[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 174 (Friday, December 14, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13245-S13275]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION, AND RURAL ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2001

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 1731, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1731) to strengthen the safety net for 
     agricultural producers, to enhance resource conservation and 
     rural development, to provide for farm credit, agricultural 
     research, nutrition, and related programs, to ensure 
     consumers abundant food and fiber, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Daschle (for Harkin) Amendment No. 2471, in the nature of a 
     substitute.N O T I C E

Effective January 1, 2002, the subscription price of the 
Congressional Record will be $422 per year or $211 for six months. 
Individual issues may be purchased for $5.00 per copy. The cost for 
the microfiche edition will remain $141 per year with single copies 
remaining $1.50 per issue. This price increase is necessary based 
upon the cost of printing and distribution.                          
                                    Michael F. DiMario, Public 
Printer

[[Page S13246]]

       Smith of New Hampshire Amendment No. 2596 (to Amendment No. 
     2471), to provide for Presidential certification that the 
     government of Cuba is not involved in the support for acts of 
     international terrorism as a condition precedent to 
     agricultural trade with Cuba.
       Torricelli Amendment No. 2597 (to Amendment No. 2596), to 
     provide for Presidential certification that all convicted 
     felons who are living as fugitives in Cuba have been returned 
     to the United States prior to the amendments relating to 
     agricultural trade with Cuba becoming effective
       Daschle motion to reconsider the vote (Vote 368) by which 
     the motion to close further debate on Daschle (for Harkin) 
     Amendment No. 2471 (listed above) failed.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
senior Senator from Minnesota is recognized to offer an amendment.


                Amendment No. 2602 TO Amendment No. 2471

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2602 to amendment No. 2471.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be very brief in the summary of 
this amendment. This amendment restricts new or expanding large 
confined animal feeding operation, CAFOs, from receiving Environmental 
Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) funds for animal waste structures. We 
will go over the definitions as we get into this debate on Tuesday, 
but, for example, 1,000 animals is equal altogether to 9,090 hogs. 
These are big operations.
  This amendment also deals with what we call multiple CAFOs. The 
amendment prohibits an entity with interests in more than one CAFO from 
receiving more than one EQIP contract, thus prohibiting double 
payments. This measure helps ensure that this Federal farm conservation 
programs and the funds are not used to promote consolidation and 
concentration of livestock production.
  The third part to this amendment deals with flood plains. The 
amendment restricts the use of EQIP funds for new or expanding 
livestock waste facilities in a 100-year flood plains. Locating a large 
animal waste facility in a flood plain is contrary to all good 
conservation common sense.
  Fourth, the amendment requires animal operations receiving EQIP funds 
for structures to also develop and follow a comprehensive nutrient 
management plan to ensure that the conservation assistance does not end 
with the storage of manure but that the entire operation be taken into 
account, including the ultimate disposition of the waste in terms of 
being applied to the land.
  Finally, on payments, the amendment doubles the current annual 
payment limitation for EQIP, which I would rather not do. The amendment 
increases the annual payment from $10,000 to $20,000, and doubles the 
current payment limit per 5-year contract from $50,000 to $100,000 
while retaining the current law waiver authority for the annual 
limitation at the discretion of USDA. The committee bill, by contrast, 
increases the cap of $50,000 and also a 3-year cap of $150,000.
  My colleagues should know that the current average EQIP contract for 
animal waste structures is approximately $13,000. So this amendment 
would not affect the majority of those producers who receive and need 
assistance from this program. We are really talking about the very 
largest of operations here. And don't forget the existing CAFOs around 
the country would not be affected, this amendment only applies to new 
or expanding CAFOs.
  I have summarized this amendment. It deals with a growing problem in 
agriculture; that is to say, the concentration in the livestock sector, 
the environmental pollution, and, frankly, Federal subsidies that go to 
these large farming operations and encourage yet more consolidation and 
more big business and, in this particular case, more environmental 
destruction.
  The amendment is simple. It says we in the Congress should, and will, 
work to help alleviate the environmental and public health threats 
posed by these large-scale animal factories. However--I emphasize that 
word, ``however''--Congress should not be subsidizing the expansion of 
these large animal confinement operations. That is what this amendment 
says.
  My colleagues should know that this amendment has broad support from 
both the farm and environmental community, from groups such as the 
National Farmers Union, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Defense, 
Environmental Working Group, Humane Society, National Wildlife 
Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sustainable 
Agriculture Coalition.
  I look forward to debating and adopting this amendment. I wanted to 
lay the amendment down today. I will get back to this debate on 
Tuesday.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand the amendment of the Senator 
from Minnesota has been laid down?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. This is the amendment on the Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program that would allow cost-share funds to all existing 
livestock operations, but would limit it for the largest ones that are 
new or expanded after this bill is enacted; is that right?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. I rise in support of 
the amendment. I am proud to support this amendment with my colleague 
from Minnesota.
  During the 1996 farm bill debate, I successfully offered an amendment 
that limited cost-share funding under EQIP for large confined animal 
feeding operations. That was the 1,000-animal unit limit that has 
existed under the farm bill since that time. I offered that amendment 
in 1996 because of the special environmental concerns associated with 
these large operations.
  CAFOs, as they are called, confined animal feeding operations, CAFOs, 
these are operations of greater than 1,000 animal units. What that 
means--that is 455,000 broilers, 4,000 head of veal, 5,400 head of 
swine of an average weight of 185 pounds--these numbers are for the 
average number of livestock confined for 45 days over a 12-month 
period. So it is not 5,400 swine for the year. It is how many are 
confined for 45 days in any 12-month period. It could be double or 
triple that number of hogs over the year. That is a lot of animals.
  Again, these are large operations. Over the last several years we 
have seen an increase in the development and enforcement of Federal, 
State, and local environmental laws regulating waste from animal 
feeding operations. I believe we need to help producers comply or avoid 
the need for regulations. We should provide cost-share funds to these 
existing CAFOs to build structures that will contain waste to protect 
water quality and to protect the environment generally. However, EQIP 
money was never designed to subsidize the expansion of livestock 
operations.
  The underlying bill allows the use of cost-share funds for all 
existing operations, and that is fine. But, it also funds for new CAFOs 
and expanding operations to CAFOs. That is what is wrong because 
obviously, if you can use the money to fund expansion, it gives you an 
incentive to get larger.
  This amendment, the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota, does not 
prevent the use of funds for small operations or for existing CAFOs. 
But it prohibits cost-share funding for new or expanding confined 
animal feeding operations; that is, operations over 1,000 animal units. 
It limits the subsidization of the growth for the very largest 
livestock operations.
  I believe this amendment is consistent with the underlying bill. It 
still helps livestock producers who are now in operation who need to 
meet ever stricter environmental standards. We have put more money into 
EQIP. We have expanded the EQIP program over six times above the 
baseline over the next five years--from $1 billion to $6.2 billion. So 
we are putting in a lot of money. I think this is a good way to invest 
this money protecting the environment, helping the livestock producers 
meet the more stringent environmental standards.
  Again, we have more money, but that money ought to be used for the 
ones that are there now, the ones that need this help now. We have 
taken the cap off of limiting funds to large CAFOs in

[[Page S13247]]

the underlying bill, we have gone above 1,000--again, that is fine. But 
we don't want people to see the EQIP funds as an incentive. We don't 
want people to say: Gee, I have 800 animal units, I can go up to 2,000, 
3,000 animal units now and the Government is going to come in and help 
me build these structures. If they want to expand and build facilities 
on their own, we don't prohibit that, but we don't want to use 
Government money to encourage that.

  So it is a good amendment. I think it should be adopted.
  I understand some other people may want to debate it, but the order 
is we are going to lay this aside for other amendments; is that 
correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Arizona or his designee is recognized to offer an 
amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, before that occurs, since I will be the 
designee, I just want to make a comment about the amendment of the 
Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone.
  I appreciate what he is attempting to do. I find the situation--one 
in which I argued fairly strenuously, but I think without necessarily 
persuading Senators--that the farm bill, at least as it is now 
constituted, will inevitably increase planting of corn, wheat, cotton, 
rice, soybeans--those things to which the money is directed. There is 
strong evidence the USDA pointed out our last farm bill stimulated 
about 4 million acres of additional production into the program crops.
  One might argue that we were not subsidizing expansion. But the 
evidence is much of this increase in acreage came from our largest, 
most efficient producers, whose names appear in lists receiving the 
most subsidies. Perhaps if we were to try all this over again and look 
with some consistency as we take a look at the livestock portion of 
agriculture at the same time we deal with the crops and various other 
parts--and that is what the Senator has sought to do, to take a whole 
farm, whole income approach--perhaps this amendment might have some 
more equity. It probably has value for the reasons the distinguished 
Senator from Iowa, our chairman, has pointed out. Clearly, most persons 
involved in these reform movements, support the EQIP program. I believe 
it is an important one with regard to the environment, as well as some 
equity for livestock producers. They are loathe to admit that this 
might produce more livestock, greater herds subsidized by the Federal 
Government. Obviously it does.
  The Senator from Minnesota is trying to plug up that particular hole, 
while it seems to me there are gaping holes in the dike all around that 
are likely to lead to very large expenditures. I will study the 
amendment carefully. I will likewise attempt to work with my colleagues 
to see if we can bring some equity in all parts of agriculture. We will 
take a look again at the whole farm situation.
  Does my colleague wish further debate on the Wellstone amendment?
  Mr. HARKIN. No.


                Amendment No. 2603 To Amendment No. 2471

  Mr. LUGAR. I understand the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, has an 
amendment at the desk. Is that correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LUGAR. On behalf of the Senator from Arizona, I call up the 
amendment at the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], for Mr. McCain, for 
     himself, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Kerry, and Mrs. Murray, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2603 to amendment No. 2471.

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

         (Purpose: To provide for the market name for catfish)

       At the appropriate place in the substitute, insert the 
     following:

     SEC.  . MARKET NAME FOR CATFISH.

       The term ``catfish'' shall be considered to be a common or 
     usual name (or part thereof) for any fish in keeping with 
     Food and Drug Administration procedures that follow 
     scientific standards and market practices for establishing 
     such names for the purposes of section 403 of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, including with respect to the 
     importation of such fish pursuant to section 801 of such Act.

     SEC.  . LABELING OF FISH AS CATFISH.

       Section 755 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
     Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2002, is repealed.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of 
the McCain amendment. This amendment will effectively repeal a ban on 
catfish imports which was quietly tucked into the most recent 
Agriculture appropriations bill.
  It may seem on the face of it that a ban on catfish imports is of 
little consequence if you are not from a state that produces catfish. 
However, put in the larger context of the multi-billion-dollar U.S. 
seafood industry, the implications are clear. If this ban on catfish 
imports were allowed to stand, it would pull the rug right out from 
under our own U.S. Trade Representative who is trying to fight similar 
protectionist actions against the U.S. seafood industry by our trading 
partners. Regardless of the intentions of proponents of this catfish 
ban, it has significant impacts for other U.S. fisheries and deserves 
greater scrutiny than was afforded during the consideration of the 
Agriculture Appropriations bill earlier this year.
  The specific reason why I have come to the floor to speak on this 
matter is because of its implications for the Oregon pink shrimp 
fishery. The pink shrimp fishery in Oregon has become increasingly 
significant to Oregon fishers in recent years as the groundfish fishery 
has declined. Pink shrimp, along with West Coast groundfish and 
Dungeness crab form the foundation of the commercial fishing industry 
in my state. Unfortunately, the successful development of the Oregon 
pink shrimp fishery will always be handicapped as long as we are unable 
to get fair treatment in the European market for the variety of pink 
shrimp harvested in the waters of the Pacific Northwest. The Europeans 
have been able to shut Oregon pink shrimp out of their market through a 
tariff policy that is biased in favor of the shrimp varieties found in 
their waters. With that tariff regime in place, Oregon pink shrimp 
effectively cannot compete in the European Union. As a result, the 
situation has had negative impacts on the price paid to Oregon pink 
shrimp fishers.
  Recently, it has been brought to my attention that there may be a 
similar problem in getting access to the European market for Oregon 
sardines. The recent reappearance of sardines off of Oregon has been 
attributed to a significant ocean regime change. In any case, I want to 
make sure that this resurgent Oregon sardine fishery has fair access to 
foreign markets as well.
  Given time, I hope that the United States Trade Representative will 
be able to resolve some of these issues with our friends in the 
European Union. However, that simply cannot happen when we in the 
United States Senate invoke protectionist measures of our own to keep 
foreign seafood products from competing here. That is what happened 
with this attempt to bar Vietnamese catfish from the U.S. market. It is 
prudent for us to act today to repeal this catfish ban. At the very 
least, a proposal of such significance should have been subjected to a 
full debate in the Senate during consideration of the Agriculture 
Appropriations bill.
  I thank the Senator from Arizona for putting forward this amendment. 
I hope that the Senate will act today to repeal the catfish ban and 
allow all the issues involved to be considered by the appropriate 
committees of jurisdiction.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I understand the order is the Chair might 
at this point lay this amendment aside. If so, I suggest that.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is laid aside.
  Mr. LUGAR. Is the amendment laid aside?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes, it is.
  Mr. LUGAR. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page S13248]]

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again for the benefit of those in their 
offices, Senators who are here today, the farm bill is open right now 
for amendment. Under the agreement made by the leaders, yesterday, I 
guess, or the day before--obviously there are no votes today. We can 
still take the amendments. They can be laid down, we can debate them 
with whoever is here, and they will then be in line for voting when we 
come back on Tuesday, or further debate, also, when we come back.
  I say to my friend, I see my friend from Kansas is here. Maybe my 
friend from Kansas has an amendment he would like to offer on the farm 
bill and get it in line so we could, perhaps, vote on this mythical 
Cochran-Roberts amendment that I keep hearing about but I can't see. It 
is sort of ephemeral--sort of out there somewhere, but we can't seem to 
get our fingers on it. Maybe we could get the Cochran-Roberts amendment 
over here today, lay it down, and start discussing it so we can have it 
here next Tuesday.

  I urge any Senators who have amendments to come over to the floor and 
lay them down.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, are we on the farm bill?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will address the Senate for a short 
period of time today. Next week I hope to be able to speak on this 
subject with a potential amendment I might offer about the trade 
aspects of the farm bill.
  I start with the premise that we have a farm bill--and we have had 
farm legislation for 60 or 70 years--with what we call a safety net to 
give structure to the economics of agriculture, to give some certainty 
to agriculture, and to help farmers in times of low prices and 
problems.
  So much of farming is beyond the control of the individual farmer. 
One of those things is international trade. Maybe we don't think of 
that as often as we do things such as natural disasters that hit 
farmers, domestic politics which might cause prices to go up or down, 
and decisions of the Federal Reserve which affect the value of the 
dollar. Sometimes international policies affect the value of the 
dollar.
  There are just a lot of things out there that affect the family 
farmer over which they don't have any control. Family farmers tend to 
be more in the position, unlike most businesses, of having to take a 
price the market dictates for the products they sell over which they 
don't have any control. Also, they do not have a lot of control over 
the cost of their input for the production of their products. They are 
one of the few segments of our economy that have to pay whatever the 
market demands for their input, and they receive from the market 
whatever it pays.
  That is why we have a safety net. We have had a safety net for 
farmers of one form or another. There hasn't been a lot of difference 
in those programs over the last 70 years.
  We tend to speak about farm bills as if this farm bill is much 
different from the previous farm bill, et cetera. I am not going to go 
into those things. But there hasn't been that much difference. The 
premise has been very much the same. We are going to have a safety net 
for farmers to guarantee a certain floor of income at times of low 
prices because there is so much affecting the economics of the family 
farmer that is beyond their control.
  I start with the premise--and the extent to which my colleagues 
disagree with me on this, I welcome their disagreement and this debate 
on it--that the farm bill, whether it is a 1950-type farm bill, or the 
1996 farm bill, or even the one we are debating right now, is meant to 
have a safety net, is meant to sustain farmers in business during the 
period of time of low prices, which a lot of times is caused by things 
beyond the farmers' control. This safety net doesn't guarantee 
profitability. I don't think there is anything in any farm bill I have 
ever seen to guarantee profitability.
  That is where trade comes in. When we produce 40 percent more than we 
consume domestically, it means that farmers have to have the ability to 
export. Export is very important. When there is no profitability in the 
farm bill, then the only profitability in farming is going to come from 
the marketplace.
  When you produce more than you can consume domestically, that means 
the world marketplace is where the profitability for agriculture is 
going to come. In other words, there is not profitability in a check 
from the Federal Treasury to a farmer when prices are low, as has been 
the case in recent years, particularly in emergency bills, but there is 
profitability in exports.
  Let me put it this way: the only reason there is profitability for 
farmers is due to the exportation of our surplus agricultural products. 
That is why trade is an important part of any discussion of farm 
legislation, even though the trade policies of this country are decided 
by other committees. One of those happens to be the Finance Committee 
on which I serve. The Finance Committee has jurisdiction over all trade 
policy. The most recent one is just about out of committee now--it had 
an 18-to-3 vote on final passage--which was trade promotion authority.

  That is why sometimes when news-people ask me, what are we doing for 
farmers in the farm bill, I give the same spiel you just heard me give 
about the safety net aspects of farm legislation being very important 
to helping sustain farmers.
  But there is no profitability in the check from the Federal Treasury 
when prices are low. The profitability for farming is going to come 
through trade. That is why I like to remind people that trade promotion 
authority, and other trade policies, are probably as important to the 
family farmer as what is in a farm bill, and particularly when it comes 
to profitability.
  So I try to look at a farm bill to make sure it has these 
opportunities. But the most important fact is that we have had trade 
agreements. The last General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which 
created the World Trade Organization, had certain limits that could be 
spent in certain categories of farm support.
  There is a limit on what we call trade distorting expenditures, that 
if you exceed those, the United States and, in turn, the U.S. farmer, 
can be retaliated against legally if those are exceeded. So we have to 
be concerned about those issues.
  I am not here to say that in every respect all of the different farm 
proposals floating around here are unconcerned with trade implications. 
It does not matter whether it's the farm bill that is before us, it 
does not matter whether it is the Daschle amendment to that bill, it 
does not matter whether it is Senator Roberts' and Senator Cochran's 
proposal, and it does not matter even whether it is the House bill; it 
is legitimate to bring the issue of trade to the attention of our 
colleagues.
  For instance, in the House bill, it is my understanding--and I have 
not read that bill in its entirety, obviously--but it is my 
understanding that the House Agriculture Committee was concerned about 
this, so they put a provision in their farm bill that if the Secretary 
of Agriculture found that legislation violated the WTO agreements, that 
it could be suspended. If that is exactly how it works and we have to 
spend more on agriculture, because that would be trade distorting, due 
to the fact that prices are low and then we could be retaliated against 
dollar-for-dollar for the excess expenditure and the farm program has 
to be suspended, then you are suspending the safety net for farmers at 
exactly the time they are going to need it. What the bill does is cut 
off payments when family farmers would very likely need those payments 
the most.
  Now, this can be avoided. Maybe my colleagues who are writing these 
provisions will say they are taking that into consideration and they 
are going to avoid it, or they may say the conditions under which this 
happens are not as dangerous as maybe I lead people to believe. So I am 
not here to question anybody's intentions or motivations or anything. I 
am just here to ask my colleagues to give further thought to ways in 
which the legislation that is obviously going to become law--if it does

