[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 172 (Wednesday, December 12, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13000-S13041]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION, AND RURAL ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2002--Continued

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have been on this bill now--we started 
Monday with debate. We had good amendments offered yesterday, with full 
discussion. Today we have had a vote on Senator Lugar's bill, which was 
in the form of an amendment.
  I hope during the next few hours we can have other amendments 
offered. We are arriving at a point--staff has drawn up a unanimous 
consent request that I, at a later time, will propound to the Senate. 
That will be that there be a finite list of amendments so we know the 
universe from which we are working.
  On our side, I say to my friend from Indiana, it appears we have just 
a few amendments, a very few. Maybe some of those won't even require a 
vote.
  I have been told by various people on the minority side that they 
have some amendments to offer. I saw here, a minute ago, my friend from 
New Hampshire. He usually offers a sugar amendment. That is what he 
might be doing today.
  In short, in the not too distant future I will seek approval by 
unanimous consent agreement to have a time for a finite list of 
amendments, and then, of course, after that we will ask that there be a 
cutoff period for the filing of amendments. So I will just put everyone 
on alert that is what we are going to do. I hope we can move this 
legislation along.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have listened to the Democratic assistant 
leader, the whip. I appreciate the sense of urgency of moving this 
legislation at this late hour.
  We are dealing with a 5-year agricultural policy for our Nation. 
There is no

[[Page S13001]]

question that it is critical and necessary that we deal with it. He and 
others have chosen to bring it before this body in the final hours of 
what should be a week toward recess or adjournment, awaiting the next 
session. I had hoped this would not be the case, but it is.
  I would truly appreciate--and I think American agriculture would 
appreciate--a full debate. We have had that on the bill of the ranking 
member, Senator Lugar--his alternative. It was important because it is 
a clear point of view that needs to be--must be--debated. We will have 
other alternatives up. I think the Cochran-Roberts alternative 
provision to the Harkin bill expresses clearly a balanced approach 
toward a 5-year agricultural policy.
  The Senator from Nevada has within the Harkin bill a provision that, 
for western Senators and arid Western States, is an issue that is an 
anathema to western water law and the rights of States to determine the 
destiny of their own water. I and others will want to engage the 
Senator from Nevada on that issue. That could take some time.
  I know of a good number of amendments that I think will be coming. 
The Senator from New Hampshire is now on the floor to offer an 
amendment in relation to the sugar program that is both within the 
Harkin provision and in the Cochran-Roberts provision. That, again, is 
another important issue for many of the Western States and many of the 
Southern States. My guess is it will deserve a reasonable and right 
amount of debate. In my State of Idaho, hundreds of farmers will be 
impacted, depending upon the success or failure of this amendment.
  What I am trying to suggest to the Senator from Nevada is that even 
at a late hour and this rush to get things done, you don't craft 5-year 
policy in a day or in a few days. You do a year's policy, oftentimes, 
because we know we will come back to revisit it again and again every 
year.

  We hope that when we are through here, our work product will be 
conferenced with the House and with the Secretary of Agriculture and 
this administration in a way that will establish a clear set of 
directions for production agriculture in this country. We know that 
production agriculture over the last good number of years has suffered 
mightily, under a situation of at or below break-even costs for 
commodities, for all kinds of reasons.
  The chairman of the Agriculture Committee is trying to remedy that in 
his bill. The ranking member has offered an alternative, and others 
will offer alternatives that have to be debated. I cannot, nor will I, 
support a rush to judgment.
  Agriculture policy for my State is critical to the well-being of the 
No. 1 feature of Idaho's economy, and we cannot decide simply, on the 
eve of Christmas, in an effort to get things done quickly, that we 
debate something that does not expire until next September.
  While I think we have adequate time this week to do so, and maybe 
next week, to address other issues--because it appears we will be here 
for some time--then we must do it thoroughly and appropriately. I hope 
the Senator will not push us to try to get us to a point of collapsing 
this into just a few more hours of debate. It is much too important to 
do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). The Senator from Nevada is 
recognized.
  Mr. REID. I say briefly to my friend from Idaho, the Senator answered 
his own question--certainly mine. There is a lot to do on this bill. I 
acknowledge that. But we completed our last vote before 11 o'clock 
today. For the last hour, we have basically listened to people talking 
about the stimulus bill and the antiballistic missile treaty. The 
reason they have been talking about those things is there is nothing 
happening on the farm bill.
  If we have these important issues--for example, everyone is familiar 
with the Cochran-Roberts legislation--let's get them here and get them 
voted on.
  I am happy to see my friend from New Hampshire here. The 
distinguished Senator has always had a real issue with how sugar is 
handled. Good, he is here. Let's debate this and vote on it.
  I hope, with other matters raised by the Senator from Idaho, people 
will come forward and do that, that we not have a slow walking of these 
amendments. We are not trying to rush anyone into anything. But we are 
saying when there is downtime here when people are not doing anything 
relating to the farm bill, it is not helping the cause. That is why I 
think no matter how many amendments there are, there should be a time 
for filing those amendments.
  We are arriving at a point where I am going to ask consent to have a 
finite list of amendments, and we are going to see if they will agree 
to have a cut-off time for filing amendments. If that is not the case, 
then other action will have to be taken.
  This legislation is important to America. We are doing everything we 
can to move it as expeditiously as possible. It is unfortunate that we 
are working under time constraints. That is how it works in the Senate. 
We are always busy. There is always something coming up, this holiday 
or that holiday. The fact is, the farming community of America is more 
concerned about getting this legislation done than when we go home.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I come to the floor to offer an amendment 
on behalf of myself, Senator Lugar, and Senator McCain, cosponsors of 
the amendment. This amendment deals with what has been a fairly well-
debated and discussed issue in our farm policy; that is, how we price 
sugar in this country. The sugar program in this country has been, in 
my humble opinion, a fiasco and an atrocity with the inordinate and 
inappropriate burden on American consumers for years.
  I call up my amendment.


                Amendment No. 2466 to Amendment No. 2471

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for himself, 
     Mr. McCain, and Mr. Lugar, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2466 to amendment No. 2471.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To phase out the sugar program and use any resulting savings 
                    to improve nutrition assistance)

       Beginning on page 54, strike line 1 and all that follows 
     through page 87, line 8, and insert the following:

                            CHAPTER 2--SUGAR

                      Subchapter A--Sugar Program

     SEC. 141. SUGAR PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 156 of the Federal Agriculture 
     Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7272) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (e), by striking paragraph (1) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) Loans.--The Secretary shall carry out this section 
     through the use of recourse loans.'';
       (2) in subsection (f), by striking ``2003'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``2006'';
       (3) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (j);
       (4) by inserting after subsection (h) the following:
       ``(i) Phased Reduction of Loan Rate.--For each of the 2003, 
     2004, and 2005 crops of sugar beets and sugarcane, the 
     Secretary shall lower the loan rate for each succeeding crop 
     in a manner that progressively and uniformly lowers the loan 
     rate for sugar beets and sugarcane to $0 for the 2006 
     crop.''; and
       (5) in subsection (j) (as redesignated), by striking 
     ``2002'' and inserting ``2005''.
       (b) Prospective Repeal.--Effective beginning with the 2006 
     crop of sugar beets and sugarcane, section 156 of the Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 
     7272) is repealed.

     SEC. 142. MARKETING ALLOTMENTS.

       Part VII of subtitle B of title III of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359aa et seq.) is repealed.

     SEC. 143. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Price Support for Nonbasic Agricultural Commodities.--
     Section 201(a) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 
     1446(a)) is amended by striking ``milk, sugar beets, and 
     sugarcane'' and inserting ``, and milk''.
       (b) Powers of Commodity Credit Corporation.--Section 5(a) 
     of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 
     714c(a)) is amended by inserting ``(other than sugar beets 
     and sugarcane)'' after ``agricultural commodities''.

     SEC. 144. CROPS.

       Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, this 
     subchapter and the amendments made by this subchapter shall 
     apply beginning with the 2003 crop of sugar beets and 
     sugarcane.

                    Subchapter B--Food Stamp Program

     SEC. 147. MAXIMUM EXCESS SHELTER EXPENSE DEDUCTION.

       (a) Fiscal Years 2002 Through 2004.--

[[Page S13002]]

       (1) In general.--Section 5(e)(7)(B) of the Food Stamp Act 
     of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2014(e)(7)(B)) is amended--
       (A) in clause (v), by striking ``and'' at the end; and
       (B) by striking clause (vi) and inserting the following:
       ``(vi) for fiscal year 2002, $354, $566, $477, $416, and 
     $279 per month, respectively;
       ``(vii) for fiscal year 2003, $390, $602, $513, $452, and 
     $315 per month, respectively; and
       ``(viii) for fiscal year 2004, $425, $637, $548, $487, and 
     $350 per month, respectively.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Fiscal Year 2005 and Thereafter.--
       (1) In general.--Section 5(e)(7) of the Food Stamp Act of 
     1977 (7 U.S.C. 2014(e)(7)) is amended by striking 
     subparagraph (B).
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     takes effect on October 1, 2004.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question, 
again, I am not trying to hurry the Senator. Does the Senator have any 
idea how long his statement will take?
  Mr. GREGG. My statement won't take more than about 15 or 20 minutes. 
I understand Senator McCain will speak and Senator Lugar may wish to 
speak. I don't know how long anyone else will want to take. I am going 
to ask for the yeas and nays as soon as our dialog is over.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there are only meetings going on from 1 
until 2 o'clock. If we could vote at quarter to 1, that would be fine.
  Mr. GREGG. I can't really at this time agree to a timeframe because 
of the fact that I am not sure who wants to speak in opposition. I want 
to give them adequate time. I don't mind going to a vote as soon as we 
can.
  Mr. President, the sugar program as constituted and as it has evolved 
over the years has regrettably become a raid on the pocketbooks of the 
American consumer to benefit a small number of sugar producers in this 
Nation.
  The price of sugar in the United States is approximately 2 to 2\1/2\ 
times what the price of sugar is on the world market. The burden of 
that inflated price is borne by the consumers. In fact, the cost to the 
consumers is approximately $1.4 billion to $1.8 billion a year 
depending on whose estimate you use. That inflated price is a function 
of the fact that we have set up a system of nonrecourse loans, a very 
arcane system which essentially guarantees to the producer of sugar in 
this country 18 cents for its cane sugar and 22.99 cents for sugar beet 
sugar. In comparison with the fact that if they were to grow and try to 
sell that type of sugar in the open markets, the amount they would 
actually get would be somewhere in the vicinity of 9 cents. The effect 
is that the U.S. consumer is paying the difference between 9 cents, 
which is what the world price is, and 22 cents for sugar.
  If the market were appropriately adjusted to reflect world price, you 
would probably end up with a sugar price in the United States of around 
12 cents, or approximately 55 percent of what the present price is in 
the United States.
  The effect of this is that all products that use sugar have an 
inflated cost. It costs a lot more than it should.
  Who bears that cost? The American consumer bears that cost. Who is 
the American consumer?
  We hear all of this debate about small family farms and how we are 
trying to protect small family farms. That is a worthy cause, indeed. 
But the American consumer is also under a lot of economic pressure. The 
American consumer--especially if you are living on a fixed income, if 
you are a senior citizen living off your Social Security check, if you 
are a welfare mother living off payments from the Government, if you 
are in a family with a mother and a father working two jobs trying to 
make ends meet, trying to send children to school, and trying to make 
sure they have a good lifestyle for their family--is under a lot of 
economic pressure, too.
  But it turns out that in order to benefit a very small number of 
growers--believe me, it is an incredibly small number of growers--we 
require all of these Americans to pay a lot more for the food they eat 
than they should have to pay if we had a market economy for sugar.

  Forty-two percent of the benefit of the subsidy for sugar goes to 1 
percent of the growers. There are some extraordinarily wealthy families 
and businesses in this country who are essentially putting their hands 
not in the cookie jar but in the pockets of the American citizenry and 
taking money out of that pocket so that they can have this ridiculous 
subsidy on sugar that is so unrelated to what it costs, No. 1, to 
produce it, and No. 2, what the world price is.
  The sugar producer industry has told us for years: Well, this program 
doesn't cost a thing. It doesn't cost the American taxpayer anything 
because there was no tax payment to support the sugar program. That was 
true for many years. In fact, there was an assessment fee they paid 
into the Treasury. It was sort of what I call a purchase fee. They got 
to buy, with one dollar, five dollars. It was a great deal to them. 
They paid $1 into the Treasury but they got $5 back from the consumer.
  This is one of the great sweetheart deals in American political 
history. They could charge the sugar producers their assessment fee and 
pay into the Treasury $260 million, which I think they paid in on the 
average--something like that. What they failed to mention was that for 
that little assessment fee they got $1.5 billion of subsidy.
  That is a pretty good deal. There are not too many deals in this 
country even in our capitalist system where you get a guaranteed return 
of $1.5 billion when you pay in $260 million. There are not that many 
good deals like that out there anymore. I don't think there ever was. 
But there are for the sugar producers. That is history. That situation 
no longer exists.
  Today, they are not paying in any more as a net issue. They are 
actually now getting paid tax dollars on top of this subsidy they get--
tax dollars which amounted to about $465 million because the 
Government, under the nonrecourse loan process, had to go out and buy 
the sugar. Not only do we have to buy the sugar, but we have to store 
the sugar. We are getting back to that time of the 1970s and 1980s when 
President Reagan came in and found warehouses full of butter. There 
were people in this country who needed butter. Reagan was smart enough 
to ask why we were storing all of this butter and to get rid of it. 
They gave it to people who needed it.
  We are starting to do that with sugar again, just like we did with 
butter. We are starting to store sugar. Now we have one million tons of 
sugar. It is projected we are going to have 12 million tons of sugar in 
the next 10 years. It is going to cost us $1.4 billion in tax dollars.
  This isn't the subsidy that consumers pay. We are going to first hit 
people with a subsidy. They are going to have to pay more for sugar 
than they should have to pay. Then we are going to hit them with a tax 
to produce the sugar for which they are already paying too much--$1.4 
billion it is projected. We are going to have 12 million tons of sugar.
  I do not know where we are going to put it. Maybe we are going to 
fill up the Grand Canyon. When you float the Grand Canyon, you will get 
all the sugar you ever wanted. We will have to find a place to put it. 
I am sure somebody will come up with a creative idea of where we are 
going to put it. Storing it will cost a huge amount of money. I have 
forgotten, but I think it is maybe $1 million. But there is an estimate 
for that, too. You have to figure we have to pay to store the sugar.
  So we are going to have all this sugar we do not need. We are going 
to pay all these taxes we should not have to pay to buy this sugar we 
do not need. And then we are going to have this program which continues 
to produce sugar we do not need at a price which has no relationship to 
what the open market charges for sugar.
  Just to reflect on that for a moment, I have a chart which shows the 
difference between the world market and the American price on sugar.
  Some people will say: Oh, but this world market is a subsidized 
market. In some places it is. I acknowledge that. In some places it is 
a subsidized market. But not universally and not for a majority of the 
sugar producers in the world. In fact, if we were to open American 
markets to competition, you could be absolutely sure we could

[[Page S13003]]

structure it in a way that the sugar that came into the country in a 
competitive way was not subsidized. So we would not have that problem. 
So as a practical matter, we can get around that issue, and it is not a 
legitimate issue.
  So where are we? Basically, where we have been for many years. In the 
mid 1980s, the Congress had the good sense to say: Listen, this program 
makes very little sense. There are a lot of people making a lot of 
money at the expense of the consumers, and there is no market forces at 
work here at all. And there is no reason why we should continue a 
program that has all these detrimental effects.
  There is another detrimental effect I need to mention, as long as we 
are at it, that is not a monetary one. It is an environmental one. We 
know that because we have so grossly overpriced the sugar production 
that there has been more of an impetus to create more sugar cane 
capability, especially in Florida. The effect of that, on especially 
the Everglades, has been devastating--so devastating, in fact, that 
last year, under the leadership of Senator Smith from New Hampshire, we 
had to pass a new bill to correct the problems in the Everglades, which 
is another bill that is going to cost us a huge amount of money in 
order to correct the problem that was created by the subsidized sugar 
prices and the overproduction of sugar.
  We know as we clear these fields for sugar cane production, 
especially in Florida--although there is now in place a system to try 
to get some logic to that process--we know that has a huge detrimental 
impact on the environment of that area because most of these areas are 
marginal wetlands and also critical wetlands and especially recharge 
areas for the Everglades.

  So on top of all the other problems the program has, it has had this 
unintended consequence of creating a significantly environmentally 
damaging event, at least in Florida.
  So where does that leave us? As I was mentioning, in the mid-1980s, 
we had the good sense, as a Congress, to say: Hey, listen. This makes 
no sense. This program makes no sense. Why should we be paying twice 
the price of sugar on the open market? Why should we be paying taxes to 
buy sugar we do not need? And why should we be sending the majority of 
this money to a small number of producers when the vast majority of 
Americans are affected?
  So we actually had a few years without a sugar program. There will be 
an argument made, I suspect, that is what caused the price of sugar to 
fluctuate. Yes, it did. That was the idea, that you would start to see 
market activity in the sugar commodity. Unfortunately, we did not 
participate in this experiment long enough to find out whether we could 
bring market forces to bear. But we were clearly moving in that 
direction.
  The argument that that fluctuation in price, which was the precursor 
of having a market event, is one reason you do not want to have sugar 
production subsidized or one reason you have to have sugar production 
subsidized is as if to say because Ford Motor Company cuts the price of 
its car and comes out with zero financing, we should suddenly subsidize 
Ford Motor Company because the market is clearly having an effect on 
their price.
  This program is obviously important to a number of States that have 
producers. But you cannot justify it in its present structure. It needs 
to be reorganized.
  So what my amendment does is to eliminate the nonrecourse loan event. 
It makes the loans recourse and takes the savings and moves them over 
to the Food Stamp Program so that people who are on food stamps and who 
need to buy food commodities which are suffering from an inflated price 
because of the sugar industry will have more money available to them to 
do that.
  Remember, sugar goes beyond candy, by the way. Some people think it 
is always candy. Sugar is in just about any product you buy that is a 
processed product. It has sugar in it. So if you are on food stamps, 
and you are trying to buy some pasta or you are trying to buy a meat 
sauce or you are trying to buy some sort of hamburger assistance that 
gives it a little flare, all of those products, which are important to 
the nutrition of a person on food stamps, are having an inflated price 
because they have sugar in them.
  This amendment says, let's take the savings which will be regenerated 
here and move it into the Food Stamp Program. It is a very reasonable 
amendment. I am sure it is going to pass this year, even though it may 
not have passed in the last 7 years that I have offered it.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Actually, I do not have any time left, so I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire yields the 
floor.
  Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me use some time now. I know other 
colleagues want to speak to this issue of the Gregg amendment. I will 
speak for a time on it because there are some important issues to be 
discussed.
  The Senator from New Hampshire has, once again, portrayed the sugar 
program that has been a part of agricultural policy in this country for 
a good number of years as somehow evil and unjust, going to a small 
select group of people.
  For the hundreds of farmers in Idaho who, for the last 2 years, have 
lost a lot of money raising sugar beets--and under the new provisions 
within the Harkin bill or the Cochran-Roberts substitute would make no 
more money--I find the arguments of the Senator from New Hampshire 
interesting and unique--interesting because he said he would eliminate 
the recourse loan program and transfer the money to the Food Stamp 
Program.
  It is pretty difficult to transfer money that does not exist, No. 1, 
because under the no-net-cost approach that is provided within both 
versions that we are debating today, there is no authorized money 
specific to this program.
  As we know, over the last good number of years, because of the buyout 
of the market store and resell into the market concept, actually the 
Department and the Secretary of Agriculture were making money. There 
has been this brief period of time when recourse loans were purchased 
back, but from 1991 to 1999 about $279 million was actually made for 
the U.S. Treasury, all from the program. About 1.5 percent of the 
commodity program expenditure actually got caught up in recourse loans 
over the last year. But, again, that is that pool of money out there 
used for these purposes, with no specificity directed to the sugar 
program itself.
  As the Senator has mentioned, the sugar program, as we call it, has--
and his graph showed it--brought relative stability to the sugar market 
in this country. I say relative stability because during that period of 
time that he was talking about, in which there was not a program, there 
was a substantial runup and decline in price.
  Not only were there dramatic peaks and valleys, not only did the 
consuming public feel it, but the large wholesale consumers were, when 
it was at its peak, very concerned. It shoved the cost of their 
commodities--candy bars or soft drinks, other uses of sugar--up. But 
when that price then declined, of course, they didn't reduce the price 
of their product because they had already established a price in the 
market.
  I find it most fascinating because there is the general assumption on 
the part of the Senator from New Hampshire that, if his amendment were 
to pass, the consumer would benefit, and there is absolutely no 
evidence in fact that that would happen. In fact, there is argument 
quite to the contrary.
  Over the last couple of years we have seen a dramatic decline in 
sugar prices in this country, even with the current program. Nowhere 
have we seen any one retail product on the consumer market shelf 
decline as a result of the reduction in sugar. Where does it go? My 
guess is it goes into the profitable bottom line of that commercial 
producer out there. I don't argue that. It is the reality of what we 
are dealing with.
  I don't think the amendment the Senator is offering brings down the 
price one penny on a candy bar, one penny on a bottle of pop, or any 
other commodity in the marketplace, from boxed cereal to any other 
product that has sugar added to it to enhance flavor and to 
characterize the product to see it come down. That is simply a false 
argument. The reason I use the word

[[Page S13004]]

``false'' is because the evidence that it would is quite to the 
contrary. The evidence is that it would not because clearly we have 
seen that kind of price not happen in the last several years.
  The U.S. producer price for sugar has been running at 20-year lows 
for almost 2 years, down more than a fourth since 1996. That is under 
the current program. That is why this past year we have seen some 
forfeiture of sugar, and that is why the Department of Agriculture now 
owns some sugar.
  The bill that is before us, the new policy that will become 
agricultural policy, changes that and moves us clearly back to a no-net 
cost to the consumer.
  Grocers and manufacturers are not passing through these lower prices, 
as I have mentioned, whatever the product. While we have seen this drop 
in price almost to a historic low, the harm has not been to the 
consumer because they have not felt it, or, the positive side, it has 
been to the farm family who has been the producer of the product and 
has had to offer the flexibility that they must in a production 
scenario to offset those kinds of costs.
  There are a good many other issues out there. I see several of my 
colleagues in the Chamber to debate this issue. I will deal with other 
portions of it as we come along.
  The United States is required to import, under current law, nearly 
1.5 million tons of sugar or about 15 percent of its consumption. We 
already buy sugar off the world market. Each year, whether the U.S. 
market requires that sugar or not, that is the agreement. That is what 
the program offers.
  In addition, unneeded sugar has entered the U.S. market outside of 
the sugar import quota through the creation of products from import 
quota circumvention. We, for the last several years, have had the 
frustration of what we call stuffed product, product that is 
intentionally enhanced with sugar, brought into this market 
reprocessed. The sugar is pulled out of the product--in this case 
molasses--to get around these kinds of limitations in the marketplace 
and limitations to the market itself. Why? Obviously, sugar is a 
commodity that moves. And we have now had court tests against that 
saying, yes, those are violations.

  We also have an agreement with Mexico under the North American Free 
Trade Agreement that brings sugar into this market. So to suggest that 
we are immune to a world market is not all of the story. The story is 
that 15 percent of the sugar that is in the U.S. market is world market 
sugar.
  When the Senator from New Hampshire quotes the world market price, he 
is quoting the open price. He is not quoting the price of Western 
Europe. He is not quoting the price anywhere else in the world. All 
prices differ based on supply, demand, and access to markets.
  What we have tried to do over the years with the sugar program is 
create stability, stability to the consumer and to the producer. 
Historically, we have been very successful in doing just that.
  We have done it in large part at no cost to the American taxpayer 
and, in fact, at less cost to the American consumer. The dramatic 
runups in sugar prices that had to be passed immediately through to the 
consumer simply have not existed.
  There are a good number of other arguments I know my colleagues want 
to make on this issue. It is an important part of an overall 
agricultural policy for this country. It is an important part of an 
overall farming scenario for my State and for many other States in the 
Nation. It creates stability in the farm communities of my State. It 
has historically been a profitable commodity to raise in Idaho. It is 
no longer today.
  I hope the programs we are debating that are within the Harkin bill 
and that are within the Roberts-Cochran substitute will bring stability 
back to the sugar beet producer in the Western States and in the 
Dakotas and Michigan, and certainly to the cane producer in the South.
  I yield the floor. When the appropriate time comes, as the Senator 
from New Hampshire has already requested the yeas and nays on his 
amendment, I will ask my colleagues to stand in opposition to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my friend 
from Idaho. It is an interesting issue. It affects much of the country, 
all the way from Wyoming to Hawaii cane sugar, Louisiana, down to 
Florida, back through our part of the world. We are talking about an 
industry that provides nearly 400,000 jobs.
  It has been said that this is a small, minute industry. It is not. In 
fact, in my State it is one of the few agricultural crops which are 
refined, ready for the market, ready for the shelf when they leave our 
State. So we have factories there that provide employment, of course. 
In many rural communities, sugar is a very important economic issue, 
not only to farmers but also to processors. Economically, it generates 
$26 million annually.
  The debate over sugar takes place nearly every year, and the same 
arguments come up year after year. The fact is, there is a solid reason 
to have an industry of this kind, and I hope it will continue in the 
future. By world standards, U.S. producers are highly efficient--
eighteenth lowest in the cost of production out of 96 producing 
countries and regions--despite, of course, having the highest labor and 
environmental standards. Some of the lowest cost is produced in the 
West. So we are interested and involved in that.
  As was pointed out, often there is talk about the world market. The 
fact is, the world market is a dump market. It is what remains after 
the other countries use all they can and put it on the market. It is 
not an economic cost. To compare that is simply not true. The current 
prices in all world export markets are dumped.
  Of course, as was mentioned, one of the things we have just gone 
through in terms of Canada is the unfair situation called stuffed 
molasses, where it is against the trade arrangements to bring in sugar. 
So they mix sugar and molasses, bring it across the line, take it back 
out of the molasses and market it as sugar. Fortunately, we were able 
to get a court decision on that. Hopefully that gimmick is closed. We 
will continue to work on it, of course.
  The fact is that consumers do benefit. The retail price of sugar is 
virtually unchanged since 1990. Our prices are 20 percent below 
developed market prices. And interestingly enough, as is the case with 
lots of agriculture, the product price to the producer is quite 
different than to the consumer. I think it points it out here. The 
producer price, since 1996, is down 23 percent. At the same time, the 
consumer price is up 6 percent. So the idea that this program is a 
handicap to consumers is simply not accurate.
  As I said, the price for sugar to the producer has fallen 23 percent, 
but grocery stores have not lowered their price. Cereal is up 6 
percent. Cookies and cake are up 10 percent. Ice cream --my favorite 
thing--up 21 percent. So we have a program that affects many people, 
which has been good for consumers in this country. We have a program 
that has generated a good deal of money and since 1990 in market 
assessment tax. We have lots of good things in this program, and we 
need to continue to make sure it is there for consumers and it is there 
for producers.
  I want to mention a couple of other items. As an industry, the U.S. 
retail price is 20 percent below the average of developed countries. It 
is third from the lowest in the world in the retail price of sugar. 
That is interesting, and it is good for consumers. Certainly, in terms 
of the work required to buy a pound of sugar, the United States is 
third from the bottom, only above Switzerland and Singapore. So in 
terms of our economy, sugar is a bargain for the consumer. As I 
mentioned, these prices have gone up.
  So we have a program that has worked, a program that is very 
important to consumers, to producers and processors, and it will be 
changed some. We are going to have more within the industry an effort 
to control production so we don't have excessive production. That is 
going to be done. Not only have we had a good program, we are in the 
process of having an even stronger program. I will resist the amendment 
on the floor and urge my fellow Senators to do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
related to the sugar program. That has become

[[Page S13005]]

sort of a biannual exercise, where we must come to the floor and defend 
a program that has really worked in favor of not only the American 
producer but also the consumer of sugar products.
  I don't know how many Members of Congress, the mail situation being 
what it is, have had a lot of people writing and telling us: You have 
to do something about this terrible sugar program because the price of 
sugar is so high that I can't afford to buy sugar to sweeten my tea or 
to use on the food in my home.
  The fact is that the program has worked very well for both the 
producer of the product and also for the consumers of the products. It 
is a program that has a great deal of history. Since about 1985, the 
sugar program has had a loan much as the other commodities have had. 
The loan has been about 18 cents a pound for cane sugar producers. That 
has been the loan level for a number of years--for about 15 years now. 
It has allowed the American sugar producer to survive.
  Very simply, the program works. If the market that exists for sugar 
is above the loan level, our producers are able to sell it for whatever 
they can get above the 18 cents level. If the price falls below the 18 
cents level for sugarcane, then the Government will provide, in the 
form of a loan, that amount per pound to the American sugar producer. 
That allows them to stay in business.
  The good news is, unlike some of the other commodities, our 
Government can help guarantee there will be a minimum price, trying to 
control the imports that come into this country. Some would argue that 
we should have free trade and they should be able to sell into this 
country anything they want anytime they want. The reality of the 
situation is that most countries--over 100-some countries in the world 
that try to sell sugar in this country--take care of their own domestic 
needs, and then they dump the rest into the U.S. market for any price 
they want. They don't care whether they get 18 cents, or 5 cents, or 8 
cents for it; they just want to get rid of it. They attempt to dump 
whatever they don't need into the U.S. market, which, obviously, if we 
didn't have a program, would be allowed to destroy the industry in this 
country completely.
  So the farm bill--it is a good package, and I thank the folks who 
have worked in committee to put it together--will continue that type of 
program, at no cost to the American taxpayer, which I think is unique 
in itself as far as this commodity is concerned. It is a good program, 
and it has worked.
  This is really interesting, and I will use one chart. When people 
look at whether the price of sugar is going up--well, the price to the 
people who produce it is going down. Since 1996--these are producer 
prices, the people out in the field. Since 1996, the producer wholesale 
price level for sugar has gone down 23.4 percent. That is since 1996. 
So when people argue that somehow producers are getting rich off the 
program, the reality is that the price, according to the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, has gone down 23.4 percent over the last 5 
years for the people who actually produce the product.
  If anybody has a complaint about the price of sugar--and what I 
mentioned in my opening comments is that we don't have people marching 
on Washington, or making phone calls, or writing letters saying the 
price of sugar is too expensive. Nobody is complaining about it. If you 
look at the facts, the products that have increased in price and some 
of the products you should go after are the candy industry, cereal, 
cookies and cakes, bakery products, and ice cream. Those products have 
gone up substantially higher over these years than the wholesale 
refined sugar price. Retail sugar increased only 5.8 percent; that is 
all. So the housewife, or the person buying groceries for the family, 
has not noticed an inordinate increase in the price of sugar at all. It 
is in keeping with the cost of other inflationary price increases we 
have seen, or even more than the regular increases.

