[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 172 (Wednesday, December 12, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12989-S12996]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION, AND RURAL ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2001.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 1731, which the clerk will
report.N O T I C E
Effective January 1, 2002, the subscription price of the
Congressional Record will be $422 per year or $211 for six months.
Individual issues may be purchased for $5.00 per copy. The cost for
the microfiche edition will remain $141 per year with single copies
remaining $1.50 per issue. This price increase is necessary based
upon the cost of printing and distribution.
Michael F. DiMario, Public
Printer
[[Page S12990]]
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1731) to strengthen the safety net for
agricultural producers, to enhance resource conservation and
rural development, to provide for farm credit, agricultural
research, nutrition, and related programs, to ensure
consumers abundant food and fiber, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Daschle (for Harkin) Amendment No. 2471, in the nature of a
substitute.
Lugar/Domenici Amendment No. 2473 (to Amendment No. 2471),
of a perfecting nature.
Amendment No. 2473
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will now be 50 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled on the
Lugar amendment, No. 2473.
The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I yield to myself the time I may require.
Being mindful there are others who may wish to speak on my amendment
but seeing none for the moment, let me review the amendment for the
benefit of Senators who, perhaps, followed the debate yesterday.
I have offered an amendment which, in essence, changes substantially
the ways in which farm families are supported in the United States of
America. I have moved to a concept of a safety net in which,
essentially, each farm family--regardless of the State, regardless of
what products or farm animals or timber or what have you which comes
from that farm--has equal standing. I think that amendment ought to be
appealing to most States.
As I cited yesterday, just 6 States of the 50 receive about half of
the payments under the current system. That would be concentrated
further in the bill that now lies before us. That concentration really
occurs regardless of State, although many States receive very few
benefits at all. If, in fact, 6 States receive about half, the 44
divide the rest and, as I cited yesterday, many States have fewer than
10 percent of their farm families who participate in these payments at
all.
I make that point again because I suspect it is not apparent to many
Senators, to many people in the public as a whole, who believe we are
talking today about the totality of agriculture in our country, farm
families of all sizes. Much is said about small farm families, those
who are in stress, in danger of losing their farms.
Without being disrespectful of anyone's views on these subjects, I
pointed out these small family farms are not likely to gain much
sustenance from the subsidies that are being suggested presently. Let
me cite, without getting into anyone else's backyard, the situation in
the State of Indiana.
The current program targets 16 percent of the payments in Indiana to
1 percent of the farms--1,007 farms. In fact, it becomes equally
apparent at the top 2 percent, which gets 26 percent, a quarter of all
the farms. By the time you get to the top 10 percent, which now
includes 10,000 farms out of roughly 100,000 that received payments
from 1996 to 2000, the top 10 percent receive 66 percent of all of the
money.
Any way you look at it, the reasons for this are perfectly clear.
Essentially, the payments are made on the basis of acreage and yield.
Those farmers who are strongest make use of research; they make use of
marketing techniques. They, in fact, have costs that are less than the
floor, so there are incentives to produce more each time we come along
with another farm bill. And that will be the case again. Therefore, the
gist of my amendment is we must change.
The distinguished chairman of the committee, as he responded last
evening, said the Lugar amendment contemplates so much change it will
be shocking to country bankers; it will be shocking to farmers
generally. When you knock the props out of all kinds of layers of
programs that have been built up year after year, one subsidy on top of
another, even if it only touched 40 percent of farm families generally
with 60 percent not touched at all, certainly there will be an impact
on the 40 percent.
My point is the 40 percent overstates it. The real impact will be
upon the 1's, the 2's, the very top numbers in terms of people who have
very large enterprises. I think that is not the will of the Senate. But
the effect of the policies has been this, as detailed State by State by
the Environmental Working Group Web site. Any Senator, prior to a vote
on this amendment, can go to that Web site and find out, person by
person, every farm that has received subsidies during the last 5-year
period that is covered, plus the summary I have cited.
The change I am suggesting is one that is still a generous amount of
taxpayer money. Yesterday Investor Daily editorialized about the debate
we are having and commended my bill as the best of the lot but
suggested it is still a lot of money from some taxpayers in America to
farmers. Indeed, it is to the extent that I am suggesting a farmer
receive a voucher worth 6 percent of all that he or she produces on the
farm and that it not be simply curtailed to wheat, corn, cotton, rice,
and soybeans but to livestock, to fruits and vegetables, to wool, to
whatever comes from that entity--all things added up on the Federal tax
return that arrive at a total farm revenue picture.
I used the hypothetical farmer yesterday who received, say, $100,000
of total receipts from all sources getting a voucher for $6,000, enough
to pay for a full farm insurance policy that guarantees 80 percent of
the revenue based on the last 5 years.