[[Page S13249]]

not become law before this year, it is going to become law early next 
year; and whenever it becomes law, it is going to become law in ample 
time so we have it for the next crop-year in 2003 that it is needed--to 
take these things of trade into consideration.
  (Mrs. CARNAHAN assumed the chair.)
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Each year our farmers become more reliant on overseas 
markets to sell their commodities. In fact, last year, farmers in my 
home State of Iowa exported more than $3 billion worth of corn, 
soybeans, meat products, and even live animals.
  Nationwide, American farmers annually export close to half of their 
soybeans and 20 percent of their corn production. Given the importance 
of export markets to American agriculture, the United States must 
assume a leading role in eliminating tariffs, excess trade-distorting 
subsidies, and other barriers to trade.
  In 1994 we joined our trading partners in the World Trade 
Organization to discipline domestic agricultural support programs and 
to facilitate more open trade. The agreement, called the Uruguay Round 
Agreement on Agriculture, capped the level of trade-distorting support 
that WTO members can provide to producers.
  Worldwide, agricultural tariffs were reduced by an average of 36 
percent over a 6-year period. The United States agreed to reduce its 
own trade-distorting domestic support, or what is referred to as 
``amber box'' spending under this trade agreement, by 20 percent, down 
to a point of $19.1 billion per year.
  The Senate must pass legislation that abides by this commitment or 
our trading partners could take retaliatory action against our farmers 
and against our agricultural exports. Unfortunately, the farm bills 
before us, and I think particularly the House bill--and even the bill 
that was passed out of the Senate Agriculture Committee--leads our 
Nation down a dangerous road toward exceeding our ``amber box'' limits 
and opening the door to this WTO legal retaliation. Retaliation through 
higher tariffs on our exports and reduced market access for our farmers 
would reduce the worldwide demand for our commodities, resulting in an 
overwhelmingly domestic surplus and depressing domestic commodity 
prices.
  In light of the high stakes for America's farmers, I urge my 
colleagues to carefully consider the potential impact on America's 
farmers of a farm bill that could violate our international trade 
commitments. We need to revisit the piece of legislation that was 
passed out of committee and work to improve it before we conference 
with the House because, as I pointed out, I think the House bill has 
very dramatic problems in this area as well.
  Our farmers know how important international trade opportunities are 
for our commodities. That is why farmers support issues such as trade 
promotion authority and trade with China. That was such a hot issue 
last year being dealt with in the Congress. But if we don't practice 
what we preach regarding our World Trade Organization commitments, how 
will we ever convince our potential trading partners around the world 
that they should lower their trade barriers? And that is a goal of not 
only this administration, but also we have to compliment the previous 
Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Glickman, the previous Special Trade 
Representative, Charlene Barshefsky, when about 15 months ago they 
tabled in Geneva for negotiation purposes of the agricultural 
negotiations that were going on under the WTO as it was mandated to 
happen in 1993 to start in the year 2000. They tabled negotiation 
positions for our country's farmers that were in the best interests of 
our farmers of zero tariffs in agriculture.
  This administration has followed through on that in the Doha Round 
that started in early November, which is the new round of WTO 
negotiations that are going on. And that is what trade promotion 
authority is all about, to give the President the authority to make 
such an agreement. We have followed on the very good suggestions of the 
Clinton appointees on what sort of direction our agricultural trade 
ought to take.
  I don't think there is any partisan disagreement on what we want to 
do on international trade to help the American farmers. The only thing 
we have to do is make sure we write farm legislation that is compliant 
with the intentions of what was initiated in the Clinton administration 
and followed through on by the Bush administration.
  As I have said in the past, the Government can provide support, but 
only the marketplace can provide profitability. This isn't putting 
anybody in a position of political posturing if they don't agree with 
that. I just think it is the cold hard truth about our agricultural 
economy, if we are going to produce to our potential we must sell our 
surplus on the world market. We surely don't want the alternative, 
which is to produce for the domestic market only and find ourselves in 
a position of taking 40 percent of our productive capacity out of 
production and, through the Federal Treasury, pay the farmers for doing 
that. I don't think the taxpayers would support that.
  Worse yet, that might sustain farmers; you could even have support 
high enough to guarantee profitability. But you would ruin the economy 
of the United States if you produced 40 percent less farm machinery, 40 
percent less input into agriculture. A lot of that comes from the small 
town main street businesses of the America. We don't want to do 
anything negative to them. We want to keep our rural areas vibrant. 
That means economic activity.
  Economic activity in American agriculture is to produce and to 
produce not only for the American people but for the hungry of the 
world, to help our economy, but also to help the economy of other 
countries as well.
  It is a simple fact of life that the profitability in farming ought 
to come from the worldwide marketplace because the Federal budget is 
not big enough to provide farmers profitable margins year after year.
  If we don't establish a farm bill that helps us to lower trade 
barriers, we will not be able to assist the agricultural community 
develop this long period of profitability.
  Last week the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, which 
is located on two campuses--Iowa State University and the University of 
Missouri--published a paper stating that there was over a 30-percent 
likelihood that the farm bill coming out of the Senate Agriculture 
Committee would violate our trade commitments.
  They could say the same thing about some other ideas floating around 
here. They surely could say it about the House agriculture bill.
  Think of it this way: If there was a better than 30-percent 
likelihood that a ship would sink, you wouldn't get on board. The farm 
bill before us has the potential to impose significant harm on our 
family farmers by violating the current trade commitments. If this were 
to happen, our trading partners could refuse to accept our exports and 
this action, being legal, at the same time would decimate the price of 
U.S. commodities affected. We can do better.
  I hope as the debate on this farm bill continues or the debate on any 
farm bill continues, these issues of compliance with our international 
obligations, which is for the benefit of American agriculture, because 
as we can reduce worldwide tariffs that average about 60 percent down 
to where U.S. tariffs are single digits on agricultural products, just 
those facts make it a no-brainer that the United States should pursue 
free trade policy in agriculture and that it will benefit the American 
farmer.
  If our tariffs are here and the worldwide tariffs average 46 percent, 
whatever we do to negotiate to bring those down--and remember our goal 
under the Clinton administration, now followed by the Bush 
administration, is zero tariff--it is a no-brainer that this is going 
to affect very positively American agriculture and bring profitability 
to the farmer.
  The only place for profitability in an industry that exports or that 
produces more than 40 percent more than we can consume domestically, 
the only profitability then is in the world market.
  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.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S13250]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, a few week ago, the Department of 
Agriculture announced that commodity prices had taken their biggest 1-
month drop in more than 90 years.
  It has been 5 years since Congress last passed a farm bill. Every 
year since then, we have needed an expensive bailout bill. These 
bailouts are usually referred to as emergency disaster assistance. But 
the real disaster has been our farm policy itself.
  The 1996 farm bill provided farmers with flexibility in deciding 
what, when, and where to plant. But it left them utterly without a 
safety net. When floods came, the farm bill gave them nothing.
  When droughts cut their output in half, the farm bill gave them 
nothing. When the bottom fell out of prices, when the cost of fuel 
skyrocketed, when armyworms destroyed an entire crop, the farm bill 
gave them nothing.
  Only when Congress passed emergency spending bills did farmers get 
any relief. That is a raw deal for the people who feed our Nation--and 
the world. How can farmers and ranchers plan for the next year's crop 
not knowing what programs will be in place?
  It is time for Congress to act on a new farm bill--one that promoted 
competitiveness and consumer choice, while providing adequate income to 
farmers.
  This fall, I wrote to Chairman Harkin outlining my priorities for the 
farm bill.
  I shared with him the recommendations I have heard from farmers 
across Missouri. I am pleased so many of these ideas were included in 
the bill reported by the committee.
  First and foremost, this farm bill recognizes the need for a safety 
net. The safety net is counter-cyclical--to give farmers assistance 
when they need it the most. It will buffer our farm economy in 
difficult times, and allow small producers to stay in business.
  The bill also allows producers to update the baseline acreage used to 
calculate these payments, to ensure they reflect the realities of 
today.
  Earlier this year I proposed legislation to expand tax credits and 
other incentives to promote ethanol, soy-diesel, and other value-added 
products.
  I am pleased that this new farm includes an energy title that will 
harness the potential of these clean, renewable fuels.
  They provide valuable economic development, they give farmers a 
greater market for their product, they cut pollution and they decrease 
our reliance on foreign oil.
  I applaud Chairman Harkin and the committee for crafting a farm bill 
that strongly encourage the continued development of biofuels. I hope 
amendments will be added that will further promote the use of these 
fuels.
  The farm bill passed by the Agriculture Committee makes a historic 
commitment to conservation. It allocates $20 billion over the next 10 
years in new spending for conservation programs. That is $5 billion 
more than the House passed, and we need every penny.
  The farm bill would invest almost $750 million in conservation 
efforts for Missouri over the next 5 years.
  The bill protects the property rights of landowners. It encourages 
producers to remove sensitive land from agricultural production. It 
also offers incentives for continuing conservation practices and 
adopting new ones. If offers technical assistance for farmers and 
ranchers. It gives greater opportunities for private landowners to 
voluntarily expand conservation on forested lands. And it provides 
livestock producers with resources to build waste management systems.
  I also believe we need country-of-origin labeling, as called for 
under this legislation. America's farmers grow the best products. They 
are the most efficient. They sue chemicals that are proven to be safe. 
And they live by the strictest environmental standards in the world.
  I believe consumers, if given the option, would choose American 
products every time.
  Now more than ever, Americans are concerned about food security. They 
want to know where their food is coming from. Country-of-origin 
labeling would not only help our livestock producers, but would also 
assure consumers that the products that they buy are safe.
  We need measures to help rural America and help the family farm stay 
in business. Missouri farmers have urged me to assist them in efforts 
to revitalize rural communities and promote economic development. Rural 
America needs improved drinking water, telecommunications, and other 
infrastructure. This bill provides funding to address many of these 
needs.
  And it increases access to capital for rural business ventures, 
particular equity capital.
  I am particularly concerned about our young farmers who need 
financing to begin farming or to stay in the business.
  Under this bill, the Direct Loan Farm Service Agency Program of the 
Farm Service Agency will be strengthened to assist these young 
producers.
  In addition, a new farm bill must include a strong nutrition title. 
We must provide the Food Stamp Program with the resources it needs. We 
cannot abandon families who have been hit hard by the recession, or 
those struggling to move from welfare to work.
  Chairman Harkin's bill invests more than $6 billion in this important 
title. The House bill provides only half that. But with so many people 
out of work, so many children going hungry, we need the full amount.
  Chairman Harkin's nutrition title will make the Food Stamp Program 
work better for the people it serves. It makes the process of applying 
for food stamp benefits more efficient. It helps families moving from 
welfare to work by extending transitional benefits. It restores the 
value of food stamps to help poorer families keep up with inflation. 
These changes will mean a great deal to those who are struggling with 
the essentials of daily life.
  One deficiency of this bill is that it does not address the issue of 
competition. There is a growing problem of vertical integration and 
concentration among agribusiness firms. The small family farm is 
becoming an endangered species, and that's just not right.
  We need a strong competition title to maximize consumer choices. We 
must facilitate farmers' choices in marketing products and meaningful 
price competition.
  I hope that over the course of the next few days, this bill can be 
improved with a competition title that will ensure we have a vibrant 
farm economy.
  Mr. President, this farm bill isn't perfect, but it makes sense for 
Missouri's farmers. And it makes sense for America. It expands markets. 
It protects the environment. It is fair to small family farmers. And, 
most importantly, it provides a safety net when farmers need help.
  Fundamentally, this bill is about ensuring that the hardworking men 
and women who produce the food that feeds the world can earn a decent 
living. These farmers deserve our full support.
  Once again I thank the chairman and the committee, and I hope the 
Senate will act quickly on this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Harkin). The Senator from Utah.

[[Page S13251]]

  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Hatch are printed in Today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The Senator from Iowa.


                           Amendment No. 2604

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I know two Senators are waiting to speak 
on the bill. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself, Mr. 
     Grassley, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Enzi, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 2604.

  Mr. HARKIN. 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 apply the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, to livestock 
 production contracts and to provide parties to the contract the right 
           to discuss the contract with certain individuals)

       On page 941, strike line 5 and insert the following:

                     Subtitle C--General Provisions

     SEC. 1021. PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 2(a) of the Packers and 
     Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 182(a)), is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(12) Livestock contractor.--The term `livestock 
     contractor' means any person engaged in the business of 
     obtaining livestock under a livestock production contract for 
     the purpose of slaughtering the livestock or selling the 
     livestock for slaughter, if--
       ``(A) the livestock is obtained by the person in commerce; 
     or
       ``(B) the livestock (including livestock products from the 
     livestock) obtained by the person is sold or shipped in 
     commerce.
       ``(13) Livestock production contract.--The term `livestock 
     production contract' means any growout contract or other 
     arrangement under which a livestock production contract 
     grower raises and cares for the livestock in accordance with 
     the instructions of another person.
       ``(14) Livestock production contract grower.--The term 
     `livestock production contract grower' means any person 
     engaged in the business of raising and caring for livestock 
     in accordance with the instructions of another person.''.
       (b) Contractors.--
       (1) In general.--The Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, is 
     amended by striking ``packer'' each place it appears in 
     sections 202, 203, 204, and 205 (7 U.S.C. 192, 193, 194, 195) 
     (other than section 202(c)) and inserting ``packer or 
     livestock contractor''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 202(c) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 
     (7 U.S.C. 192(c)), is amended by inserting ``, livestock 
     contractor,'' after ``other packer'' each place it appears.
       (B) Section 308(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 
     (7 U.S.C. 209(a)), is amended by inserting ``or livestock 
     production contract'' after ``poultry growing arrangement''.
       (C) Sections 401 and 403 of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 
     1921 (7 U.S.C. 221, 223), are amended by inserting ``any 
     livestock contractor, and'' after ``packer,'' each place it 
     appears.
       (c) Right to Discuss Terms of Contract.--The Packers and 
     Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 417. RIGHT TO DISCUSS TERMS OF CONTRACT.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding a provision in any 
     contract for the sale or production of livestock or poultry 
     that provides that information contained in the contract is 
     confidential, a party to the contract shall not be prohibited 
     from discussing any terms or details of any contract with--
       ``(1) a legal adviser;
       ``(2) a lender;
       ``(3) an accountant;
       ``(4) an executive or manager;
       ``(5) a landlord;
       ``(6) a family member; or
       ``(7) a Federal or State agency with responsibility for--
       ``(A) enforcing a statute designed to protect a party to 
     the contract; or
       ``(B) administering this Act.
       ``(b) Effect on State Laws.--Subsection (a) does not affect 
     State laws that address confidentiality provisions in 
     contracts for the sale or production of livestock or 
     poultry.''.

  Mr. HARKIN. I send this amendment on behalf of myself, Senators 
Grassley, Feingold, Wellstone, and Enzi. I will just take a few minutes 
to describe it because I know Senator Cochran and Senator Roberts are 
waiting to speak.
  With this amendment, I would like to continue on one of the important 
themes I have stressed throughout the farm bill debate, competition 
issues in agriculture. In fact, the occupant of the chair, the Senator 
from Missouri, spoke about that a few minutes ago, about needing better 
competition in agriculture.
  We had a competition title in the original farm bill. I thought it 
was extremely important. That was defeated but for one provision, 
country of origin labeling. That succeeded on an independent vote in 
committee, but the rest of the title did not make it through committee.
  Some of us vowed to resurrect a number of provisions on the floor, 
not the whole title but a number of key provisions that were in the 
competition title. Beyond the amendment I speak about, two amendments 
were agreed to yesterday which I cosponsored. Senator Feingold 
introduced an amendment which prohibits forced arbitration in livestock 
and poultry contracts. That amendment was adopted. After that, Senator 
Johnson from South Dakota offered an amendment that prohibited the 
ownership of livestock by packers. That amendment was adopted.
  The amendment I offer today will address one more issue in the 
competition arena and that is livestock production contracts and the 
right of a farmer to discuss those contracts with his closest advisers.
  As I said, the cosponsors are Senators Grassley, Feingold, Wellstone, 
and Enzi. The American Farm Bureau, National Farmers Union, as well as 
dozens of other farm, community, and religious organizations, support 
the amendment. And for good reasons. Farmers are concerned about 
competition.
  A 1999 Iowa State Extension Service Rural Life poll indicated that 89 
percent of Iowa farmers thought there was too much power concentrated 
in the hands of a few large agribusiness firms. A similar poll recently 
released by Kansas State University that targeted 27 farm and ranch 
States found that 77 percent of producers favor maintaining or 
strengthening current antitrust laws.
  To address just a small part of that concern, the amendment I 
introduced today will provide some minimal protections to livestock 
production contract growers. The amendment does two things. First, it 
closes a significant loophole in the Packers and Stockyards Act.
  Presently, the act protects farmers who sell livestock to packers. 
The Packers and Stockyards Act also protects those who grow poultry for 
others under production contracts. That was adopted in 1935. So since 
1935, it has applied to production contracts in poultry. But the act 
does not protect those who raise livestock under production contracts 
for packers in other areas, such as for swine and cattle.

  Again, in 1935 production contracts were not a big issue in 
livestock. It was a whole different world at that time. Since that time 
we have seen the growth of production contracts, both in hogs and now 
extending into cattle. The amendment would close this loophole so 
farmers who raise livestock under production contracts will be 
protected by the prohibitions against unfair and deceptive practices 
under the Packers and Stockyards Act.
  Second, the amendment will allow a producer to share his or her 
contract information with their business adviser, landlord, executive 
or manager, attorney, family, and State and Federal agencies charged 
with protecting parties to the contract. I understand in some States 
farmers already have some of these rights, but many farmers tell me 
they feel intimidated to share their contracts with even their trusted 
advisers, with their banker. That is because the contract specifically 
says that none of the terms of the contract are to be discussed with 
anyone else. So the farmer feels very intimidated about discussing 
that--and, frankly, could face either a lawsuit or the loss of the 
contract if, in fact, that farmer does discuss that with an with a 
banker.
  Again, as I have said, the first part deals with production 
contracting. Right now these arrangements--production contracting 
arrangements--are like a franchisee-franchiser relationship. It is 
becoming more prevalent in hogs and growing in the cattle industry.

[[Page S13252]]

  When we passed the Packers and Stockyards Act in 1921, the industry 
was different. Livestock was owned by the farmers. They took it to the 
stockyards. The packers bought the livestock at the stockyards. That is 
why we passed the 1921 Packers and Stockyards Act, because the packers 
and stockyard owners were collaborating and conspiring to drive down 
prices for farmers. So Congress passed the Packers and Stockyards Act 
to prohibit these unfair practices in 1921.
  The act currently addresses relationships only between packers and 
those who sell livestock to packers. It does not address production 
contracts. Right now, as I said, more and more of these production 
contracts are becoming common.
  An Iowa State study indicates that 34 percent of the hogs in America 
are raised under production contracts. Current law does not address 
this current situation, and this amendment closes that loophole and 
provides protection to livestock production contract growers.
  Again, because of their relatively weak bargaining position, farmers 
feel intimidated under these contracts. The amendment would 
specifically limit livestock contractors from engaging in unfair, 
deceptive, and unjustly discriminatory practices, section 202 of the 
Packers and Stockyards Act; and second, it gives the farmers the right 
to discuss terms of their contract with certain people: a legal 
adviser, a lender, an accountant, an executive or manager, a landlord, 
a family member, or a Federal or State agency with responsibility for 
enforcing a statute designed to protect the party to the contract.
  Importantly, this amendment doesn't require anyone to share any 
information. It doesn't require that the contract be made public in any 
way. It does not affect the confidentiality clauses that state farmer 
can't share the information with a neighbor, or with the contractor's 
competitors. They can still do that. It is important to note the 
distinction.
  Again, this amendment takes a couple of small steps to protect 
farmers against unfair and deceptive conduct in the livestock and 
poultry contracting business.
  It will provide some protection for these growers and bring them more 
in line with the poultry growers since 1935. They have had this 
protection since 1935. It is time now to extend it to our cattle and to 
our swine producers and other livestock producers in America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the pending 
legislation and the responsibility that we have in the Senate to 
carefully craft our Nation's future farm program policy. Note that I 
said ``carefully craft.''
  In doing so, I am being joined by the distinguished Senator from 
Mississippi, my good friend and colleague, the former chairman of the 
subcommittee on appropriations for agriculture on the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, Thad Cochran. I do not know of any Senator in 
the Senate who has been more of a champion for our farmers and ranchers 
throughout our country. We refer to him as ``our banker'' on the 
Appropriations Committee, who has the tremendous responsibility and 
does it so well in making sure we meet our budget guidelines while also 
ensuring the needed investments we must make in agriculture.
  I feel quite honored and privileged to have him as a coauthor of the 
alternative amendment to the bill pending in regard to farm program 
policy.
  I also thank his staff, Mr. Hunter Moorhead, who has worked extremely 
hard many hours; and my two staffers, Mike Seyfert, who is sitting to 
my right, and I would like to let his wife Christy know he is here. He 
has been by my side early morning, day, and night for the past week. I 
want to let her know he is really doing fine. Matt Howe, who is sitting 
in the back, has helped me tremendously. We are only as good as our 
staff.
  We think we have come up with a positive alternative with the current 
legislation which makes a great deal of sense. I thank Thad Cochran for 
his leadership and help and for being a coauthor on this amendment.
  This legislation directly affects the daily life and well-being  of 
every citizen in America and many throughout a very troubled and hungry 
world. You can't read the headlines about Afghanistan and not realize 
there is a humanitarian effort now taking place with many 
organizations. That effort is made possible by the food which is 
produced in this country going to our troubled and hungry world--and 
the modern miracle of productivity of American agriculture.

  But more particularly, this legislation directly affects the 
livelihood of America's farm families, those who persevere and prevail 
despite all sorts of obstacles not of their own making and things 
beyond their control. Yet despite the tough times, they feed us and 
those in need, and their record of productivity is, indeed, a modern 
miracle.
  So here we are, my colleagues, on a Friday morning with several 
Senators present. We have had quite a debate over the last 3 or 4 days 
on yet another farm bill.
  Counting the years I have been here as a staff member, a Member of 
the House, and a Member of the Senate, this is my sixth farm bill. I 
can recall the former esteemed chairman of the House Agriculture 
Committee, the venerable Bob Poage of Texas who used to describe farm 
bills in this way:

       My colleagues, is this the best possible farm bill? He 
     would say:
       No, but it is the best farm bill possible.

