms of trade, I agree with the Secretary of Agriculture, in her 
testimony before the Agriculture Committee, that expanding trade is an 
essential part of agriculture policy. I believe that aggressive action 
on this front will greatly benefit our producers and allow the United 
States to fully participate in the proliferation of trade agreements 
that are now emerging out of Latin America, Asia, and with our allies 
in the Middle East.
  Agriculture trade can open up whole new markets and provide our 
country with new friends abroad who will be able to share in our wealth 
during prosperous times and come to our aid in times of need or 
tragedy.
  However, trade also requires compliance with international 
agreements. While I have been critical of some of the provisions in 
past trade agreements, and will likely have misgivings about some 
future agreements, I understand the importance of the United States 
keeping its word.
  As Senator Conrad has pointed out in committee and on the floor with 
numerous charts, we don't support our producers at nearly as high a 
level as our European competitors. Our farmers are at a strategic and 
competitive disadvantage. The way to fix this problem is with green box 
payments. Senator Cochran and Senator Roberts are to be commended. They 
have crafted a proposal in committee--and I assume will be offering it 
on the floor as well--

[[Page S12416]]

providing the support our farmers need while remaining true to our 
obligations abroad. While there may be other proposals that are WTO 
compliant, few would provide the level and assurance of support that 
the Cochran-Roberts proposal would.
  The greatest fear of many farmers and their lenders in my State is 
replicating a system where a farmer is not certain of the level of 
support they will receive from year to year. This has been the fatal 
flaw with our current policy. The rapid phase-out of the fixed, AMTA-
style payments in the Senate version of the farm bill that came out of 
committee is very troubling. That style payment is one of the only true 
green box payments in the bill. If the WTO calls for lowering allowable 
amber box payments, these payments may be the only money allowable for 
safety net purposes.
  While I support moving forward, I believe the assured levels of 
assistance in S. 1673, the House bill, and the Cochran-Roberts approach 
are, by far, more favorable than some of the other proposals 
circulating that would diminish these payments.
  In addition to trade, conservation is a key component of the farm 
bill, as it should be. Our farmers and ranchers are stewards of our 
nation's natural resources. It is important that incentives be 
available that encourage and reward environmental stewardship. It is my 
belief that this is an important component of farm policy, but it is a 
component that must be balanced with other titles in the bill.
  I strongly support the increased acreage for WRP in all of the 
proposals we have seen. CRP has also been an important program for 
Arkansas. In addition, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program has also 
been successful in promoting the health of wildlife in Arkansas. These 
are all good programs.
  While I support these programs, I believe a balance must be struck. I 
agree with many of my colleagues that this is done by strengthening 
programs we know are successful, where we know our funding can be 
maximized to the benefit of the environment and the agricultural 
sector.
  As we have learned from the last few years, a farm bill must provide 
a safety net for producers through a good commodity title. A sufficient 
commodity title is absolutely essential in providing the support needed 
by our country's farmers. Without these programs, our farmers would be 
at an incredible competitive disadvantage with our European 
counterparts. Many of our farmers would simply be put out of business.
  The farm bill must reflect the needs of our country's producers. It 
must also allow the Congress to avoid the costly ad hoc emergency 
spending that has characterized farm policy for a number of years.
  Proper funding and allocation of these funds is essential in allowing 
our farmers to remain on their farms. Without farmers working the land, 
without the type of technical expertise present in our country's 
agricultural sector, we would not have the abundance of nutritious food 
we enjoy in this land.
  Our farmers are indeed the best in the world. They are early adopters 
of new technology and enhanced growing techniques that allow them to 
increase production while reducing the environmental impact of 
agricultural activities. Much of these great strides forward have been 
the direct result of this nation's commitment to its farmers.
  This Nation has its roots in its fertile soil. It is important that 
we remember that agriculture has been, and will continue to be, a 
source of great strength and security for our country.
  I conclude by emphasizing to my colleagues just how important the 
farm bill this year is. It is an absolute must-have for our nation's 
farmers and rural communities. I hope we will move forward quickly and 
responsibly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, are we in the postcloture period for 
debate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, we are.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are now, as I understand it, in a 30-
hour postcloture period following the cloture vote on whether we should 
proceed to consider the farm bill.
  I don't quite understand this, frankly. We ought not to have had a 
vote on whether we should proceed to the farm bill. Of course, we 
should proceed to the farm bill. Who on Earth thinks we should not 
proceed to write a farm bill.
  The current farm bill is a miserable failure. Not many people in the 
Senate have farmed under that farm bill, as a matter of fact. Those who 
have had to try to raise a family and operate a family farm under this 
current farm bill, Freedom to Farm, understand it is a miserable 
failure. The whole premise of the current farm bill was a failure.
  The premise was, whatever happens in the marketplace, that is all 
fine and that is all farmers need to know. And if the marketplace 
collapses and farmers don't have support for their products and they go 
broke, God bless them; the country doesn't care. America will be farmed 
from California to Maine, and we will have giant agrifactories. We will 
still get food on the grocery store counters. Under the philosophy of 
Freedom to Farm, family farmers are kind of like the little old diner 
left behind when the interstate highway comes through--kind of nice to 
talk about, nice to think about, nice to remember, but they are not 
part of today.
  People who think that way couldn't be more wrong. The seed bed of 
family values in America has always come from family farms. It is the 
road to small towns and big cities and has nurtured and refreshed this 
country in many ways. Family farming ought not be out of fashion. It 
ought not be yesterday's policies. It ought to be what we aspire for 
tomorrow's food supply. Family farming ought to be an important part of 
this country.
  Why do we need some special help for farmers? Why do we have a farm 
bill? That is a good question. In fact, the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture was created in the 1860s by Abraham Lincoln with nine 
employees. My feeling is we don't need a Department of Agriculture if 
the sole purpose is not to foster a network of families that farm this 
country. If our goal is not to foster a network of family producers for 
America's food supply, then I say put a padlock on USDA, turn the key, 
and get rid of it. We don't need it.
  If the goal, however, is to foster a network of family food producers 
because we believe, both for social and economic purposes, it 
strengthens and enhances this country, then let's write a farm bill 
that does that. Let's write a farm bill that supports that. The current 
one does not. We haven't had one that supports that for a long while.
  It is interesting, I come from western North Dakota, a very sparsely 
populated part of the country. We had a little dispute recently in 
western North Dakota with prairie dogs. I got right in the middle of 
the dispute. I can't stay out of a dispute like that, I guess, much to 
my detriment.
  Here is the situation. It relates to what is happening in western 
North Dakota. We are in western North Dakota becoming a wilderness 
area. There is no Federal designation. We don't need one. We are fast 
losing people. My home county was 5,000 people when I left it. It is 
now 3,000 people. I left a small county in southwestern North Dakota. 
It is actually pretty big in geographic size. I left to go off to 
college. It was 5,000 people; now it is 3,000 people.
  The adjoining county just south of the badlands in western North 
Dakota is Slope County, about the same size. Actually, it is almost as 
big as one of the small eastern States. It has 900 people; seven babies 
were born in that county last year. So I come from a part of the 
country that is losing population hand over fist. People are moving 
out, not in.
  Family farmers and ranchers are not able to make a living so they 
leave. Their dreams are broken. All that they aspired to do to live on 
the land and make a living with their family, all those dreams are 
gone.
  Then this past spring, the U.S. Park Service, which is also in 
western North Dakota, had a problem. Out in the badlands of North 
Dakota we had a little picnic area, and it belonged to the taxpayers 
and the Federal Government. It was our picnic area. The prairie dogs, 
fury little creatures, took over this picnic area. Prairie dogs are 
very much like rats except they have a button nose and furry on the 
tail, and they multiply quickly.

[[Page S12417]]

  So the prairie dogs took over the picnic area. Our Federal Government 
sprang into action. They just sprang into action and did an 
environmental assessment--an ``EA,'' they called it. They did a finding 
of no significant impact--some sort of SNIFF; there are acronyms for 
these major things they do. They jumped right into action. You know 
what the conclusion was? If the prairie dogs have taken over the picnic 
area, then move the picnic area. It is a quarter of a million dollars 
to move the picnic area.
  That doesn't make much sense to me. I said: Why don't you move the 
prairie dogs? We are not short of prairie dogs, we are short of people 
in western North Dakota. We are not short of prairie dogs; move them.
  They said: We can't do that.
  I said: When I was a kid, 14 years old, the rats took over our barn 
and my dad asked if we could have a program to get rid of the rats. And 
myself and two other 14-year-old boys very quickly pointed out to the 
rats that the dumping grounds for our town was about a mile away, and 
lo and behold we got rid of the rats.
  I said: Hire three 14-year-old boys from western North Dakota to get 
rid of the prairie dogs, and it won't cost you very much. We will 
reclaim our picnic grounds.
  I said: The point is, I am really interested that you are going 
through this machination with respect to prairie dogs and picnic areas, 
when I can't get anybody interested in the fact that our State in the 
western part and in most rural counties is systematically being 
depopulated. Family farmers are going broke, ranchers are going broke, 
people are moving out. We can't get anybody interested in what all that 
means and the consequences of it, but you have a few prairie dogs move 
into a picnic area and, by God, the whole Government has studies going 
on and they are going to spend money to move picnic grounds.
  I said that is a strange set of priorities, in my judgment. I have 
gone off a bit, but in fact it is hard to get people interested in the 
real issues. The real issues in western North Dakota are that family 
farms are losing their shirts. Ranchers have had a big struggle there 
and people are moving and nobody seems to care much. But they care 
about a few prairie dogs.
  As an aside, I lost the issue. They moved the picnic grounds. Then, 
about a month later, after all this big controversy, I read in the 
newspaper that a guy from Oklahoma had invented a truck--he created a 
truck with a hose on the truck that had a vacuum attached to the hose, 
and he would stick the hose in prairie dog holes and suck them out of 
the holes. And it threw them into the back of this truck, which he had 
padded with mattresses so they didn't get hurt.
  I said: That is an interesting approach--to suck the prairie dogs out 
of the holes and then throw them into this truck with mattresses and 
they don't get hurt.
  Then 2 weeks later, on the national news I saw that in Japan they 
were selling prairie dogs for $250 apiece as pets. I am thinking to 
myself that here is a solution to a problem. Hire that guy from 
Oklahoma, suck those prairie dogs out of the holes, ship them to Japan, 
reduce our Federal trade deficit, save the taxpayers a quarter million 
dollars, and reclaim our picnic grounds. Of course, that was way too 
simple for the Park Service.
  I digress a bit only to say this: When you get a prairie dog problem, 
you have the whole darn Government running to see what they can do 
about it. But when you have a problem with family farmers making a 
living, who invest all they have in the spring to plant a seed and get 
on the tractor to plant that seed, and then they hope beyond hope that 
the insects won't come, that it will rain enough--but not too much--so 
they won't have crop disease, that they won't have hail, and that if 
they are lucky, in the fall they will be able to get out there with a 
combine and harvest the grain and put it in a 2-ton truck, only to find 
out when they drive that truck with a load of wheat to the elevator, 
the elevator and grain trade will tell them: This food you produced 
doesn't have any value. This food you produced on your farm doesn't 
have value.

  That family farmer on that farm scratches his head and says: What is 
this about? Our food has no value?
  We have a world in which a half billion people go to bed every night 
with an ache in their belly because it hurts to be hungry, and we are 
told the food we produce in abundance has no value. Are we not 
connecting the dots somehow? Is something missing here? The farmer who 
is told his food has no value goes to the grocery store on the way home 
and picks up a box of puffed wheat, or puffed rice, or Rice Crispies, 
or shredded wheat. What they discover is that someone discovered that 
grain had value. It wasn't the person who produced it, who risked their 
money to produce it. It was the person that puffed it, crisped it, 
crackled it, popped it, put it in the box, and sells it for 100 times 
what family farmers are getting who took all the risks to produce it. 
There is something fundamentally wrong there.
  My point is this: We have struggled to write a farm policy that 
recognizes the value and the worth of family farmers to this country. 
Some say: Why are farmers different? Why don't you recognize the value 
and the worth of the person on Main Street who runs the hardware store, 
or the barber shop, for that matter? Well, the family farm is the only 
enterprise in our country that has the risks I have just described--
planting a seed, borrowing all the money they can to plant the seed, 
and hope beyond hope that all the other circumstances that could 
completely wipe them out financially do not do that between when they 
plant the seed and when they harvest it; and then they go to the grain 
elevator with no understanding that their product is going to have any 
value at all. They are the only small enterprise that has all of those 
concurrent risks at the same time.
  The question for this country about its security and about the nature 
of its economy is: Do we want to maintain a network of family producers 
producing our food or not? It is very simple. Europe has made that 
decision. Long ago, Europe decided it wants family producers to be 
producing food for Europe. Why? Because Europe has been hungry in its 
past and doesn't want to be hungry again. It believes food production 
by family units is a matter of national security for Europe. We ought 
to believe the same for the United States.
  I grew up in a town of 300 people. When I was a boy, in my hometown, 
I would go on Saturday night to my hometown and it was full of cars. 
The barber shop was open until midnight. The barber was cutting hair 
there at all hours of the night on Saturday night. It was like a 
festival on Saturday evening in my hometown. That is not the case 
anymore. Family after family after family have gone broke--forced to 
leave the family farm because they could not make a living raising 
their grain and the livestock and selling them at prices that the grain 
trade and the exchanges provided.
  Now, one might say that is just the way things are and there is 
really nothing you can do about that. Europe didn't decide that. They 
said: We want to maintain a network of family producers for our 
national security. We believe food security is critically important, 
and we want to maintain a network of family farm producers for that 
purpose. Go to Europe and to a small town in rural Europe on a Saturday 
night and see what you find. You will find that those small towns are 
alive, as I described my small town was many decades ago. They are 
alive and thriving. Why? Because the blood vessels that create the 
economy of a small town come from family farms to these small 
communities and nourish those small communities.

  In many ways, this debate is about values. What kind of an economy do 
we want? What do we cherish? What do we think is valuable about this 
country? It is always interesting to me that if you are big enough, 
strong enough, powerful enough, have enough resources, and you come to 
this Congress, I am telling you, people stand at attention and say, 
yes, sir; no, sir; what do you want, sir. I could give a lot of 
examples of that.
  Tom Paxton wrote a song a long time ago, many decades ago when the 
Congress gave Chrysler Motors a bailout. Mr. Paxton, a great folk 
artist, wrote, ``I Am Changing My Name to Chrysler.'' It is 
interesting, even as we now are struggling to get through a motion to 
proceed on a postcloture, 30-hour

[[Page S12418]]

discussion, just to get to the farm bill to try to help those families 
out there, even as we do that, we have a package to try to stimulate 
the economy that comes over from the House of Representatives that 
says: Do you know how we do that? We give Ford a $1 billion rebate 
check for the alternative minimum taxes they paid in the last 13 years. 
We give IBM a $1.4 billion tax rebate check for the last 13 years. 
Maybe Mr. Paxton should write a new song called ``I Am Changing My Name 
to Ford.''
  The point is this: The individual family farmers around this country 
don't have the kind of clout and power and opportunity to access their 
Government that some of the largest enterprises in this country do.
  Family farms play an important role in our economy and in our 
culture. For social and economic reasons, I believe this country ought 
to want to foster and nurture a network of family farmers across this 
country producing America's food.
  We can do it another way, and in some areas we do. In California, 
they have areas where one company milks 3,500 cows every day three 
times a day. God bless them, in my judgment. They have every right to 
do that.
  I suggest we have a price support under the milk produced from about 
100 cows and say: If you want to milk 120 or 3,020 cows, God bless you, 
but that is at your risk, not ours. We will provide a price support of 
the milk on the first 100 cows you milk. That is what we ought to do 
with respect to providing a safety net for family farmers.
  Let me speak for a moment about the farm bill that was written in the 
Senate Agriculture Committee. Certainly it is not perfect. It is not 
exactly the bill I would write. I would prefer more targeting in the 
bill to be more helpful to family-size farms.
  This bill is sure a whole lot better than the underlying farm law. I 
was here when we debated Freedom to Farm, which I thought was a 
catastrophe and I voted against it, and I am pleased I did. I want to 
see somebody stand up in this Chamber and say how well Freedom to Farm 
has worked. It almost bankrupted a lot of family farmers except for the 
fact every single year we had to pass emergency legislation to fill the 
gaps between Freedom to Farm which was such a miserable Swiss cheese 
piece of legislation that really did not help family farmers at all.
  When the Freedom to Farm bill was passed, we had high grain prices, 
and we had people around here thinking that it was going to last 
forever; we are always going to have high grain prices, so we will just 
give these farmers declining payments over 7 years, not with respect to 
what the current market prices are; we will just pay them, and things 
will be great.
  It was an absurd proposition. The fact is, prices collapsed almost 
immediately, and they stayed down and they are down today.
  The current, underlying farm law does not work at all. It is a 
miserable piece of public policy that should never have been enacted 
but was, and we have had to make the best of it by the end of each year 
passing some emergency legislation to respond to the needs that were 
unmet in Freedom to Farm.
  The Senate Agriculture Committee has passed legislation that does a 
policy U-turn, and that policy U-turn says: Let us go back to at least 
some form of countercyclical help, getting help only when you need it. 
That makes good sense to me. That countercyclical help is the help that 
I hope will give family farmers a message from the U.S. Congress that 
says: You matter; you count; we want you as part of America's future.
  Those Senators who come from farm country have had the same kind of 
calls I have had and the same experience as I have had. Some say: Those 
are anecdotes that are emotional but do not mean very much. They mean 
everything.
  Arlo Schmidt was doing an auction sale in North Dakota. He was 
auctioning a farm that had gone broke. A little boy came up to Arlo at 
the end of the auction sale. He was about 8 or 9 years old, Arlo told 
me. The little boy was angry. He had tears in his eyes. He grabbed Arlo 
Schmidt around the leg, looked up at him and said accusingly: You sold 
my dad's tractor.
  Arlo patted him on the shoulder to comfort him some, and the kid 
would have none of it. He said: I wanted to drive that tractor when I 
got big.