There are very few businesses, if any, in America that could purchase
this kind of revenue assurance that would guarantee--given the ups and
downs of our economy--at least 80 percent of the revenue would be
available come hell or high water, including bad weather, bad trade
policies, and whatever. This $6,000 voucher would not be paid for by
the farmer. It is by virtue of the production indicated on the tax
returns that he or she submits. It is possible, because we already have
a generous crop insurance program as I pointed out that undergirds
agriculture now, that not all farmers will take advantage of that,
which is too bad. The educational process must continue so farmers
understand how much insurance and assurance they could obtain under
current legislation.
My point is, we ought to be providing a safety net that has equality
for all States, all crops, all conditions, and all sizes of farms and
that genuinely meet the needs of a safety net as opposed to a haphazard
disaster relief bill here or there on the appropriations of
agriculture, and the perennial summer debates about supplemental
assistance, that somehow there are shortfalls, even though this year we
are having a record net income for all of agriculture--$61 billion. It
has never been higher.
Yet this debate proceeds as if the totality of American agriculture
were in crisis. The 10-year bill suggested by the House of
Representatives suggests the crisis inevitably goes on for 10 years
adding one subsidy on top of another throughout that period of time.
That is what my amendment tries to stop. I appreciate that for many
Senators the problem of explaining all of this to their constituents
may be difficult. The easier course may be simply to say: I did my best
for you.
As I witnessed the debate thus far, I have an impression that many
Senators have come into that mode as they approach the distinguished
chairman of the committee, or me, or other Members who have been
involved in the debate. The question is not that overlayers of
subsidies on top of subsidies is good for the country, good for farmers
generally, good for the deficit, or good for whatever. The question is,
what is in this bill for me, or my farmers, or the political support I
can gain from the person to whom I can write that I was in there
fighting for the last dollar for you.
I must admit that the bill which has been laid down before us by the
Agriculture Committee has a lot of money in it. The disillusionment
will come that 60 percent of farmers will find there is nothing in the
bill for them--nothing. I hope they understand that before we conclude
the debate.
In my State of Indiana, two-thirds of the farmers will find out very
rapidly that there was very little left for them after the top 10
percent took the money. That will come as a disillusion, perhaps. But
hope springs eternal, perhaps. A trickle-down theory might occur even
in farm subsidy bills.
Let me point out that there is an opportunity here for both a safety
net for farmers and finally a turnaround from a policy that came in a
long time ago with deep origins in the row crops coming out of the
Depression but less and
[[Page S12991]]
less relevant to the actualities of farming in America today and what
people actually do.
The 2 million farms that are listed by the census in most cases do
not have active farmers on the farm. The most rapidly rising source of
new farms in the country are persons who are professionals, doctors,
lawyers, teachers, and others who purchase 50 acres, or sometimes more
within a reasonable driving distance of their urban offices, or
locations, because they like some space. If they produce on that entity
of 50 acreas or 100 or whatever the acreage may be, at least $20,000 in
sales of anything agricultural, they are classified under USDA
standards as a farmer. So the 2 million are made up principally of
persons who gain some income from the farm.
The only persons who gain the bulk of their income from the farm are
commercial farmers in America. Most of them have 1,000 acres or more.
They comprise roughly 10 percent to 15 percent of all of the entities.
Even on those farms it is usual that one member of the family has a day
job in the city or somewhere else.
That is the nature of the business. I mention this because, in an
attempt to have a comprehensive farm bill, it is virtually impossible
to target and to find 2 million people. I think my bill does this the
best because it simply says whether you produce $20,000, and you are in
fact a lawyer, you still qualify as a farm so that there is at least
something more than a casual interest in the farm. If you have $20,000
in sales of any sort, you are eligible for the 6 percent voucher.
My bill is not excessively generous as you rise in income because
after the first $250,000 total revenue the voucher percentage drops to
4 percent to the next $250,000. After $500,000 to $1 million in
revenue, it is 1 percent. Then sales on your farm over $1 million would
not have the voucher. Thus, there is a limit effectively of about
$30,000 for a farm family coming from this program.
The distribution to all farm families in America in all States means
that the money that is finally provided in my bill is spread even over
a 10-year stretch. We are talking about a 5-year bill. Because many of
these bills have been scored for 10, it is still less than the bill
before us. But the cost of my bill in the 5 years we are talking about
is dramatically less in large part because, although a lot of money is
going to all the farm families at the rate of 6 percent of everything
they are doing, essentially we are winding up the target prices, the
loans, and the other subsidies on top of another. Therefore, as you
subtract those savings, OMB has scored this 5-year experience in the
commodity section of the Lugar bill of only $5 billion as opposed to,
as I recall, the $27 billion for 5 years in the bill before us now.
That is substantial money.
Let me point out that in addition there are some important aspects in
the second section of my bill. The distinguished chairman of the
committee, as he responded yesterday, pointed out that the committee
bill has much more generous provisions for the nutrition section. I
applaud that. I worked with the chairman to make certain we had very
strong bipartisan support for doing more in the food stamp area, in the
WIC Program, in the School Lunch Program, and in the feeding of people
wherever they may be in America.