  There is a difference.
  That is usually the way legislation works as we try to reach a 
compromise and pass the ``best bill possible.''
  We need to certainly do that this time around. Our Nation's farmers 
and ranchers remain in the midst of very difficult times. We are not in 
very good shape in regard to farm country.
  The challenges that we face today in the domestic and global 
marketplace and the revolutionary times we face today in agriculture 
are certainly unique.
  I had hoped we could carefully craft a bipartisan bill and pass it 
out of the Senate Agriculture Committee.
  As a reminder, we did that in achieving significant crop insurance 
reform just a session ago. It took 18 months. That bill was coauthored 
by myself and Senator Bob Kerrey, the former Senator of Nebraska. In 
fact, we have had more interest in that particular bill than almost any 
bill I have been associated with since I have had the privilege of 
public office.
  In farm country, if you call a meeting of farmers, and if I happen to 
be the speaker, there may be 30, 50, or 100 farmers present, depending 
on where you call a meeting. With crop insurance, you will have 1,000.
  Those of us who are privileged to serve American agriculture are very 
much aware of the fact that we have a very disparate and independent 
bunch of farmers and ranchers. We know they are in much better hands if 
we work together, if the agriculture posse tries to ride in the same 
direction, more or less, despite our differences.
  I regret to report to you, Mr. President, and my colleagues and our 
farmers and ranchers, that I don't think that is the case today. We, 
unfortunately, are at odds both in terms of policy, and some would even 
allege there is just a tad bit of politics being played in this year's 
farm bill deliberations. That is not only too bad, but it is downright 
counterproductive. In fact, in Dodge City we say it is ``a dirty 
shame.''
  For the record, I thank the chairman of the committee. I thank him 
for asking my advice and for meeting with me and my staff to see if we 
could reach an accord on a bipartisan bill.
  We just had a discussion to see if there was some way we could work 
this out. I hope we can. The chairman, his staff and mine met for 
several hours in private discussions. I believe we made some real 
progress toward a bipartisan proposal that could, and I think would, 
have garnered support of the majority of members on both sides of the 
committee.
  Certainly the Harkin-Roberts bill would have caused some double takes 
and some jaw dropping on the part of a few veteran farm bill watchers. 
I am sure of that. I sincerely appreciate the effort by the chairman, 
who is a good colleague and a friend.
  The key was in the mailbox, according to that old Country Western 
song. And he said: Come on in. Let us work something out.

[[Page S13253]]

  We left town Friday before Veteran's Day, and I believe some progress 
was being made. Unfortunately, something happened during the weekend. 
When we returned the following week, both the key and the mailbox were 
missing, and we were told to plan immediately for a very different bill 
and some different marching orders.
  I remember an old television program called ``Name That Tune.'' They 
would listen to the song on the record. Then two people would race down 
the corridor and grab onto something, and say: I can name that tune in 
about 3 seconds. I guess that is sort of dating myself. Unfortunately, 
with regard to the new committee bill, others have named the tune--more 
particularly, leadership--and there was a new game. It was called 
``Name Your Price''--a game that is still in progress, by the way.
  The end result was a bill that is now going back to loan rates and 
target prices as income protection. And the committee bill was passed 
on a party-line vote.
  Now, I do not question the intent of people who truly believe we 
ought to go back to loan rates and higher target prices. I just think 
that is not the way we ought to go. I think we have a better 
alternative. I do not question the intent of my colleagues. But I do 
question the process and the policy, and both, in my view, are 
counterproductive. That is about the nicest way I can put it.
  It is one thing, my colleagues, to decide you are going to do a 
partisan bill, but it is another to deny the minority of the right to 
review the language of the bill and, as a result, the right to debate 
in an effort to, once again, carefully craft policy that will better 
enable the farmer and the rancher and the consumer to survive the fast-
changing and dynamic environment in today's agriculture.
  Just when farmers and ranchers need new tools and new policy, and a 
new reality check, the committee is playing the lead role in ``Back to 
the Future.''
  My colleagues, we did not even receive a final copy of the commodity 
title of this bill until 1 o'clock a.m. on the same morning of the 
markup. Now, that alone is ludicrous and a black mark on the committee. 
For those of us who have no offices to work from--I am one of those who 
is a Member of the ever-increasingly disgusted ``Hart Homeless Bunch'' 
where we do not have an office, no access to files, limited access to 
computers, limited access to telephones, and limited access to e-mail 
due to closure of the Hart Building--the situation was impossible. One 
o'clock in the morning we got the mark.
  Markup on the committee bill started at 8:30. I was still trying to 
write my statement to summarize my concerns at 8:47. I noted it on the 
clock. Staff had not even had time to read the bill, let alone 
carefully craft a substitute with Senator Cochran, which we finally 
did. I mentioned before, I have been through six farm bills and some 
pretty tough debates with strong differences of opinion, but at least I 
knew, or staff knew, what was in the bill.

  Now, there is more than one way to ``skin the minority cat'' than to 
put his head in a bootjack and pull on his tail. That is no way to run 
a committee. Certainly, that was not the way it was done when our 
distinguished ranking member, Senator Lugar, was chairman.
  I understand that maybe I am erring on the side of being too harsh. 
Maybe this effort to lock up $73 billion for agriculture over 10 years, 
in a 5-year farm bill, to meet the requirements of an already outdated 
and unrealistic budget and to accommodate the party leadership and old 
partisan constituencies, and to satisfy the insatiable needs of 
different commodity groups and farm organizations and your same party 
colleagues, was just too overwhelming. I don't know. It is a daunting 
task. It is a tremendously daunting task. I know; I have been there. 
And I sympathize and I empathize.
  This task must be overwhelming, Mr. President, because the show is 
still going on. I would like to say last-minute major policy changes 
stopped when the bill passed the committee, but it did not. This bill 
is probably about 1,000 pages. I meant to have a copy of the bill to 
see if I could lift it, but I am not going to go through that.
  Staff reports just a small $15 billion scoring problem with the dairy 
section of the committee-passed bill, something that may be of interest 
to the Presiding Officer. The answer was a ``technical correction'' 
that solved the problem that completely changed the content of the 
language in the dairy section. Now, that is quite a technical 
correction.
  When we have the final bill language for floor debate and action, and 
wade through it, we not only find dramatic changes to the dairy title, 
but significant changes to the conservation title as well. It is like 
Topsy; it tends to grow with each passing day and each passing vote.
  Mr. President, so much for process. After all, fair and reasonable 
deliberation is in the eyes of the beholder. Process does not mean much 
to the producer down at the feedlot or the country elevator or the 
coffee clatch. But, by golly, policy does. Policy sure counts. It 
counts because it directly affects the farmer's pocketbook and his 
future.
  Today, as I said before, we are not in very good shape. I do not 
criticize this bill because of intent or even the politics of bringing 
back outdated farm program policies simply because it is in the 
calcified bones of its authors and supporters. We all have our 
prejudices. I criticize this bill because I think it will be 
counterproductive, because I do not think it is going to work, that it 
will take us back to policy that does not fit today, and it will 
increase additional farm assistance in the future. At the same time, 
through its use of front loading of spending and budget manipulation, 
the bill mortgages what we call future baseline or our ability to write 
future farm bills.
  Latest figures: $45.2 billion over 5 years in regard to the Daschle-
Harkin bill. That leaves $28.3 billion for the second 5 years. 
Basically, if we do this, we have eliminated much of the baseline in 
the outyears. We need to find $16.9 billion when we write the next bill 
just to get back to this first 5-year level. We are mortgaging our farm 
bill future.

  There are also two other considerations of no small notice. In its 
current and ever-changing form, it will be almost impossible to 
conference with the House. The President opposes it. The administration 
opposes this. They have a statement of administration policy opposing 
this. More about that just a little bit later.
  Let me spell it out. The bill before us takes us back to past farm 
program policies of trying to provide income protection with higher 
loan rates and target prices. Now, there is no question that the farmer 
needs income protection with all the variables that he has to face and 
all that has gone on that is not talked about much in regard to critics 
of agriculture spending: the loss of the Asian market, the value of the 
dollar, different buying patterns, the European Union spending 
incredible amounts of money, and on and on and on, a glut all across 
the world in regard to commodities, which is unprecedented. Not many 
people really take a look at that when they try to criticize the farm 
program policies that are spelled out either by the distinguished 
chairman or by Senator Cochran and myself.
  At the same time, it pays for higher loan rates and target prices by 
phasing out direct payments to the farmer and by cutting some $2 
billion from the bipartisan crop insurance reforms we passed last year. 
Now, I am not happy about that. We spent 18 months putting together 
crop insurance reform as one of the tools that we promised when we 
passed the Freedom to Farm bill. The Freedom to Farm bill was passed on 
one side. And then there were about six other promises that we made to 
try to complement that bill.
  No farm bill by itself can do what we all want to do on behalf of the 
American farmer. It took 3 years to pass the crop insurance reform. 
Here we find that we are virtually phasing out direct payments. In 
order to pay a higher loan rate and target prices, we are cutting $2 
billion from the crop insurance reform we passed last year. That is 
wrong.
  This business is supposed to provide a better safety net again by 
phasing out direct safety net payments and cutting crop insurance, the 
one program we have passed in the last years that prompted an 
overwhelmingly positive response from farmers.

[[Page S13254]]

  I want to restate that. I do not think I can restate it too many 
times. The bill takes money from a bipartisan reform bill passed last 
year to pay for a ``scheme''--that is not a nice word --a plan that is 
shaping up to be a party-line battle. I do not think that is progress.
  Now, my friends, we have been down this road before, and it did not 
work. Some continue to insist that higher loan rates will mean more 
safety net protection for producers and will prop up prices. I know 
that. I have listened to that argument during six farm bills. It is an 
old argument. It is a good argument, but it is a misconception, in my 
view.
  First, our farmers only receive a payment under the marketing loan 
program, the loan program, if the market price is below the loan level 
and if the farmer actually produces a crop. If the producer does not 
have a crop to harvest, if there is a crop failure, of which we have 
many--that is why the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, in his 
role on the Appropriations Committee, steps forward year after year, to 
make ends meet--when farmers suffer from crop failures, all across the 
country, guess what. Then there is no payment. So the loan rate really 
does not provide any income protection for a farmer who does not have a 
crop. When he needs it the most, the assistance is not there.
  Second, under the target price proposal, which, by the way, does not 
take place until 2004--until 2004--farm prices have to be below the 
target price level to receive a payment.
  The problem is, crop failures often result in reduced supplies that 
cause high prices above the target price. That occurred in Kansas in 
1988 and then 1993. In 1995 there was a freeze, a drought. Again, a 
producer may have no crop, and if prices rise because of decreased 
production and supplies because of crop failures, there may well not be 
the so-called target price countercyclical payment.
  Go through the history of past crop failures where they occurred, 
count the bad years. It is possible that a farmer could have no crop to 
harvest, still receive no assistance through the loan deficiency 
program and the so-called countercyclical programs in the committee 
bill. If that happens --and I hope it doesn't--does anybody here 
believe those producers and their farm organizations will not be back 
asking for additional emergency assistance or, for that matter, a 
higher loan rate or target price? It has happened before.
  I remember the late 1970s, the American Agricultural Movement came to 
Washington. Was that an experience. As a result, we simply increased 
the target price from $2.41 to $2.90. I think that was what it was. The 
distinguished chairman of the committee at that particular time was 
Ambassador Tom Foley, Speaker Foley, from the State of Washington.
  What happens is, we simply increase the loan rate or the target 
price. That is not a safety net. Relying on loan rates and target 
prices under those circumstances is not a safety net. It is a hammer. I 
think the farmer prefers the safety net.
  All of the uncertainty and unfair competition and lack of an 
aggressive, consistent trade and export policy is why we moved away 
from the higher loan rates and target prices and provided a guaranteed 
direct payment that the producers and their lenders--don't forget the 
lenders--could count on every year, especially when they suffered a 
crop loss.
  We made a deal. We made a contract. We even had a colloquy on the 
House floor. Is this a contract? Can't take it away? No. And we wrapped 
up what we thought was a reasonable investment in regards to farmers 
and farm programs only to face unbelievable changes about two crop-
years after that, and we had to move to some emergency help. Even that 
was under the rubric or the architecture of the 1996 act.
  Again, I am very concerned that the proposal before the Senate 
basically pays for higher loan rates and target prices through a 
virtual phaseout of these payments by 2006. This is the wrong way to 
go. We do not think we should take away a payment our farmers and 
lenders can bank on--no pun intended--when they are drawing up 
operating plans for each crop-year.
  We also need to remind everyone that the commodity title before us 
today tends to be less environmentally and conservation friendly than 
the proposal Senator Cochran and I will put forward. Ours is the better 
bill in this regard because it is not coupled to production. That is a 
big difference. When you have a payment program that is more dependent 
on actual production, there is a greater incentive to farm fragile land 
and use excessive chemicals and pesticides to improve yields. That is 
why the 1996 act was the most favorable to the environment passed up to 
that date.
  This bill, with some differences in conservation, will have that as a 
hallmark. I do credit the chairman of the committee for focusing on 
conservation. But if you couple production and your payments, that is 
what will happen under the committee-passed proposal. Here again, we go 
back to the future.
  In addition, we made a conscious decision between two basic choices 
when we wrote the last farm bill. We could continue on a course of 
micromanaged planting and marketing restrictions that have often put 
our producers at a competitive disadvantage in the world market, or we 
could pursue a course that would eliminate these restrictions and allow 
farmers to make their own planting decisions based on domestic and 
world market demands, while also receiving guaranteed levels of 
transition payments.

  That, in fact, was the primary purpose, the primary goal of the 1996 
act and the much maligned Freedom to Farm bill. It was not to take the 
Government payments and transition them and march the farmer off the 
cliff when the free market does not exist. It was, in fact, to give 
more decision making power and decisions to the farmer and, with that 
flexibility, as I have indicated, five or six other initiatives: Tax 
policy changes, crop insurance reform, regulatory reform, aggressive 
trade policy, and sanctions reform. We might have been a little naive 
in thinking we could accomplish this, but I would hope we could 
accomplish this prior to consideration of the next farm bill. That was 
the goal.
  Before these changes, farmers used to put the seed in the ground 
according to dictates issued by the Department of Agriculture. It was 
what I called a command-and-control farm program policy. We lined up 
outside the ASCS office, now the FSA office, walked in and talked to 
Aunt Harriet. She made out all the paperwork and forms. And you set 
aside this ground and then you waited on Washington to figure out how 
much you had to set aside and what you could plant, when you could 
plant it. We were paying farmers for not growing anything. We lost 
market share. We used to have 24 percent of the world market share in 
terms of global exports. Now we are down to about 18. Guess who is 17? 
The European Union. Guess who is going to be 18 next year and we will 
be 17, if we pass this bill? The United States. That is not right. That 
was a dead-end street.
  We are pleased that whatever proposal will be before us does at least 
maintain the planting flexibility. At least we did retain that. But we 
are also concerned that because of the increased focus on loan rates 
and target prices, we may end up with budget exposures that will force 
us back to set-asides and supply management--it would be an easy thing 
to do--in order to avoid excessive budget costs. Then we are really 
back to the future. That would be one of the most counterproductive 
things we could do for U.S. agriculture which must compete in a global 
marketplace. We may not like it, but that is the way it is.
  Furthermore, since the committee bill or the substitute's basic tenet 
is raising loan rates, let me reflect for a moment on what the purpose 
of a loan rate is. This seems to be the nexus of the dispute between 
the two bills. Is the loan rate a market clearing device, or is it 
price support? I don't think it can be both. If we set the price at $3 
on wheat and $2.08 on corn--and you could do the corresponding number 
with other crops--it very well may become a ceiling on price.
  We also understand the belief among many Members and some producers 
that a higher loan rate is a greater incentive to put the crop in 
storage and simply wait for a higher price. That is the alleged goal of 
the loan program.
  The question is, Would that result in a greater income for farmers, 
or does it

[[Page S13255]]

mean that they will simply pay higher storage and interests costs that 
would more than offset any increase in the loan rate? We have to ask 
ourselves what raising loan rates does for those producers who again 
suffer no crops and disaster.
  We are well aware of the problems our friends in the northern plains 
have faced in the form of floods and blizzards, crop disease in recent 
years. Time and time and time and time and time again, with chart after 
chart after chart, we have seen our distinguished colleagues and 
friends across the aisle come down to the floor, 4 years, 5 years, 6 
years, 7 years straight, and talk to us about the blizzards and the 
intemperate weather, the infestation, and goodness knows what else. 
These are regional weather problems that would have occurred regardless 
of the farm policy we put in place.
  I grieve for those farmers. I empathize with those farmers. We have 
that in high-risk country in Kansas as well; not to that extent, but at 
least we know what they are talking about. Can we guarantee that higher 
loan rates would have done anything for these producers because they 
had nothing to harvest? The answer is no. They wouldn't have gotten a 
payment without the crop under higher loan rates. So does it make sense 
to spend $73.5 billion on a new policy that won't provide assistance to 
producers when they need it?
  It is because of these concerns that Senator Cochran and I are 
offering our amendment to this legislation. Our bill is the only one of 
these two proposals that is, No. 1, nonmarket or production distorting.
  No. 2, it provides a guaranteed direct payment to producers when they 
suffer a crop loss, when they need it the most.
  No. 3, it provides a new, innovative approach to a countercyclical 
program, which I will describe in a moment.
  No. 4, it creates a stronger footing for our international trade 
negotiators by enhancing the level of green box support we are 
providing to our producers.
  Let me stop for a minute and indicate that on the Daschle-Harkin bill 
we have been warned by the administration that box may not be amber, it 
may be red. We can get to the cutoff very quickly. If we are successful 
in the WTO negotiations--and I don't know if we will be or not--it 
could conceivably result in the WTO really taking us into the 
proceedings where the United States government and the Secretary of 
Agriculture would have to come back to our producers and ask them to 
give money back. Senator Grassley has a bill to address that, and it is 
a very important bill. I can't imagine it would come to that, but why 
go down that road to begin with?
  So certainly, this bill doesn't have that problem because you are in 
the green box, not the amber box. Those are the boxes we define as to 
whether you are WTO legal or whether you are working out an 
international trade agreement with which you can work.
  No. 5, let me say this is supported by the administration, supported 
by the President, and can be conferenced. All these groups and 
commodity organizations that have come in here and written letter after 
letter saying ``move the bill,'' if you want to move the bill, that can 
be conferenced with the House Agriculture Committee, pass Cochran-
Roberts, and it can be signed into law this year.
  I think our approach is clearly the better way to go as it provides a 
direct payment that reflects the unique and very difficult times we 
face in agriculture today. As I have said probably 10 times--and now I 
will say it for the 11th--it ensures that our producers will get 
assistance when they need it the most, when they have no crop to 
harvest.
  While our colleagues across the aisle have looked to the past in 
creating their countercyclical program, we have looked to the future. 
This is a unique program. It would ask the farmers and ranchers to pay 
a little attention. We have proposed the creation of a farm savings 
account, set up by a producer, in conjunction with the Department of 
Agriculture, at the bank of the producer's choosing.
  Under our proposal, a producer can place a portion of their yearly 
earnings into a farm savings account. The Secretary of Agriculture will 
then provide a matching contribution of up to $10,000, which will be 
based on the producer's level of contribution and the total number of 
producers who participate in the program.
  The total level of funding in the account at any one time cannot 
exceed 150 percent of a producer's 5-year average adjusted gross 
revenue. In addition, a producer can only pull funds out of the account 
in two instances: No. 1, when his or her adjusted gross revenue for the 
year falls below 90 percent of their 5-year adjusted gross revenue, or 
when the producer retires.
  By putting in these withdrawal triggers, we are setting up a 
countercyclical program that will only be triggered when an individual 
producer's gross revenues fall below their historical levels. Thus, it 
becomes truly a countercyclical program that guarantees that a small, 
or regional, crop loss will not prohibit producers from obtaining 
assistance when they need it the most. Under the committee proposal, 
and the substitute--a thousand pages or more--producers may not receive 
assistance, again, when they need it the most.