  The point is, that little boy felt that he, too, wanted a chance to 
farm, but his family lost their dream, and the result was an auction 
sale. Those auction sales all around the country, those poster sales of 
those broken farms reflect a failure of farm policy.
  This is a hungry world. It is an enormously hungry world, and we 
produce food in such great abundance. The economic all-stars of food 
production are family farmers. There is something fundamentally wrong 
when we cannot make the connections between what we produce in great 
abundance and what the world needs.
  As I speak today, there are tens of thousands of children who will 
die from hunger and hunger-related causes every hour, and nobody thinks 
much about that. I had a friend who was a singer many years ago who 
died in 1981. His name was Harry Chapin. He was a wonderful singer. He 
devoted one-half of the proceeds of his concerts every year to fight 
world hunger.
  Harry Chapin used to say if every day 45,000 children die of hunger 
and hunger-related causes, it is not even in the newspaper; there is 
not even a news story about it. But if in New Jersey, 45,000 people 
died in one day, it would be headlines. The winds of hunger blow every 
minute, every hour, and every day, and it is not even newsworthy. We 
have family farmers with hopes and dreams to produce America's food and 
to produce food for the world only to be told that which they produce 
has no value. There is something dramatically wrong with that.
  I will finish by saying this: I regret we are here today dealing with 
this bill. We should have been on this bill long ago. I especially 
regret we had to have a vote on a motion to proceed. We are having a 
debate on whether we are going to proceed to the agriculture bill.
  I have the deepest respect for Senator Lugar of Indiana. I listened 
to his speech. I could not disagree with him more. He knows I have 
spoken many times about the Nunn-Lugar program, for which I will have 
admiration forever for Senator Lugar. What he has done in some areas is 
so wonderful and so important to this world. But in agriculture policy, 
I could not disagree with him more.
  It is important for us to have aggressive debate about this so that 
the country gets the best of what all of us have to offer. I am hopeful 
at the end of the day that we will get past this postcloture debate, 
get on the bill, offer amendments, and get this bill done.
  Today is Wednesday. We ought to finish this bill this week. We ought 
to have a final passage vote on Friday, go to conference next week, 
finish the conference report, and put it on President Bush's desk for 
signature at the end of next week. That is what we ought to do. I 
commit myself to doing that. I hope others will as well.
  Today, let us make that commitment to America's families who are 
desperately trying to make a living and hold on to that dream of making 
the family farm work.
  In this hungry world, especially at this time when we talk about 
security, food security, and contributing to the world's food supply by 
our country's economic all-stars, the family farmers, it is something 
that merits the attention and merits the writing of a good farm bill by 
the Congress, and it merits us doing that now, this week, and next 
week, and finishing that product so we can have the President sign it 
before the end of this year.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. 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. THOMAS. Mr. President, are we on the farm bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are on the motion to proceed to the farm 
bill.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to talk about the farm bill for a 
moment. I have been listening to my

[[Page S12419]]

friend from North Dakota talk in general terms of where we ought to be 
and what we want to do for the world, but we have not talked about how 
we get there.
  There ought to be some target, instead of talking about having food. 
That is great. The fact is, we are talking about a policy. Look at this 
bill. It was brought up to the Chamber this morning. There is a lot of 
detail in this legislation. What we need to be talking about and have 
been talking about but have not completed is a vision of where we want 
to go, what do we want agriculture and our food system to be in 10 or 
15 years.
  My colleagues talk about the politics of it, of course, and that is 
great. They can talk about distributing funds to everyone, and that is 
great. All of us want some safety net in agriculture, and we will work 
to do that, but we have to go beyond that and take a look at how we get 
there and what is the best way to do that.
  Quite frankly, I have been involved in agriculture. My friend was 
talking about coming from a town of 300. I come from Wapiti, WY. That 
is not even a town; it is a post office.
  I know a little about agriculture. That has been my life as well, a 
different kind of agriculture to be sure, and that is one of the 
issues. There are all kinds of agriculture with which we have to deal. 
The Bush administration took a look at it and they had a statement I 
thought was good. They believe farm policy should ensure compatibility 
between domestic and trade objectives.
  Have we talked about that? No, we have not. Support open markets. Did 
we talk about markets? No, we did not. Provide market-oriented farm 
safety net? I think all of us want to do that, not create undue 
uncertainty. These are the principles we ought to have as we move 
forward.
  I am a member of the Agriculture Committee. I am a new member of the 
Agriculture Committee this year, as a matter of fact. The idea of 
finishing on Friday bothers me a little bit because this bill was 
jammed through the committee in time that most of us did not even have 
a chance to take a look at what was being proposed. It was brought up 
when we, quite frankly, ought to have been dealing with our economic 
stimulus package.
  We ought to be dealing with doing the appropriations and those 
matters that really have impact. The farm bill does not expire until 
next August. I am one who thinks, yes, we ought to go for it after we 
get back in January so farmers will have some idea, before planting 
time, as to what they look forward to in the future. But the idea that 
we take something like this that hardly anyone in this whole place has 
looked at and pass it in 2 days is criminal, and I hope that does not 
happen.
  I objected as we went through this bill a time or two simply because 
we have not had an opportunity to look at various complicated titles, 
and they are complicated. We were asked to deal with titles such as 
conservation, for example, in a markup in the morning when we did not 
even get the language until some of the staff got it at midnight the 
night before. I do not think that is a very responsible way to deal 
with a bill that is as important as this Agriculture bill. It is my 
opinion the committee moved much too quickly. We did not have an 
opportunity to find out what was in the particular title, whether it be 
marketing titles, competition titles, conservation titles, or commodity 
titles.
  Did we have a chance to talk a little bit about the projected ideas 
and the proposals with people at home in the business? No, we did not. 
We did not even receive the language until midnight the night before 
the markup.
  So I think we need to take a little time and look at all the aspects. 
Agriculture is a complicated industry everywhere. In every State, it is 
a little different. I am from Wyoming. Our largest activity, of course, 
is livestock, mostly cattle, some sheep, but we also have crops. 
Interestingly enough, our largest cash crop in Wyoming is sugar beets. 
So each of us is different. As we went through this in the committee, 
people were talking about cranberries, about cherries, about apples. 
That is okay, but it takes a little time to put together a responsible 
kind of policy to deal with those issues.
  During the time the committee was working on the bill, we never did 
get overall scoring. We never did get a real look at what it was going 
to cost. Indeed, after the committee was directly forced to deal with 
it before it was brought to the Senate, changes had to be made which we 
did not even have anything to do with. That is not the system I believe 
ought to be used in this place, especially when we are talking about 
something as complicated and far-reaching that impacts as many people 
as does a policy for farming.

  As we went through the bill, the chairman would talk about a 
reconciliation process, that after we have waded through the first part 
of it we could come back and do it. We did not even get a chance to 
look at the reconciliation until it is now being considered. So I have 
to say that as interested as I am--and as I said, my own background is 
in agriculture. I have always been involved with agriculture, so I am 
very much interested in it, not only because of whom I represent in 
Wyoming but because I am personally very interested in a successful 
agriculture that has some opportunity to be market-oriented so we are 
producing those commodities that the market requests, so that we can 
build new markets overseas, which we have to do in order to have a 
program of that kind. So it is a complicated matter, and we really need 
to move on with that.
  As I have said repeatedly, I asked for a little more time in the 
committee, but we did not get it so we will deal with it as we are, and 
there will be amendments we can take a look at. Quite frankly, we may 
be dealing with Defense appropriations before this is completed. We may 
be dealing with economic stimulus. In any event, we ought to be taking 
a look at where we want to be over time. We ought to promote the idea 
of family farms instead of the big corporate farms, of course, so that 
families can afford to stay on those farms and be effective. We need to 
find additional markets.
  We produce more than we are going to consume. So in order to be an 
effective industry, we have to find markets and move there. I think we 
have to be very careful, as we are in this trade business, that the 
things we do will fit into trade, the so-called green box, the WTO, or 
the amber box. If we find we do not have these payments that fit into 
the WTO rules, then we have some difficulties in being able to do that.
  I happen to think one of the most important issues we ought to look 
at is conservation. In my part of the world--and I think it may be even 
more important other places--people would like to see open space 
remain. One of the best ways to do that is to have successful 
agriculture, of course. We need to do that.
  There are a great many things we must do and I think we can do. I 
think there is more emphasis on conservation, whether it is grasslands 
or whether it is timber or whether it is crop lands itself. These are 
the kinds of things we need to think about. We need to have a 
thoughtful bill which we have time to discuss and not jam through 
because of the political expediency of getting it done before this year 
is over. I do not think that is the best reason to come up with 
something that has not had the kind of consideration and thought we 
look forward to having.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under cloture, each Senator may speak up to 1 
hour.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Very well. I am not going to take up the 1 hour. I 
yield to my friend from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. May I respond to the distinguish Senator? In the event the 
Senator does not use his hour, if he were to yield the balance of that 
time to me, that would be helpful in the expedition of the debate. But 
the Senator should be prepared to utilize his full hour.
  Mr. THOMPSON. No, I am not going to utilize the full hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming has yielded time to 
the Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the forum we are attempting to adopt is one 
in which a Senator yields time to me as manager of the bill as sort of 
a time bank. I will explain for all Members I am allotted only 1 hour 
under the rule. I can accumulate as much as 2 more hours by such 
allocation from Senators, which I seek to do simply to

[[Page S12420]]

expedite the debate during those times when there are no other Senators 
present to speak.
  In that event, will the Senator yield whatever time he has remaining 
when he completes his speech?
  Mr. THOMPSON. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from 
Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the committee-passed 
farm bill and to express my hope that we can complete action on it 
quickly.
  First, let me commend Chairman Harkin and the majority leader for 
their fine work in meeting the needs of the Senators from different 
regions of this great and diverse country. We all have unique needs. It 
is not easy to address all of them and to bring them together. I thank 
the chairman, again, for his efforts to do so.
  I think we have come up with a good farm bill, worthy of passage. 
This legislation provides a critical income safety net for American 
farmers. It includes an unprecedented $20 billion increase in 
conservation spending. It substantially increases allocations for 
nutrition, for rural development, and forestry programs. This bill 
meets the needs of our rural communities while remaining within the 
budget authority.
  I am also pleased that the chairman has included an energy title in 
the legislation that provides incentives for alternative fuel 
technologies. The energy debate over the past few days only solidifies 
the need for further advancements in alternative fuels.
  Let me take a moment to focus on a major reform that is in this bill, 
a major reform of the peanut program. In a place such as Washington, 
where talk of eliminating a program is as rare as spotting a whooping 
crane, we are now ready to eliminate the Depression-era peanut quota 
program from our Nation's $4 billion peanut industry. That is worth 
repeating. Some may think they heard me incorrectly.
  There is a provision in this bill to eliminate the old peanut quota 
system. For decades this system served the South well. For decades it 
provided economic security to some of our country's poorest areas and 
it guaranteed the domestic market a safe, high-quality source of 
peanuts.
  But all of that changed when NAFTA and GATT were passed. These 
agreements effectively ended the peanut program as we know it. Trade 
protections for peanuts were ratcheted down. Imports gradually 
increased and farmers' quotas were reduced. In the 1996 farm bill, 
Congress had decided to require farmers to cover peanut program losses, 
making it a no-net-cost to the Government. That sounded good 
politically, but it failed to make peanuts more competitive on the 
world market and it certainly did not quell imports.
  Peanut producers have faced up to this competitive reality. The vast 
majority are willing to finally give up a program that has served them 
well for more than 60 years. Yes, it is going to cost some money to 
compensate quota holders for their losses, but it would be unthinkable 
for the Government not to compensate farm families for their property. 
There has to be a bridge between the old system and the new system, and 
this bill gives us one. It makes that necessary transition and it does 
it in a fair way.
  At a time when we are searching for the best ways to stimulate our 
economy, this farm bill is the greatest stimulus we can provide to 
rural America. It will give that economy an instant boost.
  If we do not act, I can tell you what the scenario will be in Georgia 
and in other parts of this country. If we do not pass a farm bill now, 
local banks will make a fraction of their traditional farm loans. 
Farmers without financing will either get out of farming or declare 
bankruptcy. Who will suffer then? I will tell you who. Those farmers, 
those families in fragile rural areas where the economy is driven by 
the feedstore and the family restaurant and the local car dealership.

  With many textile plants and other industries leaving the rural 
South, these farmers have fewer and fewer places to turn. In rural 
Georgia, the challenge today is just to stay afloat. It is becoming 
tougher by the day. Our Nation's great prosperity over the past decade, 
unfortunately, has not always filtered down to these rural areas. We 
have failed to bring many of these communities along economically, and 
it shows.
  We have spent a lot of time looking out for Wall Street, and well we 
should. Now it is time we look out for Main Street. We need to help 
places such as Moultrie, GA, and Driver, AR, and Seagraves, TX. Our 
Nation is focused on the September 11 attacks, and rightly so. But let 
us not forget that agriculture has been mired in a 5-year disaster, 
devastated by bad weather and bad prices. Almost every year in this 
body we have had to provide supplemental appropriations. We need this 
new farm bill to stop the cycle.
  The time is now for a new farm bill. We must act before adjourning 
for the year. We cannot go home for Christmas with generous, bountiful 
gifts for certain segments of our economy but only ashes and switches 
for our farmers.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield for 1 minute?
  Mr. MILLER. Yes.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I just want to say to the Senator from Georgia, I 
congratulate you and commend you. For many years we have had battles in 
the peanut program between those who are peanut consumers in large 
consumption States and those who are producers, but you have stepped in 
and provided great leadership for your growers through this transition 
process. I am very privileged and pleased to join you in a truly unique 
situation. I think it has not been seen here since the peanut program 
was instituted. Those who are the consumers of peanuts and those who 
are the growers of peanuts have found common ground to work on a piece 
of legislation that will transition us into a whole new era in peanut 
production.
  I commend the Senator for his great leadership from a great peanut-
producing State, to help shepherd his growers into a much more market-
oriented approach to growing peanuts. I commend the Senator for his 
great effort.
  Mr. MILLER. I thank the Senator for his remarks. He is one who has 
studied this program closely in the past.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from 
Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my concerns over the 
action of the Senate in proceeding to the Farm Bill, notwithstanding 
the nice dialog between the Senator from Pennsylvania and my good 
friend from a fellow peanut-growing State, the Senator from Georgia, 
Mr. Miller.
  I understand the desire to make improvements in the existing farm 
bill. There should be improvements made. From what I can tell, the 
House-passed bill and the Senate-Agriculture-Committee-reported bill 
have several very worthy provisions.
  No one can argue against the need for a strong farm bill. Indeed, it 
is a high priority, and I certainly will not disagree with that. In my 
home State, the Commonwealth of Virginia, agriculture accounts for a 
significant part of our diverse economy. Agriculture creates 
approximately 388,000 jobs in Virginia, which is about 10 percent of 
the total jobs statewide.
  Virginia agriculture contributes about $19.5 billion to Virginia's 
gross State product, or 11.2 percent of the total GSP.
  Farms cover 8.8 million acres, or 34 percent of Virginia's total land 
area. There are 49,000 farms in Virginia. Most farms in Virginia are 
smaller farms, but there are 49,000 of them. Again, a strong farm bill 
is very important to Virginia.
  I do applaud the work of the committee in drafting this bill. 
However, I have several concerns and I cannot agree with moving forward 
on this bill right now. Let me elaborate on these several concerns.
  Number one, this is not the right time to deal with this bill. The 
current farm bill, with whatever flaws it may have and whatever 
improvements need to be made to that bill, does not expire until the 
end of fiscal year 2002, which is September 30 of next year. We are 
already several months into the fiscal year 2002. It is simply unfair 
to our hard-working men and women to make any changes to this 
legislation that may harm their income in the middle of the current 
year. They just finished the fall harvest and are now involved in 
planning, buying, and leasing for the

[[Page S12421]]

next planting. It would be like lining up to kick a field goal and 
having the goalpost moved after you kick the ball. After you kick it, 
nobody is allowed to move the goalpost back. That simply would not be 
fair. It is a terrible way to make changes, whether it is in the peanut 
program in particular in Virginia or any other sort of program when 
farmers are making these decisions.

  The second problem I have with this measure being brought up now is 
that Americans have much more pressing problems to deal with rather 
than changing a law that doesn't expire for another 10 or 11 months. We 
are at war. Financing this war is important, and making sure that the 
men and women in uniform have adequate compensation is important. It is 
important that they have the armaments and the most technologically 
advanced equipment for protecting our interests at home and abroad. We 
need to be worrying about that and dealing with the crisis of 
terrorism. That must be dealt with now.
  The Defense appropriations bill: We need to be dealing with proper 
funding for our Defense Department.
  Overall appropriations: The Senate and the House have not completed 
work on all the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bills, yet we are 
considering a bill and a law that has not expired and will not expire 
until the end of fiscal year 2002.
  Sometimes I may have a hard time getting used to the logic of the 
Federal Government--trying to change a bill that has 10 months of 
validity to it while not even taking care of bills that should have 
been financing our military or schools since the first of October. 
These are supposed to be 5-year farm bills. There is a logic to making 
this a four-year bill. There is a predictability that allows farmers to 
plan ahead and make investments so that they will grow the best crop 
possible to provide for their families. That bill doesn't expire until 
late next year, and here we are arguing that issue.
  Meanwhile, we are in a war, and we are not dealing with the Defense 
Appropriations bill or the Labor-HHS Appropriations Bill. As far as I 
am concerned, these appropriations bills are some of the primary 
functions we serve as Members of Congress. The one thing we have to do 
each and every year is fund the government. We haven't completed that 
task yet. Those bills should have been completed before October of this 
year. Here we are fiddling around and debating a very important measure 
with important implications, but again not taking care of the things 
that are most timely.
  We have emergency appropriations, and $20 billion in appropriations 
still has to be finalized by Congress concerning response to the 
September 11 terrorist attacks. Congress has yet to spend the $20 
billion appropriated portion of the war on terrorism for emergency 
security, response, and recovery efforts This issue should be on our 
plate right now for action rather than the farm bill.
  Economic stimulus: We realize our economy has a great deal of 
consternation. Consumer confidence is low. Businesses are not 
investing. Jobs are being lost. An economic stimulus package, something 
that will help spur consumer spending and business investment and 
thereby the creation of more jobs rather than the loss of jobs--that 
should be a priority. That is a clear and pressing need for the people 
of America right now, not a law that expires in October of next year.
  Getting hard-working Americans back to work is a priority. Our 
economy has lost thousands and thousands of jobs and these job losses 
are not unique to the airline or tourism industry, or even to New York 
or Virginia. They are felt in every corner of the country and in every 
industry. As the Senator from Georgia mentioned, we have lost a lot of 
textile jobs in the South. In Southside, VA, 2,300 jobs were just lost 
at VF Imagewear in the Henry County area--in the heart of Virginia.

  The President's back-to-work package is a way to help those folks who 
are out of work--hopefully temporarily--with their health care as well 
as with their unemployment benefits. We need to help these people 
through tough times and most importantly, strengthen the economy to 
enable them to get back to work. That is a part of the stimulus package 
that I wish we were arguing, debating, and acting upon at this moment. 
But we are fiddling with this bill that doesn't expire until next year.
  Nominees: The President ought to have his team in place. I know the 
Senator from Georgia at one time was an executive. They need their own 
team in place to respond and to effectuate their philosophy, to act 
upon the principles, promises and policies that they enunciated to the 
American people. Yet the President has not gotten the deserved 
attention to have his nominees for key administration positions--
whether it is in the State Department, judicial arena, or in other 
areas.
  I think the Government needs to have capable people to do the work of 
the Government. Senator Bond spoke on this matter earlier and I agree 
with his remarks.
  Energy legislation: I very much agree on the need to pass 
comprehensive energy legislation that deals with both supply and demand 
issues. That is a positive aspect of this farm bill that the Senator 
from Georgia, Mr. Miller, brought up. Fuel cells and new technologies 
are very important. We can't keep doing things the same old way. We 
need to have a diversity of fuels and not be so dependent on foreign 
oil. I would like to see us become more energy independent in this 
country so that we are not jerked around by monarchs or others in the 
Middle East for our reliance on oil, which matters a great deal for our 
economy, and clearly it matters to farmers. When diesel prices or gas 
prices are skyrocketing, they are put in quite a bind.
  An energy bill, which has consisted been advocated by Senator 
Murkowski of Alaska, is something we have been trying to deal with for 
this entire year. It is an important issue that has been dealt with in 
the House and deserves the Senates attention.
  We are at war in Afghanistan. We also have a war on the homefront as 
well. We have become the target of domestic terrorism that is 
accurately described as war. We need to make sure that in our homeland 
we have the right safety and security--not just abroad but here at home 
as well.
  The farm bill, in my view, is not a piece of legislation that should 
be rushed into. I believe Senator Conrad accurately portrayed why we 
may be pushing this legislation forward. He explained that issue very 
well. He said: ``The money is in the budget now. If we do not use the 
money, it will very likely not be available next year.'' While what the 
Senate Budget Committee says may be true, it is not a good reason to 
rush through floor consideration on a piece of legislation as important 
as this one. The farm bill is an important matter. It merits time, 
consideration, and full debate on the floor. With all of the other 
priorities that the Senate really must consider prior to recess, it 
doesn't make sense to hold them up for the farm bill.
  I am not a member of the Agriculture Committee and was therefore not 
able to offer amendments in the committee. I look forward to the 
opportunity to work with committee members and potentially offer 
amendments on the floor.