  But there have been increases in products that use sugar. If there is 
a complaint, we ought to look at them. The wholesale price at which 
they buy the sugar has gone down 23 percent, but their price at the 
retail level has increased by as much as 21.4 percent in the case of 
ice cream and 14 percent in bakery products.
  We have a program that has worked well. We have a loan program that 
sets a price that has been 18 cents since about 1985. It is a good 
program, and it operates at no cost to the taxpayer. It keeps beet 
farmers and sugarcane farmers in business. In Louisiana, all of our 
cane farmers are small family farmers; they are not large. They work 
hard every day. The only thing they need is a little bit of assistance 
that we provide in this program, at no cost to the taxpayer.
  To change something that has worked would be the wrong policy. I 
strongly urge that we defeat the Gregg amendment to this important 
piece of legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, is 
recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Louisiana for 
his remarks because he is right on target with respect to this 
amendment.
  This amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire is a mistake. When 
the Senator from New Hampshire gets up and tells our colleagues that 
the world price for sugar is just over 9 cents a pound, it is not true.
  That is not what the world price of sugar is. If one thinks about it 
for a moment, it could not possibly be because the cost of producing 
sugar is over 16 cents a pound. In fact, it is about 16.3 cents a 
pound. So how could it possibly be that the world price for the 
commodity is just over half of what it costs to produce? It cannot be, 
or the entire sugar industry worldwide would be bankrupt. This is very 
clear.
  I do not think there is anybody who really knows the sugar industry 
who does not understand that the cost of producing sugar is between 16 
and 18 cents a pound. That is what it costs to produce. So anybody who 
tells you that the world price is a fraction of what it cost to produce 
is firing with blanks.
  The hard reality is, that is not the world price of sugar. That is a 
dump price for sugar. I guess it is easy to understand how these 
misassumptions occur because people are not familiar with the industry. 
The fact is, the vast majority of sugar in the world moves under long-
term contracts. When they go to this so-called world price, they do not 
have what is the true price of sugar. What they have is what sugar is 
dumped for outside long-term contracts. It is a fraction of the sugar 
that is sold in the world.
  If you want to do a reality test, what I am saying has to be true 
because if it was not, the entire industry would have gone bankrupt 
long ago because they would be getting a price for their product that 
is a fraction of what it cost to produce.
  I respect the Senator from New Hampshire. I like him. I serve with 
him on the Budget Committee. He is one of our most able members. But 
when he talks about the world sugar market, he just has it wrong. When 
he says the price of world sugar is less than 10 cents a pound, that is 
not accurate. That is a dump price. That is the sugar that sells 
outside of long-term contracts.
  The occupant of the chair, the Senator from Hawaii, is deeply 
knowledgeable on this matter. The Senator from Hawaii has helped lead 
this debate many years in this Chamber. He understands the industry, 
and he knows that the vast majority of sugar in the world sells under a 
long-term contract.
  That is what I think is misleading the Senator from New Hampshire. 
Those long-term contracts are not part of this calculation on the so-
called world price because, in fact, it is not a world price; it is a 
dump price. It is for sugar that sells outside of long-term contracts, 
that those who have produced more than they sell under long-term 
contracts go out and dump.
  I want to go to the next point that I think is very important for 
people to understand. That is the developed countries' retail sugar 
prices. The United States is 20 percent below the average. This chart 
shows what retail sugar prices are in developed countries: Norway, 86 
cents a pound; Japan, 84 cents a pound; Finland, 83 cents a pound; 
Belgium, 75 cents a pound; Denmark, 75 cents a pound, and on it goes. I 
am part Swedish, 62 cents. I am part

[[Page S13006]]

Danish. Sugar is 75 cents there. Norway--I am part Norwegian, too--is 
86 cents. They are paying a lot more in those countries for the retail 
price of sugar than we are paying.
  I am part German, too. Germans are paying 45 cents per pound. Where 
is the United States? We are third from the bottom.
  When our colleague from New Hampshire runs out here and says to 
everybody that the consumers are getting gouged, it is not true. It 
just does not stand up to any analysis. The fact is, we are third from 
the bottom in the developed world on what we pay for sugar.
  I can understand how confusing the economics of this industry are to 
those who are not familiar with the industry and not familiar with 
agriculture, but the reality is very simple: What farmers are getting 
has been going down and going down substantially over the last several 
years. We are on the brink of a massive failure of sugar producers all 
across this country because of the collapse in the prices they are 
being paid for their product.
  The Senator from Louisiana showed the prices that sugar producers are 
receiving is down 24 percent. That is the reality. The other reality is 
that consumers in this country are getting on a relative basis, on a 
comparative basis, looking at what consumers pay in other developed 
countries, a very good deal. The truth is, it is a very competitively 
priced product in this country and right around the world.
  Finally, the point I think is so important to me and so important to 
understand is when the Senator from New Hampshire says the world price 
of sugar is under 10 cents a pound and farmers are getting paid 18 
cents or 22 cents and there is this huge profit, he does not have it 
right.
  The world price of sugar is not 9.5 cents a pound. That is the dump 
price. That is what a small minority of the sugar produced in the world 
sells for, that sugar which is outside of long-term contracts. That is 
where the vast majority of sugar sells, and the vast majority of sugar 
sells for about 20 cents a pound. That is the reality, that is the 
fact, and we should not be misled or misguided as to the economics of 
this industry.
  It would be a disaster for thousands of families who produce sugar 
all across this country if the Senator from New Hampshire were to 
prevail. You cannot be an island unto yourself. The fact is, the sugar 
industry is supported in virtually every country within which it is 
produced--in fact, every country. Not virtually every, not almost 
every, but every single country. That is what we are up against.
  Either we can fight back and give our people a fair fighting chance 
or we can roll over and play dead and wave the white flag of 
surrender--give up, give in, and let these people go broke and be 
poorer for it as a nation.
  I hope the Senate will respond, as we have, so many times in the past 
in recognizing that this industry is important to the strength of rural 
America, just as the rest of agriculture is critically important to the 
strength of rural America.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, is 
recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my good friends from North Dakota, 
Louisiana, and others who are speaking against this amendment and 
explaining the facts. Once the facts are known, I believe Senators will 
know this amendment is not a good idea.
  We want a strong agriculture policy in America, and we want a level 
playing field. We know that much too often other countries tend to 
favor their producers, their industries, their companies at the expense 
of the United States, at least more so than we Americans do.
  Every other country has a more, if I can use the term, socialistic 
policy; that is, tends more toward Government intervention in helping 
the producers and companies and their industries, than does the United 
States. Frankly, it is the view of the United States that we be a more 
free market, more independent, and let producers and companies pursue 
their own agenda. At least on a comparative basis that has made us 
stronger than other countries. It is a major strength of 
America. Having said that, we clearly don't want to make matters worse.

  In the meantime, even though other countries do subsidize their 
producers or their companies or industries more than we do, we, through 
our ingenuity--this is a general statement; there are exceptions--are 
able to fight back with greater ingenuity, creativity, good old 
American can-do, common sense, and find a way to get the job done. We 
don't moan and complain but fight and get the job done.
  This amendment moves us in the opposite direction. It says although 
the playing field is not level, although it is tilted today against the 
United States with respect to sugar, we will tilt it even more against 
American sugar producers. That is what this amendment does.
  As other Senators have ably demonstrated, the facts show that 
compared to other countries the United States ranks, for Government 
support for sugar, third from the bottom. Other countries protect their 
sugar industry much more than the United States. Sugar prices in the 
United States are lower, significantly, to the consumer.
  I am having a hard time understanding why this amendment is on the 
floor. Why would we as Americans want to hurt ourselves? It is 
unfathomable. I cannot come up with a reason--unless it sounds good on 
the surface because we have a quota system in the United States that 
provides stability to American producers. If that system in the United 
States were eliminated, or if the amendment pending of the Senator from 
New Hampshire were adopted, not only do producers already suffering 
suffer more--prices are down 23 percent--but local communities suffer: 
the shops, businesses, and gas stations. It is not just those who work 
in factories and the fields producing the cane or the beets.
  Sugar is a valuable commodity in my state of Montana. More than $188 
million in economic activity is generated in Montana each year by the 
sugar and sweetener industries and creates close to 3,300 jobs in my 
state.
  The production of sugar in the United States is a large and 
competitive operation. Throughout the Nation, the sugar industry 
generates 373,000 jobs in 42 States and creates $21.2 billion in 
economic activity.
  Our American sugar producers are among the most efficient in the 
world. The United States ranked 28 our of 102 sugar-producing countries 
for the lowest cost in overall sugar production. And the United States 
is the world's fourth largest sugar producer, trailing only Brazil, 
India, and China.
  But despite these positive statistics, our sugar producers are 
hurting. Producer prices for sugar have fallen sharply since 1996. 
Wholesale refined beet sugar prices are down 23 percent. Prices for 
sugar have been running at a 20-year low for most of the past two 
years. This has caused a deep hardship for American sugarbeet and sugar 
cane farmers. Many have gone out of business and many more are on the 
brink of economic ruin.
  We have seen 17 permanent sugar mill closures in the nation since 
1996. These closing are devastating to entire communities. Devastating 
to our producers, mill employees, transportation, restaurants, small 
businesses, and the list goes on. Some producers are trying to buy 
mills that are on the brink of bankruptcy in order to protect further 
communities from these losses.
  For example, the Rocky Mountain Sugar Growers Cooperative is in the 
process of purchasing several mills in the Montana, Colorado and 
Wyoming areas. These producers, and the cities that depend upon them, 
need a sugar policy that they can depend upon so that they can once 
again flourish.
  We need a strong sugar policy. American sugar farmers are efficient 
by world standards, and are willing and prepared to compete on a level 
playing field against foreign sugar farmers, but they cannot compete 
against foreign governments. We must give them the level playing field 
they need.
  I strongly urge this amendment be defeated. It does not make sense. 
Once the Senators know the facts, Senators will realize this amendment 
should not be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I join my colleagues, who have spoken so 
eloquently and forcefully on this subject, in urging the Senate to 
defeat the Gregg amendment.

[[Page S13007]]

  Mr. President, Louisiana is a sugar State. There are 18 sugar mills 
and two sugar refineries in Louisiana and we have more acreage devoted 
to sugarcane than any other State. Many of our parishes rely on the 
sugar industry for their economic vitality. It is an important industry 
that is hundreds of years old in the State of Louisiana and throughout 
many parts of our Nation. Nationwide, the sugar industry directly and 
indirectly affects 37,200 jobs in 42 States. It is a $21 billion 
industry.
  At this time in our Nation's history, with a recession underway, and 
with our efforts to try to build ourselves out of this recession, we 
want to do things in Congress that help, not hurt. The Gregg amendment 
is taking us in the wrong direction. We need to be creating jobs, not 
eliminating them. The sugar industry means thousands of jobs to 
Louisiana.
  Are consumers harmed by our national sugar policy? Absolutely not. 
Sugar prices have been relatively stable because of this sugar 
mechanism in the farm bill. There are different provisions in this farm 
bill, but the sugar provision is unique in that it is a provision that 
can actually return money to the Federal Treasury. It is a self-help 
mechanism. From 1991 to 1999, this policy was a net revenue raiser of 
$279 million. Sugar loans last year amounted to only a little over one 
percent of federal commodity expenditures, and this negligible cost 
will be defrayed as that sugar is gradually sold back into the market. 
In addition, between 1997 and 2001, the government rightly spent $90 
billion to save rural America from other commodity forfeitures. None of 
that money went to sugar producers.
  Because the sugar industry does not enjoy the same types of price 
supports as other commodities, we have developed over many years in 
Congress a program that both maintains low retail prices and provides 
support to an industry that must compete with heavily subsidized 
foreign sugar programs. The Senator from New Hampshire's Amendment 
would replace production by efficient, unsubsidized American sugar 
farmers with sugar from less efficient, heavily subsidized producers 
from Brazil and Europe.
  I believe the American sugar program is one worth supporting. It has 
been carefully crafted, and helps retain jobs in Louisiana and around 
the Nation. It is something we need to continue to support, not one to 
move away from.
  Let me also add, I am particularly pleased with the vote the Senate 
had yesterday on the dairy provisions. By a one-vote margin we came to 
a compromise that will help strengthen the underlying farm bill. 
Rejecting the Senator from New Hampshire's amendment gives additional 
strength to a farm bill that helps keep price supports in place, that 
appropriately subsidizes certain crops, that enables the sugar industry 
to continue to flourish in Louisiana and throughout the Nation and, 
most importantly, protects jobs that are so important to our Nation at 
this particular time.
  We have other challenges. We have trade issues that have to be worked 
out, but this amendment offered by Senator Gregg should be defeated.
  I am happy to join my colleagues in support of that effort.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I rise in opposition to the Gregg amendment. In my 
opinion, this is a terrible amendment. Essentially it abolishes the 
sugar program and significantly injures a good many family farmers who 
are struggling under ordinary circumstances to try to make a decent 
living.
  I will try to correct some of the misconceptions about the sugar 
program. First, I thought I would point out that this debate is about 
this.
  This is the fun-sized Baby Ruth candy bar. This debate is about candy 
corporations versus family farmers.
  I intend to eat this Baby Ruth when I am finished. That is why I 
don't have a large, full-sized Baby Ruth. This is a fun size. Let me 
read for a moment the ingredients of this candy bar.
  For the corporation that makes it, I am not casting aspersions upon 
your product. Since I intend to eat it, I would be telling people it is 
a pretty decent product. Let me describe what is in it.
  Ingredients: Sugar. That is not in bold type, it just says sugar. 
That, of course, misses the point. There is a lot of sugar in this 
candy bar. That is what this debate is about. This debate is about the 
price of the sugar that this company is paying for and putting in this 
candy bar.
  What else is in this candy bar? Although this debate is about sugar 
only, I thought it would be useful, perhaps, to read the entire list of 
ingredients: Roasted peanuts, corn syrup, partially hydrogenated palm 
kernel, coconut and soybean oils, high fructose corn syrup, dextrose, 
skim milk. And then emulsifiers--with a couple of emulsifying words I 
cannot pronounce--and artificial flavors, TBHQ. Maybe I won't eat this 
after I finish; maybe I will. Emulsifiers: Artificial flavors, 
carrageenan, TBHQ, and citric acid to preserve freshness. Then they 
have added caramel color.
  So that is what is in this little old Baby Ruth. This issue is about 
the sugar, the first ingredient in this candy bar.
  This amendment is not new. We have had this amendment time and time 
and time again because those who produce candy in this country, among 
others, want a lower cost of sugar.
  Let me ask the question. Has anyone noticed recently that the price 
of candy bars has decreased? Go to the store, go to the candy counter 
and pick out a bar, any bar, and ask yourself, has there been a 
reduction in the price of that bar? Maybe a 10-percent cost reduction? 
Maybe 20? Maybe 30? Maybe 40? Anybody see any of that? I don't think 
so. Same candy, same price or higher price, but they are paying less 
for sugar.
  Who gets the benefit of that so-called less for sugar? Those who 
receive lower prices for sugar are the families out there in North 
Dakota and Minnesota and the Red River Valley who are producing sugar 
beets. They are good, hard-working honest folks. They produce a good 
product. They plant those beets and they hope very much they will get a 
decent crop. When they get a decent crop, they hope, through their 
marketing mechanisms, they will have a decent price.
  But you know what has happened to the sugar producers and beet 
producers and cane producers and so on? The underlying farm bill has 
been so poor, so badly constructed in the last 6 or 8 years, that 
farmers, because the underlying farm bill for other crops has been so 
poor, farmers have planted more in beets. That is the fact. It relates, 
of course, to the underlying Freedom to Farm bill, which has been a 
terrible failure. But it is not just that there has been some 
additional acreage planted. That is not the issue that drives this 
today. We have had some price problems but that is not the issue that 
is driving all this.
  Let me give an example of what is driving it. It always comes back to 
this, it seems to me. We have a circumstance where, for example, today, 
on Wednesday, we are going to import sugar from Brazil into this 
country. It is not supposed to be coming in. It is highly subsidized by 
Brazil. And Brazil ships its highly subsidized sugar to Canada. Then 
they load liquid molasses with Brazilian sugar and ship it into the 
United States in contravention of our trade laws. It is a so-called 
legal way of cheating. It happens in our trade laws virtually all the 
time and nobody can do a blessed thing about it.
  So those who are farming out there in the Red River Valley, trying to 
produce beets, and hope beyond hope they can support their family and 
get a price for their beets, they take a look at this and say, what 
about this cheating in international trade, this so-called stuffed 
molasses?
  I hold up a Baby Ruth. We all know what a Baby Ruth is. Has anybody 
ever eaten stuffed molasses? Stuffed molasses is a term of art in 
international trade that means someone has taken Brazilian sugar, ran 
it through Canada, added it to a liquid and moved it to the United 
States, taken the sugar out of it, and moved it back to Canada. It 
comes back again and again and again. All it is is a transport for 
Brazilian sugar which is unfairly subsidized, and that cuts the legs 
out from under our producers and nobody wishes to do anything about it.
  I wish someone would come to the Chamber with half the energy with 
which they come to the Chamber on these kinds of bills to try to get 
rid of

[[Page S13008]]

the sugar program and cut the legs out of our producers, I wish they 
would come to the Chamber with that energy and say, let's stop the 
cheating in international trade.

  Let's stop the stuffed molasses, stop it dead. It is cheating, it is 
unfair, and undercuts American producers.
  When we are talking about trade, does anyone think of the farmer in 
Minnesota or North Dakota who is out there trying to raise beets, that 
their responsibility is to compete against Brazilian producers who are 
being unfairly subsidized? Is that trade that is fair? I don't think 
so, not where I come from. In my hometown, we understand what fairness 
is. We grew up understanding the definition of the word ``fair.''
  What is happening to our farmers in international trade, all of our 
farmers? And I can go through long lists dealing with the issue of 
durum wheat in Canada and others, but let me focus on this issue of 
trade in sugar to demonstrate how unfair it is to American producers. 
Yet we do not have any energy coming to the Chamber, except those of us 
who have been trying desperately to write a law which prohibits that 
molasses coming down here under the term of ``stuffed molasses.'' That 
is simply a liquid truck to bring Brazilian sugar into this country to 
hurt American producers.
  We have had people say today that the world price for sugar is way 
down here. The U.S. price for sugar is way up here. I guess they just 
miss the facts about how sugar is both produced and then marketed 
around the world. Almost all sugar around the world is traded by 
contract, country to country. That which is not is the residual amount 
of sugar surplus that is dumped on the open market at an artificial 
price. It has nothing at all to do with the market value at which sugar 
is selling or is being bought and sold. It has nothing to do with that.
  So we have people come out here with a chart with a price that is 
irrelevant. It is just irrelevant. If this were automobiles, that would 
be the salvage price but it is irrelevant to what a new car is selling 
for.
  On the issue of price, let's put that to rest once and for all. The 
price for sugar is the price at which sugar is traded internationally 
and predominantly the price at which it is traded internationally by 
contract is not at all related to the dump price that has been alleged 
as the world price by those who offer this amendment.
  Let me hold up a couple of charts that other of my colleagues have 
used as well. Some say, well, this really doesn't matter. All that 
matters here is the price of sugar in the grocery store. The fact is, 
what matters is that this is an important part of this country's 
economy. It provides over 400,000 jobs, a good many of those jobs in 
North Dakota and the Red River Valley, men and women who have a dream 
to run a family farm and make a living, and they expect public policy 
to support that. They expect public policy to weigh in in their favor 
against unfair trade.
  Instead, too many bring public policy to the floor of the Senate that 
says let's give the candy corporations a little more benefit and take 
it away from those who are trying to run a family farm. I have nothing 
against candy corporations. I eat candy--probably more than I should. 
As I said, I intend to eat this piece of candy. But the candy 
corporations have done right well. What has happened is they have seen 
a substantial reduction in the price of sugar and they love it. They 
have seen a substantial increase in their profits and they enjoy it, 
but has the consumer seen any evidence that the price of sugar is lower 
than it was? No. This is a transfer from the pockets of those running a 
family farm trying to produce sugar beets to the corporate coffers in 
the accounts called ``profits'' in the pockets of some of the largest 
candy companies in the country. That is what it is. It is 
revenuesharing. It takes from those who have not and gives to those who 
have.
  When you strip away all the pieces of this debate, this dispute is 
very simple at its core. This industry produces a great many jobs in 
this country. It is important to this country. It faces fundamentally 
unfair trade, and it has a sugar program that for many, many years has 
worked, contrary to other farm programs that have been miserable 
failures. Now we have had, routinely, people come to the floor of the 
Senate to say we want to take apart that which works. It doesn't make 
any sense to me.
  The producer prices for sugar plummet. The wholesale refined price 
for sugar--you see what happened, a 23.4-percent reduction.
  I asked the question about the candy bar, but let me ask it about a 
box of cereal. That cereal aisle in the grocery store is a wonderful 
aisle. It has so many different kinds of cereal these days you can 
hardly stop to see them all or understand them all. There are just lots 
and lots of boxes of cereal.
  When I take my kids to the grocery store with me, they know all those 
names. They have seen them advertised. They want to buy the most 
byzantine boxes of cereal I have ever heard of. Occasionally they sneak 
them into the grocery cart.
  Has anyone ever seen a reduction in the price of cereal as a result 
of a reduction in the price of sugar? I don't think so. Has anyone seen 
a reduction in the price of cookies or cakes at the retail level? No. 
They are heavy users of sugar. How about other bakery products? What 
about ice cream? Is ice cream selling at a substantial reduction? Of 
course, that is a tremendous carrier of sugar as well. No. I don't 
think so. What about doughnuts? Is the price of doughnuts down because 
the price of sugar has plummeted? I don't think so. I think the price 
of doughnuts is up. I think the price of candy bars and cookies is up, 
including the profits of candy manufacturers who now want more. They 
want more. This is not enough. They want more.
  They want to kill the sugar program. The answer to those interests 
that want to do that is, you are not going to be able to do it--not 
today, not tomorrow, not next month, and not next year. This is a 
program that works. It is constructed in a way that works. It works for 
American family farmers and for American consumers.
  We have a stable supply of sugar and a stable price. We had it for a 
long time until the most recent problems that, in my judgment, came 
about because the underlying farm bill didn't work.
  Stability of supply and price serves both the family farmer interests 
and consumer interests. I think there are other interests here. I admit 
that. There is the interest of the candy manufacturers, and there are 
interests of others. But I am most especially interested in the broader 
question of public interest that reflects those who live and work on 
our land in this country--family farms--and the interests of the 
broader spectrum of the American public who want a stable supply at 
reasonable prices on their grocery store shelves. That is what this 
issue is about.
  I don't disparage those who have offered this. They come from their 
perspective. They represent the candy manufacturers. Some other 
interests want lower sugar prices.
  I represent family farmers who want a fair deal. All they want is a 
fair deal. They are not getting it. This amendment would further 
destroy their opportunity to make a living. We are going to kill this 
amendment, I hope, in the next couple of hours.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from 
Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak against the amendment 
being offered by my colleague from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, that will 
terminate the sugar program. This program is a vital subsidy that 
provides valuable assistance to U.S. sugar farmers and ensures that 
sugar remains an affordable commodity for American consumers. While we 
are all facing difficult times, I must remind my colleagues that 
American farmers are hurting.
  We must also realize that should we lose the sugar program in our 
country, our sugar farmers would go out of business and we would be at 
the mercy of world sugar. We would be suffering with high prices. We 
would not be in control of prices, and the American public would be 
hurt.
  United States producer prices for sugar have decreased by close to 30 
percent since 1996. Many sugar farmers have gone out of business and a 
number of beet and cane mills have closed. In the same period, 17 sugar 
mills have

[[Page S13009]]

closed. Seven of those sugar mills were located in the State of Hawaii. 
Today we have just two sugar mills in Hawaii.
  Opponents of the sugar program believe that this program is outdated 
and artificially inflates sugar prices for consumers. In fact, the 
opposite is true. The program has acted as a cushion against imports 
from the world dump market. Our sugar program has been successful in 
ensuring stable sugar supplies at reasonable prices. United States 
consumers pay an average of 17 cents less per pound of sugar than their 
counterparts in other industrialized nations. Low U.S. prices save 
consumers more than $1 billion annually. Consumers elsewhere around the 
globe do not enjoy the low prices we have in America. Most American 
consumers would be amazed at the price of sugar in other industrialized 
nations, as revealed by my colleague from North Dakota. That is why I 
say that the sugar program is critical to American consumers.
  While the sugar program had a modest cost for forfeitures of sugar 
loans in 2000, this cost amounted to only 1.5 percent of the Federal 
commodity program expenditures. These costs will be defrayed as sugar 
is gradually sold back into the market. Furthermore, U.S. retail sugar 
prices have remained virtually unchanged for more than a decade and are 
20 percent below the developed-country average.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment No. 2466. If Congress 
terminates the sugar program, not only will a dynamic part of the 
economy disappear from many rural areas, but consumers will also lose a 
reliable supply of high-quality, low-price sugar.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I was at a labor rally on the economic 
recovery plan and lost my voice, but I came back here to speak on this 
amendment. I have been following this debate a little bit. I wanted to 
comment on what I heard on the floor.
  In that rally there were indeed some steel workers from the Iron 
Range of Minnesota, I say to my colleague from Minnesota. Basically, 
the message was this: We are out of work through no fault of our own. 
We are running out of unemployment insurance benefits, and we don't 
have coverage for our loved ones, for our children, or for our 
families. I believe this is sort of a test case of whether or not we in 
the Senate, or for that matter in the administration, care about hard-
working people. We are very much a part of our country coming together. 
In fact, we keep celebrating the firefighters and policemen and others. 
Now when America's working families really need help, where are we?
  I will tell you, any economic recovery plan is just simply, as far as 
I am concerned, unconscionable without making sure we extend the 
unemployment insurance benefits to make sure that part-time workers are 
covered and to make sure we get the health care benefits to these 
people.
  I do not know how we can possibly take these working families and put 
them in parentheses. We have had tens of billions of dollars of 
assistance for the airline industry. I look at the House of 
Representatives, and they have about $30 billion-plus of tax breaks for 
the energy companies, including oil companies that made huge profits 
last year. They want to do away with the alternative minimum tax and 
give $1 billion here and $1 billion to this multinational corporation. 
They want to lock in these ``Robin Hood in reverse'' tax cuts, which 
provide more for the wealthiest top 1 percent. However at the same time 
we are worried about the Social Security surplus and say we have no 
money for children, for education, for the IDEA program, for children 
with special needs, or to help people who are out of work right now.
  I will tell you, this is a test case of whether we have 
``compassionate conservatism'' or the heart and soul of my party. 
Democrats need to fight hard for these working people. In any case, I 
think that is a transition to this debate because I am hearing a number 
of my colleagues in this Chamber talking about eliminating the sugar 
program.
  By the way, a lot of our sugar beat growers, as my colleague from 
Minnesota knows, are independent producers. What is interesting is that 
this particular sugar program really sets the loan rate at good level, 
which gives our producers the ability to bargaining to get a decent 
price in the market, which, frankly, I want for all our farmers, far 
more than depending on AMTA payments and other direct Government money.
  But I have to say to Senators--I have to figure out the right way to 
say this; if I say ``cynical,'' it sounds as if that is too shrill--but 
I am skeptical about this commitment to the Food Stamp Program and more 
funding for nutrition programs. I am skeptical because during the 
debate on the welfare bill in 1996 that significantly cut food stamp 
benefits, which, by the way, is the major child nutrition safety net 
program in our country, and very successful, some of the very Senators 
who are on the floor today are saying the reason we need to cut the 
sugar program is because we need to dramatically expand food nutrition 
programs. I think this is basically a cynical tradeoff, which will put 
under a bunch of independent producers and farmers, saying the reason 
we need to do this is because we need to dramatically expand food 
nutrition programs. I ask where were these Senators when we had a 30 
percent reduction in food stamp enrollment. That was in the 1996 so-
called welfare reform program. The fact is these Senators who had not a 
word to say.
  I say to those Senators, where were you? In the committee, Senator 
Harkin and Senator Dayton and I have fought hard for food nutrition 
programs. Frankly, my bottom line in conference is, anything less than 
$6.2 billion in the food nutrition program is unacceptable.
  By the way, the House of Representatives, with a Republican majority, 
has $3.6 billion for food nutrition programs. That is it. Now, all of a 
sudden, the very Senators--this is not a one-to-one correlation--but 
many of the very same Senators I have never seen out here as advocates 
for expanding food nutrition programs, for expanding the Food Stamp 
Program, all of a sudden, when it comes to this nifty, clever little 
way of trading off a farm program that gives producers some leverage in 
the market price to get a decent price versus the Food Stamp Program, 
now we have the amendment offered on the floor. This is transparent.
  In our Agriculture Committee deliberations, I voted for the higher 
price-tag of $10 billion for food nutrition programs. Senator Lugar has 
been a good, strong advocate for food nutrition programs. I will say 
that. There is no question about it. My comments are not aimed at the 
Senator from Indiana because I think he has been a true champion on 
this issue. I am talking about a variety of things I have heard from a 
variety of different Senators. And I see where this vote is going.
  But I said in the Agriculture Committee, I refuse to accept this 
cynical tradeoff of a commodity program that provides some income 
assistance for farmers and/or provides some leverage for our farmers to 
get a decent price in the marketplace, especially if they are family 
farmers--that is, the people who work the land, live on the land--and 
food nutrition programs.
  Now, I along with others will have an amendment later on to target 
some of these commodity prices. From my point of view, not only can we 
take some of that for a higher loan rate and a better price for our 
producers, we can take some of that and put it in the food nutrition 
programs. Fine. But do not come out of here with an amendment that 
basically eliminates the program which will eliminate independent 
producers. In this particular case, we are talking about sugar beat 
producers, especially in the Red River Valley and other parts of our 
State of Minnesota.
  Again, I would say that I am a little bit skeptical. I am a little 
bit skeptical of Senators who are coming out here who I have never 
heard a word from about cuts in the Food Stamp Program before, and now 
all of a sudden they become passionate advocates for the Food Stamp 
Program, if it gives them an opportunity to eliminate a whole bunch of 
independent producers, family farmers.

[[Page S13010]]

  Do I think that some of these farm programs are an inverse 
relationship to need? Yes. Do I want to more target them? Yes. But I 
refuse to accept in tradeoff that is explicit--not implicit, but 
explicit--in this amendment that is before us today on the floor of the 
Senate.
  Let me also say quite a few of the Senators who are out here with 
this amendment, and they can come out here and debate me, but I would 
bet that the historical record will show this: While we have had, in 
the past several years, a dramatic rise in the use of food shelves and 
food pantries, and while we have had any number of different reports 
that have come out, especially by the religious community, about the 
rise in the number of ``food insecure households''--which is just 
another way of saying homes where people are hungry, maybe to the tune 
of about 30 million or thereabouts; I do not remember the exact figure, 
many of them children--while we have had reports about the dramatic 
rise of hunger and homelessness in our country, I have not heard one 
word from many of the Senators who have come out here today, who, all 
of a sudden, have become champions for the Food Stamp Program, if they 
can eliminate a farm program that will eliminate family farmers, 
independent producers in my State of Minnesota.
  I say no to that. I hope my colleagues will join me.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. We 
have heard a lot of discussion over the years about the sugar amendment 
and the sugar program in the United States. In fact, as the 
distinguished Senator from Louisiana indicated, we seem to have this 
debate on at least a biennial basis. We have had this debate since I 
have been in Congress, and long before that.
  It would seem people in the country, and particularly here in 
Congress, would ultimately come to recognize what the true facts about 
this program are. But, nevertheless, we continue to debate it.
  I would like to talk a little bit about what really is at stake. 
There is a lot of discussion about the fact that the United States 
supposedly subsidizes its sugar and that that is a great cost to the 
taxpayer, a great cost to the consumer, and an inequity in 
international trade.
  The reality is, although there is a lot of talk about the world sugar 
price--and I am going to discuss that in more detail in a minute--it is 
a trumped-up argument.
  The United States, as a matter of fact, has the sugar program because 
other nations are subsidizing their sugar. The world sugar price, as is 
so often debated in these halls, is a world-dumped sugar price.
  What happens is, most nations that produce sugar produce enough sugar 
for what is consumed in their nation, and then they have some amount of 
sugar left over. That sugar that is left over is then able to be dumped 
on the world market through very anticompetitive and even predatory 
practices by these nations, where they are subsidizing the sugar 
production and dumping it into the world market in an effort to 
basically help their producers gain an unfair advantage against the 
producers in other nations.
  What the United States did long ago was to recognize that if we were 
to allow this subsidized sugar to be dumped unjustifiably in the U.S. 
markets, it would drive the price of sugar in the United States 
unreasonably low and drive our producers out of business, thereby 
resulting in a capture of the market by these other nations and their 
producers. What we always see in the economic cycle when that happens 
is that then the price can go up, as those who have driven out their 
competitors and the competition can, then more easily control the 
price.
  I show on this first chart what we are talking about in terms of the 
world sugar dump market price. The world average production cost to 
produce sugar is $16.26, and the world market price that we often hear 
about is $9.52, which is why we have deemed it the world dump price. 
What happens is that a price far below the cost of production of sugar 
is generated by those nations that subsidize and provide other 
anticompetitive barriers to the proper movement of sugar in a real 
market. It is this subsidized sugar that would flow into U.S. markets, 
significantly jeopardizing our producers in a way that would cause many 
of them to go out of business, that the U.S. sugar program is designed 
to stop. That is really what is at issue.
  The question we must ask ourselves is, Is the United States going to 
step up to the plate and protect its sugar producers in an 
anticompetitive world market environment where clearly the competition 
is out there trying to drive our producers out of business?
  Some respond by saying the U.S. sugar producers ought to be able to 
produce their sugar more efficiently or it really isn't a world dump 
price, and the fact is that U.S. sugar producers want to keep their 
sugar at unreasonably high prices.
  Again, the reality is, when we study the nations that have retail 
sugar prices--I distinguish here between a retail sugar price, the 
price the consumer pays at the marketplace to buy their sugar--the 
United States is clear down at the bottom of the developed countries in 
terms of the retail price paid for sugar in our markets. Our sugar 
producers are producing sugar efficiently. The price of sugar at our 
retail level in our markets is very competitive worldwide. In fact, as 
you can see here, we are clear down toward the bottom. The United 
States is third from the bottom among developed countries in terms of 
the low price of sugar.
  The argument that our consumers are being hurt somehow by the sugar 
program is simply false. What is really at stake is that there are 
those who would like to push production of dumped sugar, of subsidized 
sugar, and dump that sugar into the U.S. markets to gain advantage.
  If you want to look at whether that will cause the price of goods 
that utilize sugar to go down, you have to look at the marketplace in 
the United States. Every year we debate this, the argument is made that 
the sugar prices are unreasonably high because of the sugar program, 
and if we could get those sugar prices down, we would save the 
consumers in the United States a lot of money. If you look at what has 
happened to the price of sugar for the last 4 years, it has come down. 
It has come down about 25 percent.
  We haven't seen the price of products that utilize sugar come down at 
all. The price of those products has generally gone up over the last 4 
years. The savings there have not been passed on to consumers. Those 
savings, if any, in the reduction of the sugar price in the United 
States over the last 4 years, have gone directly into the pockets of 
the producers, those who utilize the lower cost sugar in their products 
but then continue to sell their products for either the same or an 
increased price.