  There are three additional important points we want to make regarding 
this farm savings account. I want to make sure our colleagues 
understand this.
  First, participation is voluntary. A producer only participates if he 
wants to, but the incentive is that they will receive a matching 
payment from the Secretary of Agriculture.
  Second, specialty crop and livestock producers are eligible for this 
proposal. How many times have we heard the livestock producer and those 
who represent specialty crop producers--more especially from the 
Northeast--complain that the farm program left them out? That is not 
the case here. The producers of fruits, vegetables, forestry, and 
livestock are all eligible to receive matching payments from the 
Secretary. Ours is the only proposal that will provide assistance 
directly to specialty crop producers.
  While the proposal across the aisle provides for specialty crop 
commodity purchases, where most of the funding goes to large 
cooperatives or businesses, ours goes directly into the hands of the 
specialty crop producers.
  Finally, we want to clear up some false statements that have been put 
forward regarding our savings accounts. They are not tax provisions. 
These are not tax-deferred accounts as have been proposed in separate 
legislation in this and previous Congresses--I am for those, by the 
way. However, they can earn interest at a rate determined by the bank 
where the account is established.
  Mr. President, the choice between the two proposals could not be 
clearer on the commodity titles, as I have demonstrated. The proposal 
put forward by the committee takes us back to the policies of the past 
while our proposal looks to the future and is more consistent with the 
bipartisan proposal passed in the House that largely maintains current 
loan rates and provides reasonable direct payments to our producers.
  We also have serious concerns with the proposed conservation title. 
It has been changed considerably from what passed the committee, and, 
in an effort to attract votes, it is dangerously mortgaging future farm 
bills by taking funds from the budget baseline in the years beyond the 
5-year length of this proposed farm bill. I already referred to that in 
terms of the one figure, $45.2 billion over 5 years, leaving only $28.3 
billion for the second 5 years. So that is what we are talking about.
  Specifically, they are jeopardizing the future of some of our most 
popular and successful environmental programs, including the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program--EQIP--Wetlands Reserve 
Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, and the Farmland 
Protection Program.
  Their proposal frontloads funding for these programs and then 
provides for draconian reductions in the baseline for 2006 through 
2011. At the same time, it greatly increases funding for something 
called the Conservation Security Act. That is a new, interesting, but 
untested program in 2006 through 2011.
  I don't argue that the Conservation Security Act's goal of providing 
conservation incentives on working lands is not a good one. It is a 
good one. In fact, in our alternative we set aside a portion of our 
EQIP funds for activities

[[Page S13256]]

on working lands. But I don't think it would be right, and I think it 
would be a critical and unfortunate mistake, to eliminate the future of 
many of the successful programs I just mentioned in 2006 and beyond 
and, instead, stake our conservation success on an untested program.
  We also remind colleagues that those programs that would face the 
most severe cuts and restrictions in the outyears are those that most 
directly impact wildlife, livestock, and dairy producers.
  Is this really the way we want to go? Senator Cochran and I don't 
believe so. That is why you see a significant investment in current 
conservation programs and the ramping up of these conservation programs 
in our bill. We gradually increase funding for the popular programs 
that farmers now enjoy and participate in over 5 years for all of the 
specific purposes that certainly are commensurate with the worth of the 
programs.
  Let me say that we are not trying in this effort to point out the 
differences between the bills, to create a partisan fight in response 
to what happened regarding the process of the debate. We are simply 
putting forward what we believe is better policy and a more responsible 
use of the funds available to it.
  The time is short in this session of Congress, and even shorter as we 
speak today on Friday. If we are serious about really finishing the 
farm bill this year, we should pass our proposal, which is very similar 
to the bipartisan bill passed by the House and, again, which could be 
conferenced with that bill in a matter of days.
  Our alternative does not slow the process. Some are trying to say we 
are slowing down the process. We point out that all the other titles of 
the substitute proposal--Senator Cochran and I sat down and looked at 
each and every one of them--we put forth are very similar to those 
titles passed by the Agriculture Committee. We do not have a quarrel 
with those. We do not have any dispute.
  Except for shifting some money from mandatory to discretionary and 
eliminating the partisan use of crop insurance reform funding as an 
offset, we have largely left those titles intact. We agree with many of 
the principles that are contained within these titles. As I said, there 
is no dispute.
  We always try to pass the best possible bill when we are considering 
farm bills. I do not believe the underlying bill is the best we can do. 
It is not time to reinvent the wheel and go back to the policies of the 
past. We are at another one of those historical crossroads in 
agricultural program policy. We can look forward or we can look back. 
We can choose to return to the failed policies of the past and put our 
farmers and ranchers at a competitive disadvantage on the world market 
at the same time our dependence on the world market actually continues 
to increase, or we can take the necessary steps to provide our 
producers and trade negotiators with the tools necessary to open 
foreign markets and meet the demands of the world market.
  The critics of our proposal have in past years stated on the Senate 
floor that one day we will wake up and discover that we are no longer 
the leader in agricultural exports. I just mentioned that we are about 
18 percent in all of the commodity exports globally. The EU is 17, and 
the trend is not good. It is just like we lost the market in regard to 
automobiles. It is interesting to note that many of the pitfalls 
suffered by the U.S. auto industry in the seventies and early eighties 
were based on an unwillingness to change policies and adapt to the 
desires of the consumer market.
  Could there be a similar effect for agriculture if we proceed with 
the proposal that is put forward by the committee and continue down the 
path of programs that will make us uncompetitive in world markets and 
hamper our bargaining power at the WTO negotiating table?
  My colleagues are correct. The choices we make today and in the next 
few months will affect the future of agriculture in the United States. 
My hope is that we will continue to look, with our producers, toward 
the future, as I have indicated, and not in the rear-view mirror and at 
the broken policies of the past.
  I have a letter that was addressed to the Honorable Tom Daschle, 
majority leader of the Senate, and the Honorable Trent Lott, the 
minority leader, from quite a few commodity groups and farm 
organizations urging progress on the farm bill so we can get it done 
this year.
  I emphasize again that I want the best possible bill we can get. Some 
producers in Kansas have been in touch with me and asked: Can we get 
this done?
  I said: I hope so. But would you support a bill that would provide 
you $1.3 billion less over 5 years in Kansas than the bill we have 
proposed? Would you support a bill that robs crop insurance reform to 
pay for higher loan rates which may depress the market? Would you 
support a bill that has a brand new conservation package that out on 
the high plains we really do not know that much about? And all of the 
additions that have actually been proposed? The answer to that is no. 
The answer to that is we want a better bill, and if you have a better 
bill that can be conferenced more quickly and supported by the 
administration, it seems to me that is the way to go.

  Which bill has better results for Kansas farmers? There is an outfit 
called the Agricultural Food Policy Center--the acronym is called 
AFPC--at Texas A and M University. They estimate our proposal will 
provide $1.3 billion more in Government assistance to wheat farmers 
from 2000 to 2006. It also shows sorghum producers will receive more 
funding, and according to analysis by the Food and Agricultural Policy 
Research Institute (FAPRI) Cochran-Roberts/Roberts-Cochran will result 
in higher market prices, i.e, overall returns from the marketplace, 
while the Daschle-Harkin bill will actually drive prices lower than 
what would occur if the current farm bill remains in place with no 
changes.
  It is the same in Montana and in other areas of the country, 
according to the FAPRI study, an independent study.
  Sure, I want a bill. I want to get it done. I want to get it done as 
fast as possible, but I do not want to support the worst possible bill 
of the two.
  I thank my colleagues for allowing me to speak at great length. I 
apologize to my colleagues for taking this much time. I have not had an 
opportunity to talk about this yet. I have amendments to offer, but I 
wanted to take this time to fully explain my personal view and the hard 
work that went into the alternative that I think certainly merits the 
support of the majority in regard to where we go with the next farm 
bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished 
Senator from Kansas in offering a substitute, an alternative, to the 
Daschle proposal for agriculture legislation. It is important we 
recognize we are involved in a process that does naturally and 
routinely, whenever Congress addresses farm legislation, take a 
considerable amount of time.
  At the outset, I am disturbed by hearing news conferences are called 
for the purposes of highlighting how Republicans are obstructing or 
slowing down the consideration of this farm bill and are putting in 
jeopardy the passage of a farm bill before this session of Congress 
adjourns. That is totally unfair and unjustified.
  If we look over the history of farm bill consideration, the 1996 farm 
bill, for example, under which we are now operating, there were over 
300 amendments considered to that farm bill during the consideration by 
the Senate. There have been only a handful of amendments considered so 
far during this farm bill debate. They have all been germane 
amendments, all conscience efforts to improve the bill or change it in 
a way that will help provide more support that is needed by farmers in 
this perilous economic situation we are in, or in other ways changes 
farm policy the Senate has a right to consider.
  There are going to be amendments. I do not know how many amendments 
are now pending. I am told there are over 30, according to our count 
last night. The point is, this is a serious issue. It has huge 
ramifications, not only for those involved in agricultural production 
but also for American consumers and the agricultural economy worldwide. 
So it is not a subject that ought to be flippantly or quickly

[[Page S13257]]

rammed through the Senate under the pressures of the last closing days 
of the session.

  If this was thought to be an appropriate time to bring up a farm bill 
by the Democratic leadership, under the obvious constraints of the time 
we have available, why did they wait so long? Why did they wait until 
the last few weeks of a session of Congress to bring up a bill such as 
this? The House passed a bill much earlier in the year, even though at 
the time many of us thought it was not necessary to pass a bill that 
early. The legislation we are under now does not expire until next 
September. Farmers are worried, and justly so, that because of 
declining balances in the Federal Treasury, more pressure on the budget 
to wage a war against terrorism, to deal with the realities we have to 
confront on that subject, it may be more difficult to get the level of 
financial support for production agriculture than we may be able to get 
if we could act during this year. So that is really one of the reasons.
  Another reason is so there can be a predictable level of support 
committed by the Federal Government to production agriculture, those 
who are involved in planting the crops, those who are involved in 
financing the planting of the crops, a level of certainty and 
predictability so they can make plans for this next crop-year. So that 
is a legitimate concern as well.
  So we are trying to accommodate those concerns and interests, but it 
is very difficult. The pressures are tremendous to get this done and to 
get it done quickly and get it to the President so it can be signed and 
enacted into law.
  That brings into question, which process or which proposal, which 
alternative, will likely serve that goal? I suggest it is the Cochran-
Roberts bill and not the Daschle substitute. The Daschle substitute has 
an enormously high level of loan rates in it. That is one of the big 
problems because that is not going to become law. That is just not 
going to happen. That is pie in the sky. It is not a realistic 
expectation, under the circumstances we have today, for a new farm 
policy to be enacted quickly without people understanding all the 
ramifications. It is such a dramatic departure from current law, past 
policies, and the impact it is going to have on commodity prices, the 
production levels of commodities will distort the world market to such 
an extent it is unacceptable. That is the big problem.
  There are other problems with this bill as well. There are huge 
numbers of new mandatory spending programs contained in this Daschle 
bill. In the rural development section of the bill, which we considered 
in our committee, there are numerous new mandatory spending programs. 
What is that? These are programs where the spending of the money is 
directed by law at prescribed levels for certain activities in rural 
development. Those programs that have been authorized in the past 
authorized funding levels, and the appropriations process then analyzes 
the availability of funds, tries to deal with the allocation of 
resources in a fair and justifiable way, after hearings and 
consideration of what the needs are each year, so annually we make a 
decision as to how much money is to be spent.
  This bill is going to predict and mandate over 5 years how much money 
has to be spent for each of those rural development programs. That is 
new. That is a dramatic change. That is really not good policy. The 
Senate had not heard about that, had not talked about it, but that is 
in this bill. That is in the Daschle substitute.
  I complained about it during the markup. We received the markup 
papers in the middle of the night before we marked up at 9 a.m. This is 
another part of this rush to legislate. The committee did not take time 
to have hearings, to consider carefully the options for a new farm as 
did the House. The House had hundreds of days of consideration prior to 
the beginning of the markup of the House bill. They had hearings all 
over the country, hearings in Washington. Our committee had some 
hearings.

  There was a transition that made some difference. In March, the party 
majority switched in the Senate and the new leadership of our committee 
had the responsibility of taking over abruptly. That made it a little 
more difficult. There was a startup problem. We have had the anthrax 
business in the Senate. Senators have been displaced from their 
offices. Staff members have been displaced from their offices. There 
have been problems. There have been challenges to the ability of the 
Senate to work quickly to respond to the legitimate needs we have for 
appropriations legislation and other legislation. That is the reality 
of the situation.
  There are amendments that I may offer on the rural development side. 
In fact, the Cochran-Roberts bill changes these mandatory spending 
programs into authorized spending programs so we can annually make 
decisions about the level of funding available and justified. Instead 
of being able to project a long period into the future of budget 
surpluses, which was the case, we are confronting a new reality. We are 
not going to have as much money in surplus in the Federal budget as we 
expected. That may affect the funding levels realistically available 
for some of these rural development programs. All of them sound good, 
but we have to view them in the context of budget realities and 
legitimate needs and how effectively these funds will be used to try to 
address the problems they are designed to solve.
  One other aspect of difference between the Cochran and Roberts bill 
and the Daschle substitute is the conservation title. We have a very 
strong conservation title in our bill. The commodity title is 
different, as well, not only in the loan rates I mentioned but also in 
the predicted constant level of Government support made available, 
directed to producers of agricultural commodities.
  Let me point out in some detail the differences in the commodity 
title in Cochran-Roberts compared with the Daschle substitute. Our bill 
maintains planting flexibility with a fixed payment throughout the 5-
year life of the bill. In the last few years, Congress has provided 
producers with supplemental assistance because of the depressed prices 
and because of natural disasters which have struck many States. The 
combination has created disastrous situations. Congress has responded. 
There is no guarantee under the budget realities of today that we are 
going to be able to continue that level of ad hoc special emergency 
funding to provide those levels of support in the future. That is 
another reason the Cochran-Roberts bill determines in advance and sets 
out in clear language and numbers in the bill the amount of payments 
the Federal Government will make to producers of agricultural 
commodities.

  Another aspect of our bill that is different is we maintain the 
successful marketing loan programs with loan rates that do not distort 
market prices. They do not encourage overproduction and therefore have 
a depressing effect on market prices.
  A new farm savings account is authorized in this legislation. This 
will be money available to farmers from the Government to match their 
own savings they invest in order to cushion the effect of years where 
commodity prices are lower. There are naturally going to be ups and 
downs in market prices in agriculture as there are in a lot of other 
economic activities. This account creates a new 401(k) program for 
farmers. The Federal Government will match the money that the farmers 
put into these accounts.
  Another change that farmers will appreciate in this legislation we 
are proposing is a provision allowing them to update their base acres. 
A lot of farmers are convinced the system, the way it works now and the 
way the program is administered, penalizes them because it contains 
out-of-date information and is not an accurate reflection of the number 
of base acres that are farmed and on which the payments can be 
calculated under this program. This process allows farmers to be paid 
on a more recent production list.
  The conservation title I mentioned briefly. Let me point out 
specifics in the conservation title in Cochran-Roberts and why it is a 
very strong commitment to the conservation of soil and water resources 
in our country. There are higher levels of authorization for the 
programs that have proved to be successful in encouraging farmers to 
produce their crops in environmentally friendly ways. The centerpiece 
of the conservation title is the Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program, known as EQIP. Under the current EQIP, there is an 
authorization

[[Page S13258]]

level of $200 million per year, or $1.2 billion over the 6-year life of 
the bill. The Cochran-Roberts substitute raises that authorization by 
$450 million, to a level of $1.65 billion for the life of the bill. The 
Conservation Reserve Program is also increased from 36.4 million acres 
to 40 million acres. The Wetlands Reserve Program is increased to 
250,000 acres annually. The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program 
authorized at $25 million annually is increased to $100 million each 
year. The Cochran-Roberts substitute contains a generous level of 
support for conservation programs.
  In summary, these are the reasons why the Cochran-Roberts bill is a 
preferred alternative to the Daschle substitute. It is trade friendly; 
it is consistent with the WTO rules; loan rate levels are consistent 
with the House bill, which makes the bills more easily conferenced. The 
Daschle-Harkin approach is not going to be easily conferenced with the 
House. In my view, it will be impossible to conference with the House. 
It cannot be reconciled with the House because of that fundamental 
major departure. Cochran-Roberts provides a strong commitment to 
conservation. I mention that again because some are suggesting we are 
not providing enough support for conservation programs in our 
alternative. That is just not true.
  We have a farm savings account which will help counter adverse price 
cycles. The administration supports our bill. The President will sign a 
bill that is based on the principles of the Cochran-Roberts bill. 
Support for Cochran-Roberts will produce a bill and a new farm law, not 
just a campaign issue.
  I urge Senate support.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the last few years have been very hard on 
all of Agriculture because what farmers are getting for crops often 
does not cover the cost of production, let alone make a profit.
  Because of the prolonged slump in commodity prices, earlier this year 
we were on the floor debating additional assistance to farmers. I 
supported the $5.5 billion in emergency farm aid for the last 3 years, 
because I believe if we want our farmers to stay in business and our 
rural communities to survive, we must help them until prices come back. 
However, Congress cannot keep doing these ad hoc disaster bills. We 
must provide more certainly to farmers across the Nation, which is why 
I am pleased Congress is taking up the farm bill. However, I am 
disappointed that such a bipartisan issue has been made partisan. It is 
my hope that we still have time to pass a farm bill with good 
agriculture policy to help our farmers, ranchers, and rural 
communities. That is why I support the Cochran-Roberts alternative. A 
proposal that will provide support for our farmers when they need it 
and not send signals to produce when the market can not bear the 
production. Harkin has high loan rates which cause farmers to produce 
for the loan deficiency payment, the over production cause prices to be 
further depressed.
  I also support the improvements to the sugar program. The authority 
for inventory management will help restore balance to U.S. sugar market 
and prevent more of our farmers from going out of business. The 
elimination of the marketing assessment was long over due, as sugar was 
the only commodity to be taxed for debt reduction. Sugar is an 
important crop to my state and these improvements will help it remain a 
viable part of Idaho agriculture. Harkin does all of this and gets rid 
of the loan forfeiture penalty. This proposal does not contain a so-
called national dairy program that benefits some dairy farmers at the 
expense of farmers in my State. We should work on a national policy 
that is fair to all farmers and that makes us more competitive on the 
world market. I am pleased that dry peas, lentils, and chickpeas were 
included as a farm program. Loan rates and LDP's will help these crops 
remain competitive with wheat and canola in rotations along the 
northern tier states, this is in Harkin. I also support the nonrecourse 
loans for wool and honey. Our wool growers have seen wool become an 
expense rather than additional income from their sheep, this program 
will help to overcome that. Both wool and honey, as other commodities, 
have been adversely impacted imports and it is time these commodities 
have programs as other commodities do. I am pleased with the increases 
in EQIP, Environmental Quality Incentives Program, funding and the 
improvements to this program that is vital to our cattlemen who are 
working to comply with water quality issues.
  The grasslands reserve program is a proposal I introduced earlier 
this year and I am pleased that it was incorporated in this amendment. 
This proposal will help keep working landscapes intact which will 
benefit the ranchers, rural communities and wildlife that are dependent 
upon them. There is much more to this amendment in all of the other 
titles but I will not go into detail, rather I would like to 
congratulate Senators Cochran and Roberts for assembling a well-
balanced piece of legislation that works to address the different needs 
in every region of our country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Cochran-
Roberts approach to this problem. I think it is a middle-of-the-road 
approach to where we are under today's policies, what was proposed and 
what was voted out of the Agriculture Committee.
  Yesterday there were a few of us who believed the cloture vote was 
not a good experience. Most of us who had amendments, and substantive 
amendments, had not been able to talk about those amendments or even 
file them. We believe they are very important. We all have the habit, 
in this debate, of being a little bit provincial. We look at what we 
need in our States. What we have experienced in the State of Montana--
in the last 3 years especially, but basically we are in the middle of a 
5-year drought. That cycle does not appear to be breaking in our State. 
We had a little snow here 3 weeks ago, but since then the temperatures 
have moderated and, again, we are into a very dry fall. It is unusual 
for Montana.
  We have had winters when it has been very good in my State, even 
though we are on the northern tier. Nonetheless, it has been a dry fall 
and of course we live in the part of the country where, if it does not 
winter, it does not summer. We are afraid of that again.
  The present legislation, the Daschle substitute, still offers some 
very troubling proposals. The day before yesterday, an extended debate 
was headed by our good friend from New Mexico, Senator Domenici. In the 
conservation title there is a section title dealing with CRP, to thrust 
the Government into a position where they can buy out, or coerce out, a 
farmer or rancher's water rights. This would involve going around the 
State water adjudication process, going around water trusts that have 
been set up for States such as Oregon and Montana and other Western 
States.
  We are still looking at that section. Even though it was amended to 
allow States to opt into the program, we are still looking at it 
because I think the whole subsection of the conservation title should 
be stricken. We could talk about that and offer another amendment on 
that, but that would not be productive during this debate. But I do 
have a couple of amendments I am going to offer now.
  I ask unanimous consent that other pending amendments be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  In my capacity as a Senator from New Jersey, I object.
  Mr. BURNS. While we are in the process of reviewing that, there are 
other areas of this legislation where we could offer amendments, areas 
which I believe have to be addressed by this body and by this 
Government.
  We have a situation on the northern border with our good friends in 
Canada that is intolerable when it comes to movement of farm chemicals 
back and forth across the border. We have farmers in Montana who farm 
both sides of that international boundary. We would like to normalize 
those labels of like chemicals that are labeled to do the same things. 
So far, we have not been able to do that. I think it would be 
inappropriate, again, to offer an amendment, hard and fast, where we 
could deal with that problem. But I will be submitting some language 
because this does involve the EPA, the Department of Agriculture, and 
it also involves our International Trade Representative. To