  I also understand that the committee markup was not very open to 
amendments. While I am sure there was a significant amount of wonderful 
work done by the chairman on the bill, I know there are significant 
differences even within the Agriculture Committee. These differences 
are obvious even to someone who is not on the committee. Especially 
when you look at the number of competing bills introduced by committee 
members themselves. First there is the Harkin bill which was passed by 
the committee. There is a Lugar substitute, and the Cochran-Roberts 
substitute is a third measure. There is a fourth measure being 
considered, the House-passed bill, and the fifth is the Lincoln-
Hutchinson bill.
  I heard from people all across Virginia about many of the positive 
changes that several of these bills would make. However, I also heard 
from Virginia peanut farmers who have a different view than peanut 
farmers maybe in Oklahoma, or New Mexico, or Texas, or even the Empire 
State of the South, Georgia. That is my third concern. The peanut 
farmers in Virginia may very well go out of business with

[[Page S12422]]

this measure as written. This new peanut program will hurt the income 
of hard-working Virginia peanut farmers.
  In 1996, when the Federal Government last debated the farm bill, the 
target price was lowered from $670 per ton down to the current level of 
$610 per ton. This $610-per-ton level is not due to expire until the 
end of fiscal year 2002--September 30, 2002.
  These peanut-growing farmers in Virginia have sense and practicality. 
They have already entered into agreements for land. They have entered 
into agreements for equipment leases as well as renting quota for the 
upcoming growing season. They will be planting in Virginia only about 5 
to 6 months from now. That is simply the planting, and these farmers 
are certainly in the midst of preparation prior to planting right now.
  This farm bill will change their revenue stream after they have 
already entered into contracts based upon the provisions in the current 
farm bill. People in the real world think that law doesn't expire until 
September 30 of 2002. They think that law is going to be there. They 
make decisions based on that law. Here we are debating changing the 
rules on them.
  The bottom line is that it is simply not fair. It is not fair to our 
hard-working farmers who have to be dealing with a moving target.
  I have been working on these issues with members of the committee and 
other concerned Senators and look forward to the opportunity to make 
some changes that will benefit the hard-working family of peanut 
growers in Virginia and, indeed, every farmer, regardless of crop 
throughout our country.
  Virginia's peanut farms cannot withstand another 10-percent reduction 
in the price of peanuts as we saw back in 1996. This current farm bill, 
as proposed, will do just that and then some. Virginia has about 76,000 
acres of peanuts and 4,000 peanut growing farmers. The crop brought in 
$60 million to the State's economy last year. While these numbers may 
not look large to some Senators who have large corporate farms in their 
States, these peanut farms are the basis of many local rural 
communities, particularly in southeastern Virginia. And there are 
different types of peanuts. I am not going to name every one, but in 
Virginia we grow the jumbo--the nice, big peanuts. You may see the 
brands Whitley's or the Virginia Diner peanuts, the Hancock peanuts, 
the blanched peanuts. Those are Virginia-style or sometimes called 
Virginia-Carolina style peanuts--the jumbos, the big peanuts, not the 
small, little redskin peanuts or the Spanish peanuts, goobers, or 
runters. Those are all fine peanuts as well. You just have to eat two 
of them for every one of a Virginia peanut. They are probably just as 
great for peanut butter and candies.
  Most of the States are different. Virginia grows this different type 
of peanut. While it is larger, it does get a lower yield per acre than 
you would with the smaller peanuts, and they also have a higher cost 
per acre. Our peanut farmers in Virginia risk having their revenue cut 
to a point where they will lose money on each pound that is produced. 
Again, it is a different peanut than is grown in other regions of the 
country. And while that raises our costs, it unfortunately does not 
often equally raise the price that the farmer receives. So a tough 
situation now would just become disastrous if this measure became law 
in the middle of this year, or, for that matter, even after 2002.
  The situation here is one where our economy would be affected. The 
farmers, in particular, who have purchased equipment, who have made 
leases on equipment, on implements, on fertilizer--I know the Presiding 
Officer understands because in his State they have a lot of good rural 
communities--if there is a good crop that brings in a good yield, sure, 
that helps the farmer, the implement dealer, those who sell feed or 
seed or fertilizer, but it also has an impact on the entire community 
with the money that comes into the businesses there, such as grocery 
stores and restaurants. It has a big impact on that economy through 
both direct and indirect means.
  Having met this summer with a great deal of peanut growers in 
southeastern Virginia, it reminded me of when I saw the tobacco farmers 
just a few years ago, where they were trying to get the best yield per 
acre they could get and they were under attack by officious nannies 
from Washington, who are looking to reform somebody else's habit, and 
here are these communities wondering how they are going to survive. 
They are simply hard-working law abiding men and women trying to 
provide for their families. And these proposed changes don't only 
affect them--it affects their whole community. It is not a matter of 
humor nor to be taken lightly. Their livelihoods are at stake.
  So I say, number one, this is not the right time to change the law 
before it expires. Let the law expire before you change these laws 
affecting these peanut farmers. Number two, we have much more pressing 
issues on which to be focusing our current attention and our 
brainpower, whether it is supporting our war effort, addressing our 
economy, getting people back to work or gaining energy independence. 
And number three, I think this would have a terrible impact on 
Virginia's peanut farmers and their communities.

  I find it completely wrong for the Federal Government to change, at 
this time, a law that many good, decent, hard-working, law-abiding 
citizens have relied on. To do that would put a lot of people out of 
business. And any new law should take effect after the end of the 
current farm bill.
  So with that, Mr. President, I thank you for your attention. I thank 
my colleagues for their attention. And I hope to be able to work with 
all of you in the months ahead to come up with a peanut program that is 
good for the taxpayers, and also one that allows Americans to enjoy the 
benefits of good, wholesome, nutritious peanuts as well, and takes into 
account fair practices as far as legislating up here. And we should not 
change laws before they expire, especially when so many people have 
relied on those laws. I especially hope that Virginia peanuts will 
always be around for all of us to enjoy.
  With that, under the provisions of rule XXII, I yield my remaining 
time to the ranking member of the committee, Senator Lugar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Who controls the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under cloture, there is no control of time. 
Each Senator has a maximum of 1 hour.
  Mr. ALLARD. One hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One hour.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank you for recognizing me and giving 
me an opportunity to rise today to talk about the farm bill which the 
Senate is debating. I would also like to thank and commend the Ranking 
Member of the Agriculture Committee Senator Lugar for his leadership 
during this debate. As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I 
participated in the drafting of the bill which we are now about to 
consider. Also, when I was in the House of Representatives, some 5 
years back, with the passage of the freedom to farm bill, I was on the 
Agriculture Committee on the House side.
  I think this is a great opportunity for us to do some good things to 
help agriculture in this country. However, it is an opportunity to do 
the wrong thing. I do think we have to be careful about moving forward 
too quickly on some of this legislation without giving our farmers and 
our ranchers and the agricultural interests in our various States an 
opportunity to study what is in the bill to give us a full assessment 
of how it is going to impact businesses in their various States.
  In the State of Colorado, agriculture is very important. We have 
always worked on trying to have a broad, diversified economy. So we 
have other industries and other sources that broaden out our economic 
base in the State.
  For example, in Weld County, this is a county frequently recognized 
as one of the largest agricultural producing counties in the country, 
usually rated in the top 5, based on gross agricultural dollars that 
are brought in.

  I have another county in northeastern Colorado that produces a lot of 
corn. It is one of the largest corn-producing counties in the country. 
Again, this varies a little bit depending on

[[Page S12423]]

weather and how yields come out year to year. So certainly agriculture 
is important to the State of Colorado.
  As a member of the State senate--I also served on the agriculture 
committee in that body--we continually worked to have a broad base.
  In the State of Colorado, not only do we have some counties that 
contribute considerably to agriculture in the country, but they also 
add a lot of opportunity for other businesses in the State of Colorado 
to develop added value to those agricultural products.
  We all want to do the right thing and help the agricultural economy. 
But everyone needs to have the opportunity to review the legislation to 
understand how it effects them. This is not the bill that was reported 
out of committee, however, nor the one which was introduced on November 
27. So it has been a little difficult to determine what is exactly 
contained in this particular bill. Farmers in Colorado, as best I can 
figure out, would probably do best under the Cochran-Roberts proposal. 
But, again, we need more time, more opportunity to talk with farmers in 
the State of Colorado.
  We certainly have different types of operations. Some of them that we 
have in Colorado are strictly ranching operations. We have a lot of 
wheat operations, irrigated agriculture--vegetables. We need time in 
our office to begin to assess how these various agricultural operations 
are going to be impacted by a bill as complicated as the farm bill that 
we are about to consider on the floor of the Senate.
  This has been an interesting process to go through this past couple 
of months as we have attempted to draft a bill. I have been somewhat 
skeptical, as we drew to a conclusion to get a bill here to the floor. 
The current farm bill, the Freedom to Farm bill, does not expire until 
September 2002. Again, I do not fully understand why it is so important 
we push forward so quickly because I think input from our agricultural 
interests in our respective States is very important. If this goes 
through too quickly, they will be divorced of that opportunity to have 
their input to their Representatives so they can have an impact on the 
agricultural legislation.
  I was a member of the House Agriculture Committee and supported the 
provisions contained within Freedom to Farm. I did not think it was 
necessary to rewrite the bill a year earlier. But here we are, ready to 
rewrite the farm bill.
  It is complicated. As I stated, I have some problems and concerns 
about the legislation and how this bill moved forward. This has been a 
trying time for the Senate, for example, with the anthrax problems we 
have had in the Hart Building which has impacted some 50 of our 
colleagues. It has been difficult for them to get in touch with their 
records that are embargoed within the building. It has made it 
difficult for colleagues who have been on the Agriculture Committee--
and I suspect it would have an impact on Members here on the floor--to 
evaluate what their positions are, as far as a major piece of 
legislation such as the agriculture bill, without full access to their 
office resources and files.
  So as we move forward in an expeditious manner, we put certain 
Members of this body at a disadvantage. We have to be sensitive to 
their needs and their desire to do the best job and represent their 
constituents.
  In my office, we have been hosting several staffers of Senator Craig 
Thomas. I am sure it has been difficult to continue to operate 
throughout this process. It is an unfortunate situation, and I am sure 
it has not helped the drafting of sound legislation.
  As for the process with which the farm bill moved through the Senate 
Agriculture Committee, we were not receiving legislative language until 
about 1 to 2 a.m. in the morning on the same day of the bill markup. It 
was hardly sufficient time to fully analyze and assess its impacts.
  Generally speaking, most of the titles were agreed to on a bipartisan 
basis. As the Chair knows, so many of these issues break out on a 
commodity basis and not on a partisan basis.
  During the committee markup, I did support an alternative commodity 
title offered by my colleagues, Senators Roberts and Cochran. The 
fundamental component was the establishment of farm savings accounts.
  Rather than continue to rely on Federal subsidies during bad times 
for farmers, many in Congress believe farmers and ranchers should have 
the opportunity to set up accounts to set aside income during the years 
in which their income is high so that they could then withdraw funds in 
years when their incomes are low. Unfortunately, this alternative was 
defeated in committee.
  I see this provision becoming more important as we see the price of 
implements used in farming, for example, get more expensive. If you 
have a large farm operation, it is not unusual to see somebody spend 
$100,000 for a tractor. I remember when I was a young lad working in 
the hay field, we had a large tractor. We spent $4,000 or $5,000 on it. 
When you have high costs on your implements, that means you have to 
accumulate savings over the years in order to be able to afford that 
tractor.
  If you have a year when you have a good return on your commodity 
prices and the farm does well, you may end up with a considerable 
amount of income. But you find yourself as a farmer getting kicked into 
higher income tax brackets. So instead of being able to set that aside 
for investments that will help you be a better farmer and produce 
better in future years, you find you have to hand the dollars over to 
the Federal Government. So the idea of the farm savings accounts is, 
during those years when you have a lot of revenues coming in, you 
can set that aside for future years.

  Then when you get into years when you don't have as much return on 
your crops, then you can carry those profits forward and distribute 
them out over the years. That has profound impact on farm operations 
today and is something that should be implemented.
  I indicate my strong support for an upcoming amendment to be offered 
by Senators Roberts and Cochran. When putting a farm bill together, my 
philosophy is to let farmers do what they do best, and get the 
Government out of the farm. Unfortunately, the farm bill that came out 
of committee and which is now being considered does not do that. It 
moves us back towards more Government intervention and less towards 
free markets and free enterprise.
  Senators Roberts and Cochran are to be commended for developing a 
sound alternative to that which came through the committee. This is a 
solid proposal they are going to introduce. It needs serious 
consideration by the Senate.
  An important component of the farm bill is the research title. As a 
veterinarian, this is an area in which I believe strongly. If we are 
going to continue to have an abundant and safe food supply, we need to 
continue to fund our Nation's research priorities. I was able to 
include two provisions which I believe are extremely important.
  The first allows for research on infectious animal disease research 
and extension to allow grants for developing programs for prevention 
and control methodologies for animal infectious diseases that impact 
trade, including vesicular stomatitis, bovine tuberculosis, 
transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, brucellosis and E. coli 
0157:H7 infection, which is the pathogenic form of E. coli infections.
  It also set aside laboratory tests for quicker detection of infected 
animals and the presence of diseases among herds, and prevention 
strategies, including vaccination programs.
  This is becoming a smaller world. Not only do we need to be concerned 
about diseases that are naturally occurring, but we need to be aware 
and cognizant of the potential impact of diseases that don't occur. For 
example, we saw the profound impact of hoof and mouth disease in 
countries such as England and the devastating impact on the livestock 
industry in that country. We need to make sure that we have the 
research in place in this country where we can develop modern 
technologies and that will help protect the livestock industry.
  The second provision I had put in the bill establishes research and 
extension grants for beef cattle genetics evaluation research. It 
provides that the USDA shall give priority to proposals to establish 
and coordinate priorities for genetic evaluation of domestic beef 
cattle.

[[Page S12424]]

  It consolidates research efforts to reduce duplication of effort and 
maximize the return to the beef industry and also to streamline the 
process between the development and adoption of new genetic evaluation 
methodologies by the industry; and then to identify new traits and 
technologies for inclusion in genetic programs in order to reduce the 
cost of beef production to provide consumers with a high nutritional 
value, healthy and affordable protein source.
  Research, in my view, is fundamental. It is extremely important that 
we have the research base there to continue to improve production in 
order to deal with infectious diseases that affect plants and animals 
and to help assure a high quality food supply.
  I do think the people of this country have a great deal. They have 
the best quality food at the most reasonable price of any place in the 
world. That is something to be proud of. We need to do everything we 
possibly can to make sure that we maintain our position in the world.
  A couple other provisions are in the bill. There are some attempts 
within the bill to deal with alternative fuels. It is something I have 
worked on. I established the renewable energy caucus. I believe that 
renewable fuels is certainly something we need to look at for energy 
independence instead of war dependence on energy sources particularly 
out of the Middle East. We need to look to agriculture to help us meet 
some of those energy needs.
  I also have a provision in there to deal with cockfighting. It is an 
attempt to try and protect States rights. The State of Colorado, along 
with 46 other States, have all passed laws against cockfighting. We 
have three States that have not.
  However, Mr. President, those states that have chosen to outlaw 
cockfighting have difficulty enforcing their own laws. As a result of a 
loophole in the Animal Welfare Act, which specifically excludes live 
birds from the interstate transport ban, individuals who are caught 
with fighting birds can avoid being detained by law enforcement by 
claiming that they are transporting the birds to a state in which 
cockfighting is legal. Game birds are the only animal for which this 
loophole exists and this is unfair to the states that have chosen not 
to allow cockfighting.
  My attempt is just to make sure that we don't preempt the States in a 
way through this Federal loophole that they can't enforce the law they 
passed. This is an important provision--something I have worked on for 
almost 3 years. It was passed by a strong majority in the House Farm 
Bill and has been passed previously by the Senate. It is my hope that 
we are able to retain this language in the final version of the Farm 
Bill.
  Mr. President, agriculture is important to this country. It is 
important to States such as mine and certainly important to the Senator 
who is presiding over the Senate at this particular time. I think we 
all have a common interest. We want to see our farmers and ranchers be 
able to stay in business, and we want them to be able to compete in a 
world market. We need to work to expand not only our international 
markets, but also our domestic markets. Sometimes that requires 
thinking beyond the box. It is a challenge for those of us who are 
looking at establishing the proper public policy that would allow our 
agricultural sector to continue to grow and prosper.
  This is an important piece of legislation. I hope we don't rush it 
through to the point where we haven't given the various agricultural 
interests an opportunity to have their input as to what the final 
outcome of this bill will be.
  I hope that we allow enough time for them to participate in the 
process. It is important that we do the right thing. We can do that if 
we allow plenty of opportunity for everybody to participate.
  Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to the ranking member of 
the committee and look forward to working with him on this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Colorado for yielding that time. I thank him even more for his message. 
It has been a genuine pleasure to work with him on the Agriculture 
Committee in trying to formulate good legislation. I look forward to 
supporting the ideas he has presented this afternoon.
  Mr. President, as a part of the background for our debate, we ought 
to consider carefully the status of the farm economy presently. Many 
views have been given, and they are earnest views of Senators and their 
States' particular agricultural interests.
  Let me review a summary of where we stand at this particular point in 
the year 2001. Current USDA forecasts suggest that the underlying farm 
economy, exclusive of Government payments, is stronger this year than 
last. While U.S. agriculture continues to face the prospects of 
somewhat reduced income and outgoing structural change, many indicators 
remain favorable. The indicators that remain favorable are: Exports are 
up; asset values for agriculture throughout the country are up in the 
aggregate; debt levels are down; the rate of inflation for the overall 
economy, of course, has been down; interest rates are down; 
productivity and prices appear to be strengthening.
  Clearly, in the soybean and corn markets, which I know the occupant 
of the chair watches, as I do, we have seen mercifully an upturn, after 
bottoming out. In any event, the price levels across the board for all 
crops appear to be slightly stronger than last year. World markets are 
extremely important to us, and this is why we are all encouraged that 
export sales apparently will finally come in somewhere close to $53.5 
billion in 2001, as compared to $49 billion a year ago, an increase of 
$4.5 billion. They could grow to as much as $54.5 billion in 2002, 
according to USDA's best projections. These levels are still below the 
record levels of 1996, often cited primarily in response to continuing 
problems in Asia, and production increases by competing exporters--many 
of them in Latin America.