  The real issue is whether the United States will continue to protect 
its sugar beet farmers. Right now, talking about sugar beets, the sugar 
farmers throughout the United States are running at 20-year lows. For 
the past 2 years, the farmers in the United States are getting 20-year 
low prices, whereas the prices for the goods that utilize sugar have 
not come down at all.
  We need to debunk some of these false theories or false rumors that 
have been placed out in the American public about what is happening in 
the sugar debate.
  Another argument that is often made is that the sugar program 
involves the U.S. Government subsidizing heavily its own sugar to 
protect against this anticompetitive conduct. There are those who say 
even though we do recognize that there are predatory practices 
worldwide, the U.S. taxpayers should not be expected to be the ones who 
step up to the plate and protect.
  Again, let's talk about the real facts. The way the sugar program 
works, the sugar producers themselves pay an assessment on their crops 
to help to fund the nonrecourse loan program that is established to 
protect the sugar industry. The sugar program basically consists of two 
very easy pieces: One, a nonrecourse loan; and, two, quotas on imports 
to protect us from dumped sugar being forced into U.S. markets.
  If you look at what the cost to the U.S. Treasury has been as a 
result of this nonrecourse loan program, you find something very 
interesting. If you look at the last 12 years, this chart basically 
covers 9 or 10 years. The U.S. Treasury has gained money because of

[[Page S13011]]

the sugar program because in each of the years 1991 through 1999, I 
believe in almost every year prior to that, the assessment paid by the 
sugar growers was more than was necessary to pay for the cost of the 
loan program, and the excess went right into the U.S. Treasury. The 
Federal Government was making money off of the sugar program to the 
taxpayers, not costing the taxpayers money.
  It is true that in the year 2000 that reversed, and the loan 
assessments were not enough to cover it. And in that year there were 
costs to the taxpayer as a result of the nonrecourse loan program. We 
can't say that in every single year there is going to be a benefit to 
the U.S. Treasury. But we can look at history and historically, in the 
vast majority of the years, the U.S. sugar program operates at no cost 
to the U.S. taxpayer. In fact, it puts dollars in the Treasury which we 
then allocate to other important priorities in the United States.
  Whether we are talking about the consumer, whether we are talking 
about the taxpayer, or whether we are talking about the sugar growers 
in the United States, the sugar program is a program that is designed 
for well-intentioned purposes and is working well. There is no reason 
we should have to go through this debate endlessly, as those who would 
like to drive the price of sugar down even further in the United States 
continue to attack the sugar program.
  I encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment to strike the sugar 
provisions from this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks made 
by the Senator from Idaho and by the two Senators who preceded him from 
Minnesota and North Dakota. I was not aware until the Senator from 
Idaho pointed out the history in the sugar program, but I think this 
testimony today certainly underscores the bipartisan support for this 
program and also the benefits not only to sugar beet producers in these 
respective States but, as Senator Crapo has pointed out, to the 
American people.
  I see no one else is here right now so I thought I would take a 
moment. I have been asked by the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, 
Senator Harkin, who is managing this bill, to sit in for him briefly 
because he has to chair a conference committee on one of the 
appropriations subcommittees. In baseball terms that is called 
``reaching deep into the bench'' to put me in that position. It does 
give me an opportunity to speak for a moment about the superb job which 
the chairman, Senator Harkin, has done in leading our Agriculture 
Committee and also in bringing this bill to the floor.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, since he and I were both on this 
committee for this first year, we have had the good fortune to serve 
under two very distinguished and outstanding chairmen of the committee. 
Senator Lugar from Indiana, when we first joined the committee, 
provided magnificent leadership. His longstanding commitment and 
concern not only to American farmers and to setting the right policy 
for American farmers is evident, but also his deep support for the 
nutrition programs and benefiting children, consumers throughout this 
country.
  When Senator Harkin became chairman, I had the opportunity then, 
along with the Presiding Officer, to watch him provide the same kind of 
outstanding leadership. He has had the responsibility to bring this 
bill through our committee and to the Senate floor. I can honestly say, 
after watching him over the last couple months, one of the positions I 
would least want to assume is that of chairman of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee. While it has great responsibility and great 
opportunity to be of service to those States, such as Nebraska, 
Minnesota, and others, which are so heavily dependent on agriculture, 
frankly, the work the chairman has performed I think has been nothing 
short of miraculous, trying to pull together all the agricultural 
interests in our very diverse country.

  We have had some of our differences and disagreements, certainly, but 
I think they have been more based on representing the interests of the 
farmers in our particular States than anything else. Maybe some are on 
philosophy and views on what the Government's role in agriculture 
policy ought to be. Most of all, we come from 50 diverse States with 
very different agricultural interests, and we are trying to knit that 
all together here.
  Again, I think Senator Harkin has been phenomenal in his ability to 
bring together all the points of view and to reflect not only the 
interests of his own State of Iowa--which, coincidentally, is 
contiguous to my State of Minnesota, so we share many issues in 
common--but also those interests from all over the country. I think the 
bill that the chairman brought forward is really remarkable.
  I have listened to the debate over the last couple of days. Again, 
there are many different points of view, and they all have considerable 
merit. I hear some who are critical of this effort because of the costs 
involved and the need to provide some of these supports to American 
farmers and producers, and I sometimes think we have lost the context 
for this legislation and the reason that we, even in the committee, had 
to adopt some of these provisions.
  As a Senator from Minnesota, where commodities such as corn, wheat, 
soybeans, and dairy are certainly beneficiaries of these programs, I 
wish--and I know every farmer in Minnesota wishes and would greatly 
prefer not to--we did not have to receive any Government payments or 
subsidies whatsoever--call them AMTA, countercyclical, or whatever. 
They would much rather make a decent price and get a good profit in the 
marketplace.
  I come from a business family, and I know the Presiding Officer has 
been involved in business as well. You don't stay in business in this 
country if you can't make a profit on what it is you produce and sell. 
That is what American farmers want to do. They are business men and 
women first and foremost. They love the land and the work they do, but 
they are in agriculture to make a profit--a sufficient profit to pay 
for all their equipment, their seed, and other investments, and to get 
a fair return. Most important, they want to be able to provide for 
their families.
  Something strikes me as terribly wrong in this country when these 
hard-working men and women--America's farmers--want to spend their 
lives and devote their careers to feeding the people in our country and 
throughout this hungry world, yet they can't make a decent profit on 
what it is that they themselves produce. I know farm families in 
Minnesota where the families and their children are literally going 
hungry because they can't make enough producing commodities to be able 
to buy what they need for their own families.
  That is the crisis we have seen in the past. I think we have seen it 
clearly--at least speaking from Minnesota's perspective--get worse and 
worse under the current farm bill. It was put together with all the 
best intentions. I don't think there was anybody in the Senate or in 
the House 6 years ago, when this bill was put together, who had 
any intention other than to best serve the interests of American 
farmers and the American people. But the fact remains that in the 
aftermath of that legislation, the decoupling of prices from payments 
and setting up of AMTA payments that were based on pre-1996 levels of 
production has essentially locked in historical production, as well as 
the payments made according to the size of these farm operations, and 
that is, prices declined for many key commodities, and in subsequent 
years Members of Congress from both parties came back and agreed 
together, under the administration of the former Democratic President--
so this was bipartisan--they came back together year after year and 
authorized these emergency payments.

  Last year in the United States, the Federal Government was the 
largest provider of financing and income for American farmers. In some 
States, including parts of my own, net farm income in these areas was 
less than the amount of the Federal Government payments in support of 
these commodities. In other words, in the marketplace the farmers lost 
money. If they had not received these Government payments, they would 
have been out of business. That is again why, from my perspective, the 
Congress, and the administration, year after year, acted as they did, 
because they knew if they did not do so, given the market prices that 
were not just through the floor; they were in the sub-basement, the 
farmers

[[Page S13012]]

would be going out of business. If they hadn't acted as they did, 
Minnesota farmers, by the thousands, would have been out of business.
  Therefore, if we don't act as we are today, if we were to say take 
away all these subsidies and let's return the dollars and use them for 
some other purpose, that would absolutely bankrupt farmers in Minnesota 
and, I believe, throughout significant parts of this country.
  So the goal of Chairman Harkin's work and our work on the committee, 
as I view it, has been to take the predicament in which we find 
ourselves today with American agriculture and say how do we move 
ourselves out from behind this economic eight ball that we find 
ourselves behind and move forward in a way that restores some of the 
market prices, at least if I had my way, to levels that are such that 
farmers could make a good price and profit.
  Even though we dodge that issue in this country, frankly, there are 
forces--and some have been referred to by some of my colleagues--who 
prefer to see the price that goes to the farmers themselves as low as 
possible, and who benefit from having low market prices for basic 
commodities because then, through the processing and the transport and 
retail and the like, they have a greater margin for profit in their own 
enterprises, striking that balance so that the American consumer, at 
the end of that, still pays a reasonable amount, which the consumers do 
today--remarkably less of their total family income as a percentage for 
basic food than virtually any other country in the world, because we 
have an efficient agriculture system, one that overall provides food 
for the consumer at a low price, providing for quality as well.
  Those who want to keep prices low--and we have had this discussion in 
the Agriculture Committee, the Chair will remember, with the Secretary 
of Agriculture, where I asked the Secretary, because there are some in 
that administration and part of that Department who reportedly, from 
what I have read of their remarks, think the prices should be kept 
fairly low, should not get too high, because then it would have a 
negative effect on our efforts to expand trade and the like.
  So I asked the Secretary if she could provide for us what are the 
target market prices for these commodities that the administration 
thinks are in the best interests of American farmers, as well as trade 
and everything else. I have not yet received an answer to that question 
that I raised some time ago.

  So to lay all the cards on the table here, clearly, as I say, there 
are many competing forces, and Chairman Harkin, in my view, has done an 
extraordinary job of balancing them and putting this bill before us. I 
might say the same about the conservation title. I know Senator Harkin 
and other Members have worked closely on that. He has been working on 
these new initiatives in conservation for the last couple of years. I 
know because I had an opportunity--and some of the environmental groups 
and farm groups in Minnesota told me even before I took office about 
how they have been working with Senator Harkin and with his excellent 
staff for the last couple of years framing these conservation programs.
  Senator Harkin recognized that we have already in current law--
through, again, bipartisan efforts and with bipartisan support--such 
very important conservation programs as CRP, WRP, the ways in which we 
have encouraged farmers and paid them through Federal funds to set 
aside lands that are probably better off not being in agricultural 
production--they may be marginal for that purpose; they may have 
environmental issues with extensive farm production--and where we 
therefore make it possible financially for farmers to do the right 
thing. What they would like to do is act as stewards of that land and 
to go ahead.
  So we have seen those programs. They produce wonderful results and 
support the men and women in my State of Minnesota and across the 
country--environmental groups and farmers. This is one of those times 
when people from all different interests, backgrounds, and perspectives 
seem to agree that, again, within the right balance, setting aside this 
amount of acreage has been in the best interests of our country.
  These are Federal Government programs that have worked for farmers 
and environmentalists. They have worked to preserve our resources. They 
have worked for sports men and women, fisher men and women, and 
hunters.
  Senator Harkin wanted to focus in particular on those farmers who 
have land in production but who themselves, especially during these 
times of economic hardship, would like to undertake some improvements 
for conservation purposes and do not have the resources, sometimes even 
the technical know-how, to do so.
  He crafted this new conservation program, the Conservation Security 
Act, which is a major component. It should be called the Harkin 
Conservation Security Act, to give due recognition to the leadership he 
has provided in support of farm organizations, environmental groups, 
and others in Minnesota and elsewhere in the country.
  If we initiate a new approach which is successful, I believe it will 
be a tremendous cornerstone of our nationwide conservation efforts by 
providing farmers with funds and working with them and with people with 
expertise in farmland conservation so they can bring more of their 
agricultural production into the best conservation practices known and 
provide them with funds to do so. I think that is an extraordinarily 
important part of the legislation.
  Finally, Mr. President, since I have the opportunity, I want to say 
how important I think the energy title of this legislation is. Again, I 
commend Senator Harkin for his leadership in this area as well. He has 
been one of the champions in the Senate for a number of years in taking 
our agricultural commodities, such as corn, which is certainly 
prevalent in his State of Iowa and my State of Minnesota, and using 
corn for purposes of ethanol production, providing what is a winner all 
around, providing an additional market for domestic commodities so we 
raise the prices, as I said earlier, in the marketplace, and providing 
for cleaner fuel as an alternative, as a substitute for some of the 
hydrocarbon additives. Ethanol is an enormous contribution to a cleaner 
environment across this country, and also to domestic oil reserves.
  I look forward next year to working in the area of expanding the use 
of soybeans for diesel fuel as an additive, and I know Senator Harkin 
has been willing to take the leadership, along with myself and others, 
in that area as well.
  Again, I commend the chairman. I certainly commend the ranking member 
as well, but I think through the chairman's hard work especially, we 
have a bill today I am very proud to support.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, when I saw the Senator from Minnesota was 
speaking on the farm bill, I wanted to come and thank him publicly for 
the role he has played as a new member of the Senate Agriculture 
Committee.
  The Senate Agriculture Committee deals with some of the most 
difficult issues when we are dealing with a new farm bill. This has 
been a debate that has extended over a long time. I point out that the 
Senator from Minnesota, as a new member of the Senate Agriculture 
Committee, in my judgment, has become one of its most thoughtful 
members. We saw that with respect to the amendments he offered and his 
debate, both in the public sessions and also the sessions in which 
there were only members discussing how we would proceed.
  I thank him. It is awfully good to have a new colleague from a 
neighboring State who has done his homework on the issues in this farm 
bill. I believe that is the case with the Senator from Minnesota. I 
commend him for the role he has already played.
  One of the things that happens around here is you develop respect 
based on your credibility, and the Senator from Minnesota I think has 
laid a basis that will serve him well for many years to come in the 
Senate.
  I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the role of the current 
occupant of the chair as well who is also a new member of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee, the former Governor of the State of Nebraska, 
almost a neighbor to North Dakota, but someone with

[[Page S13013]]

whom we have shared interests and somebody who has played a very 
important role as well in bringing this farm bill before the Senate.
  We can acknowledge there were many who said we would never be here. 
There are many who said we could not get a bill through the committee 
this year, we could not get a bill on to the floor of the Senate. Now 
they are saying we cannot get it out of the Senate. We will see. We 
know there are those who are opposed to moving this legislation this 
year. I think they are badly in error. Let me say why.
  We are faced with the lowest prices in 50 years in agriculture. In 
October, the price review for agriculture came out, the so-called 
producer price index. It indicated the biggest drop in prices that 
farmers received in 91 years--the biggest monthly reduction.
  Our major competitors are not waiting. The Europeans have clearly a 
plan and a strategy they are pursuing and pursuing aggressively. They 
are already providing their producers nearly 10 times as much in per 
acre support. They are providing 28 times as much in export subsidy to 
take markets that have traditionally been ours. They hope we are 
asleep. They hope we will not act. They hope we will debate this bill 
to death and not move forward.
  I hope they are wrong. I believe they will be proven wrong. It is 
incredibly important to this country that they are wrong because if 
Europe prevails, if they are able to maintain this differential in 
which they are continuing to grab market share that traditionally has 
been ours--remember, in the last 20 years they have gone from the 
biggest importing region in the world to the biggest exporting region. 
They have done it in 20 years. They have done it the old-fashioned way: 
They have gone out and bought these markets.
  We in this country will regret it for a very long time if we lose our 
world dominance in agriculture. We are very close. The stakes are 
enormous, and this farm bill is the test. I hope we pass it.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to strongly oppose the Gregg 
amendment, which would essentially abolish the sugar program and place 
the remaining two sugarcane producers in my state out of business.
  Hawaii cannot afford the dramatic increase in unemployment that will 
result from the shutdown of the remaining sugar operations. Sugar 
supports much of the employment base on the Islands of Kauai and Maui. 
If there is no relief to sugar prices, approximately 300 to 400 sugar 
and related workers will become unemployed. For a small island economy, 
this would be an enormous loss of jobs at a time when there are few 
alternative employment opportunities in the state. The sugar industry 
in Hawaii has declined to about one-third of its size compared to five 
years ago, and the remaining operations can remain globally competitive 
only as long as the U.S. sugar program is in place. The U.S. sugar 
program provides a cushion against imports from the world dump market, 
where prices have run about half the world average cost of producing 
sugar for most of the past two decades.
  U.S. producer prices for sugar have been running at 20-year lows for 
the last two years, and it is extremely difficult for our producers to 
compete because sugar production around the world is heavily 
subsidized. Because of foreign subsidized surpluses the world dump 
market price has averaged, for the past decade and a half, only about 
half of the price it would have been in the absence of subsidies. For 
example, the European Union (EU) has transformed itself from one of the 
world's biggest sugar importers to one of the world's biggest exporters 
with extremely generous producer subsidies. The EU subsequently 
unloaded its surplus sugar onto the world dump market with massive 
export subsidies. Some 6 million metric tons of subsidized sugar is 
dumped on the world market each year, for whatever price it can bring 
in.
  The U.S. sugar policy was a net revenue raiser of $279 million from 
1991 to 1999. The sugar provisions in S. 1731 allows American sugar 
farmers and producers to compete on a level playing field against 
foreign sugar farmers. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Gregg 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, a couple of hours ago, I came to the Chamber 
and indicated we needed to move this legislation along. We have not 
moved it very far, although this has been a stimulating debate on the 
topic of sugar.
  I have spoken to the Republican manager Senator Lugar, and he has 
indicated he wants to speak, Senator Enzi wants to speak. And I see my 
friend from Arizona. I do not know if he has had an opportunity to 
speak yet. I say through the Chair to the Senator from Indiana, I do 
not know if the Senator from Arizona has spoken. I have not been in the 
Chamber all day. He may want to speak.
  It appears not.
  When Senator Lugar finishes his statement and the Senator from 
Wyoming finishes his statement, I will move to table this amendment.
  I also say to the manager of the bill for the minority, I hope 
sometime this afternoon we can have a cutoff for filing of amendments. 
If we are not able to determine how many amendments there will be and 
some time for a filing deadline, it appears people are not serious 
about moving this bill along.
  I look forward to the next vote, and we can talk to the two leaders 
at that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished colleague from 
Nevada in response, it is indeed my impression that following the 
debate on the sugar amendment, Senator Domenici wishes to offer an 
amendment, and then Senator Bond from Missouri will come in, and then 
Senator McCain.
  Mr. REID. That sounds good.
  Mr. LUGAR. At least we know there will be some activity. I want to 
speak on the sugar program. For the moment, I am prepared to yield to 
my distinguished colleague from Wyoming because I will be here for 
quite awhile, and to conserve his time so he might be heard, I yield 
the floor, and I will ask for recognition again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Gregg amendment 
which is to phase out the sugar program. The goal of U.S. sugar policy 
is for our producers to provide a consistent supply of inexpensive 
sugar to consumers. We have met that goal. Sugar is an important part 
of almost every food product. The U.S. sugar policy has provided food 
manufacturers with an unwavering supply of sugar without cost 
fluctuations. All consumers have benefited from this steady supply. The 
U.S. sugar policy has allowed producers in Wyoming and other States to 
provide for the country's sugar needs without going out of business.
  The Senator from New Hampshire claims the U.S. would be better served 
if we purchased our sugar from the world market. I will not deny the 
prices for sugar on the world market are less expensive than the 
current U.S. sugar prices. It is important to note that the world 
market is a dump market. It is comprised of surplus sugar from 
subsidized countries.
  Countries such as Mexico supply the world market. Mexico now has an 
average overproduction of 631,000 pounds. Even though 250,000 pounds of 
that surplus production is accepted into our market under the NAFTA 
side level, the Mexican Government recently bought and paid the debts 
on almost half of the sugar refineries in Mexico. If that is not 
subsidization, I don't know what is.
  I met with the folks from the Mexican senate yesterday. They were in 
the United States to talk about sugar. I had to remind them of their 
overproduction, and if the world market opens up it will grow even 
greater. I had to talk to them about the NAFTA side letter so that our 
high fructose corn syrup can go to Mexico and eliminate some of the 
overage we have here.
  I know for a fact some of the people who served in this body at the 
time that NAFTA came up only voted for NAFTA on the basis of that side 
letter. That side letter is now not being recognized by the Mexican 
Government.
  They are creating a crisis in America, a crisis in Wyoming. The sugar 
beet growers in Wyoming are working desperately to make their product 
work, to make sure there is an even domestic supply. We shifted all of 
our energy supply overseas--not all, but a

[[Page S13014]]

good deal of it. You can see the crisis that this is causing at the 
present time in this country. Should we do that to sugar too; get rid 
of our local producers and have those countries in the other parts of 
the world ban together to control the price of sugar and make us pay 
through the nose for sugar? I don't think that is a very good idea.
  Our sugar producers in Wyoming are coming up with alternate ways to 
make their production work better. One of the ways they are doing that 
is to buy the refineries. They are not asking the Federal Government to 
buy the refineries. They are buying the refineries. They are forming 
co-ops and putting their land up against the refinery. Why? They get a 
little bit of profit off of the sugar, off of the production of the 
sugar. They will get another little bit of profit off of the refining 
of the sugar. If they can put together enough of the different layers 
that are presently going to other people, they will be able to make a 
living from the sugar.
  Don't be fooled by the glut of sugar in the world market. The price 
may be low now, but I guarantee that will change. As soon as the U.S. 
accepts this amendment and begins buying from the world market, the 
price for sugar in that market will rise. We will be left at the mercy 
of the world market because our growers will no longer be in business.

  In Wyoming alone, the Main Streets of at least four rural communities 
would become ghost towns. They will no longer be able to meet the needs 
of our own country. While sugar beets remain the No. 1 cash crop in 
Wyoming, the price farmers receive for their sugar is at a 20-year low. 
That shows the dire situation all agricultural producers are in this 
year. The companies that refine the sugar beets into sugar in Wyoming 
can no longer afford to remain open.
  The farmers in my State and others have banded together to try to 
purchase the refineries. They are attempting and fighting to do 
everything they can to remain viable and competitive. These are not 
farmers waiting for the U.S. Government to bail them out; they are 
fighting for their own future.
  The Senate should defeat this amendment. We should continue to 
support sugar beet and sugarcane farmers just as we support all farmers 
who produce agricultural commodities in the United States. The sugar 
program portion of the total net outlays for all commodity programs 
from 1996 to 2001 was only .19 percent, a small cost to maintain a 
steady supply of sugar to our consumers and to provide for communities 
that rely on the sugar community.
  This becomes a domino effect. We talked about the problem with 
airlines and how people rely on airlines. If you are in a small 
community, one of the four small communities in Wyoming that rely on 
sugar beets, when the industry goes down, the whole economy goes--I 
don't care how well the airlines are flying. They are not asking for 
the United States to buy the sugar refineries as they have in Mexico. 
They are just asking for a fair chance at their economy and a little 
longer to develop these co-ops. I hope Members stick with us on the 
sugar amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
statement of the Senator from Indiana, Senator Burns be recognized for 
up to 15 minutes to speak on this amendment; Senator Craig be 
recognized to speak up to 15 minutes on this amendment; and that I then 
be recognized. I will move to table the underlying Craig amendment.
  Mr. LUGAR. Reserving the right to object, my understanding--perhaps 
someone can advise me--is that Senator Gregg wanted to make a final 
argument. Could the leader offer at least a proviso of time for Senator 
Gregg?
  Mr. REID. That is appropriate, and I also ask unanimous consent that 
there be no intervening amendment prior to my motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by my distinguished colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, which, 
as has been pointed out by all speakers, effectively phases out the 
subsidies provided under the existing Federal sugar program.
  Apropos of the comments made by my colleague from Wyoming, almost all 
farmers are supported by some program, as I attempted to point out this 
morning, and only about 40 percent of farmers in our country receive 
any benefits from all of these programs. I appreciate that colleagues 
find this difficult to believe, but nevertheless it happens to be the 
case. It is the case because historically programs arise attached to 
very specific crops. In the case of the row crop of wheat, corn, 
cotton, and rice and the evolution of things, soybeans have come into 
that category and there have been very special programs over the course 
of time established for sugar or peanuts, for tobacco, for wool and 
mohair. In due course, programs have come up largely through a sense of 
equity and disaster areas that have somehow touched upon so-called 
specialty crops.
  But after all is said and done, the farm bill essentially is a 
focused bill historically on program crops. Sugar is one of these. As a 
result, those who are involved in the sugar program are among the 40 
percent who are beneficiaries as opposed to the 60 percent of American 
farmers who are not.
  Having said that, in the amendment I offered this morning I did not 
offer discriminatory comments with regard to the sugar program any more 
than other programs. Rather inclusively, I suggested that $1 of revenue 
from sugar ought to be treated the same as $1 of revenue, say, from 
honey or from wool or whatever. That would be true, in my judgment, for 
sugar farmers. If the farm does only the production of sugar, that is 
going to be the only item in the list. But, nevertheless, that sugar 
grower would have been entitled to a 6-percent voucher on the first 
$250,000 of value, 4 percent on the next $250,000. Admittedly, that 
would bring a certain amount of discomfort to a very small number of 
sugar growers.

  But, as Senator Gregg pointed out, a very small number receive 40 
percent of all the money in the sugar program, as is the case again and 
again in agricultural programs as they are now. They go to a minority 
of farmers to begin with. A very small minority of that minority 
receive a disproportionate amount of the payments--such as, in the 
totality of things, 47 percent of payments going to just 8 percent of 
farmers.
  The sugar distribution is even more pronounced, with a vengeance. 
Therefore, the amendment Senator Gregg offers, a phaseout of these 
sugar subsidies over the course of a period until we get to zero in the 
year 2006. There is a transition that phases into the world market that 
has been discussed. I will touch upon that. It offers, at least, a 
glidepath out of this, given the fact we are not going to have a whole 
farm view but continue with very specific commodities because the 
program has had very unfortunate results, as Senator Gregg has detailed 
and that I want to underline.
  In essence, his amendment would phase out the so-called loan rate for 
sugar beets and sugarcane, reducing it to zero. Marketing allotments 
and quotas for both sugar beets and sugarcane would be eliminated 
beginning with the year 2003 crops. Senator Gregg's proposal would make 
the funding offset of approximately $1.2 billion over 10 years, 
according to CBO estimates, available to lift the shelter cap in place 
in the Food Stamp Program. So, in essence, Senator Gregg is moving this 
money, which is going disproportionately to very large sugar growers, 
to nutrition programs for the poor.
  Eliminating this cap, as the Senator points out, will help a large 
number of families whose actual housing and utility costs put them in a 
situation of choosing between shelter and food.
  This morning, as we discussed my amendment, I chose to offer a 
solution of roughly doubling the amount of money over the course of 5 
years in food programs. Senator Gregg goes about this in a different 
way, given the loss of my amendment this morning.
  The Senate committee bill maintains, as it stands, many of the 
current sugar program provisions and, in fact, provides additional 
benefits that proponents have required as well. It eliminates the 
marketing assessment on sugar, reduces the CCC interest rate on pricing 
board loans, authorizes a payment-in-kind program, reestablishes

[[Page S13015]]

the no-net-cost feature of the program, and provides the Secretary with 
authority to implement allotments on domestic sugar production.
  The loan forfeiture penalty on sugar also is eliminated. The taxpayer 
cost of all of this is expected to be about $530 million in mandatory 
new spending, above baseline, during the next 10 years. This is the CBO 
10-year score.
  I mention that because there has been considerable discussion. 
Whatever may be the merits or demerits of the sugar program, the costs 
to the taxpayers is de minimis. Albeit, a small problem in the past 
year, but nevertheless this was an aberration, as suggested. But it is 
no aberration when CBO scores the sugar program in the Harkin bill as 
$530 million. That is real money, taxpayer money over the next 10 
years. This is hardly a harmless procedure.
  There has been long debate about the effectiveness in the 
administration of the program. I wish to touch upon some of those 
problems as an illustration of unintended consequences of the sugar 
program.