[[Page S13259]]

get them involved, report language is going to be needed in order to 
deal with that problem.
  We could also talk about captive shipper in those areas where we only 
have one railroad. There is an old saying in Montana that you farm the 
first year for the Government, the second year is for yourself, and the 
third year is for the railroad, because they take about a third of your 
crop just to move it to the processor or to the export terminals. We 
are in a position where it costs us more than it should. It is funny 
that you can ship grain from Omaha to Minneapolis or Portland cheaper 
than you can ship it from Montana. We have to deal with that, and so 
far we have not been able to come to grips with how to deal with 
monopolies in a State, especially when it impacts the movement from a 
State that produces raw materials.
  Of course, we have that situation in grain. We have the situation in 
coal. It impacts the cost of energy. It also impacts the cost of 
farming. We forget around here that agriculture buys retail and sells 
wholesale, and usually pays the freight both ways.
  We could also get on the old populist line, that what is lacking in 
agriculture today is that for years--and I suggest this to my friend 
from Kansas--for years we lived on the part of the consumer dollar that 
ranges from 15 cents to 20 cents. That is not true today. We are down 
to 9 cents or 10 cents.
  We have no lever in the market. We can't just go to the marketplace 
and say: No, it cost me $4 to produce the grain. I am not going to sell 
it for less than $4; that would be silly. Because that is like going to 
a store or tractor dealer or fertilizer guy, who can say: No, it cost 
us so much for the fertilizer, and this is what it is going to cost 
you. And guess what. We pay them. But a farmer doesn't have that 
leverage in the market that he once had.
  Yesterday we had an amendment dealing with packer concentration, 
basically, saying the packers could not own livestock, or, if they did, 
they could only own it for 14 days prior to the scheduled slaughter. I 
don't know how you get 14 days and I don't know how you define that--
that is yet to be determined.
  There is a reason for this. There is going to be a reason we should 
deal with the Packers and Stockyards Act, because that is a law that 
was written way back in the 1930s and it has never been amended or 
changed in a substantive way. Back in those years when I was a lad, I 
would say 80 percent of the livestock that was marketed went through 
terminal markets. We can remember the great stockyards in Kansas City, 
Omaha, Chicago, Minneapolis, or South St. Paul, Sioux Falls, and Sioux 
City, East St. Louis--all the great terminal markets. Over 80 percent 
were marketed that way. Packers specifically in that law were 
prohibited from owning a commission house or stockyards.
  There was a reason for it. Back then, we had the ``big five.'' There 
was Wilson, Swift, and Cuttahay. I have a fantastic memory, but it is 
short. Back in those days we had the five major ones when we talked 
about livestock marketing and processing. Now the movement of slaughter 
animals to market is reversed. The chicken industry is a horizontal and 
vertical entry. In fact, I would say it is done 75 percent of the time 
in the hog business. They have ``chickenized'' the hog business. But in 
cattle, they have not. If 80 percent of the cattle are going to move to 
the plants without going through a stockyard, or commission house, or 
an auction market, then another firewall has to be built.
  There is a very good reason for that. The intent of the law was good, 
and it worked. It worked to benefit the producer. That is why the 
amendment that was voted on yesterday in the Chamber which came from 
the livestock area was successful.
  I ask the Chair, How are we doing? Can I offer my amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may offer his amendments.
  Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURNS. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
  I offer this amendment, and I will talk more about it later. But it 
is a limitation on the amount of acres that one landowner could put 
into CRP.
  The CRP is a well-intentioned program, but it has been changed. I 
guess it evolved. It has been done mostly through Executive order 
rather than through legislation.
  I think it is about time that we get the Conservation Reserve Program 
back to its original intent. The intent was to set aside those 
undesirable or highly erodible acres, and the Government would 
reimburse the farmer for good conservation practices. It was very 
successful. I don't know of a time in Montana when we have had a better 
habitat for our upland game birds--grouse and pheasant.
  We had the situation where some people under farm programs were 
plowing from fence row to fence row. Lands that should have never ever 
been broken were going into cropland.
  We kind of killed two birds with one stone. We said: OK. Let us set 
some of those lands aside. Maybe that will cut back a little bit on 
production. That will give us a better market. But those highly 
erodible and marginal lands could also be used for a very good use--for 
the environment and the maintenance of our habitat for our wildlife.
  I don't know of a farmer or rancher who doesn't like a little bit of 
wildlife around. I know I do. My father even planted little areas of 
lespedeza, and put four rows of crops around it. It was covered with 
quail in those areas. They are a marvelous bird.
  This amendment deals with the amount of land you can put into CRP.
  There is also another reason for this amendment. We have seen in 
rural areas that our smaller towns have dried up. We have seen very 
good productive land put into the Conservation Reserve Program. Instead 
of the farmer selling the land to a young farmer, they have put it in 
there. And they go where the snow does not fly.
  It is really not a bad deal, when you think about it. But it is 
counterproductive to our communities when the biggest base is 
production agriculture. Those lands should be kept in production. After 
all, the American people have decided they want their insurance policy, 
called ``plentiful food.'' They want the quality and the quantity. They 
also want the grocery store open 24 hours a day. That is the reason for 
this amendment.

  I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2607 To Amendment No. 2471

  Mr. BURNS. I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2607 to amendment No. 2471.

  Mr. BURNS. 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 establish a per-farm limitation on land enrolled in the 
                     conservation reserve program)

       On page 205, strike lines 8 through 11 and insert the 
     following:
       (c) Maximum Enrollment.--Section 1231(d) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary'';
       (2) by striking ``36,400,000'' and inserting 
     ``41,100,000''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Per-farm limitation.--In the case a contract entered 
     into on or after the date of enactment of this paragraph or 
     the expiration of a contract entered into before that date, 
     an owner or operator may enroll not more than 50 percent of 
     the eligible land (as described in subsection (b)) of an 
     agricultural operation of the owner or operator in the 
     program under this subchapter.''.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, that is the amendment on which I just had 
the opportunity to speak.
  I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be laid aside and that I 
be allowed to offer the second amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2608 To Amendment No. 2471

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2608 to amendment No. 2471.


[[Page S13260]]


  Mr. BURNS. 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 direct the Secretary of Agriculture to establish certain 
per-acre values for payments for different categories of land enrolled 
                  in the conservation reserve program)

       On page 212, strike lines 13 through 15 and insert the 
     following:

     reduce the amount of payments made by the Secretary for other 
     practices under the conservation reserve program.
       ``(j) Per-Acre Payment Levels.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall conduct a 
     study to determine, and promulgate regulations that establish 
     in accordance with paragraph (2), per-acre values for 
     payments for different categories of land enrolled in the 
     conservation reserve program.
       ``(2) Values.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     shall ensure that--
       ``(A) the per-acre value for highly erodible land or other 
     sensitive land (as identified by the Secretary) that is not 
     suitable for agricultural production; is greater than
       ``(B) the per-acre value for land that is suitable for 
     agricultural production (as determined by the Secretary).''.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this amendment also deals with conservation 
reserve. The original intent was to take those marginal and erodible 
acres out of production and set them aside.
  This amendment pays the landowner more for the acres that he sets 
aside that are the lower class lands and soils and pays less for the 
productive land.
  This is an incentive for the farmer or rancher to set aside the land 
that we really want to see in the Conservation Reserve Program, and it 
will do everything that we wanted to do that I spoke of on the first 
amendment.
  It is fairly straightforward. If we think this program is important, 
then we must fulfill the intent of the program and give the producer 
the incentive to carry it out. I think that is what this does.
  I will offer amendments as we go along, but those are the two main 
amendments that I wanted to offer to the Daschle substitute of the farm 
bill.
  I hope as we march down this road to try to craft this legislation 
that we can at least take a commonsense look at these amendments.
  It seems in agriculture when you start talking about a farm bill 
everybody becomes a farmer. Sometimes we get led astray when we are not 
living in the real world on what it is like in the country.
  I want to tell you that there is only one problem in the country; 
that is the price. Everything else would go away if we were getting a 
fair price for the product. The price we get now has very little to do 
with the cost of the final product we buy in the grocery store.
  As I said, we were very happy when we used to receive 15 to 20 cents 
of the consumer dollar. Now we are down around 9 or so. That becomes a 
real strain.
  I thank the Chair, and I thank my good friends who are managing this 
bill because it is difficult to do that, at best. But we will start 
talking about two other items and offering some report language that 
deals with those items so that we can start the process to deal with 
that. Those items deserve to be debated. I think everybody in this body 
needs to know the particulars of what is involved with captive shippers 
and the problem we have in the normalization of labels when we talk 
about farm chemicals and fertilizers.
  Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I ask unanimous consent that 
my amendments be set aside and we return to the amendment that was 
considered before I offered my two amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair.
  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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this morning we have had a generous 
discussion of farm policy. Some see me come to the floor of the Senate 
and say: Oh, no, here comes the farm speech again. Probably that is the 
case because family farming is very important to this country, to its 
future, and the passion I have for trying to do something to keep a 
network of food producers in our country represented by families living 
on farms in America is a passion that doesn't dim. And so I will 
respond to some to the discussion to date.
  We have been debating the farm bill all week. Today we are in a town 
largely vacated. We don't have record votes. The Chamber is largely 
empty. We are in a situation where we will now take the farm bill into 
next week because we had a cloture vote to try to cut off a filibuster 
yesterday, and we did not succeed. Fifty-four Members of the Senate 
voted to restrict debate so we could finish the farm bill, and that was 
not enough. It requires 60 votes.
  We have some in this Chamber who have decided to slow-walk this farm 
bill. While that is not unusual--that happens on legislation--no one 
has actually confessed to that strategy. They just have done it. 
Actually, on a good day no one accuses the Senate of speeding. But on 
bad days, this is almost glacial in terms of its movement. That is what 
has happened in recent days with respect to the farm bill.
  I listened carefully to the discussion this morning and to the 
discussion earlier in the week with respect to those who don't like the 
farm bill that came out of the Senate Agriculture Committee. I am 
reminded of the person who knows the cost of everything but the value 
of nothing.
  We have had a lot of discussion with respect to a farm bill, and it 
is about numbers--carryover stocks, loan rates, direct payments, a 
whole range of numbers. No one really talks of values.
  This debate is much more than just a discussion about numbers. It is 
a discussion about values: What kind of a country do we want to be. 
What kind of an economy do we want to have? Who do we want to produce 
America's food? Does it provide security to have a network of family 
producers scattered across this country, producing America's food? Does 
that produce a more secure food supply? Those are the questions we also 
ought to be discussing.
  I have expressed to my colleagues previously my feelings about 
farming and family farmers and ranchers in my State and other States. 
The Presiding Officer today is from the State of New Jersey. It is a 
large State, an urban State. His experience and background would be 
different than mine. I come from a town of 300 people. The Presiding 
Officer likely grew up in a town slightly larger than that.
  It seems to me that all of us coming together in this Chamber 
represent the gridwork of America, bringing different perspectives and 
different values from different parts of the country together in a 
discussion about who it is we are and what we want to be. That is why I 
rise to talk for a moment about family farming in North Dakota and what 
it provides for our rural lifestyle.
  My little town of 300 people just had their last high school prom 
last May. It was the last high school prom because it was the last year 
of their high school. I graduated many years ago from that same school 
in a class of nine. There were seven boys and two girls.
  (Mr. INOUYE assumed the chair.)
  Mr. DORGAN. Well, the years passed and passed, and some more years 
passed, and they came to last May when the high school in Regent, ND, 
was closed. They held their last high school proposal. So the Regent 
Ranger basketball team and that high school are history. That is 
happening across much of the Farm Belt in the small towns that are 
shrinking like a plum to a prune, just shrinking up.
  So the question for many is, Does it matter? Isn't that the 
inevitable march of progress, the drumbeat of moving ahead? Isn't that 
inevitable? Why not just accept it?
  There are things that we lose in this country when we decide that 
that which is rural doesn't matter. I will give you some examples. I 
have mentioned before these examples. Nonetheless, they are important. 
If you are in need of a hotel room and are in Marmarth, ND, this 
evening, there is a hotel in Marmarth, ND. No one works there, however. 
You just go in and you take a bed, and the next morning when you leave, 
there is a cigar box attached to the inside of the door and they would 
like you to put some money in it, if you can. That is how you get a

[[Page S13261]]

hotel room in Marmarth. Admittedly, it is a small town. Marmarth has 70 
or 80 people now. It is an old railroad bunkhouse that they use as a 
hotel. The door is open for you if you need a place to sleep. Just put 
some money in the cigar box.
  That is part of a system of rural values that I think is important to 
understand. Another part of my State, down the road, also in the 
southern part of the State, is Havana, ND. People magazine did a story 
about Havana. They have a cafe in Havana, a little restaurant, but it 
is also a very small community. I believe it is under 100 people--
perhaps just under 200. In any event, in order to keep the restaurant 
open, because they can't afford to keep it open under regular 
circumstances, they asked the townspeople to sign up each week for when 
they can work there for 2 hours--for free, for nothing. That is the way 
the community keeps the small town cafe open.
  In Tuttle, ND, a little town of less than 100 people, they lost their 
grocery store. That wasn't satisfactory to the people in Tuttle, so the 
city council decided they would build their own grocery store. So you 
have a city-owned grocery store there. Some would call that socialism, 
but they simply wanted a grocery store, so the city built it. I was 
there the day they opened the new grocery store. They asked me to come. 
They cut a ribbon on Main Street. They had the high school band out on 
a beautiful day. The sun was shining, the wind was blowing gently, and 
the high school band played on the streets to celebrate the opening of 
the city-owned grocery store. Good for them.
  In my hometown of Regent, they had a robbery. They had not had one 
for an awful long time. The county sheriff from Mott came rushing over 
in his car. He had his lights and siren on because he doesn't get a 
chance to use them that much. He came rushing in and discovered someone 
had stolen some money from a home. He investigated and announced that 
there was no sign of forced entry because these folks had gone on 
vacation for 2 weeks and had not locked their house. They had left some 
cash in their home and someone had stolen some cash. But there was no 
sign of forced entry because, having left for vacation for 2 weeks, 
they didn't lock their home.
  The county sheriff said to the residents: There are two things you 
ought to consider doing. One, if you are going on vacation, consider 
locking your home. Two, if you are going to leave your vehicle on Main 
Street, consider taking your keys. The people in my hometown down at 
the cafe talking about that discovered there was a practical problem 
for the first suggestion. Most people didn't have keys for their homes. 
Regarding the second recommendation, the county newspaper pointed out 
that the county sheriff thought people should remove keys from vehicles 
on Main Street when they parked. They asked a rancher how he felt about 
that. His response was: Well, the question I have about the sheriff's 
suggestion is, what if somebody needs to use my pickup truck?

  So that is where I come from. That is a set of rural values that you 
won't find in some other parts of the country. These are wonderful 
places in which to live and raise children, places with good neighbors. 
So this is more than just about dollars and cents. It is more than just 
about graphs and charts that people show with lines and bars on them. 
It is about values, a value system.
  Let me speak for a minute about what is happening in rural America. 
The discussion we have heard this morning is about our plan versus 
their plan. Well, look, every plan that existed in the last 30 years 
had been a plan during which, when implemented, we have had this 
relentless march away from rural America.
  There is a Lutheran minister in New England, ND, who told me that she 
conducts four funerals for every wedding. She says: For every wedding I 
conduct in my Lutheran Church, I conduct four funerals.
  I thought, that is the opposite of that movie, ``Four Weddings and a 
Funeral.'' In rural America, it is four funerals and a wedding. Why is 
that the case? Because the population is growing older, young people 
are leaving, family farmers are going broke. This rural lifestyle of 
ours is decaying and atrophying. The question is whether the Congress 
cares about it, whether there is a public policy in Congress that 
matches the kind of public policy Europeans have already embraced that 
says: Do you know what we want for our future? We want a network of 
food producers represented by families, producing food on the land 
across Europe. We want that for food security purposes and for economic 
and cultural and social purposes. They have done it. Go to Europe and 
go to a small town and ask yourself whether that town is living or 
dying. It is alive. Do you know why? Because families out there are 
making a living on the land producing crops.
  This country points to Europe and says it provides subsidies to its 
farmers, as if it is an accusation. Yes, it does, because that is the 
kind of economy it wants. When prices for food collapse on the 
international markets, Europe says they want to maintain a network of 
farmers in rural Europe. So, too, should the United States decide that 
family farmers matter. Family farming is much more than just the act of 
planting a seed. Family farming produces communities. It is the blood 
vessel that creates small communities. It is where we raise children 
and educate children, and those family values that start on the farm 
and roll from family farm to small towns to big cities nourish and 
refresh the value system of this country. That is why this issue is 
important to some of us.
  We can ignore this, we can pretend the problem doesn't exist, and we 
can say everything is just fine. But that ignores the truth--the 
fundamental truth that somewhere all across rural America this morning 
families were waking up on farm after farm after farm wondering how 
long it is going to be before they lose their farm. How long before 
they lose their hopes and dreams of trying to make a living by 
scratching the land and planting a seed, how long?

  You can't imagine the letters we receive from people who have lost 
everything. A woman called me a while ago. She and her husband got 
married just out of high school and started a farm. That was about 25 
years ago. It was a dairy operation. If anybody knows anything about 
dairy, you know how hard that is. You milk every day, twice a day, 
early in the morning and at night. She said for 25 years they have 
scrimped on everything; they don't go to town on weekends or at night, 
and they don't spend money foolishly on anything. They wait an extra 
year to buy Levis for their kids for school. They called me and told me 
a story.
  She said: The bank says they are going to foreclose on us because the 
price of milk is too low and we can't make a living milking 80 cows. 
What are we going to do? It is the only thing we know. It is what we 
decided to do after high school. Our dream was to run a family farm. We 
have done it for a quarter century. We are not trained for other 
things. Can you help us?
  That plaintiff cry, ``Can you help us,'' comes from all corners of 
rural America to the U.S. Congress, asking: Do you care whether family 
farms produce America's food? If you do, give them a decent opportunity 
to make a living if they are good managers.
  That brings me to the point of the numbers. When a family farm in 
rural America today raises a bushel of wheat, they are paid a pitiful 
sum for that bushel of wheat by the grain trade because the grain trade 
says that food they produce isn't worth anything.
  It is inexplicable to me that in a hungry world where half a billion 
people go to bed at night with an ache in their belly because it hurts 
to be hungry, our farmers are told their food has no value. It is just 
inexplicable. That is what the grain trade says to the family farmer, 
but that food the grain trade tells the family farmer has no value is 
put on a railroad that in most places charges monopoly rates to a 
farmer to haul that grain to the market.
  From that market, a cereal manufacturer will take from that bushel of 
wheat a kernel and puff it, and by the time they get that puffed kernel 
of wheat and stick it in a cereal box, seal it up, put bright colors on 
the box, send it to the grocery store, and put it on the shelf, they 
will sell that for $4 for a small box. All of a sudden that food does 
have value. It just had no value for the person who bought the tractor 
and planted the seed and took the risk.
  The value is to the company that took the kernel of wheat and puffed 
it, or the rice or the corn and flaked it

[[Page S13262]]

and created the pop and the crackle, and then sold it for $4 or $5 a 
box. That is where the value is, apparently.
  Farmers have increasingly lost their share of the food dollar as they 
are pressed from above and pressed from below by increasing monopolies 
in virtually every direction that a farmer looks--hauling their 
product, selling their product, buying their chemicals, buying their 
seed in virtually every direction. Then when the Federal Government 
gets about the business of dealing with trade, saying to farmers, by 
the way, we will let you sell overseas that grain you raised, we 
discover the trade agreements this country has negotiated with others 
are fundamentally bankrupt in the way they treat family farmers.
  We negotiated one with Canada and sold out American farmers, just 
sold them out. We negotiated one with Mexico and sold out American 
farmers. And the list goes on.
  Farmers need a little help. Farmers are asking Congress to stand on 
their side for a change.
  Let me go to this question of what kind of plan will work. We have a 
plan before the Senate that comes from the Senate Agriculture 
Committee. I know the administration does not like it. I also know some 
of our colleagues who spoke this morning do not like it very much. The 
administration wrote a statement of administration policy; it is called 
SAP. There is an acronym for everything in this town. They said 
supporting prices is self-defeating.
  The point is, we really should not support prices for family farmers. 
And I fundamentally disagree with that. If a big economic interest has 
a headache, this town is ready to give them an aspirin, fluff up their 
pillow, and put them to bed. This town is ready to help them at the 
drop of a hat.
  How about a family farmer who does not have much power? How about a 
family farmer who discovers the grain they sell has no value? 
Colleagues say: Supporting prices is self-defeating. It is not self-
defeating. Supporting prices for family farmers is an effort to help 
this country maintain a network of food production that promotes 
domestic security in this country, promotes a lifestyle and a culture 
in America that is very important. It is not self-defeating at all.
  We have brought this bill out of the Senate Agriculture Committee, 
and Senator Harkin and many others brought it to the floor of the 
Senate. It was reported out unanimously. Every title of the bill but 
one was voted on unanimously, and that was the commodity title. That 
title was voted on and had a Republican vote, so it has a bipartisan 
flavor to it. This bill was virtually unanimous coming out of the 
Senate Agriculture Committee.
  Despite the fact there is an urgency to get this done and get it done 
now--we are trying to get it done by the end of the year--yesterday we 
could not break a filibuster because some do not like the price 
supports in the bill.
  Today we have a discussion by some who say they want to offer an 
amendment. We have been waiting for that amendment for, I believe, 4 
days now; the amendment will reduce price supports for every single 
commodity. It will reduce the price supports for wheat, corn, barley, 
oats, oil seeds, and soybeans.
  It seems to me reducing price supports--and the bill that came out of 
the Senate Agriculture Committee, in my judgment, is not generous 
enough, but at least it gets us at the starting line of what we need to 
do to help family farmers--reducing price supports from that level, in 
my judgment, would make no sense at all.
  The proposition is: Let's have a direct payment to farmers that has 
no relationship to price. That is Freedom to Farm, too. That is the 
current farm law. The current farm law, Freedom to Farm--which title is 
sort of incongruous, in my judgment, but nonetheless that is the title 
to it--has nearly bankrupted rural America.
  Every single year Freedom to Farm has been in force, we have had to 
do an emergency bill at the end of the year to keep people afloat. Why? 
Because the underlying farm legislation is awful. It does not work, and 
everybody in the country knows it does not work.
  The proposal that says what we really need to do now is have a fixed 
payment, notwithstanding what prices are in the marketplace, is saying: 
Let's continue what we have been doing. Freedom to Farm is a proposal 
that says: Let's have 7 years of declining payments. It does not matter 
what the market is.