  Nevertheless, the sales appear to be increasing significantly. Year 
over year, forecasts of grain, poultry, and horticultural exports in 
2002 will exceed 2001, largely due to increased volume. Exports to 
major U.S. markets in Asia and the Western Hemisphere are projected 
above 2001, even in spite of slowing economic growth or, in some cases, 
recession in those areas.
  Overall farm income has this projection: The intermediate term 
economic outlook for agriculture is uncertain, as always. It is clear 
that many underlying farm economic conditions are stronger this year 
than last. Farm cash receipts could be near high record levels for 
2001, and, indeed, earlier this morning I discussed this subject. We 
found figures from USDA that showed roughly $60 billion of net cash 
income. This would be, in fact, a new all-time record for any year, 
including 1996.
  Farm cash receipts have been driven largely by a 9-percent increase 
in livestock sales. Overall crop sales appear to be up about 3.1 
percent. Gross cash income is up 4 percent and net cash income is up 
5.7 percent over last year. The $20 billion in payments from the 
Federal Government, including the AMTA payments, which we voted on in 
the summertime, come to $20 billion less, in fact, than the $23 billion 
that the Congress allocated last year. That is significant because the 
net cash income record was received, even though Government payments 
have come down this year by, apparently, something close to $3 billion.
  The projected increase in sales in 2001 will more than offset the 
modest decline in the Government payments and could boost cash income 
to $239.3 billion, up significantly by $9.2 billion from last year.
  I mention all of this, Mr. President, not that these are figures that 
are likely to lead anyone to a false impression about agricultural 
prosperity but it seems to me important because this debate thus far 
has been about a necessity of having the farm bill passed during this 
calendar year. One of the reasons offered by some Members has been the 
gravity of the situation for many farmers. Each one of us has many such 
farms in our States that are not working well. But the overall picture 
is important. The overall picture is one of higher net cash income.
  I found it to be extremely important to study the USDA tables on farm 
balance sheets. One of the factors of obvious debate that always seems 
counterintuitive to many who listen to them is that, each year, I and 
others have made the point that the total

[[Page S12425]]

value of farms in America has been growing. By that I mean the 
estimates of the total value of farms, the equity, after all 
liabilities, real estate debt, or any other farm debt have been 
subtracted, is $1.36 trillion. That is up from $1.4 trillion last year.
  In other words, the equity in farms in this country--the bottom line 
is there has been an increase of 3.2 percent. That is not unusual. 
Simply tracing back over the course of time, USDA points out that in 
1995, the net equity in farms in America was $815 billion.
  In 1996, often cited as the high water mark in terms of farm prices 
and prosperity, farm values were $848 billion, but in 1997, this went 
to $887 billion, in 1998, to $912 billion, and in 1999, to $964 
billion. Last year, it went to $1.4 trillion, and this year it went to 
$1.36 trillion.
  Throughout this time, however--Senators wish to argue the ups and 
downs of agricultural prosperity or difficulty--the value of their 
farms went up every single year without exception. Many have asked: How 
can this be? I have tried to answer that question in earlier 
statements.
  The programs we have adopted, for better or for worse, finally add up 
to more land value. They go essentially to landowners. That is 
capitalized in the land. They are able to borrow more on it, and they 
become more prosperous. The market value is higher because a stream of 
payments guaranteed by the Federal Government appears to be behind 
those values.
  Some, without being spoiled sports, have raised the question of 
whether these land values have a reality to them that is solid for the 
future. They have not suggested a so-called bubble effect that land 
values, much like communication or telecommunications firms in our 
economy in the last 2 years, simply exceeded the potential for income 
streams that might come from them.
  Nevertheless, it is difficult to argue that these land values, 
increasing each year, do not have built into them certain expectations 
of Federal policies that are very generous.
  Perhaps over the course of the next 5 years, or in the case of the 
House bill the next 10 years, the general public in the United States; 
that is, taxpayers, everyone who is not a farmer, are prepared to make 
very large transfer payments of their moneys to those who are farmers 
and to do so in such a predictable way that anyone who owns land can 
anticipate that kind of flow. It would have no relationship to whether 
or not there was an emergency. It simply is a guaranteed transfer of 
payment with the same certainty as a pension right or some other 
property right involved.
  That is a judgment for Senators, Members of the House, and the 
President to make, and we all have our different views on this issue.
  I have always wondered whether those who are not farmers understood 
the transfer that was occurring and the seeming permanence of that, as 
opposed to payments that came in emergencies.
  Senators have risen throughout this debate and condemned the farm 
bill of 1996 as a terrible failure, pointing out that it is so bad that 
we are compelled as Senators to meet almost every summer and vote to 
send more money to farmers.
  With some degree of political realism, I would say the compulsion for 
us to meet every summer to do this is probably being propelled much 
more by our own desires. To a certain degree, I have noted an amount of 
political competition in this--some persons purporting to be stronger 
friends of farmers than others, all believing we ought to be able to 
help out by sending more money in that direction. There has been no 
reticence on the part of Senators on both sides of the aisle to vote 
this money.
  I predict, I think without being too far off the mark, that whatever 
kind of a farm bill we finally enact this time, there may be those 
among our number who will ask us each summer to come to the Chamber to 
vote more money, to supplement whatever it is we have done. In other 
words, I have never found in my experience in the Senate that the issue 
is ever settled. The emergencies occur every year and in many parts of 
the country and sometimes vary widely. Let me offer a reason why that 
is so. This is not a cynical reason. This is a reason rooted in the 
reality of my own experience.

  One of the questions I frequently ask witnesses before the 
Agriculture Committee when we are having debates on programs or incomes 
is to give me an estimate of the return on invested capital that they 
obtained from their farm operation.
  Most witnesses, even those who are fairly sophisticated, do not know. 
They really have not thought that problem through. They say that is 
almost irrelevant: My problem is keeping the farm alive, keeping the 
dairy operation alive. I do not know what the return on investment is; 
the problem is paying the banker and having enough capital to buy new 
equipment to be competitive.
  I understand that, but it illustrates part of the problem. When I 
have had discussions with very prosperous farmers in Indiana, whom I 
respect for their abilities and have learned a lot from them, their 
answer to that question is usually a 3 to 5-percent return on invested 
capital over several years. Some years it is much better, but some 
years it is close to a wash.
  Some suggest, of course, that depends on how leveraged the farm is. 
If, in fact, a very valuable property has an almost equally valuable 
mortgage on it, the amount of equity that the farmer has in play is 
fairly small; therefore, any income fluctuation makes the return on 
income either go up or down very rapidly.
  Let us say for the sake of argument that the farm has no debt. That 
has been essentially my case for many years, and my own experience has 
been roughly 4 percent on invested capital. When that figure arises in 
a forum that is not a farm meeting, many people raise the question: 
That is pretty low for a large enterprise over a long period of time. 
For example, many people who are skeptics about this would say you 
could have gotten a 6-percent return just by investing in U.S. Treasury 
bonds for 30 years during many recent periods. For that matter, prior 
to this lower interest rate period we are in now, you probably could 
have bought the bonds maybe even for 7, 8, or 9 percent at different 
times during this decade, with absolutely no risk economically, no risk 
from markets drying up abroad, no risk from the weather.
  This raises the question: Why is $1 trillion of American capital tied 
up in farms--which, indeed, it is--2 million such entities, at least 
with the definition of $1,000 in sales?
  The reason ultimately, in my case, as well with most people, is that 
we like what we are doing. Frequently, it is a family tradition. That 
is my case. My dad bought the farm 70 years ago. It is something very 
important to me as a person. It is more than simply a business 
enterprise. But I have to recognize there are alternative things I 
could do with the capital and probably do better than 4 percent. This 4 
percent is anecdotal in a sense but not entirely.
  If, in fact, as the distinguished chairman of the committee pointed 
out this morning, net farm income in this country for 2001 is 49.4 
percent, and you factor that with a divisor of $1.36 trillion for the 
value of real estate and so forth, you come to something like 4.8 
percent. Taking a look at all of American agriculture, that net was 
earned on this amount.

  So my experience is not too far away from the mainstream, which is 
comforting to know, but not for farmers generally because there is not 
much leeway.
  I suggest the reason we have debates almost every year is a good 
number of farmers do not have any leeway. If farms that are fairly 
large and well managed do no better than 4 percent on average, and in 
some years 3 percent or 2 percent, situations that are not so well 
managed, do not have modern equipment, the research into seeds or 
planting processes, or have not done conservation work that has proper 
drainage, they are going to have problems meeting it at all every year; 
there is so little leeway.
  Intuitively, we have known it even if we could not quantify it, and 
our policy has generally been, regardless of which farm bill I have 
been involved in, to save every family farmer. We have tried, in fact, 
to think through how there could be a safety net and ad hoc emergency 
payments and whatever was required. We have not succeeded, although, as 
I mentioned in an earlier debate today, we have stimulated a lot of

[[Page S12426]]

people to come into farming, many of them in a small way. It is not a 
major income. So the numbers of farmers do not trail off as rapidly as 
they did at the turn of the century, 100 years ago, or all the way 
through the 1930s. Nevertheless, the concentration into about 170,000 
large farms in this country is pronounced. These farms are doing the 
majority of the business, and about 600,000 farms in America plus or 
minus a few do about four-fifths of all we do.
  Trying to fashion a farm policy, therefore, that fits these 
situations, these diverse situations, is virtually impossible. At the 
same time, we have tried--all of us have tried. The bottom line has 
been we have succeeded in good part, but the debate continues because 
farms that do not make very much on invested capital are in trouble 
every year.
  I do not know the answer to that question. My guess is, in part, it 
is being answered by age. The average age of people who are farming 
increases. The people who come to the distinguished occupant of the 
chair and to me, who have, say, a 30-, 40-, 50-herd dairy situation, 
say: What are we going to do? I am 65, one farmer will say. I would 
like to retire. I would like to get a pension or my money out of this. 
The son who is about 40, it is very doubtful whether he wants to 
continue, whether there is enough for a livelihood at a middle-class 
level in our society, and they come to us and ask for counsel as to 
what to do. There is no good answer. It finally has to be a gut feeling 
on the part of that farmer.
  The farm bill on which we are about to embark, if we adopt the bill 
passed by the Senate Agriculture Committee, in my judgment, makes the 
situation substantially worse. I do not paint this in disastrous hues. 
My own judgment is, regardless of what we do, this will not be an 
irrevocable disaster for the country, but I think some people will get 
hurt. Among those who will get hurt are probably the small, simply 
because most of the payments will go to the large. The payments will be 
much larger than they were before, so the large will be even more 
consolidated and confirmed in their situations. Land values will 
continue to increase, maybe not to a bubble situation but clearly 
rising on the basis of not much behind them.
  The return on capital is still pretty sketchy. If one were to take a 
look at this, such as the people at the stock market, it would be seen 
as a pretty precarious kind of investment, and based largely upon the 
general mood of the public as a whole. Since this prosperity would not 
have been based on the market necessarily but really on the basis of 
our political debate and public policy, that which is given can be 
taken away.
  I have no idea what the mood of the Congress will be 2 or 3 years 
from now, if in fact we have sustained deficits for 3 years as the 
Director of OMB has prophesied we will. There is no farm program that 
is engraved forever. We can pass a bill that has 5 years' duration or 
10, but each Congress can amend that very substantially and change it 
materially and must have the right to do so on the basis of whatever 
the crisis the country faces or its priorities then.
  That is why I fear the idea of 5 or 10 years of very large fixed 
payments to 40 percent of farmers who are in the program as opposed to 
60 percent who are not, based on nothing more than the fact that one 
has been a farmer in the past, whether they are farming now or not. It 
has some problems to it. They are not being glossed over. I think 
Senators must understand what they are doing.
  Having heard a lot of criticism about fixed payments in the past, 
these so-called AMTA payments, I am astonished so many Senators are 
fully prepared to do more of it now really without any limitation. The 
bill I presented does have limitations. The 6 percent credit that one 
receives on the basis of all the total whole farm income is finally 
limited to only $30,000 a farmer. The Senate Agriculture bill we are 
now considering could pay as much as $500,000 to a single farm entity. 
In fairness to my chairman, Senator Harkin, who has long believed there 
were problems in having such distortions, he readily admits in order to 
obtain a majority support in the committee, he acquiesced to those who 
wanted more. For all I know, those limits are still being raised, even 
as we speak, to accommodate the situations of particular crops.
  This does not bode very well for the small family farm situation, or 
the saving of everyone, or the general ethic of the bill that is often 
presented that way, or even those particular cases of distress in the 
midst of the overall increasing prosperity I described in the overall 
report.
  These are concerns that have led me and others to suggest 
alternatives. In the event the debate proceeds, we will have that 
opportunity. I utilize this time of deliberate and thoughtful debate on 
the farm bill to bring forward some of these facts and some of this 
information.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to use up to the hour of time postcloture that I am entitled to 
and that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Energy Policy Act of 2002

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I joined Senator Daschle in 
introducing the Energy Policy Act of 2002. This bill is a culmination 
of a great deal of work involving several committees in the Senate. In 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources alone, we had over 50 
hearings in the 106th and 107th Congresses that relate to this bill.
  The staff of the committee, particularly the majority staff, who have 
worked on drafting the legislation we introduced today, did yeoman's 
work. I will mention the individuals who worked so hard on this: Of 
course, Bob Simon, who is our staff director. This list is in no 
particular order except perhaps alphabetical, although I am not sure 
that is exactly right. Patty Beneke worked hard on various provisions; 
Jonathan Black; Shelley Brown helped us with the bill; Mike Connor; 
Deborah Estes; Sam Fowler, who was the principal draftsman on the bill; 
Jennifer Michael; Leon Lowery; Shirley Neff made tremendous 
contributions. Malini Sekhar, Vicki Thorne, John Watts, Bill Wicker, 
and Mary Katherine Ishee also made great contributions.
  So I want to publicly state my appreciation to them for the good work 
they did.
  Although the bill that we introduced today is the culmination of a 
great deal of work, it is also in many ways just a beginning. It is a 
starting point for the next phase of the Senate's consideration of 
energy policy. Senator Daschle has indicated he desires for us to bring 
it up and debate this legislation and the entire subject area during 
the first period of the next session.
  One obvious question is why we invested so much time on this topic of 
energy in developing this bill. There are two basic answers to that 
question. First, energy is central to our present and future economic 
prosperity. Any of us who lived in the last few decades of this country 
know we depend upon foreign sources for much of our energy. Our economy 
is vitally dependent upon reasonable prices for energy.
  Second, there has been significant changes in energy markets since 
the last time Congress considered comprehensive energy legislation. The 
last major energy bill we passed was the Energy Policy Act of 1992. 
Since that time, as a nation we have moved further away from command 
and control regulation of energy toward a system that relies much more 
on market forces to set the price of energy. In the process, our energy 
markets have become more competitive, more dynamic, and there have been 
some significant bumps in the road which we have all observed.
  Consumers are now more vulnerable to the vagaries of energy markets 
and the volatile prices for energy. The structures to regulate these 
emerging market forces are not fully developed, as we could see very 
clearly in the last few weeks with regard to the circumstances of Enron 
Corporation.
  Gasoline supplies nationwide have become increasingly subject to 
local crises and to price spikes due to the proliferation of inflexible 
local fuel specifications and tight capacity in refining and in 
pipelines.
  Of course, the events of September 11 have caused many of us to 
reflect on the inherent vulnerabilities of our energy transmission 
system. The time

[[Page S12427]]

may be right for us to rethink how we site energy infrastructure, the 
balance between central and distributed generation of power in our 
electricity system.
  So Congress needs to respond to these changes and challenges and 
opportunities. If we do so in a balanced and comprehensive and forward-
looking way, then we can develop an energy policy that will lead to a 
new economic prosperity for the country and for the world. But we will 
not get there simply by perpetuating the energy policy approaches of 
the past. New ideas and approaches are needed as well as greater 
investment to move into the future.
  That is what this bill we have introduced today tries to do. The bill 
has three overarching goals. This chart specifies what those are.
  First, we try to ensure adequate and affordable supplies of energy 
from a variety of sources--from renewable sources as well as from oil 
and gas and coal and nuclear. I emphasize renewables because, as I will 
indicate in a few moments, that is an area to which we have given too 
little attention.
  Second, the bill improves the efficiency and productivity of our 
energy use, including energy reliability and the productivity of our 
electric transmission system and energy use in industry, in vehicles 
and appliances, and in buildings.
  The third overarching goal of this legislation is to keep other 
important policy goals in addition to our energy policies, goals such 
as protection of the environment and global-climate-change-related 
issues--keep those goals in mind as we sort through our energy policy 
choices.

  I think we can achieve these three goals if we accelerate the 
introduction of new technologies and if we create flexible market 
conditions that empower energy consumers so they can make choices that 
will benefit both them and our society more generally.
  This combination of new technology and policy innovation in pursuit 
of a diverse and robust national energy system can be seen in the 
provisions of this bill as they relate to the first major goal. This is 
obtaining an adequate and affordable supply of energy. So let me start 
the discussion by speaking first about this important subject of 
renewable energy that I referred to a minute ago.
  Our Senate bill contains numerous provisions enhancing the 
contribution of renewable forms of energy to our future energy mix. 
Under the ``business as usual'' approach of the House energy bill, H.R. 
4, which has been proposed at various times on the Senate floor, the 
contribution to our energy mix from renewables will not substantially 
increase over the next 20 years. The result will be an energy system, 
particularly for the production of electricity, that will go from being 
about 68 percent based on coal and natural gas to being about 80 
percent based on those two fuels. That overdependence would leave our 
country very vulnerable to shortfalls in the delivery of either of 
those commodities. Consumers would be exposed to severe risks of price 
spikes.
  We clearly need more diversity in the ways that we produce 
electricity in this country, not less diversity. Our overdependence 
does not make sense in light of the commitments to renewable energy 
that have been made in other countries, particularly in Europe. This 
chart demonstrates that very graphically. This chart is entitled 
``Commitment to Renewable Generation.'' This is generation of 
electricity. The percentage increase in nonhydro renewable generation 
during the 5 years 1990-1995--a 6-year period, I guess--here you can 
see the percentage increase. In the case of Spain, it was a little over 
300 percent. In the case of Germany, it was something over 150 
percent--175 percent. In the case of Denmark, it was nearly 150 
percent. Then it goes on down until you get to the United States, which 
is way down in the single digits.
  There are countries that did less during that 5- or 6-year period 
than we did but not many. Even France, which is often held up as a 
model for its commitment to nuclear power, has outpaced the United 
States in recent years in its investment in renewable sources of 
electricity other than nuclear power. The United States needs to lead 
the world in renewable technologies.
  We have abundant domestic renewable resources. The world market for 
such technologies is capable of strong growth in the future. Renewable 
technology leadership would help U.S. firms achieve a strong position 
in winning those markets and thus creating new jobs in our own country.
  If our country is to lead the world in renewable energy technologies, 
we need to do a better job of getting those technologies into the 
marketplace in this country.
  Our bill that we have introduced today would boost future use of 
renewables in five major ways. Let me summarize those five ways.
  First, the bill contains market incentives that would triple the 
amount of electricity produced from renewable energy over the next 20 
years. Here is another chart that tries to show graphically where we 
are today, slightly after the year 2000, at less than 5 quadrillion 
Btus annually. This green wedge shows what we would anticipate as the 
growth in the production or generation of electricity from renewable 
sources between now and the year 2020 under this legislation that we 
have introduced.