But there is a difference between the two bills--my bill,
essentially, is the amendment before the Senate now--with some of the
savings that come from this remarkable difference between $5 billion
for commodities in my bill and $27 billion in Senator Harkin's bill. My
bill provides $3.7 billion for nutrition in the first 5 years and the
Harkin substitute $1.6 billion. That is a substantial difference.
Yesterday, I detailed the extraordinary efforts of hunger groups
throughout our country, of advocates not only for the poor but for
better nutrition, of people involved in the School Lunch Program who
regularly testified before our committee, as well as those who have
been advocates for full coverage of the Women, Infants, and Children
Program--the WIC Program--to fulfill those objectives.
My bill allocates $3.7 billion in the next 5 years. If it were scored
over 10 years, it would be up to $11.9 billion. The Harkin substitute
has $1.6 billion in the first 5 years, scoring $5.6 billion in the 10-
year period, with less than half the nutrition impact. That is not by
chance.
For Senators who believe one of the major points of a farm bill that
comes from Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry ought to be the feeding
of all Americans, in addition to targeted benefits for very few
Americans on the production side, I hope they will find my amendment
appealing. It was meant to be that way. The priorities are significant.
For the moment, Madam President, I will yield the floor so I will
have a few moments, perhaps, at the end of the debate to refresh
memories of Senators who may not have heard all of this presentation
today and may be preparing for their votes.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time in
the quorum call I am about to propound be charged equally against the
two sides.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, as I understand, again, for the benefit
of all Senators, we are under an hour of debate evenly divided on the
Lugar amendment regarding nutrition with a vote to occur at 10:30; is
that correct?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there is
to be a 50-minute debate equally divided and controlled with the vote
to occur at 10:25.
Mr. HARKIN. I understand I must have about 25 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
Madam President, now that we have had some opportunity over the
evening to look at Senator Lugar's proposed nutrition title, I would
like to discuss a little bit of the difference between his approach and
the approach we came out of the committee with, again, keeping in mind
that our nutrition title did come out of committee, if I am not
mistaken, on a unanimous vote on that title.
Again, like so many other things that have come through any
legislative process here, but especially on agriculture, I am sure
there were things we might have wanted to do differently in one way or
the other. Would we like to put more money in nutrition? Yes. But then
we have to balance it with everything else we have. So we tried to come
out with a balanced bill, as I said yesterday.
I really believe my colleague's amendment would upset that balance
greatly. And even though we might want to do more for nutrition, I
believe we have met our responsibilities for nutrition in this bill to
meet the nutritional needs of our people. I will go through that
shortly.
I did want to correct one thing. I believe my colleague and friend
said that on nutrition our spending over 5 years is $1.6 billion. Our
data shows that our outlays for 5 years are $2.2 billion. I just wanted
to make that correction. I think his is $3.7 billion and we are at $2.2
billion. I do know his outlays are more than ours; at least I believe
his budget authority is $3.7 billion. I do not know what the outlays
are for 5 years, and perhaps Senator Lugar could enlighten us on that.
But I just want to talk about some of the differences and some of the
potential problem areas I see in the title proposed by Senator Lugar.
I think we have all agreed that the outreach for the Food Stamp
Program
[[Page S12992]]
is vitally important to make sure that eligible people understand they
can participate and to get them to participate. In the past, this has
really been a problem. So we put provisions in our bill that would
provide for more outreach to go out and make people understand they are
eligible for food stamps. That, I believe, is lacking in the Lugar
proposal.
Again, this is one area where, if you look at the amount of money we
have for nutrition, you have to understand that food stamps are an
entitlement; that if the economy goes down, if people are out of work,
if they qualify, they get food stamps. That is not included in our
bill. That is just an entitlement. What is important is whether or not
people know they can get food stamps, whether or not they know they are
eligible, and the outreach programs that will bring people into the
Food Stamp Program. That is where I believe we have met that
obligation. The Lugar proposal does not. It is important to go out and
get people to understand they are eligible for the Food Stamp Program.
So we included a number of provisions to make sure that information
about the Food Stamp Program and the applications are made available to
eligible people who are not now participating in the program.
We also include pilot programs, testing different ways to go out and
reach people. Those pilot programs are not in the Lugar proposal.
The committee bill also includes provisions that will help able-
bodied adults without dependents--subject to time limits under the Food
Stamp Program rules--to find jobs. For example, the committee bill
allows a rigorous job search activity to count as a work requirement
for able-bodied people without dependents. Quite frankly, if people are
making an honest effort to find work, if they are in an approved job
search program, why should they be penalized? They should be eligible.
We have that in our bill. That is not in the Lugar proposal.
In our bill we have also designated funds specifically for employment
and training activities for this very group of people. While States
should have flexibility to use their employment and training funding as
they see fit, they should be able to draw upon a special reserve for
people who are subject to a time limit. If there is a time limit, they
ought to be able to have some leeway for employment and training
activities. Again, we have that in our bill. That is not in the Lugar
proposal.
Our bill also acknowledges that people who participate in employment
and training activities have certain additional expenses, such as
transportation. If they are looking for a job--let's say they are in a
training activity. They may have to go clear across town or across the
city to this training activity. That costs money. We increase the
amount of money available to States to help defray those costs. That is
in our bill. That is not in the Lugar proposal.