  The U.S. Government, for many years, as all have pointed out, has 
subsidized domestic sugar production through a combination of price 
supports but, perhaps equally effectively, import quotas. That has led 
to, if we were discussing this in a foreign policy debate, some very 
serious problems. For example, throughout the 1980s, as this body and 
the President of the United States seriously talked about democracy in 
Central and South America and in the Philippines, the sugar situation 
arose every time. The countries were attempting to help find their way 
to the ballot box but then, fairly rapidly, due to some type of 
economic consequences in which the newly elected officials could be 
supported, they ran up against the fact that we restrict the amount of 
sugar imports to this country and restrict them rather severely.
  A so-called sugar quota system occurred in the world, country by 
country--literally of how many pounds each country was allowed to ship 
to us. It mattered not what the price was. The entire situation was 
carefully regulated. Why? Because those who had formulated the sugar 
program readily saw that if we were offering stimulus to production in 
this country at the same time mandating imports from other countries, a 
collision was going to occur--which has occurred, from time to time. 
But what also happened was that other countries around the world were 
prohibited, really, from the economic sustenance that those exports to 
our country would have meant for them.
  So on the one hand we talked about foreign assistance, foreign aid to 
these countries to shore up their fledgling economies and fledgling 
democracies, but not through allowing them to ship to us something of 
which they had surpluses and in fact produced at a fairly low 
production cost.
  Throughout this debate, the production cost, the worldwide cost has 
been mentioned at approximately 16.5 cents. But that is the average 
cost. That is almost saying there is some type of average cost for the 
production of corn in the United States of America, which means maybe 
approximately half of corn growers are more efficient than that. Some 
are very much more so, as a matter of fact.
  I mention this because some countries have a natural advantage in the 
production of sugar that we do not have. This is an acquired skill in 
the United States. Our problem, then, in terms of foreign policy, was 
exacerbated further, as has been pointed out, when we came into the 
NAFTA agreement. This is a serious problem on the horizon, not touched 
upon in great detail today but it would be by anybody in a sugar 
conference because we pledged to have a fairly free flow of Mexican 
sugar.
  This gets into other internal agricultural disputes because those who 
are producing high fructose syrup--and this is largely corn growers who 
are interested in this situation--feel badly treated by the Mexicans. 
They have protested in about every way, in all the various settlement 
fora, that they are being shut down by Mexican intransigence. Mexicans 
are replying: By the way, you are supposed to take our sugar.
  So to say the least we have a problem here between corn growers, if 
we were in that fora, and sugar growers. Likewise, our treaty 
obligations somehow are in some disarray when it comes to this issue.
  In any event, domestic sugar processors have benefited from price 
support loans that guarantee them at least two to three times the world 
price of sugar and sometimes more.
  We touch upon, once again, this price of sugar. And others have 
pointed out that the true average of 16.5 cents is the world price. I 
took a look at the Wall Street Journal this morning, and it is now 
somewhat less than 8 cents. It has not been a good week for sugar.
  The proponents at least of the sugar program point out that this is 
so-called dumped sugar and that what I and others don't understand is 
countries and big users contract with each other. Presumably the idea 
is that they contract at some price that must be adverse to their 
situation because clearly it must be higher than the world price. 
Apparently, do this year after year, and keep on doing it regardless of 
how far above the world price it is.
  For a commonsense listener of this debate, that listener might say: 
Why, just to test out the system, don't you just buy the 8-cent sugar? 
Why would you want to make a contract at 15, 16, 17, or 18 cents? The 
sophisticated sugar producer might very well say: Well, because that is 
about what it cost. And, by and large, that is where the bulk of it is 
if you have a big contract. You really need a lot. You need a certainty 
of supply. You need continuity of management, and so forth, as some 
have pointed out, and long-term contracts. But you don't look at the 
daily posting in the Wall Street Journal. But if you have something out 
there, I understand that.
  We have sophisticated discussions about sugar prices that involve all 
of these aspects of certainty.
  With regard to the pricing of various commodities, in my farm 
experience from time to time the starch company has suggested that, if 
I would guarantee a flow of corn month by month, which means that I 
would bear the storage costs and the problems of transportation and 
marketing, and what have you, they would be prepared to pay a premium 
for every bushel of corn well above anything that I could sell it for 
in the futures market, for example. Why would they do that? Because a 
guarantee of a certain number of thousands of bushels month by month 
with a fairly short haul and certainty in the neighborhood is valuable 
to them.
  I can well understand why people would come to contractual agreements 
on sugar that might be above the fluctuations of the world market at 
some point. However, for the domestic consumer of sugar--this includes 
others well beyond candy companies or those who are commercially 
involved in these operations--it would be attractive to consumers in 
the United States if they could consider the possibility of buying this 
dumped sugar. It is as inexpensive as the sugar that was not dumped. As 
a matter of fact, domestic producers say that would be unfair because 
our production costs are well above that cost.
  One can understand their argument on this despite the contracts which 
they claim to have made at prices that are much higher in a situation. 
But consumers are always helped by markets and by genuine competition. 
There is a lot of it out there.
  The suggestion is that somehow if we were seduced by the idea of 8-
cent sugar and started buying, that suddenly it would be gone, and that 
it would be back to 16 cents. That is nonsense. My experience, at least 
in visiting people all over the world who are involved--in the 
Caribbean, South America and Philippines--is they have a lot of sugar. 
It would not just be dumped. It would come in a steady flow, and it 
would come at a cost that is substantially less than that which is now 
paid by consumers. We would have tax reductions across the board.

  It has the same effect as a drop in the price of gasoline, which we 
all applaud. No one, to my knowledge, is condemning Saudi Arabia for 
dumping gasoline on the American market. As a matter of fact, we want 
them to dump some more--as much as they can. We fear that our good 
fortune might end at some point; that the cartel might get together and 
somehow remedy the predicament. But for the moment, as consumers of 
gasoline, we understand the

[[Page S13016]]

issue clearly. So should we as consumers understand the issue of sugar, 
a common substance used by most of us.
  I am saying in terms of our standard of living that our situation 
would be enhanced. It would be a tax cut through the Gregg amendment.
  For the moment, however, imports are restricted through quotas that 
are among the last remaining protection barriers in U.S. trade law. 
That, of course, means even with our barrier with Mexico with whom we 
thought we had reduced the barrier--the whole purpose of NAFTA--and 
despite claims that the sugar program operated at no net cost in fiscal 
2000, the sugar program cost the taxpayers--not consumers but 
taxpayers--$465 million, according to the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture. That is a substantial sum of money.
  Furthermore, as we have heard, the Federal Government ended fiscal 
year 2001, the last year we were in, owning 1 million tons of surplus 
sugar, some of which is now given back to producers as payment for 
plowing up their growing crops.
  USDA projects that by decade's end, the Government will own not 1 
million but 4 million tons of sugar acquired through this program--
through forfeiture of sugar pledged for collateral for nonrecourse 
loans under the program.
  Senator Gregg has said--and I affirm--that we cannot follow this 
indefensible path. Under our current international trade commitments, 
we must soon permit increasing imports and obligations under ``WTO'' 
and NAFTA, which, coupled with record high domestic projections, will 
result in a sugar supply far in excess of demand. A long-term and 
rational solution must be implemented in the near future.
  I compliment the Senator from New Hampshire for at least a bypass 
solution rather than an abrupt termination. The sugar program, in 
essence, is a transfer of wealth from many who are not able to pay--
low-income persons--to a fairly small group of producers, many of whom 
are, in fact, very large corporations and wealthy individuals.
  We are now talking about the sugar producers--not the candy companies 
that have been given some criticism for their wealth and their 
financial means.
  Nearly all other farm programs make transfer payments from the 
Treasury. Thus, the transfers--whatever their merits--bear some 
relation to ability to pay since they utilize funds generated by the 
progressive income tax. But the sugar program works just the opposite. 
Any tax on food places a greater burden on low-income Americans. Thus 
my point: Any decrease in the price, such as the ability of incoming 
shipments of sugar at the world market, serves as a tax decrease for 
the same reason.

  The sugar program ultimately must hurt consumers, despite the pledge 
that somehow stability is maintained, somehow that a moderate price is 
maintained, as opposed to prophecies that the price literally would 
take off if we were going to buy in the world exports at 8 cents.
  Finally, I would just say, simply, the price of all food that 
contains sugar would be affected in addition to the raw product. Sugar 
growers' own statistics show that in developed countries with access to 
this world-priced sugar--and I cite particularly our friends in 
Australia and Canada; these are countries that really have not been so 
inhibited in utilizing the world-priced sugar at these prices--retail 
prices in Canada and Australia are lower than in the United States.
  Only countries with protectionist sugar regimes--and that would 
include the European Union, of course--have consumer prices that are 
higher.
  If this were entirely an economic debate, it would be serious enough 
because we are talking about consumers all over the country in what 
amounts to a tax increase. And now this is augmented by actual Treasury 
payments in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
  Senator Gregg touched upon the Everglades. Let me go into this 
further.
  Sugar production on approximately 500,000 acres at the top of the 
Everglades has substantially contributed to the environmental 
degradation of the Everglades. In 1996, the Senate Agriculture 
Committee supported the inclusion of $200 million in that year to 
purchase lands in the Everglades agricultural area, simply to help in 
the process of restoration. This was a bipartisan effort and one which 
Florida Governor Bush called ``the linchpin of Everglades 
restoration.''
  From my personal experience, for a variety of reasons, I was 
campaigning in Florida that year and was made well aware of what was a 
collision of cultures, so to speak. A very huge number of Floridians 
described the situation to me in detail. I went to the Everglades to 
see this degradation for myself, as well as the sugar plantations and 
all that was involved.
  People could have rationalized, in times gone by, that, after all, 
human beings should be supported in agriculture, that the spoilation of 
whatever was there had happened elsewhere in our country at various 
times in history, that it was too bad if additives to the crop: 
fertilizers, chemicals, what have you, floated downstream and even got 
offshore and created all sorts of ecological difficulties; that is the 
way it goes. And to seriously talk about winding this up, at this point 
in history, even if it meant that you could never restore the 
Everglades, or even the waterways of Florida, was really beside the 
point.
  But for many Floridians it was not beside the point. As a matter of 
fact, they proceeded to a very tough referendum campaign that was 
decided ultimately by a very narrow margin in favor of the sugar 
growers, not those who were in favor of restoring the Everglades.
  Thus, as a result of that debate, and in part because many of us in 
the Nation as a whole believed that this is a very important 
environmental project, the Congress has come into it in a big way to 
try to work with those in the State of Florida who still, in a fairly 
modest way, are trying to wind up the worst of the predicaments and 
wrestle with the history of the past.

  Let me just make the point, Members who are thoughtful about this 
sugar amendment need to think about the economics. I appreciate the 
problem is the Everglades, not North Dakota or Minnesota or sugar beets 
in the North. One cannot describe the same environmental catastrophes 
to those, and yet they are caught in the same economic problem. But we 
really need to consider the expenditures that are now going to be 
involved as the Congress, the President, and others, including the 
Governor of Florida, have become not only aware but determined, really, 
to turn around the course of history which ecologically has been 
disastrous in this situation.
  Clearly, we ought not to be doing, in this bill, what we are doing, I 
fear, with almost every other crop; that is, offering incentives for 
more production. And that, I fear, we are doing again here. One can say 
that, after all, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. 
If you are going to offer more incentives to corn farmers to plant more 
corn, why be sparing with regard to the sugar brethren at this point?
  I suppose there is a certain rough equity. If you are planning to 
simply overproduce everything, then, perhaps, consistency gets in the 
way here. But I would suggest that would be a mistake not only with 
regard to the sugar program but clearly with regard to the ecological 
and environmental consequences.
  The right move is to wind up the sugar program. Members have pointed 
out such amendments have been offered seemingly for time in memorial. 
During the 25 years I have served on the committee, I cannot remember 
how many sugar amendments have arisen, but they have come frequently, 
at least one every farm bill, usually with great discouragement to the 
proponents.
  I believe three farm bills back, if memory serves me right, a modest 
proposal came during the markup around the Agriculture Committee table. 
A Senator offered a suggestion that the loan rate be reduced by 2 
cents. I think even in those days it was 18 cents or 16 cents. The 
suggestion was 2 cents be subtracted from that. That was roundly 
defeated. If it got three votes, that may overstate it. How could this 
be? Why such support of a reduction of such a modest amount?
  The fact is, around the table in the Agriculture Committee--and this 
is

[[Page S13017]]

not news to the Senator from Delaware--many of us who are deeply 
interested in the crops and in the agricultural practices in our States 
have a feeling we have come to that table to protect whatever is there. 
Sometimes that is very difficult for Members. The case is tougher and 
tougher to defend as the years go on, but that does not deter most. 
Apologetically, we will say: I have to do what I have to do. I can be a 
statesman somewhere else, but not when it comes to sugar or peanuts or 
tobacco or even corn.
  I understand that. As a result, what I often have observed, in 25 
years, is that those who have something to protect, as a matter of 
fact, make up a very large majority of us around the table. The 
situation would be--I think simplicity may be overstating this, but, 
essentially, if you are there to protect tobacco, you call upon your 
brethren who are protecting sugar or protecting peanuts or wool and 
mohair or indigo or honey or whatever the program may be--all of these 
programs have been highly suspect for years. From time to time, some 
have actually been wound up. There was good fortune in this respect a 
couple of farm bills ago when I think we finished the honey program. 
Wool and mohair certainly was gone, but it reappeared, not because of a 
farm bill but in the dead of night, in an appropriations bill at the 
end of a session, such as now, the proponents have managed to bring it 
back. So even around the table, when we make reforms, they do not 
necessarily stick. Therefore, I admire the courage, the foresight, 
statesmanship, and the wisdom of the Senator from New Hampshire in 
trying again today.
  He has offered a constructive amendment which is good for America. At 
some point we really have to think about that. We can become so 
parochial and so narrow in our focus that we believe that a very few 
growers of any crop, whether it be sugar or something else, are worthy 
of our utmost attention.
  But Americans generally listening to this debate, I believe, will 
find the equation I have offered a reasonable one; namely, we welcome 
the so-called dumping of oil by Saudi Arabia and others; we welcome the 
lower price of gasoline because our cost of living situation is helped. 
We would welcome, in my judgment, the purchase of sugar at the world 
price. We would welcome the fulfillment of our agreement with Mexico 
because that is so important not only with regard to agriculture but 
with regard to general trade and prosperity with our neighbor to the 
south as well as an enhanced standard of living in this country. And we 
welcome fulfillment of our WTO obligations because all of us want to 
export more of the things we do well in our States.
  We cannot withhold our obligations to recognize that in other places 
sometimes people do things well also, and our consumers benefit from 
those laws of trade.
  I call for support of the Gregg amendment and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Montana is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, it is hard to follow my friend from Indiana 
because he makes his argument so sound that it is hard to argue with 
him. I look upon the support we give American agriculture, no matter 
what segment, as an insurance policy.
  The figure was that the sugar program costs the American taxpayers 
some $460 million a year, something like that. That is in the 
neighborhood. That may not be correct. That is less than $1.60 per 
American. I can't insure my car for that price. What we are talking 
about here is that even though sugar prices go down, we still see 
prices of those products that have a high preponderance of sugar in 
them continue to go up. That is the record. It is there for all to see.
  If one looks at the total picture of $73 billion a year we put into 
the agriculture budget, one has to remember that over half of that is 
programs on nutrition, food stamps, WIC, many others, meals on wheels, 
school lunch programs, all subsidized by the American taxpayer. The 
rest of it is farm programs and the administration of those farm 
programs.
  I look at it as an insurance policy. No other country in the world 
has a grocery store like we do. Americans have to agree with me that 
when you go into a grocery store, there is a variety of anything you 
want to eat. I realize that maybe we don't look upon that as an 
important thing, but the second thing we do every day when we get up is 
eat. I don't know what the first thing you do is; that is up to you. 
But we all need it. We would like to have a little insurance and a 
little security in the food we buy both from a quality and quantity 
standpoint. And we do.
  You can buy your meat, prepare it any way you want. Same thing with 
your fresh fruits and vegetables. This is just about the only country 
in the world, that has fresh vegetables even in the northern tier of 
States. When there is blowing snow outside, we can still buy fresh 
lettuce and vegetables. It is an infrastructure and a distribution 
system that is unmatched in the world.
  Getting back to farmer income, for many years agriculture, at the 
production level, lived on 15 to 20 cents--and that varied--of the 
consumer dollar which went back to the American farmer. Now we are 
trying to get by on 9 or 10 cents. Our cost of production, our cost of 
vehicles, our cost of machinery, of our fertilizer, our chemicals, 
everything it takes to produce a crop is higher. Let's take, for 
instance, wheat. In my State it is around $2.75 a bushel. That is lower 
than it was coming out of World War II, 50 years ago.
  We are a blessed nation. We can produce. The American farmer can turn 
it up, and they can produce it. My goodness, can they produce it. Yet 
when it comes time to write the check, not near as many of those 
dollars and pennies filter down to the American farmer. Think about 
this: When you buy a loaf of bread, less than a nickel's worth of wheat 
is in it.
  Yes, the retail price of sugar in Canada is lower than in the United 
States, 6 cents a pound. No wonder the people who handle sugar in 
Canada like the idea of stuffing. This is the only industry where it is 
mandatory by law and by trade negotiations and trade agreements that we 
import so much sugar--not trying to overproduce here in the United 
States, but it is mandatory. It comes to about 15 to 20 percent of our 
total production is mandatorily put on our market. If we look at the 
surplus, that is just about our surplus.
  We can talk about numbers and figures. In fact, we can swim in those 
numbers and figures. But at some time we have to take a real look at 
the men who are on the ground in charge of producing. They are the 
ones. It is on their backs that this good economy operates. We don't 
spend 50, 60, 70, or 80 percent of our income just to put a meal on the 
table. We do it for less than 20 cents.
  In order to ensure that supply of quality and quantity, and also 
prepared in any way that you want, there has to be some sort of an 
insurance policy that that, too, will remain. We have bigger things to 
argue about in this Senate than this sugar program and what it costs. 
In fact, the cost, when you compare it to the rest of the economy, is 
nothing.
  We could talk about food safety. We could talk about terrorism and 
its impact on our ability to move food from the producer to the table.
  That is what we are talking about here. It is an industry that should 
be allowed to survive. Sugar producers did put forth a plan for why 
inventory management is the plan for sugar farmers, consumers, and 
taxpayers. Let's not get caught up in saying that if we take away a 
sugar program, the cost will go down to the consuming public, when the 
figures bear out that it is not true. That was very ably pointed out. 
That is not true.
  If we had assurance that we could do a lot of things and provide food 
for those who are in need--that is what this does, and it makes it 
affordable. What it saves on the consumer side also saves on the 
Government side whenever we start talking about nutrition programs and 
programs that we are willing, as Americans, to provide those who are in 
need. Nobody ever thinks about those savings.
  On the loans--nobody ever thinks that--while we have the sugar, it is 
sold. Where did the money go? We just hear about the initial 
appropriation for the program, but we never get an accounting on how 
much the Government owned, how much it sold and the difference. If we 
lost a little money, then that takes that so-called--everybody hates 
this word--subsidy number way

[[Page S13018]]

back. It is hard to get those accounting numbers.
  So what I am saying is that Americans are willing to ensure the 
stability, the quality, and the supply. They are willing to accept and 
pay for that insurance policy. If you look at the whole bill, I think 
it is around $250, $270 a household across the country. You can't 
insure your car or your house for that, and you can't insure your life.
  I had a cookie while coming over here. Obviously, I've had a lot of 
cookies in my life. I have never missed a meal, nor do I intend to. But 
I also understand that this society is the benefactor of people who 
really know how to produce. Now, talking about limitations and all of 
that, let me tell you folks that on the farm and ranch, the people who 
were inefficient, just playing around and trying to farm and could not, 
they are gone.
  We are talking about an agriculture that is down to the point where 
these are the good people who know how to operate and they are 
efficient. Our production, as far as increasing our production per 
acre, has almost been capped out. We can't increase that any more. So 
the old analogy saying we have to be more efficient and increase our 
production per acre, and our cost --we will have more to sell, but our 
cost of production continues to edge up there, also.
  I am always reminded of the two fellows in Montana--brothers--and 
they go to Mississippi and buy watermelons for 75 cents apiece and haul 
them to Montana and sell them for 74 cents apiece. One looked at the 
other and said: We are not making any money. The other suggested: We 
have to get a bigger truck. Well, that is not happening in agriculture 
anymore. That is not happening there.
  So the consumers of America, who are benefactors of this great 
production, are willing, I think, to buy that insurance policy that 
says, yes, we will have a supply; yes, it will be ample; yes, it will 
be quality; and, yes, it is guaranteed to be at that grocery store that 
is open 24 hours a day and the ability to buy anything you want to eat, 
in any amount, at any quality, prepared in any way. That is what we are 
talking about there. That is what American agriculture is all about.
  We want to help people. I don't know of anybody who ever showed up at 
our house who didn't get fed when mealtime rolled around. That is the 
way of the people of the prairies of this great country.
  The Senator from Indiana knows of the values in rural America. They 
deserve to make a living--just to make a living. Sugar is no different. 
That is all they deserve.
  Now, are there people who abuse the system? Sure, there are. There 
always are, but they are few. The people who really need the help are 
people who didn't buy a new pickup last year and didn't buy one all 
through this boom. We have seen cattle prices a little bit better now, 
but we haven't seen a great boom on the farm or ranch through this 
great economic recovery we came through. We did see our cost of 
production escalating. For everything we bought, prices went up because 
of the last boom.
  I hope we will table this amendment and not send the wrong signal to 
agriculture and the American people that, yes, we like the insurance 
policy that we have and, yes, we like that security.
  I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Idaho is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, debate on the Gregg amendment to the Harkin 
farm bill is nearly at an end. We have had an ample period of time to 
discuss the pros and cons of a national sugar policy not just for the 
producing beet or cane farmer in the great North, Northwest, or the 
South, but also a sugar policy for the American consumer, who has seen 
very stable sugar prices for well over a decade.
  What I have recognized in my years of involvement with this issue is 
that the producing side of the sugar industry is very willing to create 
a dynamic program that does not cost the American taxpayer any money, 
creates a stability of price both at the farm level and also at the 
manufacturing level and, ultimately, the consumer level. That has been 
the historic pattern of a sugar policy, except for just the last 2 
years.
  In fact, over the course of the last decade, this program has not 
cost the American taxpayer any money. It has returned money to the 
Treasury of the United States. In fact, it has made money for 
taxpayers. The program of acquiring from the market, holding, and 
ultimately entering the market with the product has served us well.
  There is now a large supply of sugar worldwide, including in the 
United States. We have seen some efforts of importers outside and 
inside our country to try to avoid the 15-percent volume level we allow 
coming into this country. Some have argued that if you kill the 
program, down comes the price and the consumer benefits. Ironically, 
that just isn't true. The price is now down well below what it was a 
few years ago. Yet the price of a product that has substantial 
sweetener in it--sugar, I should say, as there are other forms of 
sweetener--hasn't gone down; it has gone up. Nearly 80 percent of the 
price of any food product on the market today is not the food itself; 
it is the cost of labor, the cost of processing, advertising, 
marketing, and shelving. All of that goes into the price the consumer 
pays.
  So when a less than 20-percent item in the overall cost of a product 
declines, as other costs of input are going up, the consumer sees no 
difference and, in many instances, there is an increase, as some have 
talked about in the Chamber this afternoon.
  In the Harkin bill that is before us, in a substitute that will be 
offered, known as the Cochran-Roberts bill, the sugar industry, working 
with the Congress in shaping the new policy, has recognized again the 
need to change, to be dynamic--not only to comport to budget 
requirements but also to deal with the consumer and make sure the 
consumer gets a reasonable shake and the producer gets stability in the 
market.
  The sugar titles in both the House and Senate proposed farm bills 
direct the Secretary of Agriculture to operate the U.S. sugar policy 
``at no cost to the Federal Government by avoiding the forfeiture of 
sugar to the Commodity Credit Corporation.''
  It is that forfeiture that some have seized on today that has only 
happened twice in a period of well over a decade that we want to get 
away from.
  For somebody to suggest there is going to be a good deal of money to 
transfer to some other program within agriculture policy or the bill or 
the appropriations, that just is not the case. The new farm bill will 
restore to the Secretary of Agriculture a key authority that was 
suspended in the 1996 farm bill--the authority to limit domestic sugar 
sales during times of surplus through flexible marketing allotments.
  The bill also grants the Secretary the authority to reduce Government 
sugar stocks and the potential for future sugar loan forfeitures by 
accepting bids for Government sugar in return for reducing future 
production.
  The United States is required, as I mentioned earlier in the debate, 
to import 1.5 million tons of sugar, or about 15 percent of its 
consumption each year, whether the U.S. market requires that sugar or 
not.
  In addition, unneeded sugar has entered the U.S. market--again, 
something mentioned by myself and others--to avoid the import quotas in 
creative ways, what we call stuffing or the stuffing of the product. 
Because of the special concessions of NAFTA and the concessions to 
Mexico combined with this stuffing effort, we go beyond the 15 percent 
of total U.S. consumption or the 1.5 million tons.
  The Secretary's current lack of ability to limit domestic supplies in 
the face of large and relatively uncontrolled imports resulted last 
year in historically low domestic sugar prices and the first 
significant sugar loan forfeiture in nearly two decades.
  Once again, none of that translated to the market shelf; none of it 
translated to the consumer's pocketbook; all of it translated to the 
bottom line of the processor or the confectioners, and their profits 
went up at the cost of the consumer and not at the profit of the 
farmer.
  Under the new farm bill, sugar marketing allotments will 
automatically be in place unless triggered by a high level of imports 
greater than 1.532 million short tons. With domestic sugar supplies 
under control, we believe the

[[Page S13019]]

Secretary will be able to balance market supply and demand and ensure 
market price sufficient to avoid sugar loan forfeiture and any 
Government costs.
  The Congressional Budget Office scoring of the new no-cost sugar 
policy, however, shows a modest cost. I recognize that even though it 
is clearly the intent and the purpose of the legislation not to have 
that.
  Since CBO cannot assume other policy changes, it must assume that 
import quota circumvention problems will persist, that U.S. sugar 
imports will be high, and that marketing allotments in other years will 
not be triggered, and absent marketing allotments, sugar loan 
forfeitures might occur again.
  Remember, I keep talking about the flow of product into the market. 
That is part of that world sugar my colleague from New Hampshire talks 
about, exposing well over 15 percent of the U.S. domestic market to the 
availability of that world product.
  The industry, however, is convinced that policy changes will occur to 
rectify the import quota circumvention problems. We have had court 
tests in our favor. We are working now to block the ability of 
importers to stuff product with the hope of pulling that sugar out and 
entering it into the market. A successful U.S. Court of Appeals ruling, 
as I mentioned, has halted circumvention of the import sugar quota by a 
product entering through Canada and, as we know, it is called stuffed 
molasses.

  Legislation is pending in the Senate, of which I am a coauthor, that 
addresses the circumvention problem. I hope we can move it. I hope all 
will join with us to disallow that kind of illegal act.
  I believe that brings the debate full circle. The Senator from New 
Hampshire is worried and wants to eliminate the existing program. We 
are concerned about the taxpayer and want to recreate the program in a 
way that not only protects the producer and stability but protects the 
taxpayer and offers the consumer stable prices in the market. We 
believe what we are offering today, what the Senator from New Hampshire 
is trying to strike, can accomplish that purpose.
  I ask my colleagues to join us in voting to table the Gregg amendment 
and to give the adjusted policy, again, the opportunity to work its 
will in the market with the producer, with the consumer, to the 
advantage of all.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cleland). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from New Hampshire is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, we have heard a lot of debate on this program. I must 
take exception to some of the things said by the opposition because it 
appears they are inconsistent with the facts.
  For example, the representation that this program is not going to 
continue to cost the taxpayers money is one which is not supported by 
the facts. In fact, USDA, which is responsible for the agricultural 
products of this country, has said we will purchase close to 4 million 
tons of sugar over the next decade. Where we are going to put this we 
do not know--somebody's garage, I guess--and that will cost us $1.6 
billion in tax revenue. So this is an expensive program. If we put it 
back into a marketplace concept, we will save the taxpayers those 
dollars, which dollars under this amendment can be used to assist 
people who are on food stamps who are trying to buy staples to live a 
decent life and have adequate nutrition.
  Secondly, the point was made, and I do not understand the concept 
here, that foreign sugar is coming in through molasses, through spiking 
of molasses, and that is clearly affecting the availability of sugar in 
this country, and that is what we have to stop. Why do you think it is 
coming in? It is coming in because the price of sugar in this country 
is so absurdly high.
  You can actually go through the huge exercise of taking molasses, 
spiking it in some other country, then shipping it into our country and 
refining it off, and you can still produce sugar that is dramatically 
less in cost than what it costs the American consumer to get sugar 
because we have this price which is 2\1/2\ to 3 times the going market 
rate of the sugar--22 cents and 18 cents versus about 9 cents. It is as 
if they are saying: The marketplace actually might work, but we are not 
going to allow it to work. If there is anything that shows that we can 
reduce the price of sugar to the American people, it is the fact people 
are willing to go through this huge machination to get sugar into this 
country, around all the barriers the sugar producers have produced. It 
is counterintuitive at the extreme to make that argument.
  This debate comes down to a very simple fact, which is this: 42 
percent of the revenues and the benefit of this program are going to 1 
percent of the farmers, but all the American people are paying $1.9 
billion in extra cost to support that program. The price of sugar is 
2\1/2\ to 3 times the cost on the world market because we are trying to 
benefit a very narrow group of people who are very effective 
constituents, I guess, and argue their case effectively as constituents 
but clearly have no equity to their argument. As a practical matter, 
they are reaching into the pockets of the American people and taking 
dollars out of those pockets which could otherwise be used to purchase 
more food or better commodities.
  It is a program which is totally counter to everything for which we 
as a capitalist, market-oriented society stand. It cannot be justified 
under any scenario other than it represents the power of one interest 
group to benefit at the expense of the American people and the American 
consumer.

  I greatly appreciate the statement of the Senator from Indiana who 
knows more about agricultural policy than I will ever know, who forgot 
more about agricultural policy than I will ever know. In his support of 
the amendment he gave one of the clearest statements as to why this 
program is such a disaster from a standpoint of economics and from a 
standpoint of production and from a standpoint of its impact on the 
consumers of America and from a standpoint of its impact on the 
American taxpayer. I thank him for his support of this amendment. I 
hope people will listen to his logic and his reason and oppose the 
motion to table this amendment, which I understand is going to now be 
made by the assistant leader.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Would the Senator have any objection to the manager of the 
bill speaking for 3 minutes prior to the vote?
  Mr. GREGG. I have no objection.
  Mr. REID. I ask Senator Harkin be recognized for 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have not had anything to say about this 
amendment yet. I point out sugar is so cheap in this country you cannot 
believe it. It is cheap for the consumers buying it in the store. It is 
cheap when you go out to eat. The people who benefit from the Gregg 
amendment would be the manufacturers. They are not going to pass this 
on to the consumer. No way.
  We want to keep our sugar farmers in business; 420,000 Americans are 
employed in the sugar industry. It would ruin them. It would ruin our 
corn sweetener market, further depressing extremely low corn prices in 
my part of the country. This is wrapped up in a lot more than just what 
the price of sugar is that Senator Gregg is trying to get at. I have 
always said sugar is probably one of the cheapest products anywhere for 
consumers.
  Here is a bag of sugar, Holly Sugar. I am not pushing Holly Sugar, 
but that is what I happen to have. They are little bags of sugar. How 
expensive is this sugar? Go into any restaurant and take the sugar, put 
it in a glass, in your coffee; you can take two bags of sugar and put 
it in your coffee. Do you know what the price is? Nothing. It is so 
cheap that the restaurants do not even charge for it. Next time you go 
to a restaurant, have a cup of coffee, reach over and grab the bowl of 
sugar and put in a couple of teaspoons. They don't even charge because 
it is so cheap.
  There has been a lot of talk in the Chamber about the sugar products. 
Sugar is one of the best buys for the American consumer today. A 5-
pound bag of sugar at Safeway is $2.
  If you want to gouge the consumer and give more to the processors and 
the candy manufacturers and everybody else, then you want to vote for

[[Page S13020]]

the amendment of Senator Gregg. If you want to help the sugar farmers 
and the 420,000 Americans who work in the sugar industry and corn 
farmers all over America who depend upon this, we ought to defeat the 
Gregg amendment. I point out on July 20, 2000, we had the same basic 
amendment before the Senate. It was defeated 65-32. I hope the same 
happens again today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I move to table the Gregg amendment, and I 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 71, nays 29, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 364 Leg.]