  These incentives include a renewable portfolio standard that creates 
a market for new renewable sources of electricity, whether they are 
wind or solar or biomass or incremental hydroelectric generation from 
existing dams.
  A second market incentive is the Federal purchase requirement for 
renewables that would grow to 7.5 percent of all Federal electricity 
purchases by the year 2010. The renewable energy production incentive, 
which is an existing program to help rural electric co-ops and 
municipal utilities generate renewable energy, is also reauthorized in 
this bill and extended to include Indian lands which contain some prime 
renewable resources. So that is the first way in which this bill would 
make an effort to boost our future use of renewables.
  The second is that the bill being introduced today greatly expands 
the contribution of renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel-
powered vehicles and transportation. By 2005, 75 percent of the Federal 
Government's vehicles that can burn alternative fuels would be required 
to do so, creating more market certainty for renewable fuels and their 
associated infrastructure.
  By 2012, 5 billion gallons a year of renewable fuels would be blended 
into our gasoline, decreasing our import dependence on foreign oil.
  The third way in which the bill helps renewables contribute more to 
our energy mix is by removing existing regulatory barriers that affect 
renewable energy. For example, wind and solar power can be effectively 
tapped by small distributed generation systems, but current practices 
and rules in the marketplace often discriminate against distributed 
generation. Our bill tries to deal with this problem by requiring 
electric utilities to offer their customers net metering, in which a 
customer can offset his electric bill by the amount of electricity that 
he generates and sells to that local utility.
  The bill also requires fair transmission rules for intermittent 
generation such as wind and solar.
  Finally, the bill mandates easier interconnection for distributed 
energy production into the interstate transmission grid and requires 
States to examine ways to facilitate that interconnection of 
distributed energy into local electric distribution systems as well.
  A fourth major way in which our bill promotes renewables is by 
disseminating information about and facilitating access to areas of 
high resource potential, particularly on our public lands. There are 
many places in this Nation and my State that have untapped renewable 
energy potential. The bill creates a pilot program at the Department of 
Energy and in the Forest Service for development of wind and solar 
energy projects on Federal lands.
  A fifth and final area in which the bill helps make renewable energy 
a bigger part of our energy picture in the future is through enhanced 
research and development programs. These research and development 
programs in our bill at the Department of Energy will grow from an 
authorized level of $500 million in fiscal year 2003 to $733 million by 
fiscal year 2006.

[[Page S12428]]

  I would like to briefly talk about some of the other more traditional 
energy supply sources in addition to renewables that we try to promote 
and encourage in this legislation.
  Natural gas is one of those in our Nation at a crossroads major 
policy decision with regard to energy security. U.S. natural gas demand 
is expected to increase from 23 trillion cubic feet per year. Demand is 
expected to be about 35 trillion cubic feet per year by 2020. Much of 
that demand is going to be driven by the use of natural gas for 
electricity generation because, as we build more powerplants to produce 
more electricity, virtually all of those new powerplants that are 
coming on line--not all, but many of those new powerplants that are 
coming on line--are expected to use natural gas.
  As you can see from this chart, which goes from the period of 1970 
through 2020, today there is more consumption of natural gas than there 
is production in the country. But it is not a very major gap. As we 
move forward for the next 20 years, that gap grows. Our consumption of 
natural gas is going to increase more quickly than the production of 
natural gas is expected to increase.
  We tried to follow the developments in this field internationally to 
understand what is occurring. We have a very disturbing development of 
which I think the Senate needs to be aware and of which our entire 
country needs to be aware.
  As a result of this gap that I have pointed out on this chart, as a 
nation we are at the risk of becoming dependent upon imported natural 
gas brought to our shores in tankers for a substantial portion of the 
gas that we consume.
  The countries on which we would rely for much of that gas are prone 
to political instability. They are in the early stages of forming an 
OPEC-like organization for natural gas exporters.
  There is a cover story in the June 2001 issue of OPEC's Bulletin that 
discusses Iran hosting an inaugural meeting of the Gas Exporting 
Counties Forum.
  As a nation, we do not want to be in the position of having to deal 
with a cartel in natural gas in addition to the cartel we already deal 
with related to oil.
  Our bill takes several steps to come up with a different policy for 
natural gas.

  We increase funding for research to develop domestic natural gas 
deposits in deepwater areas in the Gulf of Mexico and in harder to tap 
geologic formulations on shore.
  We provide research funds to explore the potential of methane 
hydrates that are trapped on the ocean floor at great depths.
  The bill authorizes more funds to facilitate the permitting and 
leasing of Federal lands for natural gas production in places where 
that is environmentally acceptable.
  The bill addresses a number of developing problems in natural gas 
production, such as conflicts over coal bed methane and hydraulic 
fractures and to bring these conflicts to resolution before they reach 
crisis proportions.
  But even these steps, which I believe will be useful and important, 
will not be enough to close the gap that is reflected on this chart. 
The most significant step the bill tries to take for future natural gas 
supply is to provide enough financial incentives so that we see the 
construction of a pipeline to bring down from Alaska the vast reserves 
of natural gas that have been discovered and have already been 
developed in the Prudhoe Bay region.
  The Presiding Officer and I had the opportunity to visit there 
earlier this year. The existing reserves are estimated to be over 30 
trillion cubic feet of gas. It is estimated that the total natural gas 
resources on the North Slope of Alaska could be in the order of 100 
trillion cubic feet. A natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48 
States would provide at least 4 billion to 6 billion cubic feet of 
natural gas per day before the end of this decade.
  Once the pipeline is constructed, it would provide gas to American 
consumers for at least 30 years. It would be a stabilizing force in 
natural gas prices as well.
  The project makes a great deal of sense. But it has not happened 
because there is a lack of certainty about the investment risk of 
building such a major pipeline.
  We are talking about an enormous undertaking. The pipeline would be 
one of the largest construction projects ever undertaken. It would 
create a massive number of jobs in Alaska, in Canada, and in the lower 
48. The project would require the construction of the largest gas 
treatment plant in the world, and the laying of about 3,600 miles of 
pipe requiring 5 million to 6 million tons of steel.
  The preliminary estimates are the cost would be in the range of $40 
billion. But since natural gas prices vary from $2 to $10--which we 
have seen that just in the last 12 months--per mcf it is hard for the 
market to take on this challenge by itself. So we are proposing 
legislation that would expedite the process for permitting, for 
providing rights-of-way, and certifications that are needed for the 
U.S. segment of the pipeline.
  The Government would step up and offer to underwrite loans for 80 
percent of the cost of the line that is constructed within the United 
States.
  There are various other provisions which we think would improve the 
likelihood that this pipeline would be built in the near future.
  I believe it is important for the Senate to be proactive on this 
project--not simply to sit back, cross our fingers and hope that the 
various companies that are looking at this decide to go ahead.
  If we do not act while there is substantial private sector interest 
in building this pipeline, we will lose an important opportunity to 
bolster our national energy security in natural gas.
  As a consequence, we might well be hearing speeches 10 to 20 years 
from now about our dependence on foreign natural gas which would sound 
a lot like the speeches we have been hearing about our dependence on 
foreign oil.
  Since I mentioned oil, let me say a few things about what we have in 
this bill related to oil, and the ways we are trying to increase 
domestic production of oil.
  (Mr. DAYTON assumed the chair.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. When you hear all the rhetoric about drilling in the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--and we have heard various speeches 
about that in this Chamber--one would think it is the only place in the 
United States where we could find more oil. That is far from true. 
There are 32 million acres of the outer continental shelf off the coast 
of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi that have already been leased by 
the Government to oil companies for exploration and production. They 
are shown on this map I show you by these yellow blocks.
  There is no requirement that any legislation be passed in order for 
drilling to occur in these areas. These are areas that have been 
leased. They can be drilled. We need to do what we can to encourage the 
actual development of those leases.
  In addition to the production off the Gulf of Mexico, there are 
outstanding prospects for increased production from the National 
Petroleum Reserve--Alaska.
  Again, the Presiding Officer and I had the opportunity to see the 
promise that some of the oil companies obviously felt about the 
potential production there.
  Under the Clinton administration, the previous administration, 
leasing was expanded in this area. Industry made some major finds. 
There is no law that needs to be passed in order for additional leasing 
to occur in that area. I, for one at least, believe that is an 
appropriate place for us to be pursuing additional oil production.
  If the problem really is not finding areas to lease under current 
law, then why is there not more domestic production going on in the 
areas that are already leased for exploration and production? We need 
to look at that question. That is not a simple question to answer.
  We need to look at the differences between our Federal and State 
royalty and tax policies and those of other countries with oil and gas 
resources. We have provisions in this bill to try to have that analysis 
done.
  A second proposal to boost domestic production in the near future is 
to provide adequate funding for the Federal programs that actually 
issue new leases and new permits for oil and gas production. For all 
the rhetoric from the administration about the need to

[[Page S12429]]

boost domestic production, in its last budget request, the 
administration did not ask for adequate funding to do this work 
properly. The result of inadequate funding for U.S. land management 
agencies is delay and frustration on the part of U.S. oil and gas 
producers. This bill calls for increased budget levels for those 
functions. The Federal Government can then take the necessary steps to 
make oil and gas leasing faster and more predictable where it is 
already permitted.
  The bill also contains increased research and development funding to 
support domestic oil and gas production by smaller companies and 
independent producers. These entities account for the majority of on-
shore U.S. production of oil. They do not have the resources to do 
their own exploration and production research and development.
  Let me say a few words about coal. This is an important contributor 
to our current energy supply picture.
  Fifty-nine percent of our electricity generation nationwide is based 
on coal. This chart I show you is a good background chart for anyone 
interested in how we produce electricity in this country. You can see 
this top line is coal. That represents the 59 percent to which I just 
referred. Fifty-nine percent of our electricity generation is based on 
coal. We have tremendous coal resources. We have been called the 
``Saudi Arabia of coal'' by some.

  But coal's place in our energy future needs to be clean and needs to 
be emission-free. Coal-based generation, as we all know, produces more 
greenhouse gas emissions per Btu of energy output than does natural 
gas-fired generation that I was talking about a few minutes ago. Other 
pollutants from coal-fired plants have been the source of regional 
tensions between States where coal-fired plants are located and States 
that are downwind from those plants.
  Coal is too important a resource to write off. Technology holds a 
promise for dramatically lowering, even to zero, the emissions from 
coal-based plants. This bill takes a very forward-looking approach to 
the issue by authorizing a $200 million per year research and 
development demonstration program based on coal gasification, carbon 
sequestration, and related ultraclean technologies for burning coal.
  The proposal was a result of a strong bipartisan push in our 
committee by Senator Evan Bayh and Senator Craig Thomas and is one more 
example of the crucial role that research and development is going to 
play--and needs to play--in shaping our energy future.
  Research and development are also keys to the future of nuclear power 
in this country. Nuclear reactors emit no greenhouse gases, so on that 
basis one would think they are an option that we should be looking at 
for the future. But nuclear plants have other characteristics that are 
not as attractive. They have very high up-front capital costs compared 
to other generating options. That puts them at a disadvantage in the 
marketplace. The nuclear waste problem is not yet solved. Nuclear 
safety is a continuing concern for many in the public. Our cadre of 
nuclear scientists and engineers is growing older and dwindling, and we 
are not seeing a large supply of students being trained to help us deal 
with nuclear issues in the future.
  This bill takes on these problems by focusing on research and 
development on new nuclear plant designs that might address these 
problems and on a program to strengthen university departments of 
nuclear science and technology.
  The bill also contains a partial reauthorization of the basic nuclear 
liability statute; that is, the Price-Anderson Act. The part that is in 
the bill deals with liability of Department of Energy nuclear 
contractors, including the National Laboratories that are a significant 
source of our national nuclear expertise. The other main part of the 
Price-Anderson Act, dealing with the commercial nuclear power industry, 
is being developed by the Committee on Environment and Public Works and 
is expected to be offered by them as an amendment when we get to the 
floor consideration of the bill.
  Hydropower is another source of energy supply that this bill 
addresses related to electricity generation. Many hydroelectric 
facilities are reaching the age at which their original licenses under 
the Federal Power Act are about to expire. The process of relicensing 
these facilities needs to be protective of the environment, predictable 
for licensees, and efficient in the way it is administered.
  We have been working for months with both the hydropower industry and 
the environmental groups to develop a consensus on how to achieve these 
goals. There is strong bipartisan interest in moving in that direction. 
We are committed to working toward this end. We have worked with 
Senator Craig extensively on this issue. We look forward to continuing 
that communication and hope that by the time this bill comes to debate 
on the floor we have a consensus on that issue.

  A final way in which the bill focuses on increasing the supply of 
domestic energy is through a series of provisions facilitating the 
development of energy resources on Indian lands. Let me say that is an 
important new area we are trying to put some emphasis on in the bill.
  The second of the major overarching goals that I mentioned at the 
beginning of my comments was this need to use energy supplies more 
efficiently and productively. So far, we have talked about how to 
increase supplies of energy through renewables, through oil, gas, coal, 
hydroelectric, and nuclear.
  Let me refer now to parts of the bill that deal with this second 
overarching goal: how to use energy supplies more productively and 
efficiently.
  As I have mentioned consistently throughout the past year, you cannot 
have a sound energy policy based only on production or only on 
conservation. We need to focus on both. Our energy policy needs to 
combine programs that boost supplies with programs that use those 
supplies more efficiently.
  The first major way in which we can use our energy supply more 
efficiently is by having an electricity transmission system that is 
ready for the challenges of the next century. Electricity is essential 
to our modern way of life, yet our electric system largely operates on 
a design that is nearly a century old.
  We have vulnerabilities in our current system. We just excerpted some 
of the headlines from national newspapers, and I have put those up here 
on a chart to remind people of what we were hearing in the news and on 
television earlier this year.
  Let me just read a few of these: ``Electricity crisis: The Grinch 
that stole Christmas.'' That was last Christmas.
  ``Happy holidays. Now turn off that Christmas tree.'' That was last 
Christmas.
  ``California declares power emergency.'' ``Blackout threat remains as 
California scrambles.'' ``California power woes affect entire west 
coast.'' ``Energy chief moves to avert California blackouts.'' 
``Utilities seek immediate rate hike to avoid bankruptcy.'' Those are 
the types of headlines we were seeing at the end of last year and early 
this year.

  We need to address the issue of electricity generation and 
transmission. The central challenge we face with electricity is to have 
two elements: First, to have market institutions that ensure reliable 
and affordable supplies of electricity and, second, to have policies 
that favor future investments in new technologies that give consumers 
real choices over their energy use. We have provisions in this bill to 
do just that.
  I could go through those provisions in detail. Since I notice there 
are others wishing to speak, I will skip over some of these and move on 
to the highlights of the rest of the bill.
  A second way in which we need to increase efficiency in the various 
uses of energy is in the fuel efficiency of vehicles. The bill contains 
two provisions in that regard: One that mandates higher fuel efficiency 
in the vehicles purchased by the Federal Government for civilian use, 
and a second that provides a framework for the Department of Energy to 
assist States in expanding scrappage programs to get old fuel 
inefficient vehicles off the roads. This is cash for clunkers, as it 
has been referred to by some.
  I know Alan Binder has spoken eloquently about how important he 
thinks it is that we pursue that course both for our energy future and 
as a way to get cash into the hands of people to stimulate the economy 
at this point.
  Let me move to one other chart to make the point that we do need to 
deal

[[Page S12430]]

with this issue of transportation, if we are going to begin to deal 
with total oil demand in the country. This is a chart that shows U.S. 
oil consumption in millions of barrels per day. It goes from the year 
1950 to the year 2020. This line, which is here at 2000, sort of shows 
where we are today. You can see that the total oil demand has been 
increasing and is expected to keep increasing. Total transportation 
demand has been increasing and is expected to keep increasing.
  Domestic oil production has been declining since about 1970. That is 
not going to change. Domestic oil production is going to continue to 
decline.
  We can affect it. Domestic oil production, if ANWR is opened, will be 
affected. It will increase it somewhat. That is reflected with this 
little red line. But when you look at what are the steps that can be 
taken that will have a major impact on this total oil demand, this top 
number, you can see that doing something about transportation demand is 
by far the largest action that we can take.
  The Commerce Committee is having a hearing tomorrow on this very 
issue. They are intending to develop a proposal to bring to the Senate 
as an amendment to this bill to indicate a change in the requirements, 
the corporate average fuel efficiency requirements, the CAFE standards, 
fuel efficiency standards, and I look forward to seeing what they 
propose. I do believe it is important we take serious steps in this 
regard. The House-passed bill did not do that.
  We as a Nation have to come to grips with this issue. The technology 
is there. This is not something we have to go out and speculate on as 
to whether the technology could be developed that will get us better 
fuel efficiency. We all know Senator Bennett, our good friend from 
Utah, has a hybrid electric vehicle he parks right out here at the 
Senate steps. I complimented him on it. I asked him yesterday: What 
kind of fuel efficiency do you get on that car? He said: 53 miles per 
gallon in town. Now, that is a clear signal to me that the technology 
is there. We can produce more efficient vehicles. We should do that. We 
should provide incentives for people to use those.