Another key difference between what is in the committee-passed bill
and Senator Lugar's proposal is that we include a substantial commodity
purchase of $780 million over 5 years. At least $50 million of that
will go to purchase fruits and vegetables for the School Lunch Program.
At least $40 million a year must be used to purchase commodities for
the TEFAP Program--The Emergency Food Assistance Program. Again,
Senator Lugar's proposal only provides funding for TEFAP commodities,
not for the School Lunch Program. Again, if we are talking about low-
income families on food stamps who need nutritional help, it is their
kids who are in school who get the free meals--free or reduced-price
meals; mostly free in this case. So we provide money in the bill to go
out and buy apples and to buy oranges and to buy other fruits and other
vegetables for the School Lunch Program to meet the free and reduced-
price School Lunch Program for these needy kids. That is not in the
Lugar proposal. We provide $40 million for the TEFAP Program; Senator
Lugar provides $30 million, $10 million less.
We also included a pilot program. This may seem insignificant, but I
don't think so. We included a pilot program to test in public schools
in four States to see whether or not distributing free fruits and
vegetables is beneficial and whether students would take advantage of
that. In other words, the idea is, if a student is in a public school,
rather than going to the vending machine and putting in their 75 cents
or a dollar now and getting a candy bar or something like that--usually
in the vending machines there is candy, and then down at the bottom
there is usually an apple at the same price--the kid is not going to
buy the apple.
Let's say you provided in the school lunchroom free apples, free
oranges. Let's say a student has a hunger pain. They can go to that
vending machine and put in their $1 or 75 cents or they can go to the
lunchroom and pick up a free apple. We provide for that pilot program
in four States. That is not in the Lugar proposal. This would also be a
proposal beneficial to our fruit and vegetable growers. Certain
vegetables we are talking about--carrots, broccoli, whatever, celery,
different things such as that--that kids could get free under this
pilot program, it is not included in the Lugar proposal.
We also in our bill include a provision to strengthen nutrition
education efforts in the Food Stamp Program. A lot of people in the
Food Stamp Program use their food stamps and they buy Twinkies and
potato chips and fat-filled kinds of food. It may not be very
nutritious. We need more nutrition education in the Food Stamp Program.
We include a provision to strengthen that. I do not believe that is in
the Lugar proposal.
There is one other point I want to make, and that is in terms of
whether or not people who are in certain programs, who rely on certain
programs for noncash assistance, such as the Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families--if you are getting child care and things such as that,
if you are in that category, basically we are saying you should be
eligible for the Food Stamp Program. You should not have to go back and
qualify for this, qualify for that, and go through all the redtape.
Senator Lugar includes a provision that would have the effect of making
people who rely on this noncash assistance ineligible for the Food
Stamp Program. Again, a lot of times these people use the Food Stamp
Program as a boost to help get back on the road to self-sufficiency.
Last year we worked to give States the option of liberalizing the
food stamp vehicle. A number of States have already done this. They
have changed their policies on the value of a car you can have. I
wonder if it is going a bit far, as Senator Lugar does, to require that
all States exclude all vehicles from consideration in determining food
stamp eligibility. We want to liberalize it. I think my State is way
too low. When you have a State that says you can only have a car worth
$3,500, these are the people who need transportation to go back and
forth to work. That is the kind of car that breaks down all the time.
These rules ought to be raised. Some States are much higher.
I stand to be corrected, but I think Utah, for example, is several
thousand--maybe more than that--higher in an automobile. It just makes
sense to allow a person to have a decent car that doesn't break down
all the time.
Senator Lugar says we will require all the States to exclude all
vehicles, as I read the amendment. I could be corrected on that, but
that is the way I read it. That is going a bit far. We ought to let the
States rate the eligibility, but to require them to exclude all
vehicles may be loosening it up too much.
The restoration of the immigrant benefits provision is very
controversial to some people. We tried to take a targeted approach
where benefits are restored to the most needy legal immigrants; that
is, children, the disabled, refugees, asylum seekers. We say the kids
who are of legal immigrants should not have to wait to get food stamps.
Again, this is in line with our thinking that if you are a child, you
ought to get nutrition because it saves on health care. We know that
children who receive nutrition learn better. They will be better
students. As far as kids go, we are saying: If you are a child of a
legal immigrant, you should get food stamps now.
As I read the Lugar amendment, he says they have to wait 5 years--all
immigrants who have been in the United States for at least 5 years.
Under the committee-passed bill, we don't wait 5 years to restore
benefits to children. We do it immediately, not 5 years from today.
[[Page S12993]]
Again, there are some significant differences between what Senator
Lugar is proposing and what we have done in the committee. It is true,
I admit quite frankly, that Senator Lugar puts more money into
nutrition than we do. That is true. But I still will say that in terms
of the program that most needy people rely on to meet their nutritional
needs--that is, the Food Stamp Program--the most critical part of that
is outreach, information, and support to people who are not now
applying but who are eligible to get into the Food Stamp Program. That
is what we do. That doesn't cost a lot of money. And if it does get
people into the program, and they get food stamps, that is not counted.