  If the market is $5.50 a bushel for wheat and you do not need the 
help, you are going to get it anyway. That is what Freedom to Farm is. 
They did not calculate that instead of $5.50 a bushel for wheat, it 
collapsed to $2.50, and Freedom to Farm was a miserable pittance in 
terms of what farmers needed to stay out of bankruptcy.
  The circumstances are that a substitute is going to be offered that 
says: Let's go back to a fixed payment, and if prices improve, we will 
still give payments. That is not my interest. In my judgment, family 
farmers do not want a payment. If they get $5.50 for a bushel of wheat, 
they do not want, they do not need a payment, and they should not get a 
payment. It is just very simple.
  What we ought to be doing for family farmers is something that is a 
countercyclical program that when prices are collapsing and times are 
tough, we help. When times are good, we do not need to help. That is 
common sense, in my judgment.
  The bill that was brought to us by Senator Harkin does exactly that. 
It makes a policy U-turn and says: Let's understand Freedom to Farm did 
not work, and let's put in place something that is truly 
countercyclical. It retains all the things farmers want; that is, 
planting flexibility. They want the flexibility to make their own 
planting decisions, and they should have that. Absolutely. They have it 
under the current law. They will have it under the new law. That makes 
good sense.
  It does not make any sense to begin, even before this bill is passed, 
pulling the rug out from under price supports saying somehow we want to 
provide less to family farmers than they need to survive.
  This is an extraordinarily important time. We are not in session 
today with votes. We are in session but have no votes. We return with 
votes on Tuesday. We will be working Wednesday and through the 
remainder of the week, I expect. We expected and hoped we would get 
this farm bill that came out of the Senate Agriculture Committee passed 
by yesterday or the day before. We were not able to break a filibuster. 
So now we have to, on Tuesday, come back and see if we can--or perhaps 
Monday with no votes but then Tuesday with votes--see if we can provide 
some additional votes on amendments and get to the end stage.
  My hope is those who have been developing this slow-motion strategy 
will understand that it serves no real interest. We are going to finish 
this bill. The only thing that will have been accomplished is we will 
have delayed dramatically the ability to pass a farm bill, and we will 
not have had the opportunity to have a conference with the House of 
Representatives if this goes much longer.
  We have a Republican chairman on the House side who is anxious to get 
to conference. Congressman Combest--good for him--told the White House 
and the administration some months ago when they said, Don't write a 
farm bill this year; we do not want you to write a farm bill, 
Congressman Combest said to his own party: It does not matter what you 
want; we need a new farm bill, and I am going to do it. Good for him. I 
commend him. He is a good, strong guy who pushed ahead and did it. He 
wants to go to conference with us; the sooner the better.
  My colleague, Senator Harkin, has now brought a bill out of the 
Senate Agriculture Committee, and we should be in conference today had 
we not had a filibuster.
  Hopefully we can be in conference next Wednesday. We owe it to the 
family farmers in this country to get this bill done and get it done 
right.
  We will, I suspect, hear from a lot of family farmers in the coming 
days through their farm organizations. Every farm organization in 
America, every one that I am aware of, has asked this Congress to do 
this job now. Farm organizations and commodity groups have said: We 
support this job being done now. It is just inexplicable to me that on 
behalf of family farmers this Congress will not rush to good policy. If 
this were some other economic sector with big companies and lobbyists 
filling the hallways, Congress would be rushing off and saying, When

[[Page S13263]]

can we get this done? But somehow when it comes to the farm bill, we 
have people who do not seem very anxious to complete the work.
  I began by talking about small towns and values, and let me end again 
by saying this is about values. What does this country want for its 
food production in the future? Does it want family producers? If it 
does, then it has to develop public policy that complements those 
desires. I mentioned before that Europe has done it. We have not. Some 
of our friends point to Europe and say they are subsidizing their 
farmers. Yes, they are doing that. Good for them.
  Do you know why they are doing it? Because Europe has been hungry, 
and it has decided it is never going to be hungry again. We have people 
who are just benign about family farmers. We have people who say it 
does not matter who farms America. We have big agrifactories that can 
line up tractors on farms from California to Maine. That would be fine. 
All that has been lost is families. Yard lights are not needed if there 
is nobody living out there. One can fly from Los Angeles to New York 
and see almost no lights then. I do not think that advances America's 
interest. I think that retards it.
  I think there is a difference in terms of this country's future about 
who produces America's food, and if we stand with family farmers and 
believe in a future with family farmers producing America's food and 
believe the values that come from rural America are important to our 
country's future, then it seems to me we have an obligation and an 
opportunity now to do the right thing.
  Doing the right thing is passing the bill that came out of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee, getting it into conference, and joining with 
Congressman Combest and Senator Harkin in getting this bill to the desk 
of the President. I do not know whether the President will sign it. 
That is up to him. It is not our job to anticipate what this President 
might or might not do in agricultural policy. It is our job to write 
the best farm bill possible, and that is what we should be about doing.
  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. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN. Mr. President, I take the remaining few minutes we are in 
session today to respond to earlier statements of my colleagues, 
Senator Roberts and Senator Cochran.
  Before I do that, I will respond to the editorial in the Washington 
Post today at the bottom of the editorial page, entitled ``A Piggy Farm 
Bill.'' I thought in honor of that I would wear my piggy tie today. I 
have a tie with pigs on it, but they are little pigs, not big pigs. 
That is what the farm bill is about--helping the little person, helping 
the family farmer who does not have a lot of economic power like the 
big corporations and the big businesses all over this country.
  The Washington Post has it all wrong. They say the farm bill ``would 
institutionalize the insupportable excesses of the past few years. . . 
.'' Excessive spending in the farm bill is what they are alleging. They 
say we are spending too much money, we should not do this because it is 
too much money going out to our farmers.
  I had my staff do a little research. I thought I would put it in 
light of what we are spending in this country. During the Depression, 
public support to farmers was first established. In 1940, Federal farm 
support accounted for 3.9 percent of the Federal budget and .4 of a 
percent of the U.S. gross domestic product. In 1963, farm support 
accounted for 3.1 percent of the Federal budget and .55 of U.S. GDP. 
Over the last 3 years, Federal farm support has accounted for about 1.1 
percent of the Federal budget and .2 of a percent of U.S. GDP.
  In the farm bill we have before the Senate, S. 1731, for the next 5-
year period, Federal farm support is projected to account for about .65 
percent of the Federal budget, the lowest ever, and .1 percent of U.S. 
GDP, the lowest ever. In 1963 it was .55 percent of U.S. GDP.
  When the Washington Post says we are spending too much of our 
national income on agriculture, I have to wonder, what are they talking 
about? Look at the past. We are spending less and less of our national 
income on agriculture. I will have more to say about that next week.
  Now I will respond to Senator Roberts and Senator Cochran, and 
Senator Grassley, my colleague from Iowa, who spoke this morning about 
the possibility that this bill would violate the WTO. He was greatly 
concerned about making sure we maintain our support to agriculture 
within the WTO limitations. I agree. I believe we should. We helped 
hammer out the WTO; we should remain within it. However, we should not 
be slaves to it to the point of neglecting the interests of U.S. 
farmers just because of WTO limitations.
  Here is the data. This chart is complex, but under the so called 
``amber'' box we are allowed every year $19.1 billion to spend on 
support for agriculture in this category. That is what the concern is 
about. Right now the ceiling is $19.1 billion. That is what we are 
allowed to spend under WTO annually. Right now, the yellow is where we 
are, at a little over $11 billion. Under the projections of S. 1731, 
the bill before the Senate, under the baseline projection, we will go 
up to slightly less than $15 billion over the 5 years, in any given 
year over the 5 years; the maximum would likely be right at $16.6 
billion--a lot less than the $19.1 billion we are allowed.
  To hear some Members talk, one would think our support to U.S. 
farmers ought to be way down here. But as my colleague from North 
Dakota, Senator Conrad, pointed out, time and time again, if we are 
down there, we are unilaterally disarming against the Europeans who are 
way up here. My point is, under the bill in the Senate, we are nowhere 
near coming to the $19.1 billion allowed under the WTO. I hope people 
do not have some kind of scare tactics out there that we cannot do 
anything to have an effective farm program. We cannot have loan rates. 
No, we cannot do that. We cannot have countercyclical payments. No, 
that might disrupt WTO. I will point to this chart next week to show we 
are nowhere near the $19.1 billion.

  My main objective on this farm bill is to have a sound farm bill for 
our farmers. My principal goal is not to satisfy the bureaucrats at the 
World Trade Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. I repeat that: My 
principal goal is to help farmers in America, it is not to satisfy the 
bureaucrats at the World Trade Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. We 
want to stay under the $19.1 billion. And we will. But there is no 
reason we have to be so intimidated that we do not design a program 
that utilizes fully our ability to operate within that $19.1 billion.
  We have a safety valve in our bill. If the Secretary of Agriculture 
at any time estimates we are going to be above the $19.1 billion, she 
can take action ahead of time, in an orderly manner, to limit our 
support to U.S. agriculture.
  Second, in response to trade, we have been diligent in our farm bill 
in responding to the needs of our farmers to sell their products 
abroad. In this bill for five years, we devote $1.1 billion in added 
funding to promote trade overseas, such as through the Market Access 
Program and in the Foreign Market Development Program, Food for 
Progress, and a new biotechnology and trade program. Over 10 years, the 
CBO estimates that our bill would provide a total of $2.1 billion in 
added funding for advancing our trade opportunities overseas.
  Again, the bill we have before the Senate, S. 1731, came out of the 
committee on a voice vote and with a unanimous vote on all titles--you 
cannot get much more bipartisan than that; every single title was 
unanimous, except the commodity title. It was not unanimous, but it was 
bipartisan.
  Senator Roberts earlier this morning said our bill would take us back 
to the failed agricultural policies of the past. I have heard that 
phrase so many times before--I thought we had given up on that phrase. 
Which farm policy is he talking about that failed? Obviously the most 
failed farm income protection policy we have had is the so-called 
Freedom to Farm policy of the last 5 years. Don't take my word for it. 
Ask

[[Page S13264]]

any farmer in America what they think about the Freedom to Farm bill. 
They have suffered through years of depressed incomes and have had to 
rely on the uncertain prospect of emergency farm income assistance year 
after year. You will not find a more failed agricultural policy in this 
country than Freedom to Farm.
  But the Cochran-Roberts bill continues Freedom to Farm. That is all 
it is. It is the son or the daughter of Freedom to Farm. It is Freedom 
to Farm II. I say to all my friends in agriculture, if you like Freedom 
to Farm, you will love Cochran-Roberts because that is exactly what it 
is.
  When my friend from Kansas, Senator Roberts, says the farm bill will 
take us back to the failed policies of the past, he must be talking 
about his own proposal because it is Freedom to Farm that has failed 
us.
  What we do is we build four strong legs for farm income support in 
our bill. Yes, we do keep direct payments, but not as much as what 
Cochran-Roberts does. Then we have modestly higher loan rates to help 
farmers when they need it the most. We have a countercyclical payment 
to farmers when prices are low. And we have conservation payments to 
farmers for being good stewards on their land.
  The Cochran-Roberts bill is really focused on only one thing, direct 
payments, exactly what we have had under the failed Freedom to Farm. 
There is a farm income stabilization account proposal, but it is only 
an add-on to the direct fixed payments. So if you have low prices, you 
get the same payment as you got when you had high prices.
  I will admit that if we have high prices for the next 3 or 4 years, 
the Cochran-Roberts bill will give farmers more money than what they 
would get under S. 1731. That is what they told farmers in 1996. In 
1996 we had high prices for agricultural products. It was a good year 
for farmers. So they said: Oh, what we will do is we will have these 
direct payments out there. No matter what you get, we will have the 
direct payments. It looked good to farmers. Then commodity prices went 
in the toilet, we had very low prices, and every year for the past four 
years Congress has had to come in with an emergency bailout, emergency 
money for farmers. Is that what Cochran-Roberts wants? More of that? 
Where every year we have to come back, again and again, for more 
emergency money for a failed farm program? That is what will happen. 
That is what will happen if Cochran-Roberts is adopted. It will be just 
like we had in the last 5 years.
  At least under our bill we have better loan rates, loan rates that 
will guarantee farmers that they will not get any less than a certain 
amount. Couple that with our countercyclical payments, and farmers will 
know that no matter how low that price goes, they will have income 
protection at a set level. They are going to have that support in our 
legislation.
  My friend from Kansas said the problem with loan rates is you have to 
produce the crop to get the loan rate. If you do not produce it, if you 
do not get a crop, you don't get a loan rate. Every farmer knows that. 
That doesn't come as any big revelation.
  What he is saying is their direct payment is better because they put 
more money into direct payments than into loan rates. So if the 
producer does not have a crop, there is at least the higher direct 
payment. I am surprised to hear my friend from Kansas say that the 
direct fixed payments are needed to cover crop loss. He has been taking 
credit, with former Senator Kerrey from Nebraska, for being the author 
of the crop insurance reform bill that we passed last year. That bill 
beefed up the crop insurance program, both in terms of loss of crops 
and in revenue protection. So not only do you have crop insurance but 
you have revenue loss insurance. That is what crop insurance is there 
for. That is why we put money into it.
  The Senator from Kansas with good reason touted his crop insurance 
bill last year. Now he must be saying that crop insurance is not enough 
after all to protect against crop losses. I don't know for certain if 
that is what he is saying. I look forward to hearing from him on that 
question next week.
  So that is what crop insurance is for. If you have a lost crop, that 
is why we have a very sound, good, crop insurance program. The reason 
we have a loan rate is so at harvest time, when prices are the lowest, 
that is when farmers need the money and that is when they can get that 
loan rate. And it goes to the farmer. It doesn't go to the landlord in 
the way direct payments do. It goes to the farmer. That is where the 
loan rate goes.
  The Senator from Kansas said farmers and lenders can bank on direct 
payments. He forgot one thing: And landlords can bank on it, too. There 
is probably nothing that has driven up land prices more and created 
more of a land price bubble in the last few years than Freedom to Farm 
payments. AMTA payments are creating a land price bubble out there that 
has created real uncertainty and risk.
  So what our bill does is provide direct payments that phase down but 
continue. We also have modestly higher loan rates. We keep those loan 
rates at the set level. We don't allow the Secretary to reduce them.
  Under the current farm bill, the Secretary may reduce loan rates. We 
say she cannot any longer. We also establish a good countercyclical 
payment in case of low prices. And of course we have our direct 
payments under the conservation program.
  So, again, that is why I believe S. 1731 is a more balanced bill. It 
is one that has a safety net for farmers. Yes, I will be the first to 
admit that if prices are high--they aren't now--but if prices are high, 
farmers will receive more payments under Cochran-Roberts. If you 
believe the prices will be high, as they were in 1996, you may want to 
vote for Cochran-Roberts. But if you think we will have some years 
where prices are low, as they are now our bill is the better bill. And 
look at the projections. We are not having projected huge increases in 
prices in our commodities in the next few years. S. 1731, the bill that 
is before us, the committee-passed bill, is the one that provides that 
safety net to farmers.
  Last, I want to thank so much our majority leader, a valuable member 
of our committee. He is someone who knows agriculture intimately, who 
has spent his entire adult life, in both the House and the Senate, 
working on behalf of farmers. Senator Daschle has provided the 
leadership that we need to get this farm bill through committee and 
here on the floor. He has taken that leadership position to make sure 
that our farmers have that safety net, that we have good conservation 
programs, and other programs in this bill, including especially the new 
energy title in this farm bill.
  I pay my respects to Senator Daschle for his great leadership on 
this. He has provided that leadership because he knows what the 
farmers, not only of South Dakota, need, but he knows what farmers all 
across this country need. They need the bill we passed out of 
committee. And we need to get it done.
  We are here on Friday. We will be back again the first of the week. 
We will have another cloture vote on Tuesday, and we will see if our 
Republican colleagues are willing to let us come to closure on this 
bill.
  I say to my good friend from Indiana--and he is my friend; I know we 
have a little disagreement here on some aspects of this bill, but this 
is the crucible of democracy, to work these things out. Senator Lugar 
knows I respect him highly and have great admiration for him.
  I hope we can obtain a finite list of amendments; I hope we can list 
those amendment and bring this bill to closure early next week. The 
farmers and rural communities of America are demanding this. They need 
it. They need it before the new year comes. I am hopeful next week we 
can bring this to a close and we can give the farmers the Christmas 
present they need and they deserve, and that is a farm bill that they 
can count on, one that will shore up farm income, one that will keep us 
within the WTO limits, but also one that will make sure that if there 
are low prices, we are going to be there for our farmers and we are 
going to have a countercyclical payment and we will have that safety 
net there for farmers which we have not had in the present farm bill.
  Again, I hope we can bring this matter to a close early next week.


                    Amendment No. 2604, As Modified

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send to the desk a technical 
modification of my amendment No. 2604.

[[Page S13265]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). Without objection, the amendment 
is modified.
  The amendment (No. 2604), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 941, after line 5 insert the following:

     SEC.  . PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 2(a) of the Packers and 
     Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 182(a)), is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(12) Livestock contractor.--The term `livestock 
     contractor' means any person engaged in the business of 
     obtaining livestock under a livestock production contract for 
     the purpose of slaughtering the livestock or selling the 
     livestock for slaughter, if--
       ``(A) the livestock is obtained by the person in commerce; 
     or
       ``(B) the livestock (including livestock products from the 
     livestock) obtained by the person is sold or shipped in 
     commerce.
       ``(13) Livestock production contract.--The term `livestock 
     production contract' means any growout contract or other 
     arrangement under which a livestock production contract 
     grower raises and cares for the livestock in accordance with 
     the instructions of another person.
       ``(14) Livestock production contract grower.--The term 
     `livestock production contract grower' means any person 
     engaged in the business of raising and caring for livestock 
     in accordance with the instructions of another person.''.
       (b) Contractors.--
       (1) In general.--The Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, is 
     amended by striking ``packer'' each place it appears in 
     sections 202, 203, 204, and 205 (7 U.S.C. 192, 193, 194, 195) 
     (other than section 202(c)) and inserting ``packer or 
     livestock contractor''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 202(c) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 
     (7 U.S.C. 192(c)), is amended by inserting ``, livestock 
     contractor,'' after ``other packer'' each place it appears.
       (B) Section 308(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 
     (7 U.S.C. 209(a)), is amended by inserting ``or livestock 
     production contract'' after ``poultry growing arrangement''.
       (C) Sections 401 and 403 of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 
     1921 (7 U.S.C. 221, 223), are amended by inserting ``any 
     livestock contractor, and'' after ``packer,'' each place it 
     appears.
       (c) Right to Discuss Terms of Contract.--The Packers and 
     Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 417. RIGHT TO DISCUSS TERMS OF CONTRACT.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding a provision in any 
     contract for the sale or production of livestock or poultry 
     that provides that information contained in the contract is 
     confidential, a party to the contract shall not be prohibited 
     from discussing any terms or details of any contract with--
       ``(1) a legal adviser;
       ``(2) a lender;
       ``(3) an accountant;
       ``(4) an executive or manager;
       ``(5) a landlord;
       ``(6) a family member; or
       ``(7) a Federal or State agency with responsibility for--
       ``(A) enforcing a statute designed to protect a party to 
     the contract; or
       ``(B) administering this Act.
       ``(b) Effect on State Laws.--Subsection (a) does not affect 
     State laws that address confidentiality provisions in 
     contracts for the sale or production of livestock or 
     poultry.''.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I appreciate the comprehensive statement 
the chairman has just concluded. Likewise, I have appreciated the 
statements of Senator Roberts and Senator Cochran because they have 
also given a comprehensive view of their thinking regarding their 
substitute amendments. Senator Burns of Montana offered constructive 
amendments this morning, as did Senator Wellstone, to initiate our 
process earlier in the morning.
  I believe it has been a good day, a constructive debate. Senators who 
are following the farm bill debate have a pretty good idea of the 
parameters of the present discussion and likewise the choices that are 
going to be before us on Tuesday when amendments come up for further 
debate and votes.
  Let me interject into the debate today what I thought was a timely 
editorial which appeared in the editorial page of the Washington Post 
this morning. I was startled by the headline of the editorial, which 
is: ``A Piggy Farm Bill''.
  It says:

       The Farm bill that Democratic leaders--Majority Leader Tom 
     Daschle, Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin--are 
     trying to push through the Senate before Congress adjourns 
     for the holidays is obscene.

  Those are very strong words to describe legislation we are now 
discussing.

       It would institutionalize the insupportable excesses of the 
     past few years, in which billions of dollars in supposedly 
     emergency payments have regularly been made to some of the 
     nation's largest and least-needy producers.
       In the House, the Republican leadership won approval of a 
     similar bill over mild administration objections in October. 
     Senate passage would make the indulgent policy hard to alter 
     when Congress reconvenes and the bills are put before a 
     House-Senate conference committee next year. Farm lobbyists 
     and their congressional supporters would far rather the 
     Senate vote now than then, when the excessive supports in the 
     bill are likely to look less affordable. But that's all the 
     more reason why the Senate should delay.

  I am not in agreement that the Senate should delay, but I do take at 
least some cognizance of the Washington Post's evaluation of where 
things stand to date.

       Congressional Republicans passed a farm bill in 1996 that 
     was supposed to reduce producers' reliance on government 
     payments; they would provide for the market instead. Still in 
     effect, that act provides basic payments mainly to grain and 
     cotton producers of roughly $10 billion a year. In each of 
     the past few years, however, Congress has also provided 
     billions of additional ``emergency'' payments. The effect of 
     the new bill would be to regularize those, thereby abandoning 
     the five-year experiment in supposed market reform.