                                YEAS--71

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--29

     Biden
     Brownback
     Chafee
     Collins
     Corzine
     DeWine
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hutchinson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McCain
     Nickles
     Reed
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson
     Voinovich
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider the vote and 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 headway. We are making good 
progress. I thank the people who are offering these amendments. We have 
had good debates. We are moving right along. So I hope now we can have 
another amendment up and we can have more votes today and get this bill 
completed.
  I understand Senator Domenici has an amendment he will be offering in 
a couple minutes. With that, again, I hope Senators will be ready to 
offer amendments. I hope we can have some time agreements and move 
through them. I hope we will have another vote very shortly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I appreciate the words, as always, of our 
chairman. My understanding is, in a couple minutes Senator Domenici 
will offer an amendment. After disposition of the Domenici amendment, 
we are anticipating an amendment to be offered by Senator Bond, and 
then, following that, an amendment by Senator McCain.
  In the meanwhile, amendments might come from the other side of the 
aisle. But these three amendments are known quantities with the Members 
who wish to be recognized as we dispose of the amendments.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2502 To Amendment No. 2471

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am going to offer an amendment on 
behalf of seven or eight Senators. I will name them in a moment. For 
the interest of the Senators, my discussion about this amendment will 
probably take about a half hour, and then I understand about five or 
six Senators would like to speak. Nobody will be speaking extremely 
long, but we think this is a very important issue. More than just the 
Senator from New Mexico are desirous of being heard on this amendment.
  I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration. I offer this on behalf of myself, Senators Craig, Crapo, 
Burns, Hutchison, Enzi, Thomas, Kyl, Smith of Oregon, Hatch, Allard, 
and Campbell. I have submitted it to other Senators. I fully expect 
more to join soon. I send it to the desk with those cosponsors at this 
point. As I receive others, I will submit them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for himself, 
     Mr. Craig, Mr. Burns, Mr. Crapo, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Enzi, 
     Mr. Thomas, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Hatch, Mr. 
     Allard, and Mr. Campbell, proposes an amendment No. 2502 to 
     amendment No. 2471.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

          (Purpose: To strike the water conservation program)

       On page 202, strike lines 14 through 22 and insert the 
     following: ``technical assistance)'' after ``the programs''; 
     and
       (3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``subchapter C'' and 
     inserting ``subchapters C and D''.
       Beginning on page 121-118, strike line 4 and all that 
     follows through page 121-130, line 19.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand we are engaged in what some 
would call a very serious effort. I want everyone to know my intention 
is not to in any way delay our process. As this issue evolves, Senators 
will know that for the West, this is a very important decision.
  I note the presence of Senator Reid who is also a western Senator. He 
had something to do with putting the provisions in that I would like to 
take out. So hopefully we will have some discussion before we are 
finished.
  This is a motion to strike essentially all of the provisions, brand 
new provisions in the law, that would take the conservation program 
that we have in effect--that is called the conservation reserve 
program--and would create a brand new one for 1,100,000 acres of land 
in the West. It would say that the Secretary of Agriculture, not the 
Secretary of the Interior, as we have now, would have the authority to 
acquire this acreage, up to 1.2 million acres, and the water rights 
that come with it, and then to use the water rights for the first time 
in derogation of State water law. In other words, they could be used 
for Federal purposes, not bound by State law.
  This is a very big decision for States such as New Mexico and many 
Western States, as you can see, that in just a few hours, most of the 
Western States' Senators are on board trying to prevent this from 
becoming effective.
  Actually, the conservation reserve program has been a very effective 
program. The Senator from New Mexico in no way intends to change that 
program. In fact, I believe the underlying bill that was produced by 
various Members who have been speaking in the Chamber even makes the 
conservation program bigger and perhaps even better. But there is 
another provision I am referring to that is brand new.
  The language contained in this substitute requires that the Secretary 
of Agriculture devote 1.1 million acres of the conservation reserve 
program to a new water conservation program. That didn't exist before. 
We now have a water conservation program.
  Specifically, this program will allow the Secretary of Agriculture to 
enter into contracts with private landowners, estates, or Indian tribes 
for the transfer of water or the permanent acquisition of water rights 
to benefit environmental concerns out in our waterways and in our 
various waters in the West.
  When enrolling this new acreage, this language requires that the 
Secretary of Agriculture give priority to land associated with water 
rights. Heretofore water rights were not necessarily considered as a 
paramount reason or a high-priority reason for selecting these various 
acreages to make up the conservation reserve. This now says the

[[Page S13021]]

Secretary of Agriculture will give high priority to these lands that 
are going into this reserve, if they have water rights along with them.
  The purpose of the old program was to remove vulnerable land from 
production, not for the acquisition of water rights. Everybody here who 
has praised the conservation reserve program praised it because it 
removed vulnerable acreage from production and it had no higher 
purpose. Now we have established a brand new higher priority, and that 
is to acquire land if it has water rights.
  In essence, this is an attempt to pirate private water rights from 
individuals for purely Federal interests. Allowing the Secretary of 
Agriculture to permanently acquire these water rights gives the Federal 
Government control over State water.

  I don't think we ought to do this. I wish I would have had a chance 
to sit down across the table and discuss this approach with those who 
have put it in this Agriculture bill, including my good friend Harry 
Reid. I don't think western Senators, when confronted with their 
constituents and asked by their constituents in water-short States 
whether it would be prudent to create a high-priority program that 
could take those water rights as part of a conservation reserve program 
and attribute them to the Federal Government so the Federal Government 
could use it for Federal purposes, environmental or otherwise, and in 
that manner run inconsistent, if they so desire, with State water law, 
would agree.
  We already have shortages that are sufficient, which means we don't 
have enough water for the natural uses that we have been making for 
years. We don't have enough water in two of our basins in New Mexico 
that are alongside of rivers, be it the Rio Grande or the Pecos. We 
don't have enough water for the current users under existing State law, 
which is a water rights system built upon first in use and application.
  The first in time that does that is first in time in terms of 
ownership and priority. That is an already existing system. It has 
existed under Spanish law in our State. Many States in the West have 
first in time of use, which creates first in right for waters along 
streams.
  Here in the East there are many Senators who are going to say: This 
doesn't have anything to do with us. They are probably right. They 
don't have any shortage of water. In fact, many of the Eastern States 
do not have this allocation method. They use what is referred to in law 
school as the riparian rights system. If you are alongside of a stream, 
you use the water alongside the stream. Not so in States such as mine 
and Arizona and the others, Idaho, Iowa, Oregon. You use the water in 
proportion to your having taken it from the stream and put it to a 
beneficial use. In the Western States, that is either constitutionally 
established or statutorily established, but it is powerful proprietary 
interest in situations up and down and across our borders as water 
becomes more and more scarce.
  In essence, all I choose to do in this amendment, where I am joined 
by the various Senators I have just named, is to say at the end of the 
session we should not be considering a change in water rights for the 
West.
  (Ms. STABENOW assumed the chair.)
  Mr. DOMENICI. I urge that Senators help us by just taking this out of 
the bill and saying another time, another place, we will have some 
significant hearings. Let's hear from our States and our communities, 
and let's hear from water ownership districts and associations, be they 
in Wyoming, New Mexico, or wherever. Let's hear from them and let's see 
how inserting this new bargaining chip in the middle of a river basin 
might have either a negative or positive effect.
  I actually believe we do not need in the basins of New Mexico--which 
are very short of water right now, and some are arguing whether there 
is enough for the already existing rights --another player plunked down 
on the stream that can, in fact, apply this water to another separate 
use and even abandon the State water law that controls how it is used, 
where it is applied, and what it is used for. I just don't think it is 
the right time.
  I would have thought if we were going to make such a change or 
imposition on State law as it pertains to water, we would have gone a 
little slower and would not have come up with an agriculture bill where 
these water rights have not been part of any hearings in the 
appropriate committees. As a matter of fact, I am not sure but that 
these provisions would have been subject to the jurisdiction of the 
other committees besides Agriculture. I believe the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee would have liked to look at this new language in 
terms of new priorities and new rights.
  So this is an attempt on my part not to change but to just strike 
these provisions. I don't have amendments to the provisions crafted on 
behalf of Senator Reid, or whomever, and put in this bill. I don't 
think we ought to do them tonight on an agriculture bill, when it could 
have a profound impact on water rights in the West. There are certain 
groups that maybe can't get all the water they want in our States, for 
what they see as important uses. They have come along and said maybe we 
can do it this way; we can let the Secretary of Agriculture acquire 
these water rights as part of an old program that had nothing to do 
with acquiring water rights but had to do with acquiring properties to 
be put in a reserve so that we would have a better chance for these 
properties and these lands to develop and become usable if they are 
taken out of use and put into a reserve.
  Now somebody has found that we can take a piece of that and grab with 
it water rights and then let the Federal Government decide how to use 
them under Federal law, not State law. Changing the program--this old, 
good, solid program, the CRP program--could force many farmers to 
choose not to participate in a program for fear that they could be 
coerced into giving up their water rights.
  I don't think this is the right thing to do. I don't believe we are 
anywhere close to correct in assuming that this should be a highest 
priority for the CRP in the future. I cannot believe that of all the 
uses out there that go along with the CRP, Conservation Reserve 
Program, that we could establish without any serious and significant 
hearings that the Secretary of Agriculture--a new person in this 
equation, as it used to be the Secretary of the Interior. Now we have 
added the Secretary of Agriculture in this bill, and I don't think that 
is a move we should have made without significant hearings either, but 
this would change that.
  So I close my first round on the Senate floor by asking my 
distinguished friend, Senator Reid, if he will consider taking these 
provisions out of this bill. I don't believe they belong here at this 
time, when we haven't had an opportunity for significant hearings 
regarding the subject, and when it is clear and obvious to this Senator 
that we are going to give the Secretary of Agriculture a whole new 
series of rights under a program that is working well now, working well 
to take lands out of production. Now we are going to say we are giving 
the Secretary of Agriculture a new authority--and it is of highest 
priority--to acquire lands for this program if they have water rights 
so the Federal Government has both water rights and Conservation 
Reserve Program land. Then once the Federal Government has it, the 
Secretary of Agriculture is no longer bound by State law but can 
accomplish in a basin that is strapped for water a conflicting use just 
to come along and plunk itself on the water with a brand new right not 
governed by the State law that has been in effect, in many cases, for 
decades on these river basins.

  So I hope that Senators will go along with the huge preponderance of 
western Senators and say let's strike this provision for now. Let's go 
back next year and have hearings on what will this do to the water 
rights in the West. What will it do to water districts and river basins 
that are already so short of water that the next legal wars for the 
next decade or two are going to be over whether there is enough water 
for the existing priorities under State law. I think in many cases we 
are going to say there probably isn't. We are probably going to say, if 
there isn't, how can we justify a new high priority for the Federal 
Government to acquire these water rights as part of a Conservation 
Reserve Program and then use it as they see fit.
  It is a pretty clear-cut case. Is now the time to do this or not? 
Again, I

[[Page S13022]]

work on many issues with my distinguished friend, Senator Reid from 
Nevada. We are chair and ranking members on an appropriations 
subcommittee that does a lot of great things. We understand each other 
very well. I actually didn't know anybody was working on this 
provision, including my friend, Senator Reid, that would change or have 
the potential for changing the water rights priorities from State 
priorities to an imposition of Federal priorities on river basins that 
don't have enough water for what rights already exist and that are 
being applied under State law.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, I will.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator be kind enough to add me as a 
cosponsor?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am delighted to do that. I yield the floor at this 
point.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I am happy to respond to my friend from 
New Mexico. However, there are a number of myths. A myth is something 
which I guess takes a long time to perpetuate, so maybe we will not 
call these full-blown myths, but there is some misinformation the 
Senator has been given.
  I will talk about the first myth: Some claim that the water 
conservation program will preempt State law and allow the Federal 
Government to run water law in the States. That is simply not true.
  Any application to enroll in the program would have to be approved by 
the State in which the farmer farms. For example, if a rancher in 
Nevada decided he or she wanted to be part of this program and the 
Department of Agriculture decided it was a good deal, they would have 
to go to Mike Turnipseed, Nevada's water engineer, and if he said no 
deal, there would be no deal. All this talk of coercion is without 
logic.
  I find, and I say with respect to the senior Senator from New Mexico, 
when we have legislation and there are not any meritorious arguments 
against it, the first thing one says is there is another committee that 
has jurisdiction or it has multiple committee jurisdiction. That has 
been raised in this debate.
  The other argument continually raised when one does not have 
substantive arguments to good legislation is: We need more hearings. 
Whenever you hear that, it should trigger figuring out what the real 
merits of the opposition might be, and the merits of the opposition to 
this program are very weak.
  Myth No. 1: The water conservation program would preempt State law 
and allow the Federal Government to run water law in the States. Not 
true. It does not preempt State water law. Also, 41 million acres are 
in this big bad program. There are 41 million acres in the overall 
program. This little program Senator Domenici is talking about has 1.1 
million acres. So 40 million acres basically are untouched by this.
  Myth No. 2: The water conservation program would create a huge new 
Federal program to permanently buy water rights.
  Fact, not fiction: 90 percent of the program is focused on short-
term, 1- to 5-year contracts to lease water. Why do we focus on short-
term leasing of water rights? We do it because, No. 1, leasing water 
for the short term keeps farmers in farming. After they have to deal 
with the Department of Agriculture for 1 year, they retain full 
ownership of their water.
  No. 2, it provides a source of water for endangered species, for 
example, in drought years when other conflicts are very severe. That is 
when these conflicts come about dealing with endangered species, such 
as fish. It is because there is a shortage of water.
  No. 3, it will provide a supplement to farmer income in years in 
which they face water supply restrictions due to Endangered Species Act 
concerns. This actually helps the farmers.
  Keep in mind, this program requires a willing seller, a willing 
buyer, and we protect property rights. Why shouldn't somebody who is a 
rancher or farmer have the same property rights as somebody who runs an 
automotive dealership, or a manufacturer? Why shouldn't a rancher or 
farmer have the right to do with his property what he wishes?
  Even if we say a willing seller and willing buyer, and that is what 
we have, they do not even have the ability to do that unless they get 
approval of the State water engineer, whether it is Wyoming, New 
Mexico, or Nevada. So all this talk about coercion is absolutely 
senseless.

  Also, I would think my friends from the West would be happy for a 
change. We have a farm bill that gives help and actual money rather 
than verbiage to the western part of the United States. That is what 
the conservation section in this bill is about. I have stood in this 
Chamber and I have been to press conferences with the chairman of this 
committee. One thing about Senator Harkin, in his legislative career in 
the House and the Senate, he has always been willing to do things that 
change the world in which we live for the better.
  He, in this instance, has been willing to change the traditional way 
we do agriculture. That does not mean it is bad. It means it is 
wonderful; it is progressive. That is what this legislation is about. 
This legislation protects every farmer in the State of Iowa, but also 
it recognizes there are other parts of the country than the breadbasket 
of this country. Most of our groceries come from the State he 
represents and the States surrounding him.
  The reason I have been willing to go forward on this legislation--and 
I say the whole bill. This is a big bill. I do not know how long the 
bill is, but it is big. We have a tiny little section, but I would vote 
for the bill anyway because I recognize what the Senator has done is 
excellent. There is more support for this legislation because it helps 
other parts of the country.
  The people who are giving information, that the Senator from New 
Mexico is receiving, are giving bad information. Senator Domenici is a 
smart man. He has been mayor of a city. He has been here longer than I 
have. But when he says this program coerces farmers and States, he is 
wrong, it does not do that: Willing seller and willing buyer. If a 
farmer or rancher does not want to do a deal it is his property. He 
does not have to do a deal.
  Another myth: The water conservation program would undermine private 
property rights. I have touched on this a little bit. The water program 
is pro-private property rights--that is, the program is supportive of 
private property rights. This is a willing seller-lessor program. A 
farmer decides whether or not to lease or sell his water rights. There 
is nothing more pro property rights than allowing property owners to 
decide what to do with their own land and their own water.
  Let's take, for example, the State of Nevada. I was telling someone 
the other day about Nevada. Nevada is a huge State. It is the seventh 
largest State in the country by acre. From the tip of the State to the 
top of the State is 750 miles, maybe 800 miles. It is very wide, more 
than 500 miles in the north. Madam President, we have very little 
water. We share the Colorado River with a lot of States, and the mighty 
Colorado has done a great deal for the western part of the United 
States. Compare that with some of the rivers in the State of Michigan.
  I will never forget when I first came to Washington, I went to 
Virginia on a congressional retreat. I said: This must be the ocean. It 
was a river. The river was more than a mile wide. We do not have rivers 
like that in Nevada. What people in the east call creeks we call 
rivers.
  I would like to name some rivers in Nevada. We have the Colorado that 
we share. We have the tiny, little Walker River. It is so important to 
Nevada, but it is a tiny river. One can walk across it in most places 
some of the year. The Truckee River, which is so important to Reno and 
Sparks, it has an irrigation district at the end of it. It is also a 
tiny little river, and there are many times of the year one can walk 
right across the river in various places.
  Carson River is a little river that runs hard in the spring. It is a 
wild river in the mountains, but it is a little river. Many rivers in 
Nevada have no water most of the time.
  We understand in Nevada what water is and what a shortage of water 
is, and I am not about to give away Nevada's water. I understand, 
though, that if a rancher in Nevada has land and he has water which he 
owns, he should be able to do with it what he wants. If there is a 
program out of 41 million acres--we have been able to get a program 
that

[[Page S13023]]

has 1.1 million acres that allows this farmer, this rancher, for once, 
to do something with his property.
  For example, I started talking about Nevada and I got carried away 
with my great State.
  If a farmer in the Truckee River Basin in Nevada decided he would 
like to switch from growing alfalfa, a very intense water crop--and we 
grow a lot of it in Nevada, but it takes huge amounts of water--but he 
decides that he wants to grow native seed to help with restoration of 
ranchland in the Great Basin.
  We have had fires in the desert, especially in the high desert, and 
we need to have seed to plant there. If a farmer decided he wanted to 
switch and grow native seed, why shouldn't he be able to go and say, I 
want to make a deal? We will lease your land for 2 years. We have saved 
the water. Something else can be done with it. It doesn't sound like we 
are doing bad things.

  In fact, it seems to me we are giving a property owner, for lack of a 
better description, more tools in his tool box with which to make money 
and provide for his family. We are doing the right thing.
  I have heard the term ``taking.'' I know what a taking is. I am 
familiar in the Constitution that you cannot take a person's private 
property without due compensation. This has nothing to do with that. If 
the rancher decides he does not want to do native seed, he simply does 
not grow it. No one will force him to do it. Once he and the department 
decide they want to do it, they still have to get approval of the State 
water engineer.
  I had somebody call me today complaining about the program. I said: 
Tell me what is wrong with the program. Listen to what they said. I was 
stunned. They said: Well, if somebody decides with their own property--
I am paraphrasing--to make a deal and lease it for a year, 2, 3, or 4, 
up to 5 years, what they are doing in parched, arid Nevada, they are 
saying if they do that and you take certain land out of agriculture, it 
changes the ground water. And what they are saying is, if you allow the 
water to go downriver, you are stopping people from drilling wells and 
pumping water because of the irrigation that takes place.
  That doesn't make very good sense for voting against this 
legislation.
  Let me give another example. We have a beautiful lake in Nevada. We 
have two lakes like it. They are called freshwater desert terminus 
lakes. They are freaks of nature. Pyramid Lake was basically saved 
after work in this body to save it. Pyramid Lake, because of the first 
ever Bureau of Reclamation project, was going dry. Lake Winnemucca, the 
overflow from Pyramid Lake, did dry up. It is as dry as the ground on 
which I stand. But we have another desert terminus lake called Walker 
Lake. It is in the middle of nowhere. It is in a place called Mineral 
County.
  Mineral County has always been very good to me. I have always carried 
Mineral County. On one occasion I was elected to the Senate I carried 
two counties: Clark County, where Las Vegas is, and Mineral County. I 
lost every other county in the State of Nevada. Mineral County always 
sticks with me. They have this big lake. There are only 28 lakes like 
Walker Lake and Pyramid Lake in the whole world. The lake has been 
drying up. We have been very fortunate in the last 7 years. We have had 
a lot of water and it has been able to get into the lake. About 6 or 7 
years ago we had a year and a half to go before all the fish in the 
lake would be dead it was so starved for new water. There are people 
who believe the lake is worth saving.
  As I have indicated, we can do it and still take care of agriculture. 
There is an Indian reservation that depends on the water, little tiny 
Walker River. We can handle that. We have to do things differently from 
the past. We cannot do what we have done in the past because everyone 
will fail if that is the case.
  Here is an example if somebody wanted to change their income and make 
more money, they go to native seed and do a deal with the Government. 
Some of the water would run into the lake and preserve that great 
natural beauty we have, Walker Lake. They should be able to do that. 
Or, the alternative is wait until we get into a real bad problem, and 
endangered species problem, and lawsuits are filed. This is a way to 
avoid that or have money available to help solve the problems. There 
are places all over the Western United States that benefit from this.

  I repeat, farmers who choose not to participate in the program will 
not be hurt. Some farmers who choose to enter into short-term 
agreements to transfer water during drought years will actually benefit 
their colleague farmers who decide not to participate because, if some 
farmers lease water for fish and drought years, it will ensure there is 
enough water for both farming and farmers and those who are dealing 
with the threatened and endangered species.
  Mr. CRAPO. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I will be happy to at some point, but I have a statement 
that is quite long. If the Senator would be kind enough to keep track 
of the questions, I will be happy to explain.
  Another myth: The U.S. Department of Agriculture has no authority for 
businesses offering to help mitigate farmers for endangered species or 
other conflicts. Federal agencies have affirmative obligations. They 
have no choice under the Endangered Species Act to do all they can to 
conserve species.
  I say to my friend from Idaho, his predecessor, now the Governor of 
Idaho, and I, Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus, had a great endangered 
species bill we brought to the floor. For various reasons, the then-
majority leader, Senator Lott, decided not to bring it up. We lost a 
great opportunity for a bipartisan revamping of the Endangered Species 
Act. We didn't do that. It is too bad.
  I talked to Senator Baucus earlier today about another subject and 
that came up. That was a good move we made. It is too bad the 
legislation did not become law.
  All Federal agencies have affirmative obligation under the Endangered 
Species Act to do all they can to conserve species. When it comes to 
conserving endangered fish, agriculture and water is the main issue. 
This program will help USDA and the States help farmers and help 
mitigate these endangered species conflicts.
  The Department of Agriculture is the perfect agency to interact with 
farmers in the conflicts. They trust the USDA more than, say, the Fish 
and Wildlife Service.
  Madam President, willing sellers, willing buyers--this legislation in 
this bill that the committee supported is legislation that is pro-
private property. There is nothing that prevents a State from saying: I 
don't like what you are doing, farmer. You cannot change what you have 
been doing. The State water engineer has the right to do that.
  The conservation title in this legislation is a very important new 
program to help mitigate the conflicts between farmers and the 
environment. It is not only for that purpose; it is to give farmers and 
ranchers the ability to do things differently than they have in the 
past, to make money in a different way than in the past. This has 
nothing to do with making money. If they don't want to do it, no one 
orders them to do it.
  The controversies I talked about, which come up on occasion, usually 
come to a head in drought years when Endangered Species Act protections 
trump water over ranchers for farmers and ranchers. There is example 
after example. We had legislation here earlier this year. I don't 
recall the exact date, but Senator Smith from Oregon was very concerned 
about what was going on. I don't know his feelings on this legislation 
but if this legislation had been in effect when the problem started in 
Oregon there wouldn't be the problems. Farmers would have some 
alternative. As I understand it, we have given them some financial 
relief. But they are in bad shape. This could have helped them.

  These controversies result in some really difficult situations. 
Irrigation pumps providing water to farmers are on occasion cut off so 
threatened and endangered fish, for example, don't go extinct. You may 
not like the endangered species law, but it is the law. You have to 
deal with it. You cannot avoid it.
  When these conflicts reach this critical stage, there is not much we 
can do to alleviate the economic impact. This happens to ranchers and 
farmers and the regional economies tied to farming and ranching.
  There is, in the West, a new West. When I was raised in Nevada, 
mining

[[Page S13024]]

and ranching were really big. They are still big, but the rest of my 
State has grown. Las Vegas has grown so much, 70 percent of the people 
live in that metropolitan area now. All the ranches and farms that were 
in Clark County are gone now. There may be a few people raising a 
little bit of hay for their horses, but basically it is gone now. So 
there is a new West, in the sense that there are things other than 
ranching and mining.
  That does not take away from the importance of these two industries. 
I have spoken on the floor for long periods of time defending mining. 
People say to me all the time--and people write nasty letters to the 
editor--asking, how can somebody who says he is for the environment 
support mining?
  I do it for a lot of reasons. One is my father was a miner. In fact, 
my staff brought to my attention yesterday some news articles that one 
of them found, going through the Library of Congress, I guess, out of 
curiosity about me. When I was 10 days old, my father was blasted--what 
we call blasted. He was working in a mine. The bad fuse did not have 
the workplace protection they have now. They lit the holes, one of the 
pieces of fuse ran, one of the holes went off, and of course blew him 
into the air, blew the soles off his shoes, blew out his light. He was 
in a vertical mine shaft.
  When they set off the holes, they have a ladder they can take up with 
them they call a sinking ladder. He was, I guess, in a state of shock. 
He tried to climb out of this hole. He didn't realize one of the legs 
of the ladder had been blown off, so every time he tried to climb up, 
he would fall. He couldn't figure it out.
  It was a brave man who heard the hole go off and knew that he hadn't 
come up to the next level. Knowing there were 10 other levels burning, 
this man named Carl Myers came down to that shaft--my dad was a bigger 
man than he--and carried my dad out of that mine. He received a 
Carnegie Medal for saving my dad's life when I was 10 days old. That is 
when that incident took place.
  So I defend mining for a lot of reasons. I do it for my father. I do 
it because it is good for Nevada. We have thousands and thousands--the 
best blue-collar jobs we have in Nevada relate to mining. I think a lot 
of people who complain about mining don't know what they are talking 
about, for lack of a better description.
  Ranching is important. Ranching doesn't create a lot of jobs, but it 
creates a way of life that we should all envy. So that is why I do what 
I can to recognize that we have a new West but we also have an old West 
that we need to protect. This legislation is about protecting the old 
West, keeping farmers and ranchers in business. Those people who are 
crying out in a shrill voice that this legislation hurts them, I do not 
believe that.

  We need to create programs to help lessen conflicts in drought years. 
The water conservation program included in Chairman Harkin's bill is 
the first tool we have in a Federal farm policy that actually addresses 
this problem. I commend him again and again for doing this. This 
legislation has support of people who had never supported this 
legislation before. I am sorry to say there are some ranchers and 
farmers who are being given bad information. They should be happy that 
we are trying to give them other tools, I say, in their toolbox, so 
that they can do things they have never been able to do before.
  Again, I repeat for a fifth time: Willing sellers and willing buyers. 
If a rancher or farmer decides he wants to do something different and 
he has the ability to work something out with the Department of 
Agriculture, great, I hope they can do that. But if they do that and 
the State water engineer, rightly or wrongly, denies them the ability 
to go forward, that is his prerogative. That is what State water law is 
all about. And this legislation protects State water law.
  Here is how this program works. It is very similar to a program 
farmers already are familiar with, which is extremely popular, called 
the Conservation Reserve Program, CRP.
  Under CRP, farmers enroll land in the farm, reducing farming on their 
land and improving wildlife habitat on other land. This is the law now. 
The farmer collects a payment for participating for a 10- to 15-year 
contract term. That is the law now. We decided not to go for a 15-year 
contract period but for a 1- to 5-year contract period. Under the new 
Conservation Water Program, the one they are trying to strip from this 
bill, a farmer could enroll that land to a program and do farming on 
their land, but instead of focusing on wildlife improvements on the 
land, the farmer could agree to transfer the water associated with the 
land to provide water for all kinds of reasons.
  Unlike the CRP, the Water Conservation Program would provide farmers 
with very flexible options and terms of how they would agree to 
transfer water. They can enter into contracts of 1 to 5 years, as I 
have said, with the Department of Agriculture, to provide water. This 
shorter contract term works for this program because what we are 
focused on in the program is building a drought water supply in years 
when there are threatened species or other problems arise because of 
the drought.
  Farmers also can enter into option contracts with the USDA, where 
they would just give the Department of Agriculture an option on their 
water which would be exercised in a drought year. Again, the farmer 
makes money. Farmers would keep on farming unless or until the option 
were exercised.
  The issue of transferring water sometimes can be controversial for my 
colleagues. Some express concern this program will enable the Federal 
Government to buy water rights where a State doesn't want the rights 
sold. This simply is not true. It is simply not true. The program 
specifically provides that State water law is paramount. Under this 
program, a water transfer will not happen unless the State approves 
that transfer under its own law, not under this law. We are not 
changing State water law. But under the State law as it now exists, the 
State approves the transfer under its own law. In States where the 
water law does not permit transferring water for these programs, the 
program simply couldn't be used.
  To show how sincere we are about this, we had a couple of staffers 
come to my staff and say: I am not sure my Senator wants part of this 
program.
  Fine, we will opt you out.
  Oh, no, we don't want to be opted out.
  We gave them the alternative: If you don't like it--I think you are 
losing a tremendous advantage for your agricultural community--we will 
opt you out.
  They didn't want that.
  But there are some very good reasons that States should want to 
participate in the program and facilitate such transfers. Let me give 
but three reasons.
  First, these transfers will help ensure that water is available for 
freshwater life during dry months, helping increase flows during 
historic times of seasonal low water.
  Second, protecting freshwater species is among the most important 
conservation objectives related to endangered species. This is the law.
  Freshwater species are North America's most endangered class. They 
are vanishing five times faster than North America's mammals or birds 
and as quickly as tropical rain forest species. That is a matter of 
fact. Habitat loss and degradation are the single biggest threat to 
freshwater species in trouble. Inadequate streamflow is the largest 
habitat-related threat.
  Third, a program which provides for flexible options for water 
transfers, not simply permanent acquisition, but short-term options 
will help mitigate farming in rough years and allow farmers to continue 
farming. It seems like a pretty good idea.

  I am happy to yield for a question without my losing the floor to my 
friend, the junior Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, the Senator talked about the fact this is 
based on a willing relationship. But if I understand the amendment 
correctly, it is willing only in the sense that any landowner who 
wanted to participate in the new CRP acreage that is authorized under 
the farm bill would be required to either temporarily or permanently 
yield his or her water rights or could simply choose not to participate 
in the new acreage.
  The question is, Is there any way for a landowner to participate in 
the acreage program for the CRP that is being expanded here without 
being required

[[Page S13025]]

by contract to yield up their water rights?
  Mr. REID. No. But why would someone want that? Why should they have 
it both ways?
  Mr. CRAPO. The response to that is the CRP works very well. It is 
doing a lot of good for wildlife in the United States. It is not 
specifically focused on the acquisition of water rights. The expansion 
of the CRP, which we are trying to accomplish in this farm bill, will 
expand the successful operations of the CRP.
  The concern I have and that many others have is the Senator is 
providing in his amendment that no landowner in America can participate 
in the expansion of the CRP without being required to yield their water 
rights. Although I realize that is voluntary in the sense they do not 
have to participate, it is not voluntary in the sense that a landowner 
who wants to participate cannot do so without having to yield water 
rights.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, as I have indicated, the program we are 
talking about is approximately 1 million acres out of 41 million acres. 
We are talking about 1 million acres which will alleviate some of the 
most desperate problems we have in the West. It seems to me that 
breaking out of the curve a little bit is the way to go. I guess the 
Senator from Idaho might have a different philosophy. I think no one is 
being forced into doing anything. If they want to participate in the 
program subject to their wanting to do it--the Department of 
Agriculture acknowledging it is a good idea--then the State water 
authority can approve.