That is not counted on our ledger sheet.
I believe our bill actually will provide more nutritional support to
people than the Lugar proposal, even though it doesn't show up on the
balance sheet as such.
The other part is simply the fact that where Senator Lugar is getting
the money for this really does upset the balance we had in our
commodity programs. I don't think this is the time to demolish farm
commodity programs in order to adopt a wholly untested voucher system
as a total replacement. That is the other side of this amendment. Farm
programs are not perfect. I will be the first to admit it. But we
cannot abandon the safety net at a time when it is obviously inadequate
already.
What this amendment does is weaken help for all program crops--dairy,
sugar, peanuts, everything--and it replaces it with a voucher program
whereby a farmer can go out with a voucher and get crop insurance and
can get insurance, not just for destruction of crops but for lack of
income. It has been untested. We don't know if it would work.
This is something that probably ought to be done on a pilot program
basis at some point, but not right now, a whole commodity program that
we have structured. Quite frankly, I believe that on our committee we
have a lot of expertise. We have Senators on both sides who have been
involved in agriculture for a long time. We have former Governors on
our committee. We have former Congressmen on our committee. We have
people who have been on the agriculture committees of their State
legislatures, of the House of Representatives, and now in the Senate.
We have people with a lot of expertise in agriculture on our committee.
These are not people who just sort of off the cuff decide to do
something in agriculture. These are people, Senators, such as the
present occupant of the Chair, who think very deeply about what is best
for their people and what is best for the commodities in their State.
The Senators know their commodities and the programs. So we hammered
out and worked out compromises and a commodity structured program that
will benefit all of agriculture in America. Again, it may not be
perfect. I daresay I haven't seen a Government program yet that is
perfect. But to throw it all out the window and to substitute this
untested, untried voucher program when we have no basis to understand
how it would ever work right now would cause chaos and disruption all
over agricultural America.
On the nutrition side, I believe that our approach, the committee
approach we have come out with is responsible, reasonable; it gets to
the kids who need nutrition; and it has a good outreach program to make
sure people who are not on food stamps understand it. On the other
hand, on the commodity side, I believe our commodity program is well
structured, sound, responsible, evenhanded all over America, and it is
built upon programs and ideas that we know work. We know direct
payments work. We know loan rates work. We know that conservation
payments work. These things out there have been tested and tried and
they work. Now is not the time to pull the rug out from underneath our
farmers for an untested program.
For both of those reasons--on the commodity side and nutrition side--
I respectfully oppose the Lugar amendment and urge all Senators to
support the well-thought-out, responsible nutrition title that we
brought out from the committee. It is good, solid, and it is something
for which I think we can be proud.
With that, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The Senator from Indiana is
recognized.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I respectfully say to my distinguished
colleague that the only well-thought-out aspect of the bill before us
are thoughts as to how a Senator might be enticed by more money for
particular crops for his or her State. It is a catchall bill. It really
has no particular philosophy. One subsidy is piled on top of another.
That is my point. Somebody has to bring an end to this chaos. The
chaos is not going to be joyous if continued as the Senator from Iowa
pointed out. Sixty percent of farmers get nothing from this; they are
not going to get a dime. I hope that understanding finally comes
through to agricultural America. This bill is targeted at a very few
farmers. Forty percent at least have a chance; but as a matter of fact,
as we pointed out numerous times, half of the payments go to 8 percent
of those farmers who have a chance. And very sharply, large percentages
go to a very few that fall behind the top 8 percent. In fact, by the
time you get to the top 20 percent, 80 percent of the money is gone,
even for that segment that is getting something.
This bill has been a grab bag of trying to figure out how various
Senators might be enticed into a coalition if a certain amount of money
was promised, regardless of who it goes to--the size of the farmers and
the problems of the farmers notwithstanding. I have tried to shake up
the order and say that if we are going to distribute money, let us do
so to all farmers, all States, all crops, all animals, as opposed to
the very few that are clearly the targets of the bill that came out of
the Agriculture Committee.
The chairman is right. We have been doing it this way for almost 70
years. With increasing overproduction, increasing reduction of prices,
this bill stomps down prices. They have no chance to come up. I hope
there will not be any speeches next year on why prices are at an
alltime low. Of course, they are going to be low. If you stimulate
overproduction, they will go down every time. We have been doing that
consistently year after year. To suggest that chaos ensues because you
try to bring an end to this seems to me not very logical.
I admit that it would be a total surprise to the country if all
farmers shared, if all States shared--a remarkable surprise. I think it
would be a good surprise, as a matter of fact. That is why I am
suggesting what is admittedly a very large change. We are winding up
the old and trying out a true safety net for all of us in agriculture.
Let me respond briefly on the nutrition side. The distinguished
chairman has pointed out what he believes are deficiencies in my
approach. Let me say that, at the bottom line, we may not provide as
much information about how you get the benefits, and perhaps that is a
deficiency, but we simply provide more food, more nutrition for
millions more Americans. That is pretty fundamental.