  That is a severe indictment that this farm bill abandons the 
philosophy of Freedom to Farm in 1996.
  I continue with the editorial:

       Some of the extra money in the Harkin bill--a couple of 
     billion a year--would be directed to conservation programs. 
     The policy is good, and the political effect has been to buy 
     off environmental groups that might otherwise have opposed 
     the broader pig-out in which they now share. A little of the 
     extra would also be used to shore up the food stamp and 
     lesser feeding programs for the poor. But these are 
     relatively small amounts and a sop to conscience.
       Sen. Richard Lugar tried the other day to change the 
     priorities in the bill--limit the farm supports, spread them 
     across more producers and use the bulk of the savings to 
     strengthen the feeding programs, especially food stamps, 
     which have been allowed to wither a bit. He lost 70 to 30; 
     only three Democrats supported him. It's possible there will 
     be other such efforts before the bill is passed. This bill is 
     not redeemable, but it is improvable. At the very least, a 
     larger share of the enormous sum could be spent on people in 
     need instead of on large producers who love to preach free 
     enterprise but not to practice it. Is that not something 
     Democrats support?

  We still have an opportunity to make substantial improvements on the 
priorities as well as the aspects of programs in which moneys provide a 
safety net, provide proper incentives to produce for the market, and 
provide support for our trade negotiators.
  Each one of us at one time or another has given many speeches about 
the salvation of American agriculture coming from the great productive 
mechanism of our farm situation and exports and feeding people around 
the world--the humanitarian aspects as well as the commercial ones. 
That has been elusive for a great number of reasons--some beyond our 
control as the European Community and others have stymied these 
efforts. Nevertheless, our farm bill should not do so.
  I appreciate the chairman's careful attention to the green and amber 
payment situation of the WTO. I have no doubt this is going to come 
into play in the event we pass a farm bill coincident with that which 
now lies before us without taking more precautionary measures. That 
concerns me and a good number of others who are simply interested in 
the prosperity of this country generally. Movement of goods and 
services in foreign trade I believe will enhance all of our wealth, 
especially that of agricultural America.
  I think we have to take a look at priorities. I thought the initial 
amendment offered this morning by Senator Wellstone of Minnesota was 
very interesting. It clearly has the effect of limiting payments to 
large feeding operations. The whole intent of it was to suggest that 
the import of the current bill that lies before us might stimulate 
overproduction of livestock and further subsidize the overproduction. I 
think he is probably right.
  What we are doing with regard to the row crops--the so-called program 
crops--in a very big way stimulates overproduction, and has for the 
past 5 years, and is bound to do more of this. That is what I find to 
be very difficult as I look at the future and see a farm bill 
deliberately creating overproduction and low prices.
  The cycle of this, Mr. President, as you well know, is that prices go 
lower,

[[Page S13266]]

and people give speeches that they can't ever think of a time when they 
were lower and, therefore, an emergency payment is needed. And it is 
debated first in June, July, and August with regularity, fully 
predictable. It is fully predictable now in the event we pass this 
bill.
  Despite all the protestations to the contrary, we will be back. The 
distinguished chairman will hear the drumbeat of persons who want him 
to bring another farm bill out 6 months after he passes this one to 
remedy the deficiency. There will be low prices created by 
overproduction and stagnation in world trade, which exacerbates the 
problem.
  There could be a year in which the weather situation is truly 
disastrous. I remember such a year in 1988 in which as many as 20 
States, as I recall, had such severe weather problems, and a delegation 
of Senators talked to President Reagan in the White House and advised 
him that literally half the country and most of the agricultural 
country had been devastated by drought in particular. And the President 
supported a fairly large emergency proposition at that time.

  Usually, as the distinguished chairman has pointed out, the weather 
devastation situations are less than 20 States, and therefore Senators 
come a crop at a time, or whatever happens to have been in harm's way.
  As Senator Harkin complimented Senator Cochran earlier on, Senator 
Cochran, at least in recent years, often had been there to add money to 
the Agriculture appropriations bill to help those folks out. But that 
really has not been enough.
  The general proposition is that prices are low and, therefore, a 
double AMTA payment has been sent out. The chairman has pointed out 
correctly, the AMTA payments may not be the proper vehicle for total 
equity. They may include people who no longer are in farming but had a 
history, as in the 1996 bill. But for purposes of efficiency, so money 
would get to farmers, the rolls are there at USDA. They have been 
utilized. The money was gone as of the end of August of this year. It 
was received, to the applause of country bankers who were assured of 
getting repaid and farmers who were thinking about getting back in the 
field again. I understand that, as does the distinguished Presiding 
Officer.
  All I am pointing out is that I had hoped, in this farm bill, we 
would not repeat this cycle of predictable results. It does not do 
justice to farmers in the United States who, at some point, do want to 
produce for the markets and do want to have a safety net that is not 
unpredictable. And any safety net based upon loan rates is certainly 
unpredictable. It may, in fact, be a cap on prices as opposed to a 
support.
  I hope that some version, at least, of the concept I presented--
namely, that farmers have assurance of some percentage of income every 
year, some money with which to purchase that assurance--I think, in 
fact, mechanisms, through bipartisan wisdom, have been set up in the 
crop insurance program that provide the mechanics for that kind of 
safety net.
  I had attempted to propose a formula in which--using whole farm 
income applicable to all 50 of our States equally and to all crops and 
all livestock operations--money would be provided through a voucher, 
but money, indeed, from the Federal Government, a transfer payment from 
taxpayers to assure a safety net for farmers, but with assurance, year 
in and year out, of a certain stream of revenue.
  If Senators were to suggest that perhaps 80 percent, as a 
proposition, is too low a net, I would certainly be prepared to take 
pencil and paper in hand with any Senator and try out 85 percent. That 
is the level of crop insurance that I purchased for my own farm 
operation this year under the policies we have adopted. I think that is 
a sound thing to do, and to have a marketing strategy based upon the 
certainty you have 85 percent of your crop before you even plant it. 
That is possible under current legislation and, in fact, I think to be 
encouraged with producers all over the country who are always at risk.
  But I hope we will move toward more of a basis as I have suggested as 
we proceed through the debate. I certainly will encourage that as I 
listen to alternatives that are presented.
  Mr. President, this concludes at least my thoughts for the day on the 
agriculture bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will just take a couple of minutes, not 
so much in response to the Senator. But as I listened to my friend from 
Indiana--the very thought-provoking speech he made--I had some further 
thoughts.
  My friend, the Senator from Indiana, said that under the bill we 
have, we could expect more emergency farm assistance bills. I know he 
said farmers will be coming to the chairman saying: We have to have an 
emergency bill.
  If we continue on the present course, that will be true. But we have 
built into S. 1731 a countercyclical payment program that has an income 
support wherein we should not have to come back.
  I will say this: The reason we had--I believe for each of the last 4 
years--to come in and provide for emergency funding for agriculture for 
farmers was because there was no effective safety net under Freedom to 
Farm.
  I would ask my friend from Indiana to go back before Freedom to Farm, 
to go back before that was enacted--and I could be wrong; I have not 
researched this thoroughly--but I cannot remember in all the years I 
have been here that we came in with that kind of annual emergency 
funding because of low prices for farmers. We came in, sometimes, with 
disaster payments for a drought, flood or a hurricane, or something 
like that, but we did not as far as I can remember--and I can be proven 
wrong--but I cannot remember coming in with legislation because prices 
and income were so low we had to pass emergency legislation to get 
money out to farmers broadly based all over America. That started with 
Freedom to Farm, when we took away that safety net.
  If we continue on with the Freedom-to-Farm type program, I dare say, 
yes, you are right, they are going to be coming to me and saying: We 
need emergency funding.
  That is why I feel so strongly about the safety net provisions we 
enacted in S. 1731 with the countercyclical type of payments. If prices 
are low--and the lower they go, the larger the payment. On the other 
hand, if prices are good, then there is not the need for payments that 
magnitude.
  So under that scenario, I really do not see why we would have to come 
in with emergency legislation other than some naturally occurring 
disaster or something like that, I say to my friend.
  Mr. LUGAR. If the Senator will yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. I am delighted to yield.
  Mr. LUGAR. The Senator, I think, is historically correct. Within my 
memory, we had the 1988 crisis with the 20 States. As I recall, we 
passed some legislation to alleviate that during the appropriations 
process. That is, at least, my recollection.
  Mr. HARKIN. Wasn't that the credit bill we did then?
  Mr. LUGAR. No. It was this huge emergency created by the drought. And 
many of us were involved, in a bipartisan way.
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. LUGAR. Probably the Senator himself. The memory grows dim as you 
go 13 years back in the farm business.
  Mr. HARKIN. That is true.
  Mr. LUGAR. I suppose my query is just this: You are correct, we have 
had all these annual situations since the 1996 legislation. But in this 
particular year, the Secretary of Agriculture, at the time we were 
debating the emergency in August, pointed out the net farm cash income 
was $61 billion. And this is historically an all-time high in terms of 
income in the country. It was higher than last year, but the last year 
was more than the year before that. In essence, even in the face of 
much higher net farm cash income, we have been reappearing.
  The safety net under the bill we now have, of course, was these AMTA 
payments. These were the fixed payments that went to farmers regardless 
of what else happened. They were to diminish after 7 years, and have 
been heading down from, say, $5 billion of Federal expenditures into 
the $4 billion range, and so forth, each year, and then the loan 
deficiency payments, at least for certain of our rural crops.

[[Page S13267]]

  For example, in my State $1.89 for corn is the loan deficiency 
payment level, which means you have $1.89 regardless of what the market 
price is, however low it may be recorded. At the time, admittedly, 
$1.89 seemed like a price that would not be approached as frequently as 
it now is.
  During harvest time, we are regularly below $1.89 in terms of people 
coming into the elevator at that point. So this has led to much greater 
Federal Government expenditures; $6 billion, I think, last year to loan 
deficiency, and not just for corn but for other crops. But that was 
meant to be the safety net. And it is arguable as to whether it should 
go higher or lower. It depends upon the Federal outlays, I suspect, 
quite apart from the fact that more production occurs.
  I saw yesterday, as perhaps the chairman did, on the cover of USA 
Today, their first page, a chart on soybean production in the country. 
Soybean production, right through the Freedom to Farm experience, had 
been going up every year. This year's crop is prophesied to be a 
whopper and, clearly, an all-time high. Given planting intentions, it 
might appear that next year's would follow.

  I mention this because I hope the chairman is right. Let us say, for 
example, his bill and the Daschle substitute are adopted, but as it 
turns out farmers think their incomes are not adequate. My point, I 
suppose, has been that a part of the reason, even in the face of what I 
think have been fairly record incomes in the aggregate, although not 
for all States and not for all crops, and a fairly good safety net, is 
that both of the political parties represented in this body have been 
competitive for the allegiance of farm voters and people who were 
sympathetic to farmers.
  I admit, throughout these emergency bills, it has been my privilege 
to serve as chairman. I have stood with you or with Senator Leahy 
managing these bills. I was perfectly aware on our side of the aisle 
that a large majority of our Members wanted more money for farmers. It 
appeared that was true on your side of the aisle. Whoever was managing 
this legislation was left with at least the thought of trying to get it 
right technically so the farmers got the money in as soon a time as 
possible so, if there were emergencies, these were met, right now as 
opposed to the hereafter.
  So we strove to expedite a process that clearly our membership 
wanted. That seemed to be true on the other side of the Capitol as 
well.
  None of these bills were vetoed by whoever was President during this 
period of time. If the White House had a budget objection to these, it 
was pretty mild or nonexistent.
  I mention all this because I think that helps explain a part of the 
impetus for this bill. In other words, there is almost an annual 
expectation of correction or of enhancement of whatever may have 
occurred. Most of us have voted for that. The two of us may even have 
helped manage it in one form or another, to try to bring it into clear 
channels, to have the proper hearings and committee meetings. It may 
very well be--you are not discovering this but sort of enduring the 
process--that the expectations of Members on both sides of the aisle 
are very large when it comes to their States and their constituents. As 
you strive to find a majority to vote for a farm bill, for a final 
product, to get the bill out and on to conference, you are forced daily 
to take into consideration the needs of various Members, some of them 
very legitimate and poignant. In the same way on our side of the aisle, 
we attempt to do likewise.
  I say this not in sympathy because the chairman is a strong person 
and fully able to take care of himself and the situation. But I had 
hoped perhaps to try to guide the process in a different direction.
  I would admit, having heard the debate and having seen the votes as 
recorded dutifully by the Washington Post and others, 70 to 30 is not 
close. I understand that. On the other hand, we were trying to find 
something that, as the chairman has pointed out, may have been too much 
of a change all at one time, may not have been completely understood in 
terms of the arithmetic, how people come out. So I accept that fact. 
But nevertheless, I thought it was important to try to make some 
arguments for maybe a new day somewhere over the horizon.
  In the meanwhile, I will continue to work with the chairman with the 
product we have at hand.
  One reason why it has not moved expeditiously is that I suspect there 
are still some lingering thoughts on both sides of the aisle about 
limiting payments, for example. We heard a little bit of that from 
Senator Wellstone this morning with regard to the EQIP program and 
specific extensions of livestock. I think we will hear more from the 
distinguished occupant of the chair and maybe others who have been 
concerned about the equities here involved. Therefore, in part, 
perhaps, the land bubble situation created not only, as the chairman 
says, by the AMTA payments but by overextension, as people plant for 
the program, fully supported by this, but sometimes at the expense of 
their smaller competitors who do not have the research background, the 
capitalization, even the managerial skills, but for whom our farm bills 
have been dedicated, the saving of the small family farm or even the 
medium-size farm in a situation that appears to be more consolidated as 
time goes on.

  Each of these amendments that deal with limits will get into this 
philosophically, and they are important to hear.
  Senator Grassley's comments today about trade--and the chairman has 
responded to that very ably--this is still a troubling area in which 
all the ramifications are not clear, and they do bump dangerously into 
the 19.1 or the area of the charts that the chairman had which were 
helpful in giving some idea as to where all of these different lights 
appear. We will have to be careful there because clearly we need to 
export. We need if not an overall WTO breakthrough, at least a good 
number of bilaterals that will be helpful to us.
  These are issues that are not easily resolved, but I think they will 
be as we have debates commencing again on Tuesday, as these issues come 
up again.
  I look forward to working with the chairman in a vigorous attempt as 
we proceed on Tuesday.
  Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate my friend's comments. Quite frankly, I find 
little with which I can disagree. Everything you have said is basically 
correct in terms of the historical analysis, where we are, and the 
various pressures that go on in the Chamber. We all understand that. I 
will take a little bit of sympathy anyway. I don't mind. But we all 
have these different demands and expectations, as the Senator full well 
knows from his stewardship of this committee in the past.
  The only further thing I might point out again is the old numbers 
game. Last year was the highest net cash income, things like that. We 
have heard that before. I think I mentioned this to the Secretary one 
time. I said: If your income last year was $1 million and mine was 
zero, our average is $500,000, so why should I have any help? So last 
year the livestock sector in America did pretty darn well. The crop 
sector was low, but if you averaged it all out, it looked pretty good. 
If you just look at the crops, we weren't in very good shape. That is 
basically what this bill is about, the crops.
  The last thing I will say again to my friend, I am not so upset about 
the amount of money we spend on agriculture. The Washington Post 
editorial this morning, I know, called it a piggy bill. I said earlier, 
in honor of that I wore my piggy tie today. It has little pigs on it. 
We are in favor of the little pigs.
  I pointed out earlier--I don't know if my friend from Indiana caught 
this--that I looked at historically how much of our GDP we spent on 
agriculture: In 1940, about four-tenths of a percent of U.S. GDP on 
agriculture; in 1963, .55 percent of U.S. GDP on agriculture; over the 
last 3 years, two-tenths of a percent of U.S. GDP; under our bill, S. 
1731, projected about .13 percent of GDP. I don't think that is a lot 
of our gross domestic product, .13 percent to spend on agriculture. I 
don't think that is a lot.
  Again, we can debate on how the funds are spent. I do not agree on 
how it all has gone out. The bigger you are, the more you get. Almost 
every day we have had a hearing in the committee, I always ask the same 
question: Should we support every bushel, bale, and pound that is 
produced in this country?

[[Page S13268]]

  That is what I think the debate ought to be--how we fashion those 
programs to help shore up a safety net, but not to encourage people to 
get bigger and actually use the Government largess to help people get 
bigger and to artificially boost up land prices. Certainly, that is a 
principle motivation for my focus on greater support for conservation 
and on a new program of income assistance tied to conservation.
  I have said enough on this matter today. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 
importance of the Food Stamp Program addressed in the farm bill. I was 
recently surprised and dismayed to discover that a recent USDA study 
found Oregon to have the highest rate of hunger in the nation. I think 
my colleagues would also be surprised to discover how many people in 
their own home States go to bed hungry.
  I have long been concerned that in many cases, children across the 
country are going to bed hungry simply because America's families do 
not know about the resources available to them through the Food Stamp 
Program. It is astounding to note that among persons eligible for this 
important program, participation rates dropped from 74 percent in 1994 
to 57 percent in 1999. More worrying is the fact that participation 
rates are also low among working poor families with children and the 
elderly. With additional outreach and targeting, the Food Stamp Program 
can make it easier for families to access the food support they need 
with dignity. I am pleased that improvements to this vital program are 
currently being addressed on the Senate floor as part of the 
reauthorization of the farm bill.
  I would also like to take this opportunity today to recognize the 
other side of nutrition support: our Nation's network of food banks. 
Places like the Oregon Food Bank in my home State are filling the 
plates of America. The Oregon Food Bank and its coalition partners have 
been working overtime to identify and address the root causes of 
hunger. Today, I would like to salute them for their hard work and 
dedication, which has come to fruition in the recent opening of a 
statewide food recovery and distribution center, all under one roof. 
Food banks are a vital component of the safety net for America's 
families, but they alone cannot meet every need. They are straining 
under the growing demand for emergency food, but we can help them by 
maintaining a strong Food Stamp Program.
  In a country as blessed with abundance as ours, no family should go 
hungry, and I encourage my colleagues to support improvements to the 
Food Bank Program in the farm bill.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for years I have worked to decrease our 
reliance on foreign sources of energy to accelerate and diversify 
domestic energy production. I believe public policy ought to promote 
renewable domestic production that burns clean energy. That's why, 
earlier this year, I introduced the Providing Opportunities With 
Effluent Renewable, or POWER Act, which seeks to cultivate another 
homegrown resource: swine and bovine waste nutrients.
  The benefits of swine and bovine waste nutrient as a renewable 
resource are enormous. Currently there are at least 20 dairy and hog 
farms in the United States that use an anaerobic digester or similar 
system to convert manure into electricity. These facilities include 
swine or dairy operations in California, Wisconsin, New York, 
Connecticut, Vermont, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado, 
Minnesota, and my home State of Iowa.
  By using animal waste as an energy source, a livestock producer can 
reduce or eliminate monthly energy purchases from electric and gas 
suppliers. In fact, a dairy operation in Minnesota that uses this 
technology generates enough electricity to run the entire dairy 
operation, saving close to $700 a week in electricity costs. This dairy 
farm also sells the excess power to their electrical provider, 
furnishing enough electricity to power 78 homes each month, year round.
  The benefits of using an anaerobic digester do not end at electricity 
production. Using this technology can reduce and sometimes nearly 
eliminate offensive odors from the animal waste. In addition, the 
process of anaerobic digestion results in a higher quality fertilizer. 
The dairy farm I referenced earlier estimates that the fertilizing 
value of the animal waste is increased by 50 percent. Additional 
environmental benefits include mitigating animal waste's contribution 
to air, surface, and groundwater pollution.
  The amendment I am offering will allow livestock producers the option 
of developing methane recovery systems as a structural practice under 
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. This option will provide 
livestock producers another opportunity when determining what is best 
for the future of their family farms. Livestock producers will have the 
ability to meet their own individual energy needs and possibly supply 
green, renewable energy to other consumers.
  Using swine and bovine waste nutrient as an energy source can 
cultivate profitability while improving environmental quality. 
Maximizing farm resources in such a manner may prove essential to 
remain competitive and environmentally sustainable in today's livestock 
market.
  In addition, more widespread use of this technology will create jobs 
related to the design, operation, and manufacture of energy recovery 
systems. The development of renewable energy opportunities will help us 
diminish our foreign energy dependence while promoting ``green energy'' 
production.
  Using swine and bovine waste nutrient is a perfect example of how the 
agriculture and energy industries can come together to develop an 
environmentally friendly renewable resource. My legislation will foster 
increased investment and development in waste to energy technology 
thereby improving farmer profitability, environmental quality, and 
energy productivity and reliability.
  This amendment is good for agriculture, good for the environment, 
good for energy consumers, and promotes a good, make that great, 
renewable resource that will reduce our energy dependence on foreign 
fuels. It is my hope that all of my colleagues join with me to advance 
this important piece of legislation
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to praise the consensus that 
has been reached on dairy programs within the farm bill we are 
considering today. The farm bill, which needs authorization every 5 
years, not only addresses farm income and commodity price support 
programs, but also includes titles on agricultural trade and foreign 
food aid, conservation and environment, nutrition and domestic food 
assistance, agricultural credit, rural development, and agricultural 
research and education.
  I am particularly pleased that the Harkin bill before us restores the 
safety net for diary farmers in Maine and in 11 other States in the 
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic with a provision that will again give 
monthly payments to small dairy producers only when fluid milk prices 
fall below the Boston price of $16.94 per hundredweight.
  As my colleagues are aware, the successful Northeast Interstate Dairy 
Compact was allowed to expire on September 30. Throughout New England, 
this compact literally kept small dairy farms in production. When it 
was in effect, this compact paid for the program by adding a small 
incremental cost to the price of milk already set by the current 
Federal milk marketing order system, which determines the floor price 
for fluid milk in New England.
  Along with 38 of my Senate colleagues and the legislatures and 
Governors of 25 States, I have made numerous attempts throughout this 
past year to have the compact reauthorized and a new Southern Compact 
authorized. Dairy compacting is really a States rights issue more than 
anything else, as the only action the Senate needed to take was to give 
its congressional consent under the Compact Clause of the United States 
Constitution, Article I, section 10, clause 3, to allow the 25 States 
who requested to compact to proceed with these two independent 
compacts.
  Unfortunately, we could not get a majority of votes for the Senate's 
permission to allow dairy compacting to go forward even though half of 
the States in the country had requested this approval. So, since my 
number one agricultural priority has been to assure that Maine dairy 
farmers have a safety net when prices are low that would

[[Page S13269]]

allow them to stay on their small family farms, I have attempted to 
bridge the gap with opponents of compacts.
  I am very pleased that we were able to forge a compromise that is 
included in the Harkin amendment in the nature of a substitute to the 
Agriculture Committee-passed farm bill that pledges $2 billion to help 
dairy farmers throughout the Nation. Most important to me, the 
provision provides $500 million to establish the very safety net for 
New England dairy farmers, and also for farmers in the States of New 
York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and West Virginia, 
that was provided by the Northeast Dairy Compact, that of monthly 
payments to producers when the price of Class I, or fluid, milk drops 
below the Boston, MA price of $16.94. These States 
produce approximately 20 percent of the Nation's milk and under this 
provision will receive about 20 percent of the funding, so this is a 
very fair balance of payments.