  I think it is a pretty good deal. It is a small part of land. Some 
people have talked to me who do not understand the program. Once I 
explained it to them, they felt pretty good about it. A lot of people 
thought we were wiping out the other program. We are not.
  Mr. CRAPO. Will the Senator yield for one additional question?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. CRAPO. With regard to the issue of whether State law still 
applies or whether State law must be complied with in the transfer, let 
me ask the question. The additional question I wanted to raise is 
whether State law applies. The Senator from Nevada indicated State law 
would still be required to be complied with in any transfer of water 
rights. In Idaho, as I am sure in many States, when a water right is 
transferred the State authority evaluates it and takes into account a 
number of considerations before they authorize the transfer. Will it 
injure any other water user rights? Are the priorities established in 
State law for the use of the water being met?
  Is the Senator telling us that if a landowner wanted to participate 
and yield his water rights in this new acreage that the State water law 
would still be applicable and the State authorities could say this does 
not fit the requirements of State law and prohibit that transfer?
  Mr. REID. Let me, first of all, make sure I stated my previous answer 
properly. When I talked about 41 million acres, I want everyone to 
understand that it was originally 36.4 million acres and we increased 
that and set aside 1.1 million acres for this water conservation 
program.
  In response to the Senator's question, if State engineers, for 
whatever reason, decided under State law they didn't want to do 
whatever the State authority is, it wouldn't be done.
  We have had a troubling situation with the Truckee River. I get so 
upset at that State engineer. I think sometimes he does not know what 
he is doing. He knows a lot more about water rights than I do. He has a 
right to do whatever he wants to do. This wouldn't change that.
  Mr. CRAPO. I appreciate that response from the Senator. I guess we 
have a disagreement on the level of voluntarism and whether it is 
appropriate in the CRP. I appreciate the Senator clarifying that point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I understand the distinguished Senator 
from Montana wants to speak. I wanted to say to Senator Reid that I 
appreciate his compliments. When he opened up, he said I was smart 
because I was a mayor. I want the Senator to know that the fact I was a 
mayor doesn't make me very smart.
  Mr. REID. Can I respond briefly?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Of course.
  Mr. REID. Having worked with the Senator for the entire time I have 
been in the Senate, the fact that he was a mayor has certainly helped 
me understand why he knows so much about budgetary matters. No one 
works harder on the budget than a mayor.
  Setting all of that aside, I don't need to enumerate the Senator's 
qualifications for everyone here to know how knowledgeable and how 
versed he is on legislative matters. He has a great educational 
background. He is a good athlete. He is a fine man. The fact that he 
was a mayor only adds to his qualifications.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator very much. I want to give my friend 
from Nevada a thought. He made a very serious and significant series of 
statements about the voluntary nature of this, that the truth is, for 
States such as mine--I don't know about Nevada--the major water 
districts and the river waters that will be used by farmers, ranchers, 
cities, et cetera, do not need another big purchaser of water rights 
called the U.S. Government's Secretary of Agriculture. We don't need 
one of those for our basins. Voluntary means how high the person who is 
buying will go in paying. I imagine the Secretary of Agriculture has a 
lot more money than any other buyer around. The purchasing in the 
district will be distorted by the gigantic reach of the Secretary of 
Agriculture.
  What will they be looking for? They will want to buy the acreage to 
do something different than we are planning to do with that water now, 
just as sure as we are here. They are not going to be acquiring it to 
do what the basin currently permits. It is going to be for another 
purpose.
  We are just plunging down in the middle of an already totally 
occupied water district a new buyer, the great big Secretary of 
Agriculture. They can come in and purchase this for Federal Government 
purposes. There is no question about it.
  Frankly, I don't think anybody who has assets and resources in their 
States would want to say everything will be OK, even though everything 
is tight right now. We don't know if there is enough water for the 
city. We don't know if there is enough water for the fishpond, the 
lake, or the streams. But that is all right. We are going to approve 
that program so big daddy, the U.S. Agriculture Secretary, can come in 
and buy up water rights. Of course, it is all going to work out because 
they are benevolent anyway and willing. Everybody is going to be OK. 
The State water superintendent has to say OK anyway. Frankly, I don't 
think we ought to give them the right to get into a district with that 
kind of power and end up calling it willing and calling it equal and 
calling it equality. It is not so. It is going to be tremendously 
distorted on the side of the Department of Agriculture.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I thank my good friend from New Mexico 
for leading the charge on this particular part of the farm bill.
  A while ago we were talking about myths. If this section does not 
erode the State adjudication process and the State would have to give 
its OK, if there is a section of willing seller and willing buyer--
which, by the way, they already have that right--why have the 
legislation? What other purpose does this legislation serve than the 
landowner and the water right owner in that community?
  Some 8 or 9 years ago a Secretary of the Interior made a speech and 
said: We can't change the culture of the West until we take over the 
financing and get control of their water.
  I know the Senator from Nevada very well, and he understands the 
State of Nevada very well, that whiskey is for drinking and water is 
for fighting. That has been pretty well accepted throughout the West. 
But in this piece of legislation, which has been inserted into this 
bill, is language that would make it possible for the Federal 
Government to purchase water rights from individuals to protect 
sensitive species.
  We have a hard time defining ``endangered'' or ``threatened.'' Now we 
come up with a new term called ``sensitive species.'' When the 
Government owns the water rights, do we see, all over

[[Page S13026]]

again, Klamath Falls, OR, where we had a vote in this Chamber that sent 
a signal throughout the agricultural community that this body was more 
sensitive to a sucker fish than we were to 1,500 farm families in this 
country? You just stand there and watch your crop dry up because of a 
law and an insensitive Government?
  Now, this was first introduced as a bill. The bill was S. 1737. The 
bill has never had a hearing. It has never seen the light of day until 
today with the introduction of this piece of farm legislation. Though 
it may be well-intentioned, I would say this: Whenever the Federal 
Government enters the picture, and willing seller/willing buyer, or 
coercion, when you are going broke, and the fellow in town has the 
biggest checkbook, and it happens to be the Federal Government, don't 
you bet your last paycheck on whether the Government knows who has the 
biggest checkbook. They also know the position you are in to finance 
your situation, and where that water is going to go.
  Just about every State in the West--I know it is true in Oregon and I 
know it is true in Montana--has a water trust. They are already in 
place. If a farmer or a rancher wants to give up what he is growing now 
and does not want to use that water, or he wants to sell or lease that 
water to another irrigator who still has a crop that requires large 
amounts of water, he can do that now. It does not require this 
legislation. It does not need the big checkbook coming out putting him 
in a position where he must sell to the big checkbook.
  If people doubt that, then I suggest they go out and try to run one 
of these irrigated farms. They are already in place. So the intrusion, 
although not intended, or the coercion, also not intended, happens in 
the real world. And I hope this body operates in the real world.
  My good friend from Nevada says it may change the groundwater. Let me 
tell you, it does. I live in an irrigated valley. I used to, anyway. I 
am up on a hill now.
  I say to Senator Reid, let's take Clark County in your State where 
that county has grown and pushed out the agriculture. You and I will 
not see it, nor do I think our kids will see it, but there will come a 
time when we will pay the penalty for building houses on the valley 
floor covering up good, productive agricultural land that tends to 
provide great benefits to us. We had better start building our homes 
and our houses and our businesses on dry land and let the valley 
produce. That is the way societies have done it before, and those 
societies still are with us today. We may have to take a look at that.
  I will tell you, when they turn the water out of the ditch, the wells 
at my house go dry because the water table drops. That happens every 
fall. So that is not a myth, I say to the Senator. It is true.

  I have a letter here from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. 
The president of that association, Lynn Cornwell, is a resident of 
Montana. He is a good friend and a good rancher out of Glasgow, MT. 
They would like to see this part of the agriculture bill deleted 
because they, too, understand what it does and the effect it has on 
farming and ranching operations, even on dry land. I would say the 
biggest share of the Cornwell ranch is on dry land.
  I want to change the tone and restore the spirit of the law of the 
CRP, the Conservation Reserve Program. I will have an amendment that 
will do that which I will offer in a little bit.
  But my concern is, the willing buyer-willing seller is not the real 
world. It is not the real world. It may be up to us, and those of us 
who probably have never trod on a farm or a ranch, to deal with this.
  I have been a very fortunate person. I have been an auctioneer for a 
long time. I have had the painful experience of selling out some 
friends who did not make it. The big checkbook always came into play. 
So that is not the real world.
  Then, I say, if this has nothing to do with circumventing the State's 
rights, water rights, and the adjudication process in that State, then 
why do we need the legislation? There is absolutely no reason for it. 
So there must be another motive that cannot be seen just by reading the 
words of this particular section.
  I would hope that we would use a little common sense in this 17-
square miles of a logic-free environment and not do anything that 
upsets the balance between the States, the Federal Government, 
irrigation districts, and private land owners. Because it is my 
interpretation of the language that once you sign up in the 
Conservation Reserve Program, then you might not have any choice but to 
relinquish those water rights, even on a temporary basis. And that is a 
very dangerous precedent in itself, of relinquishing those water rights 
to the Federal Government.
  I have always taken the advice of an old rancher over in Miles City, 
MT: There is a way to survive in a harsh country. Never ever let 
anybody erode or give away your water rights, always keep a little poke 
of gold, and you will survive out here in pretty good shape.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the 
National Cattlemen's Beef Association be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              National Cattlemen's


                                             Beef Association,

                                Washington, DC, December 12, 2001.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senate Majority Leader Daschle: Throughout the 
     formulation of the Senate farm bill, the National Cattlemen's 
     Beef Association (NCBA) worked diligently with members of the 
     Committee to develop a Conservation title that would reflect 
     the interests of NCBA and this nation's cattlemen. NCBA was 
     pleased with the bipartisan, voice vote approved Committee 
     title. However, modifications that are to be incorporated 
     into the bill by a manager's amendment take back many of the 
     positive strides supported by NCBA.
       The manager's amendment will increase the Conservation 
     Reserve Program (CRP) to 41.1 million acres. This exceeds the 
     40 million acres that NCBA found acceptable. At this level, 
     CRP will negatively impact the economy of rural communities, 
     local feed grain and forage prices for livestock producers 
     and devote taxpayer dollars to setting aside land that could 
     be better spent on working lands. NCBA asked that increase in 
     CRP acreage be limited to no more than 40 million acres with 
     new acreage focused on riparian areas, buffer strips and 
     continuous sign-up acreage. Additionally, the managers' 
     amendment still does not provide for a reduction in rental 
     rates on CRP acres used for haying or grazing.
       Long term funding of the Environmental Quality Incentive 
     Program (EQIP), at the time when producer needs are likely to 
     peak, has been reduced by $650 million dollars per year, from 
     the Committee passed bill. Reductions in funding in 2007 and 
     the out years, will put the long-term success of the program 
     at risk. By contrast, the Committee passed bill provided 
     continued funding that amounted to an additional $3 billion 
     over 10 years. NCBA, in addition to increased funding, asked 
     for a number of programmatic changes that continue in the 
     legislation. Our support for existing measures is dependent 
     on changes that will provide for program access to all 
     producers and ensure that soil, air and water quality are the 
     priorities for the program.
       The manager's amendment includes a number of disconcerting 
     provisions related to the Water Conservation Program. This 
     new program would authorize the use of 1.1 million acres of 
     the CRP authorized enrollment acreage to acquire water 
     rights, both short-term and permanent, primarily for 
     endangered and threatened species recovery. This program also 
     specifically allows for the temporary lease of water or water 
     rights in the Klamath River basin of Oregon and California. 
     NCBA cannot support this program, despite the fact that only 
     ``willing sellers'' may participate. Willing sellers are 
     often found where there are endangered species; the Klamath 
     basin is a perfect example. Many farmers and ranchers have 
     become ``willing sellers'' because they can no longer afford 
     to farm. Buying all the water rights in the west will not 
     solve our nation's endangered species problems, which in 
     large part is due to the Endangered Species Act itself. It is 
     inappropriate in the context of a farm bill to attempt to do 
     so.
       The Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) is another new program 
     that has garnered much support in this farm bill debate. NCBA 
     supports this program because it provides an option for 
     preserving the economic viability of grazing operations while 
     protection the grasslands upon which both wildlife and 
     ranching depend through the purchase of 30-year and permanent 
     easements. However, the Committee proposal strips the option 
     for non-profit conservation and agricultural land trusts to 
     hold and enforce the easements, which is critical for NCBA.
       Conservation easements are rapidly becoming a valuable tool 
     in the protection of agricultural lands. However, many 
     landowners remain skeptical. As with any contract, it is 
     important to be able to develop a trust relationship among 
     the parties to the agreement. By allowing third party non-
     profit land trusts to also be eligible to carry out

[[Page S13027]]

     the administrative responsibilities of the easement, the 
     landowner has the flexibility to work with the entity they 
     feel most comfortable. Several states have developed land 
     trust organizations for the purpose of holding and enforcing 
     agricultural conservation easements. Without the ability of 
     non-profit or agriculture land trust participation, the GRP 
     will not serve the interest of those family farmers and 
     ranchers for which it was designed.
       We look forward to working with all Members of the Senate 
     to create a final package that meets the needs of today's 
     ranchers. In closing, NCBA believes that last minute 
     amendments to a balanced and bipartisan Committee passed bill 
     are lacking in a number of key areas and less attractive to 
     US beef producers.
       Thank you for the opportunity to communicate with you on 
     these important issues. If you need further information or if 
     we can provide clarity to any points in this letter, please 
     contact us.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Lynn Cornwell,
                                                        President.

  Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I heard the comments made by my good 
friend from Nevada earlier. I agree with him. The conservation title of 
the Harkin bill is there to help mitigate western water conflicts.
  I have been on the Agriculture Committee for 26 years now. It was the 
first committee I went on when I came here. I have heard a lot of the 
debates on conservation practices and on water matters. We get 
concerned about water in the East for different reasons than they do in 
the West.
  We have heard the comments of my friend from Montana. My home in 
Vermont has a well. We live on a dirt road. We have to provide our own 
water. We are certainly very careful about protecting the water we 
have. Our home had once been a farm. They had to have water for the 
cattle. We know what it is.
  This is not a case where you are going to willy-nilly transfer water 
away. In fact, under the amendment that the Senator from Nevada, Mr. 
Reid, has proposed to the Harkin bill, it provides specifically that 
the State law is paramount. In other words, if Nevada or Montana or 
anywhere else has a water transfer law, then nothing happens unless it 
is approved under the State law. It is not a case where the Federal 
Government just comes over and takes over things.
  This proposal is here to make sure we plan before we are in trouble, 
before we are in a drought situation. When you get into a drought 
situation, when you have those kinds of problems, there is not an awful 
lot you can do to help farmers or alleviate their economic impact, or, 
for that matter, the regional impact on farmers because they fail.
  So what this amendment would do is try to create those kinds of 
programs that would help lessen water conflicts--not for the good 
years, because in the good years there aren't any conflicts. In the 
good years, everybody has plenty of water; nobody really thinks about 
it. This is the plan for those drought years. It is almost the biblical 
7 fat years and 7 lean years.

  The Water Conservation Program that is included in Chairman Harkin's 
bill is the first tool we will have in the Federal farm policy to 
actually address the program. This program actually is very familiar. 
Most farmers know about the CRP program, the Conservation Reserve 
Program. Farmers know that program. The program is extremely popular. 
This follows it. In fact, under the new water conservation program, a 
farmer could enroll land in the program, reducing farming on that land, 
but it is totally voluntary. This is not something where Big Brother 
comes in saying you to have do it. It is totally voluntary. You can't 
transfer anything anyway if your State has already passed a law saying 
you can't.
  It is really designed to put as much power in the hands of the farmer 
as their own State would allow. Instead of focusing on wildlife, for 
example, wildlife improvements on the land, the farmer could agree to 
transfer the water associated with that land to provide water for fish 
and other wildlife, something that those who hunt, fish, or just are 
concerned with the environment should like very much.
  It actually operates basically the same way as every other 
conservation program in this bill. All the protections have been built 
in here, protections of saying that you can't override State law. You 
have to make it voluntary. The farmers and ranchers themselves are 
going to make these decisions. We have done this in CRP.
  We have done the Conservation Reserve Program in the past. That has 
proved very popular. I have some very careful farmers in my State, good 
Yankee stock. They want to make darn sure they are doing something that 
protects the farmers' sons and daughters afterwards. They sign up for 
the CRP because they know it works.
  I know the Senator from California is here. I yield to the Senator 
from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The Senator yields the floor for 
a question.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has yielded the 
floor. Senators may compete for recognition.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friends, I will be brief and to the point. I 
thank my friend from Vermont. This particular part of the farm bill is 
very important to our State that is having so many issues surrounding 
water, the availability of water, and the ability to have enough water 
for everyone--for the farmers, for the urban areas, for the suburban 
areas, for the environment, for fish and wildlife.
  I had the experience of taking a hike along a river that is pretty 
dry. It is in a State park. They have a wonderful series of parks along 
this river that is now so dry. This was the place where the salmon 
would come. There is nothing sadder than seeing this happen, seeing us 
lose our habitat. It is our responsibility to make sure we do right by 
the environment, right by the farmers, right by the urban users, right 
by the suburban users. That means we all have to live within this gift 
we get from God that sustains us--the water. We have to use it wisely. 
We have to be smart about it. We have to share it. If we do that, 
everyone will thrive in the end.
  What Senator Reid has done by his excellent work on this bill--and I 
so much oppose this move to remove it from the bill--is to understand 
this reality, that this is a precious resource, this water; that we do 
need it for all the stakeholders. We know when we took up the issue of 
the Klamath what a terrible situation we had there with the farmers 
literally crying because they didn't have enough water to farm. They 
didn't have an option to sell what water they had.
  What Senator Reid does, through a leasing and a purchase program, is 
to make sure that on a voluntary basis farmers have the option to lease 
or sell some of their water. For example, suppose they choose to go to 
another crop and they need less water. They can go to that other crop 
and then sell the excess water that they have and increase and enhance 
their incomes.
  This is something that is very popular. In my State, I heard from 
farmers who really support very strongly what Harry Reid is trying to 
do. They tell me this would be a welcome opportunity for them. So when 
people get up and say the West this and the West that, you can't speak 
for the whole West because there are farmers in my State, in my region, 
who believe this kind of a provision is going to help them survive. Let 
me repeat that. This kind of provision will help them survive. They 
have told me that. They have written this to me.
  Therefore, when Senator Reid was putting together this provision, I 
thanked him on behalf of those farmers who call the Reid provision a 
win-win situation. Farmers could sell water they could not otherwise 
use and, in exchange, get funds they need to keep on going, and fish 
and wildlife get the needed water.
  I find it interesting that in this debate some on the other side talk 
about the big, bad, evil Federal Government coming in and stealing 
water away from farmers. First of all, I know Ann Veneman, and I don't 
think of her in that way, and I don't think of the Federal Government 
as evil. I think people see the Federal Government as a necessary tool 
for them to do the right thing, whether it is in foreign policy, 
domestic policy, or protection of the environment. I don't think this 
administration, or any administration, would come in like Big Brother 
or Big Sister

[[Page S13028]]

and disrupt a farmer's life. On the contrary, I think in fact that 
because this is voluntary, this is an option for farmers.
  In closing, I don't need to go on at great length. I wanted to 
support my colleague from Nevada, the assistant Democratic leader, who 
I think has done an incredible job of crafting a very good provision. I 
am disappointed that we always seem to pit farmers against the fishing 
people, fishing people against the urban and suburban people. In 
California, we have learned that we have to live together. We don't 
come to this floor--Senator Feinstein and I--picking a fight with any 
of them. We try to bring everybody together. Senator Reid has done a 
good job in trying to bring all the stakeholders together. In this case 
the farmers stand to win, the environment stands to win, the fish stand 
to win, as does the wildlife and everybody else.
  I think what I hear on the other side of the aisle is the old water 
wars, the old language, and it is the old threat, the old gloom and 
doom. I urge colleagues to work with Senator Reid, give this a chance. 
I think this program could work. It could be a win-win for everybody.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I will limit my comments. I want to say 
this while Senator Reid is on the floor. I used to live in his part of 
the country and I understand his concern. If you haven't spent much 
time in Nevada--I listened to his comments. I listened about Pyramid 
Lake and Walker Lake, two lakes that rivers come into. And there is a 
place called Tumble Sink in his State--the only place in the United 
States where the further you go downstream, the smaller the river gets, 
until it just disappears.
  I think this is a question that probably should have been fully 
debated, with some kind of a hearing, and not attached to this bill. 
The Senator from Montana, Mr. Burns, mentioned what we often call the 
law of unintended consequences. That is what I am concerned about, too, 
without adequate input. I know this may help a rancher or a farmer 
survive, but I can tell you they won't survive very long once the water 
is gone. I don't know how many Members of this body farm or ranch. I 
know there are several, including me. You might make a short-term 
agreement to sell or lease some water, but if there is a change in the 
water usage and you don't get it back, that is the end of your farming 
and ranching in the arid West, where we have to store something like 80 
percent of our yearly water needs.
  As I understand this part of the bill, the Secretary of Agriculture 
can acquire the water for purposes other than agriculture during this 
period of time, even though I understand it is on a willing-seller/
willing-buyer arrangement and that he cannot participate in a CRP 
unless he also agrees to the water provision. You take them both or you 
get neither.
  Now, I am reminded of something that happened. I did a hearing on 
water in Fort Collins, CO, about a year and a half ago. One of the men 
who testified--I was thinking about him when I was listening--was a 
man, like a lot of ranchers, who moves his water around, depending on 
what he is planning and where he wants the irrigated water to go. He 
had a field that was dry as a bone, and he had ample water rights. So 
he put a ditch in to carry some of the excess water he already owned to 
this very dry field. Lo and behold, the field obviously came up very 
rich and beautiful and produced a wonderful stand of hay. Since there 
was water and seed in the ground, a little mouse moved in called a 
Preble's meadow jumping mouse, which is on the Endangered Species List, 
or the Threatened Species List.
  As you know, the Endangered Species Act takes into consideration 
habitat. Once the mouse moved in, he found he could not move his 
ditches anymore from there because it was declared habitat for that 
mouse. That is one of the concerns with this. Maybe it will work fine; 
maybe it won't.
  What if the rancher agrees to take his water out of production and 
put it in this Federal designation for a period of time, and wherever 
that water is--as an example, out West--it is used for something else 
and, therefore, where it was in those fields is now dried up. As you 
probably know, there is a program in the West reintroducing the 
blackfooted ferret on the Endangered Species List. They are beginning 
to grow little by little. There are a few more colonies established. 
What if something like that moved into that area where he had his water 
because they live on prairie dogs and live in dry ground, not near 
water? My question would be: Is there a possibility that he could not 
get his water use back because that land he had irrigated might then 
come under some kind of a criterion that would prevent him under the 
Endangered Species Act?

  It is that kind of unanswered ambiguity about this section that makes 
me oppose it. I am not opposed to the concept. I am always looking for 
ways that farmers and ranchers can survive because it is not easy. We 
have more ranchers and farmers in the West whose wives are now driving 
school buses to make ends meet. It is a tough lifestyle. There is no 
question that as the urbanization takes place in the West, there is 
going to be a bigger need for water.
  Maybe someday we will have to change the way we use water, as they do 
in Israel and other dry countries where they have gone to drip 
irrigation and other things, rather than flood irrigating, which is so 
wasteful of water. But under the water law that exists now in the 
Western States, I think this could really upset things, even though the 
language says it cannot be done without the approval of the water 
authority. Something, it seems to me, should be fleshed out completely 
through hearings and much better debate, rather than simply in the last 
few minutes before the agriculture bill moves.
  With that, I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this section of the 
bill and in support of the amendment to strike it as well. I think it 
is important as we debate this amendment we recognize that the Senate 
Agriculture Committee never considered this provision. It was never 
raised in any of the hearings we held on the conservation title of the 
farm bill earlier this year, nor was it included in any version of the 
conservation title on which this committee has worked. It has simply 
been introduced on the floor now while debating the bill. It hasn't 
been vetted nationwide.
  We are in the process of debating it now, as water users, water 
lawyers, and those who are involved in this issue around the Nation are 
hurriedly trying to evaluate it and get their information to us to 
determine what impact and what consequences it will have. I believe the 
law of unintended consequences, which was discussed by several other 
Senators here, is going to be played out if this becomes law and we 
will then see what happens without having had the kind of thorough 
evaluation that it deserves in this body.
  What the proposal does is to adjust the CRP, which is a very useful 
and time-tested program in the conservation title of the farm bill that 
has been extremely successful over the years in helping us to improve 
the habitat for wildlife, and for fish, and for species around the 
Nation by addressing those concerns without doing it in the context of 
the Endangered Species Act but doing it in the context of the 
conservation effort that we seek to achieve in our farm policies in 
this Nation.

  In fact, I have worked very hard this year and in the last couple of 
years to put together a conservation title for the farm bill, and a 
part of that conservation title is to try to expand the CRP to make it 
even more useful in protecting habitat and improving circumstances 
nationwide for our wildlife.
  Yet we have not seen this effort to try to hook Federal acquisition 
of water rights into the administration of the CRP until today. I have 
worked very closely with many of the Senators in the Chamber in other 
efforts to protect and strengthen our salmon and steelhead in Idaho 
under the Endangered Species Act, another endangered species as well.
  I worked hard to improve the Endangered Species Act to authorize our 
landowners to have habitat conservation plans and options where they 
can commit to use their land in certain ways that will help achieve the 
objectives of the Endangered Species Act

[[Page S13029]]

and protect them from some of the onerous implications of the impacts 
the act may have on them in the administration and use of their land.
  Never until today have we debated a proposal to merge the CRP with 
the Endangered Species Act and to do so in a way that facilitates and, 
in fact, initiates the Federal acquisition of water rights. That is 
what is causing such a significant concern around the country.
  In my discussion with the Senator from Nevada earlier, he 
acknowledged that, although there is a lot of talk about the use of the 
voluntariness in this package, it is only voluntary in the sense that a 
farmer does not have to participate in the CRP if he does not want to 
give up his water rights. But with regard to this 1.1 million acres 
that is outlined in this proposal, any farmer in America has only one 
choice: Either do not participate in this part of the expansion of the 
CRP or give up your water rights, either on a temporary or permanent 
basis. Such a choice, in my opinion, is not very voluntary.
  In fact, it will cause a lot of farmers who otherwise would have 
taken advantage of this expansion of the CRP to do really good things 
on their land and improve habitat to say: I am not going to give up my 
water rights. So I am not going to participate in this program and they 
will make that so-called ``voluntary'' decision, but what it really 
means is they have been deprived of this ability to participate in the 
expansion of the CRP because the condition of giving up their water 
rights has been placed on it. That is what the debate comes down to.
  Why is it necessary for us to expand into the CRP the Federal effort 
to gain control over water by acquisition of water rights and to fund 
it so the Federal Government can then come in with the deepest pocket 
in the market and buy water rights with the pressure or the tool of 
access to the CRP used as the hammer?
  The real debate here is: Why are we seeing this? I think the reason 
is one that has been suggested by several of the others who have 
spoken. Historically, we have seen an increasing effort by the Federal 
Government to gain access to and control over the water in this Nation. 
That is a continuous issue we fight often in the West, and I know in 
other parts of the country it is fought as well. So there is an 
automatic alertness by those who own water rights or who deal with 
water rights or who seek to manage the water issues in the States, when 
they see a new program with Federal dollars being pumped in and Federal 
conditions being brought in to a program that otherwise was working 
wonderfully with the purpose of saying we are going to utilize this 
good program and restrict access for it to the new people who want to 
get in and do so on the basis that the only way they can use it is if 
they give up their Federal water rights.

  In a sense that is voluntary because they do not have to do it, but 
it is making it so anyone who wants to participate in the expansion of 
the program cannot do so unless they fall within this provision.
  The proposal I have made, and I hope still will be the one that 
prevails in the Senate with regard to the CRP lands, is indeed we focus 
our expansion of the CRP on those buffer strips and those areas where 
we can have the most impact on habitat for wildlife, but not do it in a 
way that excludes every landowner in America who does not want to give 
up their water rights.
  Let's not create just a limited application of this new expansion of 
the CRP in a way that would essentially disqualify everyone who is not 
willing to give up their right to water. That is my biggest concern 
with regard to the so-called voluntariness issue and the purpose behind 
this legislation.
  Another point I think is critical to make is that those who advocate 
this provision say it is important we protect these threatened species 
and species that could be benefited if the Federal Government could 
take control of this water and utilize it for their benefit. It is a 
good point. Utilization of the water resources of this Nation for the 
benefit of species is critical, and yet under existing Federal laws, 
such as the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and so forth, 
and under existing State laws, almost everything that has been 
discussed as a very positive thing that should be done under the 
Endangered Species Act can already be done.
  If you stop to think about it, as the Senator from Montana already 
said, the Federal Government can already buy water rights in a willing 
buyer/willing seller arrangement. What is being added here is that 
lever or that hammer that says you cannot any longer participate in the 
expansion of the CRP unless you sell your water rights. Just a little 
bit of a hammer--maybe not such a little hammer--on the water users of 
this Nation.
  Yet already we are achieving some of those objectives under the 
existing law. For example, in my State of Idaho, the need for water for 
salmon and steelhead has long been established, has been debated 
actually, but has long been something that has been sought to be 
addressed under the Endangered Species Act. For years, hundreds of 
thousands of acre-feet of water in Idaho on an annual basis have been 
made available on this true willing buyer/willing seller basis where 
the Federal Government has come in and obtained on fair evenhanded 
negotiations the ability to get water out of the waterbank or out of 
some projects or out of water users who do not need it for that year 
and to utilize it for the salmon and the steelhead.
  That can be done, but it does not have to be done with the added 
hammer of prohibiting access to the CRP.
  In the State of Idaho, for example, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 
as I indicated, has been able to rent water from the State waterbank 
from willing sellers for almost a decade. Recently, in another context, 
the Bureau has rented water in the Lemhi River area, a tributary of the 
Salmon River for the benefit of species. All of this was done under 
State law and Federal with the current system.

  I have a letter from the Governor of the State of Idaho who asked us 
to oppose this legislation because it is in conflict with Idaho's water 
law and because, as he says:

       In addition, the goal of implementing water quantity and 
     water quality improvement demonstrated to be required for 
     species listed under the Endangered Species Act can largely 
     be achieved under existing State laws.

  The Governor goes on to give examples that explain we have those 
abilities and the desires in the States right now to achieve these 
objectives.
  What this comes down to, frankly, is: Are we going to modify and take 
a step into the arena of our conservation title of the farm bill now 
and modify the CRP in a way that creates a hammer to force those who 
would like to participate in it, would like to improve the habitat 
under this program, would like to take the incentive that it provides 
and say: You cannot do it unless you give up your water rights? Or are 
we going to use the existing voluntary basis of addressing these issues 
under the Endangered Species Act, in terms of obtaining and utilizing 
water rights, and let the CRP work as it has been intended to work and 
as it has so effectively worked over the last years to let farmers, 
without having to jeopardize their water rights, do those things they 
know are going to benefit the species that reside on their property?
  I think that it would be better, actually. If you want to look at 
what is going to actually result in the best results for species and 
for wildlife in general in the United States, I think it is going to be 
best if we allow those who own land and who operate land in 
agricultural endeavors to continue to utilize this expansion of the CRP 
program without the threats of giving up their water rights because you 
will have many more people willing to participate then, many more lands 
that will be available and be competitive for this expansion, and the 
Secretary will be able to have a broader array of choices in terms of 
the allocations of the new CRP land.

  A last question that perhaps the Senator from Nevada can answer, a 
question raised by some of the water users as they struggle to evaluate 
what will happen: What happens if a water user who enters into a 
contract with the Secretary agrees on a temporary basis to give up his 
water rights and then chooses, for whatever reasons--economic reasons 
or whatever--to break out of the contract and go back into production? 
I understand there are financial penalties for that. That is 
understood. By then taking that water

[[Page S13030]]

back from the Federal Government's utilization to the utilization of 
the farmer, which I assume would be possible, would that then result in 
a section 9 violation of the Endangered Species Act by taking water 
away from a species?
  A lot of questions come up under this law as to what will happen if 
this new regime for utilization of water is implemented. I know the 
Senator from Nevada says State law is not being superseded. The fact 
is, under the State laws in the West, many different evaluations have 
to be made before a water right can be transferred. In many cases, the 
water right is actually owned by a canal company or irrigation 
district, not by the land owner. So permission there would have to be 
obtained. Then approval from the State water authorities would have to 
be obtained.
  I assume from the answers we have gotten that would be left in place 
and no farmer would be able to participate unless he got approval from 
the entities that were the actual owners of the water and from the 
State that manages the water. Again, that will limit dramatically the 
number of people who can take advantage of this expansion of the CRP. 
But assuming that is in place, what happens if the Endangered Species 
Act becomes applicable to the new utilization of the water regime and 
the farmer wants to take it back? We have a lot of questions that need 
to be answered.
  In summary, we have not had a chance to thoroughly vet this issue. It 
has not been reviewed in committee or hearings. There is a tremendous 
amount of unrest building and developing around the country over what 
this will do. The bottom line is, there is no established reason for 
trying to connect the Endangered Species Act and the desire for 
expansive Federal control over water to a very effective CRP that is 
doing its job under the conservation title of the farm bill.
  I encourage those Senators who will make their decision on this issue 
soon as we come to vote on it to recognize we should reject this 
section of the farm bill and support the amendment to strike this 
provision and work in a collaborative fashion to develop the approaches 
to the farm bill that will expand and strengthen our conservation 
title, but not do so in a way so divisive.
  I conclude with this. I have maintained for many years probably the 
most significant piece of environmentally positive legislation we have 
worked on in Congress is the farm bill. It has tremendous incentives in 
the conservation title to make sure the private land users in this 
country and the way we utilize our agricultural land and its production 
are incentivised for good, positive, conservation practices that 
benefit species, our air quality, our water quality, and the like. That 
is what this conservation title does. That is what the CRP is designed 
to do. Do not saddle the CRP with this unnecessary effort to extend 
Federal control over water and Federal acquisition over water. Let the 
CRP work as it was intended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I join with my colleague and partner from 
Idaho with what I think is, for Idaho, an arid Western State, probably 
one of the more critical debates of new farm policy for our country.
  Those who live east of the Mississippi have no comprehension of the 
value of a raindrop, the value of a bank of snow, or the value of a 
large body of water retained behind an impoundment, known as a 
reservoir. My forbears and Senator Crapo's forbears for generations 
have recognized the value of storing water under State law and 
allocating this very scarce commodity to make the deserts of the West 
bloom and to become productive.
  There is no question in anyone's mind, I hope, that the ability to 
allocate water is the sole responsibility of the States. That is a 
fundamental right that has been well established in law. While 
oftentimes disputed by those who disagree, it is rarely ruled against 
in court.
  Why are we gathered here tonight? Because an amendment would propose 
in some nature, yet to be argued, that that fundamental principle of 
western water law is somehow overridden by a Federal law.
  My colleague from Idaho was very clear in pointing out the rather 
perverse incentive created within this bill. The authors take a very 
popular conservation program known as CRP and suggest if you wish to 
enter it anew, somehow you have to give up something increasingly more 
valuable. That has never been the concept. The benefit of CRP and the 
intent of CRP--and I am one who has been here long enough to say I was 
there at the beginning of this idea--said it was to take erosive lands 
out of the market, give that land owner something in return for the 
value of the conservation that would result.
  What has happened in the meantime is a well established record that 
these lands once tilled were turned into grasses and stubbles and root 
base that held the water, stopped the erosion, and became some of the 
finest upland game bird habitat in the West.
  In my State of Idaho, it is an extremely popular program where 
pheasant, chukar, and sage grouse now flourish because of the program. 
The incentive was the right and natural incentive. It was not: I want 
to provide you something, but to do so, I want to take something away.
  The Senator from California, a few moments ago, opined about the fact 
of a dry river bed. I am not going to suggest States have allocated 
their water always in the proper fashion. We in the West are in a tug 
today, a tug of war over water because we are populating at a very 
rapid and historic rate compared to the last century. Agriculture, some 
manufacturing, and human consumption were the dominant consumptive uses 
of water. We failed to take into recognition the value of fisheries on 
occasion or riparian zones. We now understand that.
  But here is the catch-22. My State, for 100 years, added to its water 
base. My State created more water than that State ever had before the 
Western European man came. Why? Because we created impoundments, we 
saved the spring runoff, and we increased the abundance of water in my 
State by hundreds of thousands of acre-feet. But about a decade and a 
half ago, because of environmental interests and attitudes, we stopped 
doing that. The Federal Government said: We will build no more dams. It 
is not a good thing to dam up rivers. So it stopped. We stopped adding 
water to a very arid Western State. And it is true across the West. So 
we locked into place the amount of water that was there. We could add 
no more.
  Two decades ago, I joined with the Senator from Colorado to establish 
a new water project in southeastern Colorado and we have fought it for 
two decades. It still is not constructed. Yet it would have added an 
abundance of new water to that corner of the State. It was denied by 
environmental interests and others. That is really a very encapsulated 
history as I know it.