The outlays in our bill are $4.1 billion, and the chairman's bill is
$2.1 billion. That is twice as much food. In ours, the budget authority
is 3.7 and his is 1.6--twice again. It is very hard to match the
quantity of the service, the number of people being affected, by
getting into the particulars.
Having said that, I am perfectly willing to work with the chairman,
as he knows, to try to find whatever deficiencies we can meet, making
certain that all Americans know of the possibility for whole meals.
That is our intent, to have a very strong nutrition safety net with the
assistance of almost every group in our society; they have been working
at this longer than the chairman and I have.
I hope Members will vote for my amendment. I believe it is a
significant change that will lead not only to less subsidization but to
higher prices, higher real market values that come to farmers, with a
safety net in the event there are weather disasters, trade disasters,
and other things well beyond the ability of farmers to control.
I yield the floor.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Lugar
amendment to the Farm bill before us and to
[[Page S12994]]
express my strong support for the nutrition provisions included in the
underlying bill as introduced by Senator Harkin.
I want to make it clear that while I appreciate Senator Lugar's
investment in food stamps and food nutrition programs, I oppose the
Lugar provisions on the commodity title because it undermines a crucial
safety net for our Nation's farmers. These commodity assistance
programs are vital to the competitiveness and survival of the U.S.
farming base and the rural communities that depend on a healthy
agricultural economy.
I applaud Senator Lugar's attention to the need to expand the Food
Stamp Program in this difficult economic time. The Food Stamp Program
is one of the most effective and efficient ways we directly help low-
income families, and the elderly and disabled. The language in Senator
Harkin's bill will make this important program more efficient and
effective for those who rely on it most.
There is no doubt that the economy is weaker than it was at this time
last year--or even this summer when we passed President Bush's tax
cuts. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, announced on
Monday that the country has a $63 billion deficit in the first 2 months
of the new fiscal year. CBO's report attributes most of the extra
spending to increased Medicaid costs and unemployment benefit claims.
This does not surprise me, especially when one considers these
indicators of the current state of Washington's economy: Unemployment
rose a half-point in October to reach 6.6 percent in the State--the
highest rate in the Nation; new claims filed for unemployment insurance
claims rose 33 percent over the same month last year; we now have the
highest number of initial unemployment insurance claims since 1981; and
unfortunately, one of our strongest and most stable employers--Boeing--
has announced that 14,000 of its workers in Washington State are going
to be out of a job by next summer. This news is absolutely devastating
for my State--according to the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, for every
Boeing job lost the region loses another 1.7 jobs.
There is no doubt that our economy works best when people are
working. But when people lose their jobs, they need help to manage
their unemployment, train for new jobs, and make an easy transition to
new careers. And this includes broad-based assistance to families,
especially through the food stamp and other Federal nutrition programs.
If families are hungry and not meeting their basic needs, they
certainly cannot focus on the training they need to attain long-term
stability and self-sufficiency.
I believe that strengthening the Food Stamp Program to assist low-
wage workers and those recently out of work is a critical component of
Congress's response to the weakening economy. Unfortunately, as the
economy deteriorates many working families are joining the lines at
local food banks. Just this week, the Seattle Times reported on the
food shortages in our area food banks and the fact that so many
families are now seeking assistance from the very food banks to which
they once donated. In fact, food stamp participation in Washington
State increased over the last 12 months by 8.2 percent. But I am
particularly concerned about those who are eligible for food stamps but
do not use them since we passed the 1996 welfare reform legislation,
food stamp participation rate decreased 32.2 percent in Washington
State.
Sadly, the percentage of households with children facing food
insecurity--those who do not know where their next meal is coming
from--is higher in Washington State than across the rest of the
country. And food insecurity among emergency food recipients--those
going to food banks, to emergency kitchens and shelters--is nearly 50
percent higher in Washington than the rest of the country. And this is
despite the fact that over 315,000 people in the State of Washington
participate in the Food Stamp Program, and 153,000 people participate
in the Women, Infants, and Children, WIC, Program.
I strongly support the nutrition provisions in the underlying bill.
In order to address the increasing need for food stamp and other
Federal nutrition support, Senator Harkin has increased mandatory food
stamp spending by $6.2 billion over the next 10 years.
The Harkin Farm bill provides an extension for transitional food
stamps for families moving from welfare to work; extension of benefits
for adults without dependents; and increased funding for the employment
and training program. The bill would allow households with children to
set aside larger amounts of income before the food stamp benefits would
begin to phase out.
Importantly, the bill simplifies the program for State administrators
and participating families. Specifically, it simplifies income and
resource counting, calculation of expenses for deductions, and
determination of ongoing eligibility in the program. Together, these
improvements will help both States and recipients because they lower
burdens and increase coordination with other programs, such as
Medicare, TANF, and child care, that the States administer.
I am particularly pleased that the bill restores food stamp benefits
for all legal immigrant children and persons with disabilities.