  There are other steps. The Federal Government can do a much better 
job of increasing efficiency in the energy it uses. We have included 
various provisions to encourage that. Industrial energy efficiency can 
be dramatically improved. We have various provisions to encourage that. 
Commercial and consumer products can be much more efficient than they 
are, and we have provisions in the bill to encourage that.
  There is a new generation lighting initiative in this bill which I 
believe is a major step in the right direction. We are still using 
incandescent light bulbs, just as Thomas Edison taught us. There is no 
reason why we can't be using much more advanced technology which is 
much more efficient. About 25 percent of the power that goes into most 
lighting fixtures actually winds up being translated into light. The 
rest goes off in heat. We can do much better than that. This next 
generation lighting initiative we believe will help U.S. industry to 
meet that challenge and help our country to benefit from the 
development of those new technologies.
  We also have a provision for substantially increasing the effort for 
energy efficiency assistance programs. This is the LIHEAP program, the 
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Many people depend upon that 
as we get into the winter months. You do not know it today by the 
temperature outside, but there are cold days coming. In the winter, 
this is an extremely important program. And also in the summer, when 
air conditioning is needed, this is an extremely important program for 
many of our citizens. We propose increases there.
  A third and final overarching goal of the bill is to balance energy 
policy with other important societal considerations. Energy production 
and use comes associated with a host of consequences for the 
environment. We need to strike the right balance among energy, the 
environment, and the economy. That balance is what we are sent to 
Washington to try to find. This bill addresses the issues in a number 
of ways. Several provisions of the bill deal with the legacy of past 
problems posed by energy production and use for the environment.
  We have major provisions to focus the attention of the country and 
the Government on dealing with the issue of global climate change, a 
proposal Senators Byrd and Stevens made earlier this year that has been 
considered in the Governmental Affairs Committee, setting up an office 
to look at global climate change to come up with a policy and 
coordinate our governmental response to that issue. That is a proposal 
the bulk of which we have included in this legislation.
  That is a very important part of the bill. I have said from the 
beginning of the discussion about an energy bill that we needed to have 
one that integrated energy policy with climate change policy, and we 
have tried very hard to do that.
  We also have provisions in the bill to reconcile energy policy with 
the needs we have for security of our energy infrastructure. The events 
of September 11 have caused us to think about potential security 
vulnerabilities of the energy infrastructure. This is an area where 
there is a considerable amount of work that has been done, but more 
needs to be done. We have provisions to focus on the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, to direct the administration to fill the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. We also have provisions related to security of other 
parts of our energy infrastructure.
  Let me say a couple of words about why we have not included a 
provision in this bill to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to 
drilling. If you take all of the discussion about energy policy that 
has occurred in the Chamber over the last 10 or 11 months, you would 
think that this was the centerpiece, this is the main thing the country 
needs to be doing to solve its energy problems. I dissent from that 
view. I do not believe this is the centerpiece of our energy policy. 
This is a case of the tail wagging the dog.
  I do believe that opening the wildlife refuge for drilling is not an 
essential or substantial part of solving our national energy needs in 
the future. As you can see from this chart, it does increase production 
domestically. It does not increase it to such an extent that our 
problems of growing dependence on foreign sources of oil are solved.
  That debate is one that I am sure we will have, and we have had it 
already many times in the Senate Chamber. We will have an opportunity 
to have it again when this bill comes up, and each Senator has a 
strongly held view on the subject.
  Let me put up one final chart and then I will conclude. Earlier this 
year, President Bush appointed a task force and asked Vice President 
Cheney to head the task force and work up a so-called energy plan for 
the country, look at our long-term energy needs. Although that plan was 
severely criticized by some, I thought there were some constructive 
suggestions in it. I didn't agree with everything in it, but I thought 
there were constructive sections in it.
  The administration recommended that the Congress act in 10 different 
policy areas. We have those on this chart. They range from electricity, 
to energy tax incentives, expedited Alaska gas pipeline construction, 
and on down through the list. The House-passed legislation, H.R. 4, 
which has been proposed here at various times on the Senate floor, 
addresses 5 of the 10 key areas that the administration proposed that 
we address.
  The legislation we are introducing today addresses 9 of the 10 key 
issue areas. I am not saying the administration embraces every aspect 
of what we proposed in each of these nine areas, but in many respects 
we do believe we are making recommendations that are consistent with 
that energy plan that was earlier issued by the administration. We 
believe these issues should not be partisan. We believe there is a 
great deal of common ground that we can find on energy issues. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues on the Democratic side and the 
Republican side in identifying ways this bill can be improved, if there 
are suggestions out there. The bill is there for anyone to study and to 
suggest improvements. I think, in many ways, having it available for 
that kind of scrutiny over the next weeks, until we get into the new 
session after the first of the year, will be very good and will help us 
produce a better product for the American people.

[[Page S12431]]

  I see this as a project that, hopefully, will set the course for our 
energy policy in this country perhaps for another decade, for some 
period. It was 1992 when we passed the last major energy bill in the 
Congress and had it signed into law. There is no reason to believe we 
are likely to try comprehensive energy legislation in the near term 
again. I hope very much that we can seriously consider this legislation 
in the new session of the Congress in February, as Senator Daschle has 
indicated, and that we can pass a bill on a bipartisan basis and go to 
conference with the House.
  Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator will yield for a couple 
questions.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I am glad to yield to my colleague from North Dakota. I 
compliment him on the very major contributions he made in the 
development of this bill.
  Mr. DORGAN. As a member of the Energy Committee, I am pleased to work 
with Senator Bingaman. He has done an extraordinary job. We have had 
many Members of the Senate come to the floor of the Senate talking 
about the urgency of having a new energy policy. I agree with that 
urgency and that the policy should be new, and I agree it ought to be a 
balanced, comprehensive policy. The other body, the House of 
Representatives, wrote an energy bill that I classified as kind of a 
dig-and-drill bill that is not changing anything very much. It is just 
trying to produce more of that which we have been using. This 
legislation enhances production of oil, natural gas, and coal in an 
environmentally acceptable way. We agree with that proposition. But it 
is also the case that we believe much more needs to be done.

  I wonder if the Senator from New Mexico would describe again the 
components, other than enhanced production, which we have in this 
comprehensive plan--the components of conservation, efficiency, and 
renewable energy, which I think are so important to a balanced energy 
plan. I wonder if the Senator from New Mexico would especially talk 
about conservation because I think that is a significant portion of any 
energy policy that would work in the long term for this country.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Well, I am glad to briefly describe again the main 
things we are trying to do in the conservation area and increased 
efficiency area. We are trying to increase efficiency in all aspects of 
how we use energy--in appliances, residential construction, commercial 
construction, and increased efficiency with the Federal Government and 
State governments and schools, school buses, automobiles, and SUVs, and 
the whole range of places where we use energy in our society, in our 
economy. We are trying to say we can be much more efficient in the use 
of energy we produce. There is a great opportunity there.
  When the President came out with his energy plan, and the Vice 
President came out with his plan, it had one statistic that was 
referred to repeatedly, and that is that we are going to have to build 
1,300 new power generation plants in the next 20 years. Well, that is 
not our analysis. We don't believe that is the case. We think if we 
take some prudent steps to improve efficiency in conservation, we 
clearly will need new generation in the next 20 years, but not anything 
like the new generation to which the Vice President has referred.
  So I think there is a great opportunity here. As the Senator from 
North Dakota says, we have tried very hard to balance the two--balance 
increased production with increased efficiency, and move us down the 
road in a way that is acceptable to the environment.
  Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from New Mexico, the chairman, will remember 
that at a hearing we held with the Department of Energy, I asked the 
Deputy Secretary what our goals and aspirations were for the next 25 
and 50 years, and what kind of energy plan do we have for 50 years from 
now? What do we aspire to do? What kind of national objectives do we 
have with respect to supply, and what kind of energy? The answer was, 
we are going to have to get back to you on that, because they don't 
have plans 25 and 50 years from now.
  The reason I asked the questions, the Senator will recall, is when we 
debate, for example, Social Security, everybody talks about what will 
the balance be in the account 30 years from now or 50 years from now. 
When we talk about energy, nobody is thinking ahead.
  That is the point of the bill that has been introduced today. I am 
proud to be a cosponsor of it. This bill says you have to have balance 
here and, yes, you have to produce more. But if that is all you do, is 
produce more natural gas, oil, and coal, then you are consigned to a 
policy that I call yesterday-forever. Yesterday-forever as an energy 
policy for this country is shortsighted and foolish. The legislation 
being introduced today under the leadership of the chairman of the 
committee is balanced. It includes production, yes, but significant 
conservation. Conserving a barrel of oil is the same as producing a 
barrel of oil, along with significant efficiencies and significant new 
emphasis on limitless energy and renewable energy.

  I drove a car on the grounds of this Capitol Building that was run by 
a fuel cell. There are new technologies, new approaches, new kinds of 
fuel that are limitless and renewable year after year that we also 
ought to embrace. Federal policy ought to be the lead in embracing that 
as a matter of public interest in this country.
  So let me again say to the Senator from New Mexico, it has been more 
than a decade since we have had a comprehensive policy change in energy 
in this country, one that is thoughtful and balanced and really 
provides initiative to move us in the direction that would be 
productive for this country. I think the Senator has provided 
leadership on a draft of something that is very comprehensive and 
remarkably refreshing, as compared to what the other body did. I think 
the other body is saying what we did yesterday, let's do more of 
tomorrow. That is not a very thoughtful policy. Let's do a lot of good 
things that work to move us in a new direction to meet our energy 
needs.
  Again, I asked if he would yield for a question, and I guess I could 
ask a question, but I did want to say to him that this is good policy. 
It is not the case that the long-term energy needs of this country will 
be served in a very comprehensive way if we are able to pass this bill 
as-is tonight. We won't do that. But does the Senator not believe that 
this will really advance this country's energy policy in a significant 
way?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Obviously, I believe it would advance the interests of 
the country in a very substantial way. I appreciate very much the 
comments of the Senator from North Dakota. Again, I want to just 
acknowledge and compliment him on the great contributions he made to 
the development of this legislation. We have many of his ideas that are 
central to this legislation.
  We look forward to the scrutiny by the rest of our colleagues in the 
Senate, and I hope very much when this bill comes up for consideration 
that we will have a good bipartisan vote in favor of it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see there are other Senators 
wishing to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, before the Senator from New Mexico 
leaves the floor, I wish to thank him for his leadership on the issue 
of energy policy for this Nation and thank him for the way he has 
worked with me and Senator Breaux representing Louisiana, which is a 
producing State but also a State that is very interested in alternative 
energy sources, particularly from agricultural products, which we think 
holds a lot of promise.
  Many of our universities are engaged in alternative fuel 
developments, as well as environmental cleanup. I thank the Senator 
particularly for his willingness to put in this bill significant 
authorization for the first time for $450 million for the seven 
producing States, much of that production being off our coastline. 
Because of current law, which has been in place for many years, as the 
Senator knows, Louisiana and other coastal States have been 
shortchanged because of the impacts that affect our States.
  We will be able to use this money to help restore our wetlands which 
we are losing at an alarming rate. It will help

[[Page S12432]]

us to provide the critical investments to protect our infrastructure--
our pipelines and other facilities--that not only helps Louisiana but 
supports the whole Nation, which the Senator from New Mexico mentioned.
  I thank the Senator on behalf of all the people of Louisiana and many 
people in the coastal parts of our Nation for his insight and 
leadership in including that provisions.
  I wanted to go on record this afternoon about this bill and to thank 
the Senator from New Mexico. There are a number of other good 
provisions in this bill.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, may I respond briefly to the comments? 
The Senator from Louisiana has been a tireless and very effective 
advocate for her State and for coastal regions generally in this 
regard.
  There are substantial impacts that oil and gas development in 
particular have had on those regions. We have tried in this legislation 
to include a provision at her urging that will help provide resources 
to deal with those impacts. I think it is good legislation. It will be 
good public policy.
  I thank her for her many other contributions to this legislation as 
well. She is a very valued member of our committee and has made great 
contributions to various provisions in the bill since the beginning of 
consideration of it. I thank her very much.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.


                        National Adoption Month

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I want to speak to the Senate for a 
few minutes on a different subject, but one that is equally important 
and deserves our attention and focus.
  I had hoped to get to the Chamber last week when it was actually 
November to speak about this subject because November is National 
Adoption Month. I want to spend a few minutes talking about what that 
means to us as a nation and what adoption has meant and continues to 
mean and will mean in the future to so many of our families in the 
United States and around the world.
  I also want to talk about all the great successes and celebrations 
for us to be proud in a bipartisan way. This truly has been one of the 
issues on which there is unanimous consent and a truly deep commitment 
on the part of both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.
  I want to spend a few minutes, even though it is December 5, because 
the schedule was so hectic in the last week, talking about what 
National Adoption Month means.
  Since 1993--so it has been almost 10 years--by Presidential 
proclamation, the 30 days in November have been declared to be a 
special recognition of National Adoption Month. During this month, 
communities, States, and local governments, not-for-profit 
organizations and adoptive families come together from the east coast, 
the west coast, the north, and the south to sponsor activities and 
events to help raise the awareness of the joys of adoption.
  My husband and I do not have to attend any of these events 
necessarily because we live with this joy every day. Our two children 
are adopted. They are now 4 and 9 years old. It has been the greatest 
joy of our life. I know the specific stories of hundreds of families. I 
have held these children in my arms. I have read to them. I have played 
with them. I have seen them in so many different settings and at so 
many different ages and in many different physical, emotional, and 
mental health states; some very healthy, other children with great 
challenges that God has given them who now have loving parents and the 
great opportunities these children now have in homes where they can be 
provided and cared for.
  We do not have to go far to these events, but I never tire speaking 
about it with our colleagues and sharing the importance of it and how 
proud we are of our success. We recommit our efforts in the month of 
November to make the way easier, to reduce the barriers that still 
exist, to recommit our energies to the fact that it should be a God-
given right, I believe, and one that we should support for every child 
to have a family.
  God did not create human beings to raise themselves. It just is not 
possible to do that. Every human being needs to be raised by another 
human being in a very loving and nurturing way.
  For many years, unfortunately, we have had this idea that governments 
can raise children. Governments cannot raise children; families raise 
children. Or that some children are damaged goods and they can just 
raise themselves. No child is damaged goods. Or that children in some 
way can wake themselves up in the morning even at 3, 4, 5 years old, 
get themselves dressed, get themselves off to school, feed themselves, 
care for themselves, protect themselves. It does not happen without a 
nurturing adult.
  Our idea is to talk about the fact that every child deserves a family 
on which they can count, a family with at least one loving adult, if 
not two, who will love them, nurture them, protect them, raise them, 
and give them the opportunities to which they are entitled. We 
recognize that while we have a lot of successes, we have a long way to 
go.

  Let me share just a few successes. Last year, in 2000, nearly 50,000 
children were adopted out of foster care, a record number. That success 
is built squarely on the shoulders of what President Clinton and Vice 
President Gore, and now what President Bush and Vice President Cheney, 
have committed, which is to help invest resources and help write 
policies and laws that promote adoption in this Nation.
  This represents a 78-percent increase over 1996. There are not many 
programs run by the Federal Government, the State governments, or, for 
that matter, private-sector initiatives or enterprises that can boast 
of a 78-percent increase. We are proud of our work at the Federal level 
working with our State governments and, in many instances, faith-based 
organizations and nonprofits promoting adoption.
  Second, because of the work this Senate did, we passed the first 
international treaty on adoption last year called the Hague Treaty, 
which is now being ratified and signed by many nations in the world. I 
specifically thank Senators Helms and Biden for their extraordinary 
leadership.
  While many of the children who are adopted in the United States are 
born in the United States and then come to families through a domestic 
system, a growing number of children are coming into this country from 
other countries, such as China, Russia, countries in South America, and 
countries in the Mideast.
  As this treaty is adopted and embraced by many countries, we are 
hoping the world--some developed nations, some underdeveloped nations, 
some nations that are Christian in their outlook, some that have other 
religious leanings--say with one voice: We believe the world community 
has a responsibility to see that every child in this world has a home. 
We wish that every child could stay with the parent to which they were 
born. That is our greatest hope. We wish we could fix every problem 
that a family has so those children can be raised in that home into 
which they were born.
  There are terrible circumstances. There is alcoholism, drug 
addiction. There is abuse and neglect and mental illness and war and 
famine that separate children from their birth parents. So we cannot 
leave those children. We cannot say to them: Raise yourself. We have to 
have international laws in place and policies in place that help to 
heal that, to give those children, if they cannot stay with their own 
parent, to be able to have some kind of family to call their own.
  I cannot imagine living without having a mother or a father, someone 
to pick up the phone, even at my age, at any age, to be able to not 
have someone you can rely on to give you a reference point and 
stability in your life.
  Without this Hague treaty we passed, there are millions and millions 
of children who will never find a home. Our great hope is this treaty 
will be implemented with all haste. The State Department is, 
unfortunately, quite busy with the war effort now, but as soon as it 
can give its attention, Secretary Powell has assured me he is going to 
provide the resources necessary to the State Department to get this new 
system set up. I think it would be welcomed around the world.
  The third success we have had, and on which we continue to work, is 
an adoption tax credit. If we can give tax credits to some major 
corporations in this world worth millions and hundreds of millions of 
dollars, we can most certainly provide tax credits to families

[[Page S12433]]

who are not wealthy, who live paycheck to paycheck, whose paychecks 
might be small but their hearts are large, who have loving homes and 
they want to take a child in.
  It is very expensive to raise a child. So the $10,000 tax credit we 
can give by doubling the current tax credit and making it permanent 
will say the Government believes if a private citizen or a family takes 
a child in through adoption, they are entitled to have some of those 
expenses written off and we thank them for the contribution they are 
making to that child's life and we thank them as taxpayers because the 
taxpayers have to pick up the tab for the raising of that child at 
higher rates of reimbursement, sometimes as much as $100 a day for 
emergency placement or extraordinary fees paid through government 
agencies. So we are saving ourselves money.
  The Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, was wonderful when he spoke about 
this. When I said the scoring mechanism made us say this tax credit 
would cost the taxpayers money, he and I entered into a colloquy and we 
rejected that notion, although technically we were not successful in 
that, by saying for every dollar we give out in a tax credit, it 
probably saves $10 to the taxpayer because these children come off the 
public roll, come into the loving arms of a family willing to spend the 
time and basically put sweat equity into the raising of this child, and 
we are forever grateful. Our tax credit is passed and we now need to 
make it work for foster care children.
  Additionally, the Presidential candidates in this last election, I 
think for the first time--in my lifetime for pretty certain, and maybe 
in the history of the country--made adoption a central component of 
their Presidential platform. So this issue is gaining in strength and 
is becoming part of the American psyche and conscience, and we are very 
grateful for that success.
  Secondly, while we are very excited and passionate about these 
successes, we also have a great challenge ahead of us. There are still 
today 570,000 children in foster care in the Nation, more than half a 
million children. These are children who have been taken away from 
their birth parents for many good reasons. Hopefully, many of them will 
return to their birth parents in an atmosphere of safety and security, 
but the parental rights of some of these children must be terminated 
because they are at risk, their life is at risk, unfortunately. There 
are about 130,000 of these children of all ages and shapes and sizes 
and colors who are waiting to be adopted today.