  Now what is happening, in an area where we have been locked into a 
limited amount of water, unable to store or generate more by spring 
runoff, we are saying you have to divide that which is currently used 
for other uses.
  I will tell you, the arguments are pretty legitimate: Fisheries, 
water quality, in-stream flow, riparian zones--something we all want. 
It is something we all believe in. But because of the situation the 
arid West has been put in, when we offer up to do this, we have to take 
it away from somebody else. We can't add because we have no more water 
with which to work.
  We are at the headwaters of a mighty water system in my State known 
as the Snake-Columbia system. The mighty Snake River begins just over 
the mountain in Wyoming, springs through Idaho, and picks up the 
tributaries and dumps from the Idaho into the Columbia River, and our 
rivers and our streams are the habitat for salmonoid fisheries--salmon, 
a marvelous species of fish. They come up from the ocean to spawn, and 
their offspring go back to the ocean. That has become an increasingly 
important issue in my State because they are now listed as endangered 
or threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
  The State of Idaho has sent upwards, at times, of 700,000 acre-feet 
of their water, under law, downriver to help those fish. But there are 
those who want more.
  As my colleague from Idaho said, the Bureau of Reclamation in Idaho 
is, in

[[Page S13031]]

fact, acquiring water from Idaho and its willing seller. That is the 
appropriate thing to do. It is not an adversary relationship. If you 
have surplus available and it is in a nonuse way, we will acquire it 
and put it to some other use.
  But that fight doesn't occur here in the Nation's capital. It occurs 
in Boise, in Idaho's capital, in the State capital of our State where 
water law, water fights ought to exist. If you are going to fight water 
in Colorado, you fight it in Denver, you don't fight it here, because 
it is not our right to do so. If you are going to fight water in New 
Mexico, you fight it in Albuquerque.
  And we will have those fights. The West is replete with a history of 
water fights. Why? Because it is a scarce commodity. It is a lifegiving 
commodity--to the human species, to the fish, to the wildlife, to the 
plants that become the abundant crops that have made our States the 
great productive States that they are. But it was the men and women of 
Idaho from the beginning who decided how Idaho's water ought to be 
allocated--not the Federal Government, not the Agriculture Committee of 
the Senate, not the Secretary of Agriculture, but the citizens of the 
State of Idaho.
  So the senior Senator from New Mexico offers an amendment to strike 
the provision for the water conservation program as proposed by the 
Senator from Nevada, and he is right to do so. It doesn't mean a 
program such as this couldn't exist. It doesn't mean a program such as 
this should not exist. But if it does exist, it ought to be the right 
of the State to decide whether its citizens can participate in it 
because it is the State's right to decide how that water gets allocated 
and not the Federal Government's.
  When I first came to Congress in the early 1980s, there were some 
very wise environmentalists who were scratching their heads and saying: 
Wait a minute, if Idaho is 63 percent owned by the Federal Government 
and the citizens of the Nation and most of the tops of those watersheds 
where that water system of the West begins are Federal land, why isn't 
it Federal water? And there was a thrust and a move to take it.

  We blocked it. We stopped it. Why? Because of the precedent and the 
history and the reality that when you are in a State such as mine and 
that of Senator Mike Crapo, where we get about 15 inches of rainfall a 
year, water is sacred. What do we get here, 60-plus in a good year? 
People east of the Mississippi don't worry about water so much. They 
don't realize that you have to control it and impound it. Actually, 
they are trying to control it to keep it off their lands most of the 
time, to keep it out of their farms because it floods and does damage. 
We have had those fights here--reclamation fights and all of that 
drainage kind of thing in wetlands. Quite the reverse is true out there 
on the other side of the Rockies, on the other side of the Mississippi.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I worked with the Senator from Idaho on a good number 
of water bills for a number of years. Maybe I should correct him 
because we have one more water project to build, and that is what he 
and I have been working on in Colorado for the last two decades. But 
something came to my mind as I have been listening to the debate, and I 
would like to ask the Senator a question, since he is the only one on 
the floor.
  Most of the western States have several problems including over 
appropriation, which means more people own the water than there is 
water. That is why we have been fighting back and forth. One of the 
things common to the West but not common to the East is called water 
compacts. We have them between counties sharing scarce water, we have 
them between States. Colorado happens to be an upper basin State, as it 
is called; California, a lower basin State; and we share the water that 
goes down the Colorado River. We also share the water, under a 
contractual agreement, that goes down the Rio Grande that starts in 
Colorado, that goes to Texas.
  In addition to interstate compacts, we have international compacts 
because we have a compact with Mexico to provide a certain amount of 
water from both of those rivers to that nation.
  Most of the water that is in ranching now recharges back to the 
ground. It goes back either through runoff irrigation, which goes back 
to the river, or if it is sprinkled, it usually recharges the aquifer 
to some degree. One of the big unknown questions for me is if there is 
a possibility, if we change the use or allow the Federal Government to 
change the use, it would in any way upset existing compacts. I would 
like to ask the Senator if he has thought about that, if he has any 
views on that.
  Mr. CRAIG. I appreciate the Senator asking the question. I am not 
sure I can respond. What the Senator has clearly demonstrated though, 
by the question, is the complex character of western water and western 
water relationships. The Senator is in the headwaters of the mighty 
Colorado River. Yet the citizens of the State of Colorado don't have a 
right to drain the river because the Colorado is the headwaters of a 
river system that goes all the way to the Gulf of California. All of 
those relationships have developed over the years.
  I am not sure I can answer that question. I think it is literally 
that technical. That is why, when somebody says, Oh, this causes no 
problem--until you review it and put it into the context of the law 
that governs water, a clear answer cannot be given. And I am not a 
water attorney.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Exactly the point. We don't know the problems that will 
be created, and that is why I think it is wrong to move forward with 
this bill with this section in it until we have had some really in-
depth hearings as to how it would affect water in all the States of the 
West.
  I appreciate the time.
  Mr. CRAIG. The Senator from Colorado also mentioned something else in 
the context of his question that I think is often not understood. The 
Idaho Fish and Game Department would tell any citizen, or any 
questioning person, that there is more wildlife and more abundance of 
wildlife in Idaho today than ever in our known history except for maybe 
prehistoric times. Before the crust shifted and the glaciers receded 
totally, we were a fairly tropical area, and there may have been a more 
abundant wildlife at that time. But I am talking about known history.
  We have more wildlife in our State today, in the general sense, than 
ever in our State's history. They will tell us very simply why. There 
is more water.
  While some of our citizens are concerned that it isn't where they 
would like it to be as it relates to their particular interest--whether 
it be a fish or a riparian zone--the abundance of deer, elk, antelope, 
and some of our upland game birds is in direct proportion to the amount 
of water that is now being spread upon the land by humans. It is that 
multiplier that I talked about earlier on that Idahoans have been 
increasing the overall volume of water in their State, on an annualized 
basis, ever since we set foot in the State and began to homestead it 
and turn the land and make it productive.
  For example, we used to flood irrigate, spread the water openly on 
the land, over the Idaho aquifer. Because we wanted to conserve the 
water, we have moved from flood irrigation to sprinkler irrigation.
  We dramatically reduced the amount of water that is now being 
returned to the aquifer. We changed the very character of a climate 
that we created in the beginning upon which wildlife depended. Herein 
lies the question that needs to be asked of the impact of what the 
Senator might want to do with his amendment.
  Let us suggest that you, for a period of time, leased your water from 
a given acreage of land and it became arid, and certain wildlife moved 
on the land that liked arid land. Then, later on, you chose to irrigate 
the land which might drown out the particular arid species and somebody 
filed on you because you were threatening that species and risking its 
endangerment. Are you in violation of the law when you say you are only 
returning the land to its pre-existing use?
  Let us say you dried up the land and caused the species that were 
rare to leave because the lack of moisture turned it arid.
  Those are all the kinds of simple complication because we have made 
the law so critical and caused some of our friends to become such 
critics. Those are reasonable questions to ask.

[[Page S13032]]

  In the West and in the arid regions of our country, a long while ago 
this Congress recognized how important it was for those who lived in 
the arid areas to determine the use of the water. Some scholars called 
it the oasis theory. My grandfather said that very early on when he was 
homesteading; he homesteaded where the water was. Why? Because it is 
life for you and your family, and the livestock. In that case, it was 
my granddad's sheep ranch. It wasn't by accident that he became the 
owner and controller of water because it was a very limited commodity 
and it allowed him to grow and to expand his business, if he had to.
  That has been the history of the West. That is why we must not allow 
this amendment to exist. I am not saying the purpose isn't right, nor 
am I saying the Secretary of Agriculture might not want to ask the 
State to participate. But they ought to be asking and the State ought 
to have a right to say yes or no, and there ought not be any perverse 
incentive that if you do not, you won't get something in return that 
others can get.
  That isn't the way conservation programs ought to be developed. There 
ought to clearly be incentives. The additional CRP offers just that. It 
has been a very successful program in the foothill countries of the 
upland areas, in the steep countries, and the erosive lands that were 
once farmed. That is what ought to happen this time.
  I hope we can work out those differences. If not, we will have to not 
only attempt to strike, as the Senator from New Mexico is now 
attempting to do, but we will have to follow any effort through to 
conference and work with our colleagues in the House to make that 
happen.
  That is how critically important this is for the West and for all of 
us involved.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are going to put ourselves in a 
quorum because the principals involved are working on a way to resolve 
the issue that is brought to the Senate in the Domenici amendment to 
strike. That is why we are not going to be speaking for just a while. 
We hope we are saving time by doing this.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. 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. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Senator 
Domenici's amendment to strike the conservation provisions of this 
legislation.
  As former chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee with 
jurisdiction over western water, and now the ranking member, I have 
labored with my colleagues for a good deal of time to try to resolve 
these issues. This proposal coming in without any hearings, and without 
any input from the Western States that care so much for their 
prosperity over water, and this particular portion of this legislation 
is absolutely premature and inappropriate. It doesn't belong in here.
  Senator Domenici's amendment to strike the conservation provision is 
something I wholeheartedly support. We simply do not need to have 
another program with the intent of taking water away from farmers. That 
is just what this does.
  This program, as I indicated, has not had a hearing, and it will 
directly affect programs within the jurisdiction of our Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources. It took us years and years to craft and 
enact the Upper Colorado Fish Recovery Program. I am of the opinion 
that this could be adversely affected if these provisions are adopted.
  We are presently in the midst of considering reauthorization of the 
CALFED Program in California. I know Senator Feinstein worked very hard 
on that. Its effects on Federal and local obligations in the Central 
Valley of California are paramount. This new program could 
significantly affect the effort and directly increase obligations of 
Federal contractors in the Central Valley.
  There is a multispecies program under consideration in the lower 
Colorado that could be directly and adversely affected as well.

  Further, there is not the slightest reference to the requirements of 
reclamation law, and most farmers west of the Mississippi are dependent 
on the operation of reclamation law. That is what they are governed by; 
that is what they live by; that is the gospel. There is no reference to 
that.
  As a consequence, these people have to feel very uneasy and very 
insecure about this proposal.
  Again, there is certainly justification for Senator Domenici's 
amendment to strike. The entire chapter in the Daschle amendment should 
be introduced as separate legislation. It should be referred to the 
proper committee, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and 
have full hearings. Consideration should be given before any action is 
taken.
  I certainly don't subscribe to the theory that these programs are 
voluntary. We have seen too much of that.
  We have ample evidence from the last administration of the ability of 
the Federal Government to coerce people to agree. We also had ample 
evidence from the last administration of their ability to use Federal 
law to reinterpret State water law. Secretary Babbitt's proposal by 
regulation to declare nonuse to be a beneficial use in the Lower Basin 
of Colorado is evidence of that.
  There is nothing to give us any comfort that another Secretary, such 
as Secretary Babbitt, could not use this authority to completely 
abrogate State water law and force the farmers to adhere or simply go 
out of business.
  I support the amendment by the Senator from New Mexico to strike 
these provisions. I urge my colleagues to do the same. I think we have 
discussed this to the point where it is evident and clear that this is 
not good legislation.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. CARNAHAN). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I think that the debate was a very 
good one. I think we all understand each other much better. Senator 
Reid and I have reached an agreement, and my fellow Senator from New 
Mexico has been a participant and a helper.


                    Amendment No. 2502, As Modified

  I send to the desk a modification of my amendment, the strike 
amendment. This amendment, as modified, is offered on behalf of myself, 
my colleague, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Reid.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The amendment is modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       On page 130, line 9, insert the following: ``Before the 
     Secretary of Agriculture begins to implement the program 
     created under this section in any State, the Secretary shall 
     obtain written consent from the governor of the State. The 
     Secretary shall not implement this program without obtaining 
     this consent. In the event of the election or appointment of 
     a new governor in a State, the Secretary shall once again 
     seek written consent to allow for any new enrollment in the 
     program created under this section in that State.''

  Mr. DOMENICI. Now, Madam President, rather than explain it, I will 
just read it. Tthen everybody will understand what we have done is make 
this a consensual program. That means that the Governor of the State 
must agree for his State to be in this new program. And that right is 
given to each Governor if, in fact, there is a new Governor while the 
program is still in existence.
  So I am just going to read it:

       Before the Secretary of Agriculture begins to implement the 
     program created under this

[[Page S13033]]

     section in any State, the Secretary shall obtain written 
     consent from the governor of the State. The Secretary shall 
     not implement this program without obtaining this consent. In 
     the event of the election or appointment of a new Governor in 
     a State, the Secretary shall once again seek written consent 
     to allow for any new enrollment in the program created under 
     this section in that State.

  I yield to Senator Bingaman who wants to comment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I thank my colleague. First, let me 
compliment him for raising concerns about the provision. I also 
compliment Senator Reid for his commitment to try to help deal with 
some of these issues requiring additional attention to water 
conservation in the West.
  I do think that is a real need. It is a real need we see all the 
time. Senator Domenici, my colleague, raised questions about the 
particular program and how that would affect our States and whether it 
would be an appropriate program to implement. Those were very valid 
questions.
  This modification that Senator Domenici has now sent to the desk, on 
behalf of himself and me and Senator Reid, is a very good compromise. 
What it does is make it very clear that each State can make its own 
determination as to whether this is a program in which it wants to be 
involved. If it does not, then clearly it should not be forced to do 
so. This is a very good result. It certainly meets our needs in New 
Mexico.
  I compliment Senator Domenici for this modification. I compliment 
Senator Reid as well for his leadership on this whole range of issues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, so the record is clear, I want everyone to 
know that Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman have been most 
reasonable in their approach. We early on tried to get an opt-out 
provision. This makes much more sense and is mechanically something 
that will work very well. I also appreciate the dialog we have had off 
the floor with Senator Crapo, who is a water law lawyer. He is going to 
come back later with some other questions he has. We will be happy to 
visit with him.
  I am grateful for moving this issue along. As I have said all along, 
this is one of the real strong points of this new bill. I am grateful 
this amendment will be accepted shortly.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. CRAIG. I appreciate what the Senator is working to do with our 
colleagues from New Mexico. This is a vast improvement without question 
over what I believe is a major intrusion into water law and the very 
reclamation laws that many of our colleagues before us have written. I 
am not quite sure we have bridged the gap yet. I do believe there is a 
very real precedent here that is risky at best as it relates to our 
reclamation laws.
  This particular amendment has not withstood that test. Nor has it had 
the very intricacy of water law reviewed against it. That is critical.
  I know the intent and the good intentions of the Senator from Nevada. 
This is a phenomenally complicated area. To study water law today and 
to look at the court proceedings over the last decades would argue that 
very clearly.
  My colleague from Idaho has spent a good deal of time with water law. 
I am not a lawyer; I have not. But I do recognize a precedent when I 
see it and something that is new and unique to a very important body of 
law. I hope we can continue to work to perfect this. I do believe there 
is a very clear perverse incentive here that no person, nor public 
policy, should have embodied within it.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. REID. I respond to my friend from Idaho, his elucidation is the 
reason we have the States having the obligation, if they want in this 
program, to say ``we want in the program.'' I think from what the 
Senator outlined, if a State doesn't want in, then they don't come in. 
As I have indicated earlier in my remarks, I would be happy to work 
with Senator Craig's colleague, Senator Crapo, who now is in the 
Chamber, to see if we can come up with something that will meet his 
questions and some of his concerns.
  I have indicated to him that I certainly will not reject outright 
anything he has to say. I have an open mind and would be happy to visit 
with him. I have also indicated to Senator Kyl that there is absolutely 
no question that this has nothing to do with changing State law. The 
Senator has indicated at a subsequent time he will submit to us some 
language, and we will be happy to take a look at that, if he believes 
this language in our legislation is not clear enough. He also has had 
experience in water law, as has the Senator from Idaho. I would be 
happy to take a look at that.
  I have had great experience working with the Senator from Arizona, 
who has been extremely important in our working on one of the most 
difficult water problems we have had in the entire West. The State of 
Arizona and the State of Nevada were at war for about 3 years, a bitter 
water war. As a result of our help and the water expertise of the 
Senator from Arizona, and perhaps a little of my political work on the 
issue, we were able to work something out. So now the States of Arizona 
and Nevada are working together hand in glove.
  I look forward to working with these Senators in the near future on 
this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: Has the 
amendment been adopted?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back any time we might have on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? The 
Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. I was not on the floor when Senator Domenici made his 
request. What is the status of the procedure at this point?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I should have stated that when the Senator arrived. I 
had the privilege of offering a substitute amendment for my amendment 
to strike. I merely substituted the new one for the motion to strike. 
So if it is adopted or when it is adopted, we will have accomplished 
one significant step. And that is that the program cannot be 
implemented in any State without the concurrence of the Governor of 
that State in writing.
  There remains other issues that do not have to do with the consent 
and whether the program can be used in a State, but rather how will it 
be applied vis-a-vis the 1.1 million acres that were intended for 
Western States, for States, under this new provision. The Senator is 
working on that. He now has some other people working on it. I have the 
utmost confidence that he will come up with some language. I anxiously 
await it, and I will be there to help and support him. I think we have 
eliminated a major concern our States had, and that was that this law 
would be there, and it would be a new imposition. Even if the States 
didn't want it, if they thought it was not good, they would be stuck 
with it. I think we have eliminated that. All of the things we think 
are perverse about that are not going to happen.

  I thank the Senator, because I didn't do it heretofore, for his help. 
He has been here most of the afternoon. I do believe together we made 
an important contribution. I thank the Senator for that.
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I would like to make a couple comments on 
the amendment before we vote, if I might.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I will support the amendment Senator 
Domenici from New Mexico has proposed. I appreciate the opportunity to 
work with him, and I believe he has done a tremendous job in 
identifying a serious problem and getting, as he indicated, a 
significant part of it solved. There is still an additional problem 
with which I have a concern. That is, even though we now have reached 
an agreement which will basically provide an opt-in situation in which 
the Governor of each State has the authority to determine whether his 
State or her State will opt into these provisions, the problem we face 
is that the States that choose to opt out or to stay out are then 
deprived of their ability to participate in this 1.1 million acres of 
CRP land that is being added to the CRP.

[[Page S13034]]

  There is a hammer there on the States now to either opt in or not 
have access to this expansion of the CRP.
  I have discussed this issue with the good Senator from Nevada, and I 
appreciate his willingness to work with me on trying to resolve the 
issue. He has agreed that we will try to work out the differences and, 
hopefully, be able to come forward with a unanimous consent request or 
some type of approach that is agreed to. But if not, we will be able to 
propose additional amendments to try to address this issue, including 
striking the provision, if we are not able to work it out.
  I appreciate all of those here who have worked on this matter. 
Senator Craig has worked diligently, and Senator Domenici has worked so 
strongly in bringing this forward. I appreciate the willingness of 
Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, to try to iron out the concerns we have 
on western water law. I believe several other Senators from the West 
have strong concerns. They may want to make brief comments. I will 
support Senator Domenici's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I made a mistake. I should have 
included as a cosponsor of the Domenici amendment all of those who are 
cosponsors of my motion to strike. They have indicated they want to be 
on the amendment. We don't have any objection; quite the contrary. I 
ask unanimous consent that they be original cosponsors as it is 
tendered to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I thank Senator Reid for the comments he 
made. He is absolutely right that after years of acrimony, 
representatives of the State of Nevada and Arizona solved a real 
difficult water issue which became a win-win for both States. I am 
hoping that the kind of work we need to do in the Senate on this 
proposal can likewise result in win-win situations.
  Western water law issues become very complex very quickly, and we 
want to ensure that nothing we do here in any way adversely affects the 
long-established, traditional water policies of the West. Senator Reid 
has assured me that it is not his intention that this legislation be 
contrary to State procedural or substantive water law, interstate 
compacts, or, of course, Federal law. We are preparing language that 
will affirm that.
  I appreciate the Senator's concurrence in that view. Given the 
comments of Senator Domenici, I am prepared to support his amendment as 
well. There are additional concerns that I have about this. We will try 
to work those out and deal with them in an appropriate way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2502), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam 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 North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I wish to inquire of the Senator from 
Iowa, if I might get his attention. First of all, I congratulate those 
who worked on this amendment. It sounds to me as if they have done a 
lot of hard work in reaching a solution. I inquire of the Senator from 
Iowa and, perhaps, the Senator from Indiana of the progress in trying 
to find a list or to elicit information about what kind of a list of 
amendments might be about to be offered on this bill. The reason I ask 
the question is, it is 6:30 this evening and, of course, we are nearing 
the end of the session. It is coming very close to Christmas. We want 
to finish this bill so we have time remaining for a conference with the 
House and time to get the bill to the President.
  Because we have had long discussions and good discussions today on a 
number of amendments, I am inquiring on the part of both the manager 
and the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Indiana whether we have 
a capability of exploring a list of amendments that might be available 
at this point.
  Mr. LUGAR. If I may respond, Madam President, with the disposition of 
the Domenici amendment, the next amendment--at least on our side--that 
we are prepared to offer is that of the distinguished Senator from 
Missouri, Mr. Bond. Then Senator Burns has an amendment that he wishes 
to offer, Senator Murkowski has an amendment, and Senator McCain has 
one. These are ones that are clearly identifiable at this point. 
Senator Burns may have more than one amendment, but he will commence in 
this batting order with his initial amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. I understand there is likely to be a larger amendment, or 
a more significant amendment, the Cochran-Roberts amendment--not to 
suggest that the others are not significant. But we have all been 
awaiting an amendment by Cochran-Roberts, which is not on the list. Is 
he anticipating that?

  Mr. LUGAR. I anticipate that the Senators will offer their amendment. 
They have been working on it, and I understand they are not prepared to 
do so today. Perhaps they will be prepared to do so tomorrow.
  Mr. DORGAN. If I might inquire one more time, is there an 
anticipation that there is an opportunity perhaps to finish this bill 
by sometime tomorrow evening, or does the chairman or the ranking 
member expect this is going to take longer than that? In the context of 
that, is there a time when one might be able to get a finite list of 
amendments?
  Mr. LUGAR. I respond, respectfully, to the Senator that at this point 
a finite list is not possible. But it may be possible sometime 
tomorrow. We are attempting to canvas. I have simply identified 
amendments that I think are significant, and the amendment the Senator 
identified would be, too. The two amendments that we have dealt with 
this afternoon have taken about 3\1/4\ hours and 2\1/2\ hours, 
respectively, so these were not insignificant debates, which Members on 
both sides of the aisle engaged in in a spirited way.
  Mr. DORGAN. Again, I thank the Senator for his response. I invite the 
response of the Senator from Iowa, but I hope that perhaps we can find 
a way to get a list of amendments and also agree to reasonable time 
limits on amendments. There is Parkinson's law that the time required 
expands to fit the time available. So because we are nearing the end of 
the session, it is really important to find a way to reach an end 
stage. I ask the Senator from Iowa if he might respond on whether we 
can get a finite list.
  Mr. HARKIN. Well, I hope by this evening, perhaps before we go out 
tonight. I will work with my distinguished ranking member, my good 
friend, Senator Lugar, to see if we can get some kind of a list. It is 
true, as the Senator says, that the longer you stay here, more and 
more--it is like that old game you play at the arcade, whack-a-mole, 
where they keep popping up. If we don't have a finite list, those 
lobbyists and everybody out there who is trying to get their year-end 
counts up and get that year-end bonus, all their lobbying, and they can 
gin up all kinds of amendments around here to show the kind of work 
they are doing. I am hopeful that we can get a finite list. I don't 
know if we can do it tonight. I hope early tomorrow we can get a finite 
list.
  I want to assure the Senator from North Dakota, and every other 
Senator who is listening, we will finish this farm bill before we go 
home. If there is anyone here who thinks that by slowing things down or 
something like that, that it is going to work, it is not. We are going 
to finish this farm bill. We should finish it this week. I believe we 
can finish it this week. As long as we expedite the amendments, with a 
reasonable time for debate, I see no reason why we can't.
  I have a letter sent to Senators Daschle and Lott, and they sent a 
copy to me, and probably to Senator Lugar, too. It is from a whole list 
of farm groups. I don't know how many, maybe 30 or more of them. They 
said:

       We believe it is vitally important this legislation be 
     enacted this year to provide an important economic stimulus 
     to rural America before Congress adjourns.

  This was sent on the 10th. They said:

       We fully understand that policy differences exist regarding 
     this important legislation 

[[Page S13035]]

and would encourage a healthy debate on these issues. However, we are 
very concerned that the timeframe to pass this legislation is rapidly 
drawing to a close. We believe this will require the Senate to complete 
a thorough debate and achieve passage of the legislation by Wednesday 
evening, December 12.

  That is tonight, and we are not there yet. They say:

       We urge you to allow Members an opportunity to offer 
     amendments that are relevant to the development of sound 
     agricultural policy while opposing any amendments designed to 
     delay passage of this important legislation by running out 
     the clock prior to the adjournment of Congress.

  I can say to the signers of this letter that thus far all of the 
amendments have been relevant, they have been germane, they have been 
meaningful amendments, and we have had good debate. I hope we can 
continue on in that spirit and not cut off anybody, but I hope we can 
have reasonable limits on time. We will be here, and we will finish 
this bill before we leave this week.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter to which I referred be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                December 10, 2001.
     Hon. Tom Daschle,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Daschle and Lott: The undersigned farm, 
     commodity and lender organizations write to thank you for 
     your efforts to expedite the debate and consideration of a 
     new farm bill in the United States Senate, and to urge that 
     the legislation be completed in a timely manner without 
     delay. We believe it is vitally important that this 
     legislation be enacted this year to provide an important 
     economic stimulus to rural America before Congress adjourns.
       We fully understand that policy differences exist regarding 
     this important legislation, and would encourage a healthy 
     debate on these issues. However, we are very concerned that 
     the timeframe to pass this legislation is rapidly drawing to 
     a close. We believe this will require the Senate to complete 
     a thorough debate and achieve passage of the legislation by 
     Wednesday evening, December 12.
       We urge you to allow members an opportunity to offer 
     amendments that are relevant to the development of sound 
     agricultural policy while opposing an amendments designed to 
     delay passage of this important legislation by running out 
     the clock prior to the adjournment of Congress.
       New farm legislation must be enacted this year to stimulate 
     and stabilize our rural economy that has been in a economic 
     downturn for five years with no turn-around in sight. Unlike 
     many sectors of the economy, production agriculture did not 
     share in the economic growth of the last decade and has been 
     devastated by depressed commodity prices, declining market 
     opportunities and increasing costs.
       It is critical to producers, farm lenders and rural 
     communities that a new farm bill be approved this fall to 
     provide the assurance necessary to plan for next year's crop 
     production.
       We encourage you and your colleagues in the Senate to 
     complete action on a new farm bill as soon as possible to 
     provide adequate time for a conference with the House of 
     Representatives in order to ensure a final bill can be 
     enacted this year.
           Sincerely,
       Agricultural Retailers Association.
       Alabama Farmers Federation.
       American Association of Crop Insurers.
       American Bankers Association.
       American Corn Growers Association.
       American Farm Bureau Federation.
       American Sheep Industry Association.
       American Soybean Association.
       American Sugar Alliance.
       CoBank.
       Farm Credit Council.
       Independent Community Bankers Association.
       National Association of Farmer Elected Committees.
       National Association of Wheat Growers.
       National Barley Growers Association.
       National Cooperative Business Association.
       National Corn Growers Association.
       National Cotton Council.
       National Farmers Organization.
       National Farmers Union.
       National Grain Sorghum Producers.
       National Mild Producers Federation.
       National Sunflower Association.
       South East Dairy Farmers Association.
       Southern Peanut Farmers Federation.
       The American Beekeeping Federation.
       US Canola Association.
       US Dry Pea and Lentil Council.
       US Rice Producers Association.
       United Egg Producers.
       Western Peanut Growers Association.
       Western Unite Dairymen.