According to Census data, 27 percent of children in poverty live in
immigrant families, 21 percent are citizen children of immigrant
parents, and 6 percent are immigrants themselves.
Unfortunately, many citizen children of legal immigrants who remain
eligible for the Food Stamp Program are not participating. Many of
their families are confused about food stamp eligibility rules, and in
some cases, the child's benefit is too small for the household to
invest the effort to maintain eligibility. In fact, since 1994, over 1
million citizen children with immigrant parents have left the program
despite remaining eligible.
After the Federal Government eliminated food stamp benefits for legal
immigrants Washington State was the first State to put its own funds
toward restoring food stamp eligibility for legal immigrants. The State
Food Assistance Program uses State funds to support legal immigrants
who were disqualified as a result of the 1996 welfare reform law. In
fact, 11 percent of all food assistance clients in WA State are legal
immigrants. This bill restores the Federal commitment to ensuring that
legal immigrants have access to these important Federal programs.
When we passed President Bush's tax cut, I said that I believed the
country is at a critical juncture in setting our fiscal priorities--
deciding between maintaining our fiscal discipline and investing in the
Nation's future education and health care needs, or cutting the very
services used daily by our citizens. That statement is even more
relevant today. Passing the food stamp expansions included in the
Harkin Farm bill gives working families struggling to make ends meet
the security they need in these uncertain times.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If no one yields time, time
is charged equally to both sides.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. 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, my understanding is that I have a minute
and a half, which is declining as time goes by equally charged to both
sides. So as opposed to seeing all of that decline, let me say I am
most hopeful we are going to have a strong vote for the Lugar amendment
because I believe it is a good amendment for all Americans.
I stress that because sometimes in our zeal in these agricultural
debates we are doing the very best we can for those in agricultural
America, and that may be in many of our States as much as 2 percent of
the population. But the rest of America also listens to this debate and
wonders why there should be, as in the underlying bill, a transfer of
$172 billion over the next 10 years from some Americans to a very few
Americans--particularly, if 60 percent of the farmers don't participate
at all and if it is narrowed to those who have very large farms. Most
Americans, when confronted with that proposition, don't like it.
[[Page S12995]]
I am preaching today, I suppose, to the choir of all Americans and
hoping that agricultural America also understands that if we are ever
to have higher prices and market solutions on farms, we must get rid of
the subsidies that are a part of the underlying bill. And I do that. At
the same time, I provide assurance and a safety net which I believe is
equitable to all farmers and likewise to all Americans who look into
this and find at least some hope for farm legislation as we discuss the
Lugar amendment. I ask for the support of my colleagues. I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Indiana just mentioned in
rebuttal to my remarks about how not all farmers are getting benefits
under this farm program. He is right. I believe the committee bill
begins to change that somewhat. We include a conservation title in our
bill that was supported unanimously by the committee that will begin to
direct some funds toward those farmers who have not been included in
our farm programs in the past--our vegetable farmers, organic farmers,
fruits, minor crops. Now they will be able to get benefits from farm
programs if they practice responsible stewardship of the land, protect
the soil, and protect the water.
Quite frankly, I believe this is going to be one of the best
provisions for other areas of the country that have not participated
before in our farm programs. That is in the committee bill. I know
Senator Lugar's amendment does not touch that, but I understand there
is going to be an amendment offered by Senators Cochran and Roberts
that will take that away.
I hope those who believe that we have to expand our reach and include
more farmers in our farm programs will oppose that amendment because
this is the one element that will go out to help those smaller farmers
and the farmers who have not been in the major crops before.
We also have an energy title. That energy title is new in this bill.
Again, the Lugar amendment does not touch that. I understand that. I am
not talking about that. The Cochran-Roberts amendment will basically
defund all that. That is another provision that can help a lot of our
smaller farmers and others who have not been included in farm programs
in the past.
I wanted to make the point we have taken strides to reach out in this
bill to get farm program benefits to all regions of America.
Senator Lugar also spoke about low prices and overproduction. The
answer to low farm prices is not to idle half of America and to put all
these farms out of business. That certainly should not be our answer.
If you like imported oil, you will love imported food. That seems to be
the answer. We will just shut down all the farms in America and buy our
food from overseas. Good luck when that starts happening.
We need agriculture. We need food security for our own Nation. We
need to find new markets, new outlets for the great productivity, the
great production capacity of American agriculture. That is what we
need--new markets.
Conservation is a marker. I believe energy is a new marker. Whatever
we can make from a barrel of oil we can make from a bushel of soybeans
or a bushel of corn or a bushel of wheat. Biomass energy, plastics,
biodiesel, ethanol--think of the possibilities--pharmaceuticals. There
are all kinds of items that come from our crops that we have not even
tried. I believe that is what this bill also starts to do: find those
new markets for the great productive capacity of America in
agriculture.
The answer is not just to shut down half of America. That is not the
answer at all. Think what that is going to do to our small towns, our
rural communities, our families if we do that.