  I want to share in a couple of weeks from now that we are going to 
host a major national event in New Orleans. We are pleased to host this 
event. We are excited about hosting it. I am going to be there, along 
with my senior Senator from Louisiana, at the Super Bowl. We are going 
to be in a stadium. It is called the Dome Stadium. We are proud of it. 
It is one of the finest stadiums in America. Eighty-five thousand 
people can fit into this stadium, and there is going to be a record 
crowd for that event. There will probably even be a few people standing 
in the aisles.
  The only thing that would make it better is if the Saints were 
playing in the playoffs and the championship. Maybe that will happen. 
Anyway, this event is going to take place. When it does, I want people 
to hear this message and my colleagues to think about the fact there 
are more children waiting to be adopted in the United States than could 
fit in every seat in the Dome Stadium, in the aisles, and crowding 
around the concessions.
  So when my colleagues see that panoramic, beautiful view of the Dome 
Stadium, I want them to think about the fact that in every seat there 
could be a child saying: All I want is a mother or a father or a family 
to call my own. I am alone in the world. I need someone to help me.
  I want to show some pictures and tell some stories of two of these 
130,000 children. This is Joshua and Tiffany. They are twins. They are 
fraternal twins. They are 5 years old. They are beautiful children. 
They were born premature, as many millions of children are born 
premature, some extremely so. They have some developmental delays, but 
they are generally healthy children. Their favorite cartoons are Barney 
and Teletubbies. I understand 5-year-olds. I have Mary Shannon who 
watches not too much television but enough to know who Barney and 
Teletubbies are.
  They say in their bio their favorite snacks are cookies and they love 
ice cream, but what they really want is a mother and a father to adopt 
them. They are available for adoption. They would love a family. These 
children are born healthy and they would be two of the children sitting 
in those seats in the Dome Stadium. I hope somebody will want to take 
them in. The government has to do a better job of connecting these 
children to the waiting families who are out there, and I think we are 
on the track to do that.
  Let me show another picture. This is a precious little girl, as are 
these two. Her name is Cheyenne. She is from Louisiana. Cheyenne is 6 
years old. She was born in 1995. She is bright and charming. She wants 
to be part of a family. She has beautiful blue eyes. They say in her 
bio she is a little shy, but if I did not have parents, I might be a 
little shy, too, because it is your mother and your father who help you 
to learn how to communicate, learn how to talk to people.
  She enjoys active sports. She does not have a family. So if we could 
be a little more enthusiastic and committed to helping in terms of all 
the things we are doing, we can help Cheyenne find a family perhaps in 
Louisiana.
  I see my colleague from Arkansas who has done some beautiful work in 
this area, as well as my colleague from Virginia.
  If we can find a family for Cheyenne so she has somebody to count on 
and depend on, that is what this is all about.
  One of the things we are working on--and, again, there are 160 
members of our coalition on adoption; that number is growing--one of 
the projects we hope to have funded this year is an extension of what 
we call Faces of Adoption. It is an Internet site. Anyone can log on 
the Internet at www.adopt.org. This site is funded by the Government in 
partnership with all of our State agencies, with a nonprofit 
organization out of Philadelphia, the National Adoption Foundation, 
which has been sort of the lead nonprofit. I thank the President for 
putting money in his budget so by the year 2005, if we fund it, we will 
have pictures and information about every child waiting, like Cheyenne, 
like the twins, like the other children, some of whom are perfectly 
healthy, some of whom have challenges. There is not one who would not 
be wanted by some family in this country.
  I am very excited about new technologies that can help connect these 
children to families. We say there are no unwanted children, there are 
just unfound families. We should thank the Lord for the new 
technologies that enable us to tell these children's stories to 
families and to say that while everybody thinks they want to adopt an 
infant, and it is wonderful to adopt infants--and we did that in our 
situation--there are children of every age, every race, every 
background who could fit beautifully into a family.
  I want to share one of the other great successes with my colleagues. 
It is called Angels in Adoption. So many in the Senate, and I think so 
many of the people in my State and around the Nation, are angels 
because they do help to find homes for children and take children into 
their homes. We call them angels. I don't know if the camera can show 
my angel pin was designed by an artist in Louisiana, Mignon Faget. We 
give this pin to the Members of Congress and to our award winners in 
our States. I will talk about Angels in Adoption.
  We were scheduled to do this event on September 11. It was planned a 
year ahead of time. We had thousands of people in Washington that night 
for this event. We were going to present these awards to these people. 
I see my colleague from Idaho; he was going to be cohosting the event 
on September 11 with me. Of course, we know what happened on September 
11. I spend just a moment to say what would have been said that day, 
but events prevented going forward with the event.
  For the record, let me cite some of the people who would have 
received the angels award. The idea is for every Member of Congress to 
find one person in their district--it could be a parent who adopted a 
child; it could be a judge

[[Page S12434]]

who works overtime and gets into the office early or stays late or 
takes a couple of cases extra to help make sure that child gets the 
home they deserve; it could be a local attorney who does it pro bono 
but really believes in adoption so he or she gives their time; it could 
be a church that has taken this as a special mission in their 
community. The Members of Congress give out these awards I cite for the 
record.
  My award would have been given to Volunteers of America in north 
Louisiana, a nonprofit that has placed 2,500 children in homes in 
Louisiana and actually some in Arkansas and in our surrounding region. 
The reason I decided to give my award to the volunteers was that their 
board created a video which I saw. I was very moved. It was a story of 
a birth mother and father, a young couple who just were not quite 
ready, didn't have the resources or the maturity to raise a child. They 
made a courageous, selfless, and loving decision to give their child to 
a family who was desperately wanting a child, to provide a home. That 
video was so moving and would be such a good example for so many young 
people to see, I thought they should be given an award so we could 
distribute that video to communities around the country.

  Second, Representative Jim McCrery from Louisiana would have given 
his award to Lillie Gallagher who is an angel in the outfield in Baton 
Rouge, LA. She is director of St. Elizabeth's, a foundation that was 
created because an individual--a man--went on a retreat. He believes in 
prayer. God gave him a vision to create an agency. He did it with his 
own money and his friends. That agency, without government support, has 
helped place hundreds of children. Lillie contributes tremendously as 
the original founder and director of that agency. So she was presented 
an award. This is just an example.
  Senator John Breaux would have presented his award to Linda Woods, a 
birth mother and an adoption advocate in Louisiana. She has been active 
on many boards and commissions. Linda is an Angel in Adoption.
  And finally, one of my favorites, although it wasn't my award, was 
the award given by the Congressman from my State, Chris John from 
Lafayette, to Kaaren Hebert. I want to talk a minute about Kaaren 
because she is an angel whom I hope others emulate. Kaaren is a young 
woman. She works for the State of Louisiana. She is a government 
employee. She is fabulous. She worked in a small parish in Louisiana 
and was so recognized for her work that she was awarded and given a 
promotion to be a regional director. So she moved up to be the regional 
director in Lafayette, which is in south Louisiana. It is a beautiful 
city. About 250,000 to 350,000 people live in the region. Kaaren, under 
her leadership, had in 1997 35 adoptions in that region. In 1998, there 
were 43 completed adoptions. In 1999, there were 66 completed. Under 
her leadership, she has placed over 459 children out of the Louisiana 
foster care system into homes in Louisiana. Some of them were placed 
out of State.
  If every government worker did the job that Kaaren did--just 85 
percent of her work, not 100 percent--I would estimate there wouldn't 
be any children waiting in this country, if everyone were as 
conscientious and as gung ho and as wonderful as Kaaren. She most 
certainly deserved an award, and she got it, although not publicly 
because of what happened that day.
  I wanted to share a few of the angel stories. But there are 
remarkable stories from every place in the Nation. We hope the press 
will write about the stories so it will encourage other people to join 
in and help.
  Finally, several Saturdays ago was National Adoption Day. On that 
day, 1,000 adoptions were finalized in capitals all across the Nation 
because the judges and family courts have decided to come together and 
try to promote adoption on one day.
  Finally, I end by thanking my colleagues for their work, 
acknowledging my wonderful partner, Larry Craig, a Senator from Idaho, 
as we cochair the adoption caucus in the Senate, and I thank the 
Senator from Arkansas, the Senator from Virginia, and the Senator from 
Indiana for their good work and say as we celebrated Thanksgiving last 
week and as we celebrate Christmas, let us recommit ourselves to the 
idea that these celebrations aren't really worth having, if you think 
about it, if you don't have a family with whom to celebrate. Nothing, 
to me, would be sadder than to have no place to go on Thanksgiving or 
Christmas. I guess because I come from such a large and loving family, 
the thought of it is so alien to me, I cannot quite grasp it. But I 
know there are in this world millions of children who not only have no 
place to go on Thanksgiving and Christmas, but they have no place to go 
any day. They put themselves to bed and sleep at night by themselves. I 
hope we will remember them. Think about their pictures, like Cheyenne. 
Think about so many of them who just need our people and every 
government official in this Nation, at the Federal, State, and local 
level, to do more than we do, including myself. I recommit myself to do 
this work even harder during this next year.
  I thank my colleagues for their work in this area and I yield the 
remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I wish to commend my distinguished 
colleague from Louisiana. I have been privileged to serve here many 
years in the Senate. In the 23 years I have been here I do not know of 
a single Senator who has ever taken the depth of interest and time and 
commitment to this ever growing, important subject in our land.
  This is not politics. This is not partisanship. This is plainly, 
simply trying to help those who, for many reasons, are less fortunate 
than ourselves. I commend the distinguished colleague from Louisiana.
  Madam President, I would like to address the Senate briefly on the 
question of the agriculture bill. The distinguished Senator from 
Indiana is managing this bill from our side. He and I have been 
discussing an issue with regard to the peanut section of the bill.
  Throughout my career here in the Senate, I have worked with those 
Senators from the areas in which peanuts have been grown and hopefully 
will grow in the years to come. We have always been able to reach a 
meeting of the minds to try to provide, not a tremendous profit, but a 
reasonable profit for the arduous work of growing peanuts.
  In my lifetime I had the opportunity to own and operate several 
farms. In many years we had a small peanut patch. It is not easy to 
grow those peanuts. It requires a lot of manual labor. There is a 
constant battle with disease. Now we see a bill before the Senate, 
indeed one was before the House, which fractures the coalition of 
States that for so many years have joined together to ensure that our 
respective peanut growers have a fair share, an opportunity to have the 
benefits provided by law for those who toil in the most respected 
profession of agriculture.
  Somehow that fracture, in my judgment, seems to hurt Virginia very 
severely. Virginia prides itself in growing a specialty peanut. Small 
family farms in rural areas. I have always enjoyed traveling through 
those areas. You see the old silos, the old barns, in many parts of the 
State the old farm machinery. But they are very proud of their 
operations, whether it is a half acre or 500 acres--whatever it may be. 
Oftentimes, generations pass down to future generations the various 
plots of ground on which these peanuts have been grown through the 
years.
  We recognize that as things have changed in this country, more and 
more we try to establish agriculture on its own two feet, independent 
from subsidization. We have done our best to preserve the ability of 
these families to continue to raise peanuts.
  Virginia, again, grows a specialty peanut. There is not a Member of 
this Chamber who has not at sometime enjoyed that rather large peanut. 
It is anywhere from about three-eights an inch up to a little bigger 
than a half-inch. It is quite white after it is finally processed for 
consumption.
  By and large, the specialty peanut is served in dishes and bowls 
where it can be seen. It is such an excellent peanut. But it is costly 
to grow this peanut. It has such extraordinary quality it really is not 
economical, in many ways, for them to break it up and put it into candy 
and cover it with chocolate. Very little goes into peanut butter. 
Because of the quality and flavor, and indeed the visual aspects of 
this peanut are so wonderful that it is served on

[[Page S12435]]

the family table, particularly at festive times of the year. At 
Christmas, I would bet half the tables in America will have the 
quality-type peanut grown in this segment of our country, primarily 
Virginia, some in North Carolina, some in the other States.
  Farmers in Virginia are the ones who are, in terms of the numbers of 
farmers in it, perhaps the most concentrated in this specialty peanut. 
This legislation, unfortunately, leaves them behind--and I think 
unfairly. That is the principal thrust of my comments--fairness. I want 
to see that our farmers are treated as fair as the other peanut 
farmers, and that they get a fair return for this particular peanut.
  These rural areas are suffering from a loss of jobs. Young people are 
moving on to other areas of our State and elsewhere seeking jobs. If we 
do not correct this inequity with regard to the production of these 
specialty peanuts in Virginia, these rural areas are going to suffer an 
economic loss, one that on the horizon we do not see a recovery to 
provide the jobs that will be lost in this peanut industry if this bill 
is passed as it now stands goes through.
  The particular farm bill on which farmers all across our country are 
operating today does not expire until next September. Yet, for some 
reason, those who drew up this peanut provision said once the 
Presidential signature is affixed to this piece of legislation and it 
becomes the law of the land, the programs under which our peanut 
farmers have operated since the 1930s are gone. And such support as 
they receive, really what we call the no-net-cost-to-the-Federal-
taxpayer-program, is gone.
  At a minimum, it would seem you would allow the peanut farmers in 
Virginia and elsewhere to finish out this growing cycle, a cycle that 
started first with the decision of the various farmers not to go for 
another crop, go to their bank, make their commitments for financial 
resources, and begin to till the ground and put the necessary 
fertilizer and other nutrients in that soil to raise next year's crop. 
Now all of a sudden, bang--the program stops. That is not the type of 
fairness our Congress wants to inflict on this very small number of 
farmers.
  I will urge and continue to work with the managers of this bill in 
hopes that, at a minimum, we can have such effective date of the 
legislation to enable the farmers to continue this growing cycle under 
the existing farm bill until it expires next September.
  I thank my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Mr. 
Allen, who spoke on this earlier.
  I yield the floor.


                      COMMENDING SENATOR LANDRIEU

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, before I begin my remarks I would, as 
the distinguished Senator from Virginia did, compliment my colleague 
from Louisiana who has tirelessly involved herself with the issue of 
adoption, making it more acceptable, more reasonable, and easier to 
work through in this Nation. She has done a fabulous job. She has 
provided leadership and compassion in this area, and I have been 
delighted to work with her, to learn from her, and to share in the 
experiences that she can bring back to us in this body to help us, in 
this great Nation, improve the laws of the land that can reach out to 
the smallest of our constituents to make their quality of life just 
that much better, providing a loving home and the support they need.
  I wanted to compliment her on her work and encourage her as she has 
rededicated herself today. I, too, rededicate myself to the issue of 
adoption and working with our States and families across this Nation 
and other legislators to improve the approach this government takes on 
adoption, and to making it a much easier, simpler and encouraging 
process.
  Madam President, I rise today to add my voice to those in support of 
this year's farm bill, and to encourage my colleagues to join me in 
bringing this bill to the floor as quickly as we can.
  For the last 5 years, our farmers have worked to make ends meet under 
incredibly difficult circumstances. As prices for equipment, 
fertilizer, energy costs, and other inputs have skyrocketed, the 
returns have plummeted. Every year they have harvested their crops 
without knowing if they will be able to afford to plant another crop in 
the next growing season.
  When I was in the House of Representatives, I opposed the 1996 
Freedom to Farm bill because it did not provide adequate support for 
our farmers. It provided flexibility, and it provided policy--but 
policy that was dependent on other areas of government for which we did 
not have the wherewithal to provide the support.
  Since that bill passed, farmers in Arkansas and around the country 
have been in limbo every year waiting for Congress to pass emergency 
spending bills because the existing farm policy was absolutely 
inadequate. The United States has the safest, most abundant and 
affordable food supply in the entire world. But if we are going to 
ensure that safety and abundance, we must invest in our farmers and 
rural communities, and we must do it immediately.
  We desperately need a farm bill to provide a dependable safety net 
that ensures not only the financial viability of our farmers but also 
the viability of local bankers, merchants, and other rural and small 
town institutions that depend on a safe farm economy.
  We need a farm bill that will improve and stabilize farm income by 
continuing fixed income payments and creating a countercyclical income 
protection system.

  We need a farm bill that creates new conservation incentives and 
increases acreage for existing programs, such as the CRP, our 
Conservation Reserve Program; the WRP, the Wetlands Reserve Program; 
the Equip Program; and many other proven programs that allow us to take 
marginal lands out of production to use our own resources in our 
farming operations to be better stewards of the land, and to be more 
productive in our production.
  Rural communities across the Nation will see the benefits of a new 
farm bill.
  As we move forward, we need a farm bill that will spur rural 
development and expand broad-band access to our rural communities so 
they, too, can compete in this global economy, and so our producers can 
access the very Government programs that we want to provide them.
  As we have tried to minimize Government in bringing it down and 
making it more efficient, we are dependent on technology. Yet many of 
our rural communities can't access the very technologies we are 
expecting them to use for the programs that the Government provides 
their producers.
  We need to increase funding to land-grant colleges. And we 
desperately need to improve nutrition and food aid programs, energy 
conservation programs, and forestry initiatives.
  We need a comprehensive package for our farm economy and for rural 
America. We have produced a good, solid, comprehensive package out of 
the Senate Agriculture Committee.
  This past year, I begged my Senate colleagues to focus on our 
desperate need for new agriculture policy in this country.
  This past year, I have also urged my colleagues on the Senate 
Agriculture Committee to work hard together to deliver a new farm bill 
this year--something on which producers can depend, something with 
which they can go to the financial institution to ask them for the 
ability to put next year's crop in the ground.
  It is time for us to make that happen, and we can. In these few short 
days that we have left, we can bring about good, comprehensive, 
constructive agriculture policy that will help the producers of this 
country and that will allow them to continue to be the producers of the 
safest, most affordable and abundant food supply in the world.
  But it is going to take us coming together, working hard, and 
focusing on what we need to complete before we break for the holiday.
  I am proud to stand up today for American farmers. I am proud to 
stand up before my colleagues and beg them to come together and bring 
about a comprehensive policy that will allow the agricultural producers 
of my State and other States across this country once again to go back 
to doing what they do best; that is, producing that safe and abundant 
food supply in a way that they can be assured their Government is 
providing them the safety net they need to be competitive with other 
farmers, and particularly other governments across the globe.

[[Page S12436]]

  As we look at the export assistance numbers across the globe, we can 
see that the European Union is consuming about 80-plus percent of the 
export subsidies worldwide. Our farmers are not competing with other 
farmers. They are competing with other governments, and it is now time 
for our Government to stand and say we are going to provide the safety 
net, and we are going to provide the Government assistance in working 
with our agricultural producers so they, too, can be competitive.
  Today, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting a farm policy 
that works for working farmers--a farm policy that we can conference 
with the House and get a good, solid, comprehensive bill to the desk of 
the President so we can once again have good, solid, agricultural 
policy on behalf of the many hard working men and women on family farms 
today and across this Nation.

  Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Madam President.