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I wonder if there is an expectation of 
having a recorded vote on the Bond amendment this evening and what time 
that might be expected. I do not know what the amendment is, but is it 
expected there will be a recorded vote required on the Bond amendment?
  Mr. LUGAR. I have not inquired of the Senator as to whether he wishes 
to have a recorded vote. That would be his privilege and I would 
support that. I do not know the degree of controversy that will attend 
his amendment or how many Senators wish to speak on it.
  Mr. DORGAN. At this point, the Senator does not know if we will have 
recorded votes this evening or when?
  Mr. LUGAR. I cannot respond to the Senator on that.
  Mr. HARKIN. I say to the Senator from North Dakota, I hope we have 
votes this evening. We have to finish this bill. We are here. Let's get 
the job done. I do not want to be here in the evening any more than 
anyone else. We have spent all day on this bill, and we have had two 
votes today--three votes. We need more than that. I see no reason why 
we cannot have a couple more votes before we go home.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I share that view, and I encourage us to 
move along. I understand Senator Bond is here to offer an amendment. 
The quicker we move through these amendments, the better it is for 
American farmers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, the staff has advised me they are working 
on getting a time agreement which would lead to a vote on this measure 
tomorrow. I will be proposing an amendment that has a number of 
bipartisan cosponsors. I think the cosponsors will want to speak on it. 
I imagine there will be others who wish to speak in opposition. Since 
this will be of some import, I hope we can work out an agreement on 
both sides for effective consideration of this amendment.
  Let me describe my amendment so people will get a flavor of what we 
are talking about in order to come to an agreement on the time and 
perhaps others may want to speak on it. I hope they will because I 
think it is a very significant amendment.
  The purpose of the amendment I wish to propose is to provide some 
protection to farmers. The farm bill is designed to preserve and 
promote the agricultural base of this country and provide a safe, 
abundant, and affordable food supply for our people. Farmers continue 
to do more with less than any other sector of this economy and remain 
the backbone of our economy providing our Nation and a large part of 
the world with an inexpensive and safe source of food and fiber.
  There are many ways to help farmers. One is to send them financial 
assistance. Another is to help provide know-how through research and to 
help open foreign markets, and they are all very important. I support 
the efforts that are being made to provide that assistance to farmers, 
but another way to help farmers is for Government not to hurt them, the 
absence of pain. This is important.
  However important or well intentioned Government seems to be, one of 
the problems facing those in agriculture is the demands placed upon 
farmers by various agencies of the Federal Government through the 
regulatory process. I have farmers in my State who tell me they spend 
more time preparing for public hearings than they spend on their 
combines. Some of the regulatory requirements and new rules clearly are 
necessary and justified, but for those who may not meet the test, it is 
critical that we provide the Department of Agriculture, specifically 
the Secretary, with tools to represent the interests of farm families 
when conflicts arise.
  We need to empower the USDA Secretary to have a stronger voice when 
she represents the needs of farmers in interagency matters.
  The bipartisan amendment I will offer is cosponsored by Senators 
Grassley, Enzi, Hagel, and Miller. It is supported by the American Farm 
Bureau Federation, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the 
National Corn Growers Association, the National Association of Wheat 
Growers, the National Cotton Council, and the Southern Peanut Farmers 
Federation.
  I also have a letter in which the Missouri organizations support the 
amendment, including many of the significant entities in Missouri.

[[Page S13036]]

  The amendment simply authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to 
review proposed Federal agency actions affecting agricultural producers 
to determine if an agency action is likely to have a significant 
adverse economic impact or to jeopardize the personal safety of 
agricultural producers.
  Should the Secretary find that an agency action would jeopardize the 
safety or the economic health of agricultural producers, i.e., farmers, 
it authorizes the Secretary to consult with the agency head and to 
identify for the agency alternatives that are least likely to harm 
farmers.
  It makes sense that the agency serving agriculture looks at other 
regulations which may have a significant impact on farmers and say: 
This is going to cause a real problem. Can we not achieve the 
objectives of your regulation? Can we not carry out your purposes 
without having such a harmful impact on agriculture?

  If the USDA and the Secretary cannot come to an agreement with the 
other agency proposing the regulatory action and the agency decides, 
despite the USDA's best efforts to push forward with a final action 
that will have a significant adverse economic impact on or jeopardize 
the personal safety of agricultural producers, then the Secretary can 
elevate the decision to the White House, and the President is 
authorized under limited circumstances to reverse or amend the agency 
action if doing so is necessary to protect farmers and if it is in the 
public interest.
  Under this amendment, the President would not be authorized to do so 
if the agency action is necessary to protect human health, safety, or 
national security. The President would have to consider the public 
record, the purpose of the agency action and competing economic 
interests, if any.
  Finally, the legislation provides that a Presidential action taken 
pursuant to this authority could be subjected to expedited 
congressional review. In other words, the Secretary of Agriculture 
tries to work out an agreement with the agency. If the agency says, no, 
we are not going to make any changes, we are not going to work with 
you, then the Secretary has an option. The Secretary can take it to the 
President. The President says to the agency proposing to take this 
action: Stop, you are not going to do it. At that point, Congress, by 
expedited action procedures we have already approved in other laws, can 
vote to overturn that Presidential action. So Congress has a role in 
this regulatory procedure that would not be subjected to filibuster.
  In short, this proposal is designed to give farmers through their 
advocates and USDA a limited but considerable voice in agency actions 
that impact them directly.
  In offering this amendment, it is my intention to provide additional 
discretion to the President to solve disputes between agencies when 
mandates may be in conflict and they are unable to come to terms and 
discretion would better serve the public than gridlock, legal action, 
or other delaying actions or unnecessary confusion. With discretion 
comes responsibility and accountability. I believe very strongly it is 
in the public interest to have political accountability and to limit 
the circumstances where the elected officials who are accountable to 
the citizens are not hiding behind bureaucrats when controversial 
issues arise.
  Too many times we have had people say: That agency has sole 
discretion. Somebody in an agency, never elected by the people, not 
with any visibility or public accountability, makes a decision with a 
serious impact on agriculture. Then the Secretary of Agriculture can 
raise it to the highest elected official in the land and say: You look 
at it, Mr. President. If you agree that it is an unwarranted 
overreaching action that has an economic impact or health and safety 
impact on farmers, then the President can act. But we in Congress 
could, if we wished, overturn that action of the President. So Congress 
has a built-in protection against an overreaching Presidential action. 
We are bringing questions with major impact on the agricultural sector 
up to the level of public discourse by people elected by the American 
electorate.
  This amendment, I believe, is an excellent opportunity to prompt USDA 
to play a more active and visible role fighting on behalf of farmers. 
Frankly, I have always thought they should take a more active role. 
They have not always done so, much to the disappointment of the farm 
community, which is supposed to be served by them and much to the 
distress of those who support farmers.
  Further, this amendment should help make other agencies more 
responsive to USDA when USDA raises concerns on behalf of farmers.
  We are debating farm legislation because we care deeply about our 
agricultural base. We care deeply about the economic and social value 
of farm families. We want to protect our food security and thus, by 
extension, our national security. While we can help many farmers with 
$170 billion in spending, we want USDA to be better able to take the 
simple role of standing up for farmers if another agency that may know 
little, if anything, about food production is taking action that will 
harm farmers economically or physically. The Government can help 
farmers by providing economic assistance. But the Government can also 
help by trying not to hurt them. That is what this amendment is all 
about.
  We are rightly concerned in this country if an ant is endangered or 
any other species, but we should also be concerned if a farm community 
is threatened or endangered. I believe we should give farmers an extra 
measure of leverage at the table if it is their personal livelihoods or 
their personal safety which is jeopardized. This limited, and I believe 
measured, amendment is designed to do just that. What we are doing is 
strengthening laws that protect farm families.
  I urge my Senate colleagues to consider this amendment very 
carefully, to provide their support, and to send a message to farmers 
that we believe farmers are worthy of protection; we want the 
Government to make every sensible attempt to act as advocates for 
farmers. We believe USDA should be active and visible, fighting for 
farmers, and we believe the President and the Congress are capable of 
and can be trusted to weigh the public interest.
  This says to the administration that farmers don't always have to be 
at the very bottom of the food chain. Frankly, they start the food 
chain and they should be treated as part of that food chain.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two letters of 
support, one from various national organizations dated December 7, and 
one dated December 10 from Missouri organizations.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 December 7, 2001.
     Hon. Kit Bond,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: We are writing to urge your support for 
     the Bond amendment providing authority to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture to review proposed federal agency actions that 
     may have a significant adverse economic impact or jeopardize 
     personal safety of farmers and ranchers.
       These are very difficult times for agricultural procedures. 
     The cost and burden of regulation on agriculture has grown 
     exponentially over time and it is an important factor in 
     their struggle to remain competitive, both domestically and 
     internationally. We strongly support the Bond amendment and 
     believe that it will result in government policy being 
     implemented in a more efficient and cost-effective manner. We 
     appreciate your concern for the well being of farmers and 
     ranchers and urge your support of this amendment.
           Sincerely,
     American Farm Bureau Federation.
     National Association of Wheat Growers.
     National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
     National Corn Growers Association.
     National Cotton Council.
                                  ____

                                                December 10, 2001.
     Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: We applaud your ongoing efforts to 
     reduce the regulatory burden facing our nation's farmers and 
     ranchers. It is entirely appropriate that the farm bill 
     include language that will stifle the regulatory onslaught 
     brought upon by bureaucrats who know little about modern 
     agricultural practices.
       Today, farmers and ranchers have enough to worry about--
     commodity prices are pitiful and input prices more volatile 
     than ever. Our members are being told they must be more 
     competitive if they are to succeed in an

[[Page S13037]]

     increasingly global trade environment. But unfortunately, our 
     nation's agricultural producers today find themselves 
     fighting the federal government on issues such as water 
     quality and quantity, access to crop and livestock protection 
     tools, and appropriate nutrient management.
       We believe your amendment will add much needed commonsense 
     to the regulatory process. Additional review of regulations 
     by the Secretary of Agriculture, consultation with other 
     agency heads, and the authority for Presidential intervention 
     are dramatic improvements over current law.
       We strongly support your amendment and urge other Senators 
     to support its passage.
           Sincerely,
         Missouri Farm Bureau; Missouri Corn Growers Association; 
           Missouri Pork Producers Association; Coalition to 
           Protect the Missouri River; Missouri Cattlemen's 
           Association; Missouri Soybean Association; MFA, Inc.; 
           Missouri Dairy Association; The Poultry Federation.

  Mr. BOND. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we have made some progress today on the 
bill. I appreciate the cooperation of many of our colleagues. I know 
there is an amendment pending.
  The distinguished Senator from Indiana has indicated other amendments 
could be offered tonight. I notify our colleagues we do not anticipate 
any other rollcall votes tonight. I hope some might still be prepared 
to offer amendments. We could stack the votes for tomorrow morning. We 
would like to keep going for awhile yet tonight. But in the interests 
of accommodating Senators with conflicting schedules, we will preclude 
the need for any additional rollcalls tonight. We will have those votes 
tomorrow should they be required.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be 
rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2511 to Amendment No. 2471

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle], for himself 
     and Mr. Lugar, proposes an amendment numbered 2511 to 
     amendment No. 2471.

  Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to establish within 
 the Department of Agriculture the position of Assistant Secretary of 
                     Agriculture for Civil Rights)

       Strike the period at the end of section 1021 and insert a 
     period and the following:

     SEC. 1022. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR CIVIL 
                   RIGHTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 218 of the Department of 
     Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6918) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Civil 
     Rights.--
       ``(1) Definition of socially disadvantaged farmer or 
     rancher.--In this subsection, the term `socially 
     disadvantaged farmer or rancher' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 355(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2003(e)).
       ``(2) Establishment of position.--The Secretary shall 
     establish within the Department the position of Assistant 
     Secretary of Agriculture for Civil Rights.
       ``(3) Appointment.--The Assistant Secretary of Agriculture 
     for Civil Rights shall be appointed by the President, by and 
     with the advice and consent of the Senate.
       ``(4) Duties.--The Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for 
     Civil Rights shall--
       ``(A) enforce and coordinate compliance with all civil 
     rights laws and related laws--
       ``(i) by the agencies of the Department; and
       ``(ii) under all programs of the Department (including all 
     programs supported with Department funds);
       ``(B) ensure that--
       ``(i) the Department has measurable goals for treating 
     customers and employees fairly and on a nondiscriminatory 
     basis; and
       ``(ii) the goals and the progress made in meeting the goals 
     are included in--

       ``(I) strategic plans of the Department; and
       ``(II) annual reviews of the plans;

       ``(C) ensure the compilation and public disclosure of data 
     critical to assessing Department civil rights compliance in 
     achieving on a nondiscriminatory basis participation of 
     socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in programs of 
     the Department on a nondiscriminatory basis;
       ``(D)(i) hold Department agency heads and senior executives 
     accountable for civil rights compliance and performance; and
       ``(ii) assess performance of Department agency heads and 
     senior executives on the basis of success made in those 
     areas;
       ``(E) ensure, to the maximum extent practicable--
       ``(i) a sufficient level of participation by socially 
     disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in deliberations of county 
     and area committees established under section 8(b) of the 
     Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 
     590h(b)); and
       ``(ii) that participation data and election results 
     involving the committees are made available to the public; 
     and
       ``(F) perform such other functions as may be prescribed by 
     the Secretary.''.
       (b) Compensation.--Section 5315 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``Assistant Secretaries of 
     Agriculture (2)'' and inserting ``Assistant Secretaries of 
     Agriculture (3)''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 296(b) of the 
     Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 
     U.S.C. 7014(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) the authority of the Secretary to establish within 
     the Department the position of Assistant Secretary of 
     Agriculture for Civil Rights under section 218(f).''.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, minority farmers have worked America's 
soil throughout our history. And while these farmers have done so much 
to advance American agriculture, they have experienced intense and 
often institutionalized discrimination in the process.
  From the broken promise of ``40 acres and a mule'' during 
Reconstruction, to the discrimination inherent in many of the New Deal 
agriculture programs, to the first and second great migrations--during 
which so many left the land, never to return--the history of minority 
farmers in America has often been a history of hardship and struggle.
  Our Nation has seen the result of that hardship in the dwindling 
number of minority farmers, and the dwindling acreage of minority 
farms.
  In 1920, blacks owned 14 percent of our nation's farms. Today there 
are only 18,000 black farmers, representing less than 1 percent of all 
farms.
  Hispanics--who make up such a large share of farm labor--account for 
a mere 1\1/2\ percent of all farm operators. For Native Americans, that 
number is half of 1 percent.
  Perhaps most saddening is that the United States Department of 
Agriculture--the agency which was founded by Abraham Lincoln to be 
``the people's Department'' has often been part of the problem.
  A 1982 report issued by the Civil Rights Commission stated that the 
United States Department of Agriculture was ``a catalyst in the decline 
of the black farmer.'' Statistics from that time show that only 
African-Americans received only 1 percent of all farm ownership loans.
  A lawsuit filed in 1997 by more than 1,000 black farmers resulted in 
a historic settlement in which the government acknowledged significant 
civil right abuses against black farmers.
  It is not enough to recognize and remedy past failings. We need to 
work to ensure that the USDA serves all of its customers fairly in the 
future.
  That is why Senator Lugar and I are proposing that we establish an 
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Civil Rights.
  The Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Civil Rights would be 
responsible for compliance and enforcement of all civil rights laws 
within the USDA, including the compilation and disclosure of 
information regarding minority, limited resource, and women farmers and 
ranchers. He or she would set target participation rates for 
minorities, and make sure that other agency heads and senior executives 
will enforce for civil rights laws.
  Last week, I received a letter in support of this amendment from the 
chairs of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic 
Caucus, and the

[[Page S13038]]

Congressional Asian Pacific Americans Caucus.
  If they can speak with one voice in supporting this amendment, it is 
my hope that we can speak with one voice in passing it.
  A while ago, PBS aired a film entitled ``Homecoming.'' It is a 
chronicle of black farmers from the Civil War to today. In it, a farmer 
named Lynmore James is interviewed.
  I think his words guide our consideration of this amendment:

       There's no question in my mind that a lot of land has been 
     lost, and it was lost because of discrimination. But I don't 
     think we need to just close the books on it. I think that 
     where people have been wronged, it should be righted.

  The most lasting way to truly see those wrongs made right is to 
ensure that they are never repeated.
  That is exactly what an Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Civil 
Rights would do, and that is why I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of an 
amendment that I think is truly important. The majority leader 
certainly outlined the basic reasons for it. But let me illuminate 
further.
  From hearings we had before the Agriculture Committee in recent years 
during the period of time when I was privileged to serve as chairman, 
in each of those years we asked for reports from those responsible in 
USDA on progress in the area of civil rights disputes. There were so 
many. They were so complex and pervasive, and the backlog always seemed 
to be unusually and uncomfortably large.
  Just last year we had an extensive hearing, and this came because the 
Secretary of Agriculture, then Dan Glickman, our former colleague from 
the House who had become the Secretary, had taken a great interest in 
this issue as a Member of the House and likewise in his new capacity. 
He recommended, after following the lead of the Civil Rights Action 
Team of the Department of Agriculture, that the head of civil rights 
become an Assistant Secretary. I think this is an appropriate time, in 
the farm bill, as we project agriculture and its governance for the 
coming years.
  I would simply say that the reasons for civil rights problems at the 
Department of Agriculture appear legion, but they are not simply 
problems of committees in the field, often a point of dispute in the 
past, but frequently allegations of discrimination in the 
administration of the Department itself, which is something that is 
here in Washington--or at least very much under the control of those 
who administer the Department.
  Whatever the reason--and certainly some will say this is precedent 
for the appointment of a similar Assistant Secretary ad seriatim in 
Cabinet after Cabinet post--and I appreciate that argument that has 
been offered from time to time--this is, I believe, a fortunately 
unique situation. Despite the best observation in a bipartisan way in 
our committee, and even with the cooperation of the Secretary of 
Agriculture, we have not overcome.
  So I am pleased the distinguished majority leader has taken this 
initiative. I was immediately pleased that he asked me to be involved 
with this effort, which I am delighted to do. I think this is a 
constructive amendment, and I am hopeful it will find the approval of 
our colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I thank the distinguished senior 
Senator from Indiana for his eloquence and for his willingness to be 
supportive of this amendment. It is always a pleasure to work with him. 
Certainly in this case it is, again, a matter of import. I appreciate 
very much his willingness to be involved.
  I hope by the next time we pass a farm bill the numbers and the 
statistics and reports of continued erosion of minority involvement in 
agriculture can be turned around. As the distinguished Senator from 
Indiana has noted, this has not been necessarily by design. I think in 
large measure it has happened for reasons beyond the control of any one 
individual or any particular division of the Department of Agriculture. 
But we can do better. It is our hope that by putting somebody in charge 
we will do better.
  It is our expectation that by the time we do another farm bill we can 
look back with some satisfaction that we indeed have done better and 
responded in a way that would make us far more satisfied about the 
progress that I believe we can make in this area.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The Senator from Idaho.


                Amendment No. 2512 To Amendment No. 2511

  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2512 to amendment No. 2511.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. I ask the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

           (Purpose: To add provisions regarding nominations)

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       It is the sense of the Senate that, before Congress creates 
     new positions that require the advice and consent of the 
     Senate, such as the position of Assistant Secretary for Civil 
     Rights of the Department of Agriculture, the Senate should 
     vote on nominations that have been reported by committees and 
     are currently awaiting action by the full Senate, such as the 
     nomination of Eugene Scalia to be Solicitor of the Department 
     of Labor.

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam 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. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the second-degree 
amendment?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
second-degree amendment and the Daschle amendment be set aside to 
accommodate an amendment to be offered by the Senator from Missouri, 
Mr. Bond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, reserving the right to object, might I 
inquire of the majority leader when he would want to bring this back up 
for the purpose of debate?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Certainly we can bring it up at some point tomorrow. As 
I understand it, Senator Bond was hoping to have at least an hour on 
the amendment to be offered tonight. It would be my expectation that 
sometime tomorrow we would return to this issue.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, recognizing that the set-aside would not 
in any way infringe upon the right of myself as a person who offered 
the second degree, and certainly the majority leader offered the first 
degree, I do not object.


                      Amendment Withdrawn No. 2511

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, to make things simpler, I withdraw my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I would like to inquire of the Senator 
from Missouri, as I understand it, the Senator wants an hour and a half 
on his amendment. Could we use some of that time tonight so that in the 
morning we could perhaps have some time?
  Mr. REID. Madam President, if my friend will yield, I spoke to 
Senator Bond. He indicated he would like to speak tonight. He has four 
or five people who wish to speak tomorrow. He indicated he would be 
willing to accept 1\1/2\ hours equally divided in the morning. He would 
want his time tonight to count against the 90 minutes.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, there are a number of cosponsors who wish 
to

[[Page S13039]]

speak in support of this amendment. My thought is maybe not everybody 
in this body will support it. By tomorrow morning, I think there may be 
others who will wish to present opposing ideas. It would be my desire 
after my cosponsors speak on it, if there is no opposition, that we 
could yield back some of that time. I simply asked for 90 minutes 
tomorrow in case there are other people who want to weigh in. I expect 
there will be more than the number who have registered as cosponsors.
  I think this has a significant impact on the entire agricultural 
community across the country. I would like to have the possibility of 
using the 90 minutes in the light of day so people understand all sides 
of this issue.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, will the Senator yield for the purpose 
of a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. BOND. Certainly.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I appreciate very much the Senator from 
Missouri yielding for that purpose.
  I was going to inform my colleagues that we have already noted there 
will be filing of cloture tonight. I know there are Senators who are 
asking about Friday and Monday. I am not going to propound the 
unanimous consent request because I don't think it has been properly 
vented on each side. I suggest that perhaps we could have cloture 
tomorrow and that we would be prepared to forego votes on Friday and 
Monday and still take into account the need to consider the so-called 
Cochran-Roberts amendment regardless of cloture.
  My thought is that we file cloture and vote on cloture and have 
consideration of the Cochran-Roberts amendment with some expectation of 
a vote at a later time on that. Whether or not that could be 
accomplished is still in question. But that is something that I 
suggest. I notify our colleagues that will be a possibility: File 
cloture tonight, have a vote on that either tomorrow or Friday. If we 
have it tomorrow, we could still bring up the so-called Cochran-Roberts 
amendment for consideration.
  I thank my colleague. I thank the Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, will the majority leader yield for a 
question?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.
  Mr. REID. As I understand the majority leader, cloture will be filed 
tonight, and, if we have a vote on that tomorrow, we will not be in 
session on Friday--at least no votes on Friday or Monday.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I draw the distinction. We will certainly be in session 
on Friday. My hope is we could bring up a conference report, and maybe 
a conference report on education on Monday, but not have any votes.
  That, again, will be up to all of our colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle. We have not hot-lined it. I just wanted to make that proposal 
and see what kind of reaction we would get. That would be the proposal, 
and I will have more to say about that at a later time.
  I thank the Senator from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, we had discussed a 90-minute time 
agreement on this amendment.
  First, what is the pending business so we may be sure the amendment 
is to the appropriate measure?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Daschle substitute 
amendment.
  Mr. BOND. Amendment number 2471?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, if the Senator will yield for a 
unanimous consent request which I think he thought I was going to make 
the first time, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes 
consideration of S. 1731 at 9:30 on Thursday, December 13, there be 90 
minutes for debate prior to vote in relation to the Bond amendment with 
the time equally divided and controlled in the usual form with no 
intervening amendment in order prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                Amendment No. 2513 to Amendment No. 2471

  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself and Senator Grassley, Senator Enzi, Senator Hagel, and 
Senator Miller, and I ask that it be considered pursuant to the time 
agreement just entered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for himself, Mr. 
     Grassley, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. Miller, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2511 to amendment No. 2471.

  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to review Federal 
            agency actions affecting agricultural producers)

       Strike the period at the end of section 1034 and insert a 
     period and the following:

     SEC. 1035. REVIEW OF FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIONS AFFECTING 
                   AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Agency action.--The term ``agency action'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 551 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (2) Agency head.--The term ``agency head'' means the head 
     of a Federal agency.
       (3) Agricultural producer.--The term ``agricultural 
     producer'' means the owner or operator of a small or medium-
     sized farm or ranch.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       (b) Review of Agency Action by Secretary.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may review any agency action 
     proposed by any Federal agency to determine whether the 
     agency action would be likely to have a significant adverse 
     economic impact on, or jeopardize the personal safety of, 
     agricultural producers.
       (2) Consultation; alternatives.--If the Secretary 
     determines that a proposed agency action is likely to have a 
     significant adverse economic impact on or jeopardize the 
     personal safety of agricultural producers, the Secretary--
       (A) shall consult with the agency head; and
       (B) may advise the agency head on alternatives to the 
     agency action that would be least likely to have a 
     significant adverse economic impact on, or least likely to 
     jeopardize the personal safety of, agricultural producers.
       (c) Presidential Review.--
       (1) In general.--If, after a proposed agency action is 
     finalized, the Secretary determines that the agency action 
     would be likely to have a significant adverse economic impact 
     on or jeopardize the safety of agricultural producers, the 
     President may, not later than 60 days after the date on which 
     the agency action is finalized--
       (A) review the determination of the Secretary; and
       (B) reverse, preclude, or amend the agency action if the 
     President determines that reversal, preclusion, or 
     amendment--
       (i) is necessary to prevent significant adverse economic 
     impact on or jeopardize the personal safety of agricultural 
     producers; and
       (ii) is in the public interest.
       (2) Considerations.--In conducting a review under paragraph 
     (1)(A), the President shall consider--
       (A) the determination of the Secretary under subsection 
     (c)(1);
       (B) the public record;
       (C) any competing economic interests; and
       (D) the purpose of the agency action.
       (3) Congressional notification.--If the President reverses, 
     precludes, or amends the agency action under paragraph 
     (1)(B), the President shall--
       (A) notify Congress of the decision to reverse, preclude, 
     or amend the agency action; and
       (B) submit to Congress a detailed justification for the 
     decision.
       (4) Limitation.--The President shall not reverse, preclude, 
     or amend an agency action that is necessary to protect--
       (A) human health;
       (B) safety; or
       (C) national security.
       (d) Congressional Review.--Reversal, preclusion, or 
     amendment of an agency action under subsection (c)(1)(B) 
     shall be subject to section 802 of title 5, United States 
     Code.

  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I thank my colleagues for their courtesy. 
We look forward to continuing this debate in the morning.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

[[Page S13040]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The 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 Daschle for 
     Harkin substitute amendment No. 2471 for Calendar No. 237, S. 
     1731, the farm bill:
         Tim Johnson, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Thomas R. Carper, 
           Zell Miller, Max Baucus, Bryon L. Dorgan, Ben Nelson, 
           Daniel K. Inouye, Tom Harkin, Kent Conrad, Mark Dayton, 
           Deborah Stabenow, Richard J. Durbin, James M. Jeffords, 
           Thomas A. Daschle, Blanche Lincoln.

                       Country of origin labeling

  Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, it has been brought to my attention 
that there are unique concerns about how perishable agricultural 
commodities are labeled under the country of origin labeling provision 
in the farm bill. Unlike meat products that are oftentimes either 
wrapped or displayed behind glass, shoppers physically handle produce 
to evaluate such characteristics as size or ripeness. Quite honestly, 
after being handled by a consumer, a fruit or vegetable item is not 
always returned to the original bin in which the product was displayed. 
For this reason, each individual produce item may need to be labeled 
when physically possible to ensure accuracy about the country of origin 
information.
  I am confident the method of notification language in the labeling 
provision in the farm bill will ensure responsibility in information-
sharing on the part of processors, retailers, and others under this 
act. Our language requires any person that prepares, stores, handles, 
or distributes a covered commodity for retail sale to maintain records 
about the origin of such products and to provide information regarding 
the country of origin to retailers. Nonetheless, I understand retailers 
have some concerns about making sure they are provided with accurate 
information. Therefore, so that we can be confident this is workable 
for retailers and others, I would like to recommend to my lead 
cosponsor of this legislation, Senator Graham of Florida, that we 
consult with the growers, packers and retailers to develop a means to 
provide such labels or labeling information to the grocery stores.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Dakota. 
Senator Johnson, I appreciate your comments.
  My primary objective in pursuing country-of-origin legislation is to 
provide consumers with accurate information about where their produce 
is grown. My home State of Florida has required mandatory country-of-
origin labeling of fresh fruits and vegetables for over 20 years, and 
Florida consumers have made it known that they appreciate the 
availability of this information.
  Many domestic products are already labeled for promotion purposes. 
Our proudly labeled ``Florida Oranges'' are a great example of a 
successful marketing tool. There are any number of ways to label 
produce, including price-look-up stickers, plastic attachments, paper 
wrapping, signs next to barrels of produce. Produce items are 
increasingly being branded as another method of labeling. In 
recognition of this fact, the labeling provision included in Senator 
Harkin's farm bill provides the flexibility to label items by any 
visible and practical means.
  That said, I understand retailers would prefer to receive their 
produce shipments with country-of-origin labels already affixed to each 
piece of produce. To some degree, growers and packers are already 
labeling their products, and retails are not required to provide 
further information if this in the case.
  Regarding those products that do not arrive at the grocery store 
already labeled, I encourage growers and shippers to continue to do 
this and to work with retailers to find the most efficient methods to 
provide accurate country-of-origin information and labeling.
  I agree with the Senator from South Dakota that we should continue 
discussion with the industries impacted by this amendment, and I look 
forward to helping everyone identify the best methods to implement 
labeling legislation and ensure that consumers have ready access to 
country-of-origin information.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today, along with my 
distinguished colleagues Senator Murray from Washington State and 
Senator Inouye from Hawaii in support of two amendments to the 
Agriculture, Conservation, and Rural Enhancement Act of 2001 to promote 
cooperation between Indian tribes and the United States Forest Service 
in the management of forest lands.
  This legislation would amend the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act 
of 1978 to establish an Office of Tribal Relations and other 
cooperative programs within the Forest Service to better provide for 
the joint efforts of the Forest Service and Indian tribes. If the 
purpose of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act is to improve the 
management, resource production, and environmental protection of 
nonfederal forest lands, then the 17 million acres of land held by 
Indian tribes and individual Indians should be included as a component 
of this law to facilitate cooperative management of our forests.
  Tribes have a significant role to play towards our national goal of 
ensuring that forests are managed as both sustainable resources and 
enduring habitats. Again, tribes or tribal members are responsible for 
the management of approximately 17 million acres of forest land, which 
is eligible for about 750 million board feet of sustainable annual 
harvest. Much of this land shares borders with Forest Service land, and 
tribes also possess treaty rights within Forest Service land. The 
Forest Service and tribes are linked not only by common interest but 
also by a very practical need to work together.
  Currently tribes may participate in the Forestry Incentives and 
Forest Stewardship programs under sections 4 through 6 of the 
Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act. These programs provide assistance 
to private landowners in order to keep their forest land healthy and 
viable. However, the programs are designed for cooperation with State 
governments and do not appropriately take into account the government-
to-government and trust relationships that tribes have with the Federal 
Government. Also, there is general lack of understanding among tribes 
and Forest Service personnel regarding how the existing cooperative 
assistance programs would extend to individual Indians with land held 
in trust. As a result, tribes and individual American Indian and Native 
Alaskan landowners seldom participate in the programs.
  In October 1999, the Chief of the Forest Service established a 
National Tribal Relations Task Force to study tribal involvement in the 
management of both Forest Service and Indian-held lands. The Task Force 
included representatives from the Forest Service, the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, BIA, and the Intertribal Timber Council. The Task Force found 
that, indeed, cooperative forestry programs that specifically work with 
tribal communities are greatly in need in order to establish equity in 
forestry assistance and to fulfill stewardship responsibilities towards 
the management of forestry lands held in trust.
  This legislation responds to the need to improve tribal-Forest 
Service coordination by allowing the Secretary of the Department of 
Agriculture to provide financial, technical, and educational assistance 
for coordination on shared land, land under the jurisdiction of Indian 
tribes, and Forest Service land to which tribes may have interests and 
rights.
  The Task Force similarly found, and I quote directly from the report, 
that ``the current Forest Service tribal relations program lacks the 
infrastructure and support necessary to ensure high quality 
interactions across programs with Indian Tribes on a government-to-
government basis.'' My colleagues and I would like to improve the 
Forest Service's ability to interact effectively with tribes by adding 
an Office of Tribal Relations within the Forest Service to be headed by 
a Director appointed by the Chief of the Forest Service.
  This office will be responsible for the oversight of all programs and 
policies relating to tribes. This legislation outlines that it would be 
the duty of the Office of Tribal Relations to consult with tribal 
governments, monitor and evaluate the relations between tribal 
governments and the Forest Service, and coordinate matters affecting 
tribes

[[Page S13041]]

in a way that is comprehensive and responsive to tribal needs. This 
office will also cooperate with the other agencies of the Department of 
Agriculture, the Department of Interior, and the Environmental 
Protection Agency.
  It is important that the Forest Service be able to effectively work 
with tribal communities. At this point, we know from the Forest 
Service, the BIA, and the Intertribal Timber Council that the Forest 
Service lacks the programmatic structure to be able to accommodate and 
effectively work with tribes and those holding trust lands due to their 
unique legal and organizational status. As an arm of the Federal 
Government, the Forest Service must uphold the trust responsibilities 
we have towards tribes. I believe that we have a duty, to tribes and to 
our forests, to respond to tribes' expressed desire for assistance with 
forest resource planning, management, and conservation with this 
legislation. I would like to thank Senator Daschle, Senator Baucus, and 
Senator Wellstone for their support, and I urge the rest of my 
colleagues to support these amendments as well.
  Mr. DASCHLE. 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. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________