We have to keep the production going. We have to find new markets,
and that is what we start to do in this bill.
I believe also we have met all of the objectives of the nutrition
community. We met with them. They testified before our committee on
more than one occasion. Quite frankly, we met basically their
objectives.
I also point out when Senator Lugar says he provides more money for
food--maybe yes, maybe no. Really what the Lugar amendment does is it
increases the standard deduction a little bit. There are some
additional provisions for able-bodied adults without dependents, but
most of the money that is in the Lugar amendment is in simplifying
rules, in simplifying programs. We include some of those in ours, but
he goes a little bit further.
I still believe the most important thing we can do is to provide the
underpinning of nutrition, as we did in the committee bill, and then do
more outreach to make sure people who are eligible for food stamps know
they can get them and make it easier for them to apply for food stamps.
We do that in our bill. That outreach, quite frankly, is not in the
Lugar amendment.
I think it is arguable whether the Senator provides more food than we
do. I believe I can make the case we actually would provide more food
because we do more outreach and get more people involved in the Food
Stamp Program. We provide better commodity purchases for our school
lunch programs. I believe that is a wash. Keep in mind the Lugar
amendment destroys all our commodity programs, and we are not going to
do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. HARKIN. I understand all time has expired. I move to table the
Lugar amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 30, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 363 Leg.]
YEAS--70
Akaka
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Harkin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--30
Allard
Bennett
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Collins
Corzine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Kennedy
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Reed
Smith (NH)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are making progress on the farm bill.
We have a couple of big amendments that were very thoroughly debated
and voted on. We are ready to move ahead with other amendments. We are
ready to move on. If other Senators have amendments, we are open for
business. We hope people will come forward. We have maybe some
reasonable time limits. On the Lugar amendment we had a decent time
limit. We debated it thoroughly.
It is vitally important that we finish this farm bill and that we do
it expeditiously. I do not know exactly when we are going to go home
for Christmas. This farm bill needs to be finished. We need to finish
it expeditiously. The House passed their bill, and we need to pass ours
and go to conference.
We can finish this bill today. I see no reason we can't finish it
today if we have some healthy debate on a couple more amendments. I
know Senators Cochran and Roberts have an amendment they want to offer,
which is a major amendment. We could debate that today and have a vote
on that
[[Page S12996]]
today. There are perhaps other amendments. I haven't seen any, but I
have heard about some. I think we could move through this bill today
and get it finished and go to conference.
I urge all Senators who have amendments to come to the floor.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. HARKIN. I am delighted to yield to my friend from North Dakota
for a question.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I certainly share the Senator's interest
in trying to conclude this farm bill or consideration of the farm bill.
I am wondering, is there any opportunity at some point today to attempt
to get a list of those who have amendments who wish to offer them on
this legislation?
Mr. HARKIN. I think the Senator has made a good suggestion and a good
inquiry. I hope that at sometime today, with the leaders of both sides,
we can have a finite list of amendments, that we can agree on those,
and move ahead, because if we do not, we will just be here day after
day after day after day, and, as the Senator well knows from his
experience here, this could go on indefinitely.
So we do need to get a finite list. I hope we can get that done, I
say to my friend.
Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield further, I know it is certainly
the goal of the Senator from Iowa to get a bill through the Senate,
have a conference, and then get it on the President's desk for
signature before we conclude this session of Congress. While I know
that is ambitious, it certainly is achievable. I think we have the
opportunity to finish this bill today or tomorrow. I know the chairman
of the House Agriculture Committee is very anxious to go to conference.
Is the Senator aware that the chairman of the House committee has
indicated he is very anxious to begin a conference, which suggests if
we can get a bill completed through the Senate, and get it to
conference, we will be able to perhaps get it out of conference and on
to the White House?
Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from North Dakota, I think it is
definitely possible we can get this done. I know that Congressman
Combest and Congressman Stenholm, the two leaders of the Agriculture
Committee on the House side, are anxious to get to conference. They
have basically looked over what we have here, and we have looked over
what they have in their bill. Really, I do not think the conference
would take that long. But we just have to get it out of the Senate.
Mr. DORGAN. One final question, if I might. I suspect the Senator
from Iowa has been asked a dozen times now, before 11 o'clock, when we
are going to finish this session of Congress or when we are going to
finish this bill. I think everyone around here kind of wants to know
when this session of Congress might end.
That makes it all the more urgent we finish our work on this bill
because this bill, the stimulus, Defense appropriations, and a couple
of others need to be completed. I appreciate the work of the Senator
from Iowa and the Senator from Indiana. And I know the Senator from
Mississippi is going to have an amendment.
I really hope we can have a good debate on important farm policy and
then proceed along and see if we can get this bill into conference in
the next 24, 48 hours. I appreciate the work of the Senator from Iowa
and the Senator from Indiana.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from North Dakota.
Seeing the Senator from Minnesota, who wants to speak, I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DAYTON. Sure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, while the leader is on the floor and while
Mr. Baucus is on the floor, will the Senator yield to me for 5 minutes?
Mr. DAYTON. I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________