                           Expiration of ATPA

  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I am here this evening with a tinge of 
sadness. At midnight last night, one of the most important and 
successful efforts in the United States to build better relations with 
our neighbors in Latin America expired. After 10 years of successful 
service to the United States and the four countries of the Andean 
region--Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, and Colombia--the Andean Trade 
Preference Act expired of its own accord last night, and the Congress 
has not allocated the time necessary for its extension.
  This landmark trade agreement, which was passed in 1991, has helped 
the United States and these four countries to develop legitimate, 
strong, expanding commercial ties, and it has contributed substantially 
to the goal of stabilizing the economies and political systems of these 
four countries by encouraging a diversification of their economies.
  To look backwards, in the last full year before the Andean Trade 
Preference Act was passed, the United States imported $12.7 billion 
from these four Andean countries, primarily in traditional agricultural 
commodities such as coffee and bananas.
  In the year 2000, the United States imported $28.5 billion from these 
countries--a 125-percent increase. Much of this increase was in new and 
frequently nontraditional areas of economic activity for these four 
countries.
  To mention one example, the cut-flower industry hardly existed in 
terms of its imports into the United States prior to the Andean Trade 
Preference Act. In 1991, the year before ATPA took effect, the United 
States imported $220 million in flowers from the four Andean countries. 
In the year 2000, the United States had more than doubled that amount 
to over $440 million worth in flowers.
  The flower industry is particularly important because it is a very 
strong job generator. I have been told that, on average, for every 
hectare of land that is committed to flower production in the Andean 
region, there are between 5 and 10 persons employed to work those 
flowers and to bring them into full blossom and ready to be exported 
not only to the United States but increasingly to the world.
  The United States has also been a significant direct beneficiary in 
that we have substantially increased our exports to the Andean region. 
Over the last 8 years, those exports have grown by 65 percent, to a 
total of $6.3 billion in 1999.
  As one visits the Andean region, they are struck by the prevalence of 
U.S. products--everything from the yellow diesel equipment, 
Caterpillar, to telecommunications equipment made in the United States.
  Given the clear value this program has had for the United States and 
our four neighbors in the Andean region, it is a sad commentary that 
after 10 years of success we have allowed this program to expire. It 
also ought to be a strong motivation for us to say we shall not 
conclude this session of Congress without extending this program and 
expanding the program so that it will yield even greater benefits to 
the United States and to our Andean neighbors.
  I filed legislation in the last Congress and again in this one which 
has that objective. I am pleased to report that the Senate Finance 
Committee, last week, reported favorably the legislation which will 
extend and expand the Andean Trade Preference Act. The House of 
Representatives has already adopted a similar piece of legislation. I 
hope in the next few days the Senate will do likewise, and we can move 
quickly to resolve differences between the two Houses and send this 
legislation on to the President to be signed.
  I also am very hopeful we will make this legislation retroactive to 
midnight of last night so there will not be a hiatus in the benefits 
which have been available for a decade.
  Why is all of this important to the United States beyond the amount 
of direct economic benefit? It is important to the United States 
because the United States has a stake in what happens in this region of 
the world--a region that is so close to us.
  If we are serious about halting the flow of illegal drugs into the 
United States, we must be concerned about the Andean region because 
over 80 percent of the cocaine that comes into the United States, and 
an increasing proportion of the heroin that comes into the United 
States, comes from this region. If we are interested in building strong 
democratic capitalist institutions, we should be concerned about this 
region.
  Colombia has had one of the longest democracies in South America. It 
has been a role model to other countries in the hemisphere. But 
Colombia, as well as its neighbors, has faced unusually stressful and 
challenging situations over the last decade. The Andean Trade 
Preference Act has been a source of stability in a region which has 
frequently been in turmoil. If we are steadfast in our war against 
terrorism, then we must be concerned with what is happening in the 
Andean region.

  Some of the most violent terrorists in the world are in our own 
hemisphere. The guerrillas and drug traffickers who are waging war on 
civil society in Colombia are some of the most vicious in the world. 
What many Americans fail to recognize is that the largest single source 
of terrorist attacks against Americans in the world is in the country 
of Colombia.
  In the year 2000, over 40 percent of the incidents of terrorist 
attacks against U.S. citizens and U.S. interests were in the country of 
Colombia. Unfortunately, that violence in Colombia is spilling over to 
its neighbors, especially Ecuador.
  I am concerned that we have already taken a step back from our 
commitment which the Congress made just a year ago through Plan 
Colombia, a commitment that was to galvanize the international 
community with Colombia in a major effort at rolling back drug 
trafficking, guerrillas, and terrorism. One year later, we in the 
Senate, by a 22-percent margin, have cut the funding for the Andean 
Regional Initiative.
  I hope before we vote on the foreign operations conference report the 
negotiations between the Senate and the House will result in a 
significant restoration of those funds not only because the dollars are 
needed in order to accomplish their important objectives but also 
because of the symbol that those dollars represent in terms of our 
commitment to a long-term war against terrorism.
  The Senate must act rapidly on this legislation so the people of this 
region will have confidence in our reliability as a neighbor and 
partner and that they will have incentives to develop legitimate 
economic alternatives to the production of drugs and other illicit 
activity.
  It has been estimated that in Colombia alone, if we were to be fully 
successful in our efforts to rid that country of the scourge of drug 
production and trafficking, some 400,000 Colombians would be without a 
livelihood. It is important that we be a partner not only in the 
eradication of drugs but also in the provision of legitimate, lawful 
employment to replace those 400,000 illicit jobs.
  I would point to the fact that the legislation I hope we will soon be 
considering is not just a replication of that which passed in 1991. 
There have been significant changes in the political and economic 
landscape of the Andean region since that initial enactment.
  To mention one of the most significant of those changes was last 
year's

[[Page S12437]]

passage by the Congress of the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act of 
2000. This was important to the Andean region because it changed the 
competitive playing field between the Andean region and the Caribbean 
Basin.
  The 2000 legislation--the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act--gave 
to the countries of Central America and the Caribbean, which 
participate in the Caribbean Basin Initiative, parity with the benefits 
that had earlier been offered to Mexico under the North American Free 
Trade Act. The effect of this has been to change the competitive 
position between the Caribbean Basin and the Andean Trade Pact.
  In one of the most critical areas, which is apparel assembly, today 
most apparel in the Caribbean Basin will come into the United States 
duty-free, while the Andean region will still be paying, on average, a 
14-percent duty for the same assembled items. There have been fears 
that that differential--zero from the Caribbean; 14 percent from the 
Andean region--could result in as much as 100,000 jobs lost in Colombia 
alone, lesser amounts in the other three Andean trade countries.
  That would go in exactly the opposite direction of what we should be 
doing in terms of encouraging more legitimate jobs in the region as an 
alternative to the licit jobs in the drug trade. We are seeing the 
effects of that 14-percent differential. In May and August of this 
year, imports of apparel from Andean trade countries declined 6 percent 
over the same period just a year ago. Through that same period, imports 
from the CBI countries have increased over $47 million. We are already 
beginning to see some relocation of industrial activity out of the 
Andean region into the Caribbean.
  I was the sponsor of the Caribbean Basin legislation in 2000 and have 
long been a supporter of our relations with that region of the world. 
We must not continue to help one region at the expense of the other. We 
must have a trade, economic, and foreign policy perspective that treats 
all of our neighbors with respect and equality.
  I would like to point out that there is not only a past and a future 
in the United States relationship with the Andean trade region, but 
there is also going to be a past, a present, and a future. That future 
is that it is critical that we prepare for the year 2005.
  What is the significance of the year 2005? The significance is that 
in the major area of job creation and promotion that we can influence 
in this region, which is primarily in the apparel assembly area, we are 
going to lose the protections we have had over the recent past.
  A little background: For much of the past several decades, there has 
been an international agreement called the multifiber agreement. That 
agreement has restricted the number of specific apparel items which any 
individual country can ship into the United States. Under that 
agreement, for instance, the country of China is limited as to the 
number of shirts and blouses and other items it can import. Those 
numbers are substantially below what its capacity to produce is.
  Because of that, the differential in the cost of production between 
Mexico and the Caribbean and the Andean region and the Far East has 
been kept within tolerable limits. The concern is that as soon as that 
multifiber agreement lapses, which will occur in the year 2005, there 
will be the potential that the United States will be swamped with 
apparel products from Asia with which our neighbors in Mexico and the 
Caribbean and the Andean region cannot compete.
  Therefore, the next few years are critical in our urgency of 
developing a more efficient and productive industry and a partnership 
between the U.S. textile capability, because virtually all of those 
assembled items are assembled from U.S.-grown fiber and U.S.-spun 
textiles, which are then assembled in either Mexico or the Caribbean or 
the Andean region. We must make that partnership of American textiles 
and near-neighbor assembly sufficiently efficient that it can survive 
in a post-2005 economic environment.
  We need to start that process as rapidly as possible in all areas. We 
have already done it with Mexico and the Caribbean. Now we must turn 
our attention to the Andean region.
  One final point: Our office is receiving calls from a wide variety of 
businesses, both in the United States and in Latin America, complaining 
that they will be subject to increased duties starting today, December 
5. Many of these companies deal with perishable goods, including cut 
flowers and vegetables, that cannot be held for days or weeks while 
Congress deliberates.
  I would like to make it clear again that it is my intention and hope 
to work to assure that the current ATPA benefits will be retroactive 
from the date of enactment of any legislation to midnight of last 
night. That would mean that any duties collected in the coming days by 
the Customs Service would be refundable.

  We recognize that the confusion and inconvenience this situation will 
create will result in some dislocations and some abrasions between our 
country and these four good neighbors. I wish it could have been 
avoided. What we can do today is commit that we will make this period 
as short as possible and we will make it as painless as possible to all 
involved.
  The old cliche is ``trade, not aid.'' That is not a cliche but a 
truth that has worked in the Andean region to our benefit and to the 
benefit of our four neighboring countries. The United States has been a 
powerful beacon for open markets and strong free trade and a capitalist 
economic system as a fundamental foundation under democracies. Now it 
is our challenge to rebuild that foundation in a deeper and expanded 
form for our relationship with these four neighbors in the Andean 
region. I hope we will get about that business of foundation building 
as soon as possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I appreciate very much the words of the 
distinguished Senator from Florida. I share his feelings completely. We 
had the privilege in the Foreign Relations Committee of having a 
meeting with the President of Bolivia just this morning. President 
Ramirez is in Washington to meet with President Bush tomorrow.
  Obviously, the President of Bolivia, an extraordinarily talented 
person, a great leader in South America, expressed very considerable 
anxiety over the end of the Andean free trade situation. Bolivia has 
taken extraordinary steps against the drug trade at great cost but with 
great effectiveness. Our foreign policy really depends upon the support 
of extraordinary leaders such as the President of Bolivia.
  The words of the Senator from Florida are timely, and his leadership 
on this issue really has been exemplary. I congratulate him and look 
forward to working with him.
  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.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Health Care and New York Disaster Needs

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity and thank 
the distinguished ranking member on the Agriculture Committee for the 
chance to come to the floor and speak about a matter of great concern 
and urgency to my State. I also commend the Senator from Indiana and 
the chairman of the Agriculture Committee for their very hard and 
diligent work on the bill we are considering.
  I turn our attention, as I have on numerous occasions over the past 
weeks, to the situation in the State of New York following the attacks 
on September 11 and the extraordinary damage inflicted on the 
infrastructure, on the economy, and most especially on the lives of New 
Yorkers.
  I commend Senator Byrd and the Appropriations Committee for the 
extraordinary job they have done in marking up the fiscal year 2002 
Defense appropriations bill which addresses not only the pressing 
national security and defense needs of our Nation but also marks a 
significant step forward in addressing our homeland defense needs, as 
well as the specific needs related to the cleanup, rebuilding, and 
revitalization of the city of New York.
  Just days after the horrific attack on September 11, just over 12 
weeks ago, President Bush told a joint session of Congress: We will 
rebuild New York

[[Page S12438]]

City. The President's Budget Director weeks later said: The President's 
pledge of $20 billion is an absolute guarantee, and it is likely to be 
more.
  We have collected quotations from other leaders. It is very 
gratifying to me that Senator Byrd and the Appropriations Committee 
have moved forward to fulfill the promises and commitments made to the 
people of New York. I personally thank and commend Senator Byrd for 
balancing the needs of our country with the need to be prepared in the 
face of terrorism, to rebuild the financial capital of the world, New 
York City, and to be fiscally responsible--understanding if we don't 
get our economy going, if we don't proceed, it will cost more later. I 
also thank the Appropriations Committee staff, especially Terry Sauvain 
and Chuck Kieffer and Paul Carliner on Senator Mikulski's staff who 
have given my staff and myself so much assistance in the weeks since 
September 11.
  The bill reported out of committee is just the first step. As we go 
to the floor, which could be as early as tomorrow, I hope my colleagues 
understand and appreciate we are fighting a war on two fronts. We have 
to fully fund the important defense needs of our Nation, and we have to 
fully fund, beginning with the Appropriations recommendations, the 
homeland security needs and New York City's needs.
  I will speak today particularly about the health care needs of New 
Yorkers and Americans in the aftermath of this disaster. The essential 
services that hospitals and health care workers provided throughout the 
World Trade Center disaster demonstrate how much we depend upon our 
health care system all the time, but particularly in a time of need. 
New York's hospitals and hospital workers pitched in heroically during 
the emergency, not only on the day of September 11 but on the days and 
weeks following. They worked around the clock. They operated on backup 
power systems, without phones and other utilities. Health care workers 
jeopardized their own lives to be at their stations. Hospital personnel 
provided supportive services to community members and hospitals that 
were right there at ground zero. St. Vincent's and NYU Downtown not 
only cared for the injured but provided meals for rescue workers, took 
meals to elderly residents who were trapped in their apartments. They 
served as the backbone of the care and support system we relied on 
during this crisis while suffering their own structural damage. NYU, 
for example, lost its data center, and therefore its billing capacity. 
In effect, that was a fitting metaphor for how these hospitals 
operated: According to their mission, not their bottom line. They did 
not begrudge the costs of clearing hospital beds. They did not count 
the costs of bringing staff in on highest alert on overtime pay. They 
did not stand at the door of the emergency room asking to see people's 
insurance cards and sending them to a line to get their applications 
filled out.

  They incurred security expenses. They depleted stockpiles of 
emergency supplies, pharmaceuticals, and blood. They provided disaster 
counseling services as well as emergency food, housing, and 
transportation. They also incurred expenses on emergency 
telecommunications and backup generators. When they ran out, they had 
to purchase and rent equipment. They had to set up an emergency morgue. 
They incurred so many extraordinary costs, and it is in part to 
alleviate some of those costs that we have a special provision in the 
appropriations for hospital costs that were incurred during this 
disaster.
  But the disaster has had a devastating impact, not only on providers 
but on health coverage as well. One of the most unfortunate 
consequences of the disaster, combined with the economic downturn, has 
been the impact on workers. Many workers in New York City saw their 
jobs just vanish in the rubble of the collapsed towers. Thousands more 
throughout the city and State lost their jobs because of the 
aftershocks of the disaster. Then it spread out around our country.
  The unemployment rate nationally has gone up half of 1 percent--
faster in 1 month than at any point in the last 20 years. In New York 
City, of course, the problem is exacerbated. In the span of 1 month, 
unemployment rose 1.3 percent, more than twice the national rate.
  This is a picture of a recent job fair. Here you see people 
scrambling for their livelihoods, for their families' economic 
survival, but with limited opportunities in a recessionary economy.
  The headline from the San Antonio Express News, October 18:

       New York job fair sends thousands away; Arena isn't big 
     enough for crowd.

  The New York Department of Labor has estimated that 250,000 New 
Yorkers will be out of work by year's end. Based on what we know about 
the rates of health insurance among the jobless, the majority will lose 
their health insurance.
  While some may be able to rely on Medicaid, estimates show that 
100,000 of these displaced workers will end up uninsured. This is true 
across the country. We know that more than two out of five Americans 
who lose their jobs lose health care as well. That inflicts a double 
blow. It is my hope that in the coming days we can address some of 
these pressing economic and health care needs, not only for New Yorkers 
but for all Americans, first through supplemental appropriations, then 
through the stimulus package.
  The proposed Senate economic stimulus package reported to the Senate 
floor would provide additional help for displaced workers who are 
eligible for COBRA continuation but cannot afford to use up over half 
of their unemployment check each month just for health insurance. The 
proposal would cover 75 percent of the cost of COBRA, making it 
affordable for far more unemployed families. This would mean we would 
see that approximately 457,000 temporary unemployed workers and their 
families would be covered. Currently the COBRA premiums, which average 
over $7,700 for families in New York, are unaffordable without some 
additional help.
  But we also know that many workers in small businesses are not COBRA 
eligible. In New York, 25 percent of workers are employed by small 
businesses not covered by COBRA. The stimulus proposal addresses that 
gap by offering health coverage through a temporary State Medicaid 
option with an enhanced match to encourage States to provide the 
coverage.

  We will see not only an effect on individuals and their families but 
also on State budgets. States expect to see an additional 4 million 
individuals added to their Medicaid rolls. The number of children on 
Medicaid could rise as much as 11.3 percent.
  Here you see on this chart the steady growth in Medicaid enrollments 
as unemployment rates grow. At a time when States are already reeling 
from reduced revenues, many of our States will not have the resources 
to meet this increased need. We already have heard troubling stories 
from our States. Tennessee is proposing to eliminate coverage for 
180,000 Medicaid beneficiaries. Washington is considering cuts of 10 
percent to 15 percent. California is talking about budget cuts of up to 
$1 billion in Medicaid. Florida may eliminate coverage of adults with 
catastrophic health care costs. And Indiana has appropriated $140 
million less than is projected will be needed for Medicaid in that 
State alone.
  So just when we have unemployment going up, revenues going down, many 
more people being thrown into the ranks of the unemployed, unable to 
keep their insurance, when we have 2.6 million more children having to 
rely on this safety net program, the States are in an impossible 
position, and it is a vicious circle because if they cannot provide at 
least some Medicaid funding, many hospitals will be forced to provide 
services the best they can, increasing their costs which will not be 
reimbursed. And we are into that vicious cycle where uncompensated 
costs create downward pressures on institutions such as hospitals that 
have to cut services even for the insured and have to turn away the 
uninsured.
  Many States are going to be in that difficult position. I hope we are 
going to provide at least some temporary support through increased 
matching funds to help Governors be able to deal with the increasing 
health care costs.
  I know in the State of New York we came up with a quite creative 
approach by creating something called the Disaster Relief Medicaid 
Program. It cut through all the bureaucratic redtape, cut the 
application process which

[[Page S12439]]

many of us have been complaining about for years--cut it down to one 
page, allowed many needy people to skip over all those bureaucratic 
hurdles to be able to be eligible for Medicaid. It has been a lifesaver 
for a lot of our New York families.
  We will not be able to continue that without some additional help. I 
think, actually, this program is a very good model we ought to look at 
in the future when we try to think of some permanent ways to provide 
more Medicaid assistance. But certainly this streamlined post-crisis 
process really did a tremendous job filling a breach that would have 
otherwise caused a tremendous amount of backlog and uninsured people 
not being given the health care they deserve to have.
  Yesterday, Congressman Peter King from New York, along with some 
House colleagues, introduced legislation on the House side to hold 
States harmless if they were slated for what is called an FMAP 
decrease--in other words, the match they get from the Federal 
Government--and provide an additional two point increase to all States, 
with an additional 2.5 percent available to States with unemployment 
rates higher than the average across States nationwide.
  I think this is a good short-term solution. It is also a good 
stimulus, if you can get money into the hands of people who need to 
spend it, as people who have health care needs have to spend it. But it 
is the right thing to do as well.
  I urge my colleagues to support the kind of cobbled together approach 
that would give COBRA premium subsidies, would provide an increase in 
the FMAP, at least temporarily, to help out our States that are facing 
such revenue shortfalls, provide a Medicaid option for non-COBRA-
eligible workers which will be not only important for our States and 
for our economy and our health care system but absolutely essential to 
so many of the workers who, since September 11, have been not only out 
of work but out of health insurance as well.
  I thank my colleague, the ranking member of the Agriculture 
Committee, for his indulgence, in being able to address this critical 
issue that will come before us sometime in the next few days. I 
appreciate greatly the attention that can be paid to making sure we 
provide the kind of health care support that is needed at this time.
  I yield the floor and 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.

                          ____________________