  Dairy farmers from other States will also benefit through a $1.5 
billion provision that will extend the current national dairy price 
support system for farmers in the other 36 contiguous States, requiring 
the Commodity Credit Corporation, CCC, to purchase surplus nonfat dry 
milk, cheese, and butter from dairy processors, thus protecting the 
industry from seasonal imbalances of supply and demand.
  The authority for this price support system that pays $9.90 per 
hundredweight was due to expire this December, but was extended for 5 
months, or until May 2002, in the fiscal year 2002 Agriculture 
appropriations bill. The farm bill before us extends both of these 
dairy programs for 5 years.
  Do I believe this is the best way to fund dairy programs? In my 
estimation, the Northeast Dairy Compact was preferable because not one 
cent came out of Federal funds and it also had no appreciable effect on 
consumer prices.
  So, the provisions in the farm bill we are considering, 
unfortunately, will cost the Government $2 billion. This is not much 
considering the billions of dollars that go to for price supports for 
other farm commodities, but it is Federal money nonetheless. But, the 
reality is that compromises must be made to ensure that the majority of 
Senators feel that a consensus has been reached that they can live 
with, and I thank the Senators from the upper Midwest, who did not want 
a compact-like dairy program for their region but preferred direct 
yearly Federal payments, for working together with us on the dairy 
provisions.
  My motive throughout this year has been a simple one: I do not want 
to see one more small family dairy farmer in Maine, or in any other 
rural area of the country, go out of business. And I do not want to see 
any more acreage of pastoral farmland in New England, most of which has 
been in families for three generations, turned over to suburban sprawl. 
So I am pleased with the compromise and feel that my goal has been 
reached, not for myself, but for the dairy farmers to whom I have 
pledged not to give up the fight.
  The farm bill before us also recognizes the diversity and regional 
differences in agriculture, and shifts $1 billion to voluntary 
agriculture programs, especially in regions that have been 
traditionally underserved by past farm bills, such as my State of 
Maine, I want to thank the bipartisan group that worked with me through 
the ``Eggplant Caucus'', an ad hoc group of bipartisan Northeast 
Senators, to make these funds a reality and for bringing regional 
equity through an increase in Federal funding to our States.
  This conservation funding, for which Maine stands to receive a 
minimum of $12 million a year for the next 5 years, will help our 
farmers improve water quality, restore wildlife habitat and stave off 
suburban sprawl. In the past, more than half of our farmers have been 
turned away from conservation assistance because these popular programs 
have not had the funding to meet the applcations.
  More funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or 
EQIP, for instance, will allow many more farmers to enroll in contracts 
to manage natural resource concerns. The voluntary program offers cost 
share and incentive payments and technical assistance to design and 
install practices for locally-designated natural resource priorities.
  Another aspect of regional equity in the bill are provisions that 
improve assistance to our Nation's fruit and vegetable growers, the 
specialty crop sector. This growing sector of the U.S. farm economy 
represents almost one-fifth of all farm cash receipts and a growing 
portion of our Nation's agriculture exports. I am very pleased to note 
provisions for a fruit and vegetable pilot promotion program and a USDA 
purchase program for specialty crops, providing funds so that the USDA 
can purchase those fruits and vegetables that are the most prevalent 
crops grown in the Northeast to be used in the Federal nutrition 
programs, such as potatoes, blueberries and cranberries from my State 
of Maine.
  I would like to add that I have heard from farmers in my State of 
their support for the creation of tax-sheltered savings accounts, or 
`'rainy day accounts'', to which farmers could contribute during 
prosperous years, and from which they could draw during lean years. 
While not contained in the Harkin bill, I believe this idea should be 
further explored on its merits, and would hope that the Senate would 
consider hearings on this in the near future.
  Taken in its totality, the Harkin bill gives our dairy producers a 
safety net through a mutually agreeable dairy program, regional equity 
in the disbursement of federal funding for voluntary conservation 
programs, funding for a variety of forestry programs important to our 
private landowners, and promotion for specialty crops grown in Maine. 
Additionally, if Maine participated in all the options for the Food 
Stamp Program, the State would realize approximately as much as $32 
million over the next 10 years.
  I believe the Harkin bill before us gives needed assistance to the 
agricultural community throughout the Nation. We should never forget 
that these hard working men and women are responsible for providing our 
Nation with the highest quality of a tremendous variety of quality food 
products easily accessible at our local markets and at the lowest cost 
of any nation in the world.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the farm 
bill before us.
  While we have heard about many components of the bill today, I would 
like to focus my remarks on the title that is of particular importance 
to me, the nutrition title. it is easy to forget how many people go 
hungry in the United States. The Department of Agriculture classifies 
31 million Americans as ``food insecure,'' meaning that they do not 
know from month to month whether they will be able to get enough food 
for themselves and their families.
  Families with children are disproportionately more likely to 
experience hunger. Last year, over 3 million children and 6 million 
adults in the United States were hungry to malnourished. Without the 
Federal Food Stamp Program, which provided nutrition assistance to over 
17 million people, the majority of them children, elderly people and 
the disable, the number would have been far higher.
  I am also acutely aware of the role the Food Stamp Program plays in 
helping families leave welfare for work. The typical mother leaving 
welfare is earning about $7 an hour and may not be able to get 40 hours 
of work a week. For a parent like that, food stamps can make a 
difference between being able to feed the family and having to return 
to public assistance. A single mother with two children and a typical 
postwelfare income can double her income if she gets food stamps and 
the EITC. If she gets both, she can almost reach the Federal poverty 
line. Without them, she often cannot make ends meet.
  I supported the 1996 welfare reform law. Some of my original interest 
in the Food Stamp Program grew out of my desire to see welfare reform 
succeed.
  Knowing how important it was for people leaving welfare to stay 
connected to programs like Food Stamps and Medicaid, I was disturbed to 
find out that food stamp participation had dropped by more than a third 
since we passed welfare reform, and the improved economy accounted for 
only about half of the drop.

[[Page S13270]]

  Among single-parent families with earnings, the most common 
demographic of people leaving welfare, food stamp participation dropped 
12 percentage points between 1995 to 1998. A recent study the General 
Accounting Office conducted identified a ``growing gap'' between the 
number of children in poverty and the number of children receiving food 
assistance. At the same time, emergency food providers reported that 
their clientele had changed since 1996.
  On November 14, America's Second Harvest, the organization 
representing our Nation's food banks, released it's annual ``Hunger in 
America'' report, its results were chilling. The study found that in 
2001, 23.3 million Americans nationwide sought and received emergency 
hunger relief from our Nation's food bank network. This is nearly 2 
million more people than sought similar services in 1997. And this, on 
the heels of one of the longest periods of economic growth in recent 
history.
  In addition to showing increased requests for aid, ``Hunger in 
America'' report punctures the myth that hunger is only a problem of 
the inner cities, homeless, or the chronically unemployed. The study 
found that nearly 40 percent of the households that received assistance 
from us in 2001 included an adult who was working. Fully 19.7 percent 
of all the clients served by our network are seniors. This is up from 
16 percent in 1997.
  The facts about children are even more disturbing. More than nine 
million children received emergency food assistance this year, which is 
roughly 2 million more people than the total population of New York 
City.

  The bill before us today takes steps toward recognizing that 
America's food banks, churches, synagogues and mosques can play a part 
in feeding America, they cannot bear the burden alone, the Federal 
Government must play its part.
  The nutrition title in the Harkin farm bill allows the Senate to step 
up to the plate so that we can play a real role on the team fighting 
hunger in our Nation.
  Last year, working with many of you, the Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee, and the former administration we were able to designate 
$5.5 million to be used for food stamp outreach and education, to get 
some of these eligible families and children back on the program, $3.5 
million has already been awarded to community organizations and 
emergency food providers across the country. These groups are taking 
imaginative steps to reach out to families in need, I encourage all of 
you to find out more about the grantees in your area.
  Last month, USDA announced that it would award an additional $2 
million to State-community partnerships that wanted to test strategies 
for enrolling more senior citizens in the food stamp program. 
Currently, only 30 percent of eligible seniors participate. I am here 
today because outreach, while critical, is only the first step. We need 
to restore some of the cuts to food stamps made in 1996, and we need to 
improve the program to make it work better for working families. The 
Harkin bill provides new funds to do just that.
  Cuts in food stamp benefits were not part of achieving our basic 
welfare reform goal of moving people from welfare to work. In fact, 
many Republican and Democratic Members agree that one of the most 
disturbing outcomes of the 1996 law is the one-third drop in food stamp 
participation and what GAO described as the ``growing gap'' between the 
number of children in need and the number of children getting food 
assistance.
  A provision of the 1996 law also cut off food stamps to legal 
immigrants. This was unnecessary to achieve the goals of the law, since 
over 90 percent of legal immigrants are working. We have succeeded in 
restoring eligibility for children and elderly people who were here 
before 1996, but much more needs to be done. One of the results of the 
cutoff of adult legal immigrants has been a 74 percent drop in the 
number of citizen children of immigrants who get food stamps.
  As we debate this bill, I would urge my colleagues to remember the 
millions of children and families who depend on the Food Stamp Program 
to help them purchase the food our farmers grow. Without the Food Stamp 
Program, it seems likely that the 17 million people currently getting 
benefits would join the 9 million Americans who are hungry or 
malnourished.
  I would also urge my distinguished colleagues to consider the many 
provisions in this bill that will improve the Food Stamp Program to 
better assist working families and finish the work of welfare reform by 
getting families out of poverty.
  I would call particular attention to would accomplish the following: 
restoration benefits to legal immigrant children--most of whom are 
members of working families; making outreach and education a permanent 
part of the program; reforming the quality control system, making the 
program simpler and more accessible to working families; and providing 
3 more months of transitional food stamps for families moving off 
welfare for work.
  This important legislation would improve basic benefits for senior 
citizens, people with disabilities, and working citizen and legal 
immigrant families with children.
  We have an obligation to our Nation to pass this title as it is, in 
tact. It is the least that we can do to do our part to accomplish our 
collective goal of abolishing hunger in America once and for all.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the very real 
importance of completing action on the farm bill, the Agriculture, 
Conservation, and Rural Enhancement Act of 2001, which is now before 
the Senate. It is my desire that we pass a comprehensive farm bill 
within the next few days to ensure that America's family farmers, 
ranchers, consumers, and rural citizens have greater economic security. 
I wish to applaud my good friend and South Dakota colleague, Senator 
Daschle, for his superb and steady leadership on this issue, and for 
making certain this important farm bill legislation made it to the 
floor for consideration before we adjourn. It is critical for us to act 
promptly, to conference with our House colleagues in an expeditious 
manner, and for the President to sign a bill into law, as soon as 
possible. Much of the credit for our being able to discuss this bill on 
the floor today has to do with our chairman, Senator Harkin, for his 
ability to craft what is perhaps the most complex piece of legislation 
one can imagine, and for his work to ensure the committee completed its 
job on the farm bill. Chairman Harkin included a number of items in 
this farm bill that will serve to benefit South Dakota's family 
farmers, ranchers, and rural communities, and I thank him for a job 
well done.
  Unfortunately, stall tactics are being employed by some in the U.S. 
Senate to prevent us from passing this comprehensive farm bill. While 
family farmers and ranchers are working hard to keep their operations 
competitive and running smoothly, some Senators are stalling, delaying, 
and placing road blocks in front of the ultimate passage of this bill. 
Just yesterday, on a vote to end excessive debate and delay on the farm 
bill, we did not garner the 60 votes necessary to remove the procedural 
slow-down hurdle known as a filibuster. This needless delay must stop 
and Congress must take action to pass a farm bill now.
  I have repeatedly said it is crucial for Congress to complete action 
on the farm bill, conference with the House, and send a bill to the 
President for his signature this year, if not very early next year, in 
order to ensure two very important things.
  First, that we capitalize upon the $73.5 billion in additional 
spending authority provided by this year's budget resolution, because 
given the shrinking budget surplus and unprecedented demands on the 
federal budget now, there are no assurances this money will be 
available in 2002, when a new budget resolution will be carved out of a 
very limited amount of resources. Second, that we mend the farm income 
safety net now because the experience of the 1996 farm bill has 
painfully taught us that it does not provide family farmers and 
ranchers a meaningful income safety net when crop prices collapse. 
Thus, the need for a new farm bill is clear.
  In the course of the last 4 years, the economic setting for family 
farmers and ranchers in South Dakota and across the nation has reached 
a serious and depressed level. Most farmers I talk to in South Dakota 
believe the combination of poor returns for crops

[[Page S13271]]

and livestock combined with an inadequate safety net in the current 
farm bill may have inflicted irrevocable results, a loss of family 
farmers, an economic recession in small, rural communities, and growing 
market power by a few, mega-operators and agribusinesses. While the 
farm bill probably isn't intended to correct all of the problems in our 
rural economy, it should better sustain the lives of family producers 
and rural communities. Additionally, it should provide a more 
predictable safety net than the current farm bill.

  The outlook for positive indicators in farming and ranching has been 
dimmed by a number of factors. For several years now, commodity prices 
have collapsed, production costs have skyrocketed, and harsh weather 
has destroyed agricultural production. Furthermore, meatpacker 
concentration and unfair trade agreements have crippled the ability for 
independent farmers and livestock producers to prosper. While some of 
us wanted to change the underlying farm bill in a way to alleviate 
these tough conditions, we were told the 1996 farm bill was a sacred 
cow that could not be touched, and efforts to amend it or to provide a 
better economic safety net were defeated. I am not suggesting the 1996 
act was the source of all the problems farmers faced these last few 
years, but the lack of a real safety net and low loan rates in the bill 
did not provide fair support for America's agricultural producers.
  Four years of ad hoc emergency assistance for farmers and ranchers 
totaling approximately $23 billion, over and above farm program 
payments contained in the 1996 farm bill, has painfully taught us that 
depressed conditions in rural America matched with an inadequate safety 
net resulted in a very expensive price tag for U.S. taxpayers as well. 
Fortunately, today we have a chance to improve farm policy, providing 
family farmers and ranchers with a better farm bill containing a more 
meaningful safety net. Moreover, it is my hope this bill provides 
taxpayers with some assurance that the need for multi-billion dollar ad 
hoc emergency programs will be forestalled.
  While it is not perfect, I am pleased that a number of my farm bill 
priorities, and the priorities of South Dakota farmers and ranchers, 
are included in S. 1731, the Senate farm bill. First, the bill passed 
out of the Senate Agriculture Committee includes my legislation, S. 
280, the Consumer Right to Know Act of 2001, requiring country of 
origin labeling. It requires country of origin labeling for beef, pork, 
lamb, and ground meat, fruits, vegetables, peanuts, and farm-raised 
fish. The House farm bill only includes country of origin labeling for 
fruits and vegetables. Also, my carcass grade stamp legislation was 
added to the Senate farm bill. It prohibits the use of USDA quality 
grades, such as USDA Prime or USDA Choice, on imported meat. This 
provision is not in the House farm bill. The country of origin labeling 
language in the bill is supported by a clear majority of American 
producers and consumers, as is demonstrated by the fact the largest 
consumer and farm groups in the country have written me in support of 
this bill.
  I would like to insert in the Record a series of four letters 
expressing strong support for my country of origin labeling language in 
the Senate farm bill. The letters are as follows: first, a letter 
signed by the overwhelming majority of cattle producing groups in the 
United States, signed by 55 cattle organizations, from Alabama to 
Idaho, from California to New Jersey, and everywhere in between. These 
55 cattle groups say, ``The U.S. cattle industry has invested 
considerable time, effort, and money to improve, promote, and advertise 
its finished product U.S. beef. The cattle industry now needs the 
ability to identify its beef from among the growing volume of beef 
supplied by foreign competitors. The ability to differentiate domestic 
beef from foreign beef is necessary to ensure that U.S. cattle ranchers 
have a competitive, open market that allows consumer demand signals to 
reach domestic cattle producers. It is now time to take the next 
logical step and require country-of-origin labeling so consumers can 
identify the beef U.S. cattlemen have worked so hard to promote.''
  Second, a letter from the two largest farm organizations in the 
United States, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National 
Farmers Union. It is comforting to know we have the full support of 
these two groups. Third, I also received a letter signed by 87 farm, 
ranch, and consumer organizations, in support of my country of origin 
labeling legislation which was added to the farm bill in the 
Agriculture Committee. Some of the 87 groups signing this letter 
include most of the Florida and California fruit and vegetable 
associations, the major consumer groups in the United States, and 
national farm and ranch groups. Moreover, approximately half of all the 
Farmers Union and Farm Bureau state organizations signed this letter. 
These 87 groups say, ``We seek your support for inclusion of a measure 
to provide mandatory country of origin labeling for fresh produce and 
meat products in the Senate farm bill. American consumers prefer to 
know where their food is grown.''

  Finally, I have a letter from three of the largest consumer groups in 
the United States, the Consumer Federation of America, the National 
Consumers League, and Public Citizen, expressing their strong support 
for country of origin in the farm bill. These groups say, ``When the 
Senate takes up the farm bill, please support legislation to require 
country of origin labeling at retail for meat and fresh fruits and 
vegetables. We thank Senator Johnson for introducing this legislation, 
the Consumer Right to Know Act of 2001, S. 280. Please oppose efforts 
to water down country of origin labeling legislation by allowing 
domestic origin labels on beef that has been slaughtered and 
processed--but not born--in this country.''
  Some of the other groups supporting my country of origin labeling 
language include; all of the SD farm, ranch, and livestock groups, the 
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the National 
Association of Counties, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the 
National Farmers Union, Ranchers Cattlemen Legal Action Fund of the 
United States, RCALF-USA, the American Sheep Industry Institute, the 
Consumer Federation of America, the National Consumers League, the 
Western Organization of Resource Councils, the Organization for 
Competitive Markets, the American Corn Growers Association, and 55 of 
the State cattlemen and stock grower organizations. The National 
Cattlemens Beef Association supports the carcass grading provision in 
the Senate farm bill, which ensures that imported meat carcasses do not 
display USDA quality grades at the retail level.
  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.
  Finally, I have learned that identical language for country of origin 
labeling has been included in the proposed alternative amendment to be 
offered by Senator's Cochran and Roberts. After

[[Page S13272]]

reviewing that proposal and confirming that my provision is included 
word-for-word, I am driven further to see the farm bill conference 
report finalized with the same country-of-origin labeling language. I 
feel confident that the final version between my colleagues in the 
Senate and House will include the exact language for country-of-origin 
labeling that is included in both S. 1731 and the Cochran-Roberts 
proposal. I believe that my colleagues will recognize the importance of 
not only keeping the provision in the final farm bill, but to ensuring 
that the language is not watered down by outside interests. Anything 
less is unacceptable to America's consumers and livestock producers.
  Country of origin labeling and quality grade certification were 
integral components in the proposed ``Competition Title'' which 
Chairman Harkin included in his farm bill proposal. I led a bipartisan 
effort to include the Competition Title in the farm bill when one-fifth 
of the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats, signed a letter I 
authored to Chairman Harkin seeking this new Competition Title. 
Regrettably, the Competition Title was defeated, resulting in a win for 
large agribusinesses to continue to muscle their way into the 
marketplace, only to hurt family farmers and ranchers. This is very 
frustrating, considering the record profits made by agribusiness 
recently; Cargill increased profits by 67 percent in the last quarter, 
Hormel increased profits by 57 percent, and Smithfield increased 
profits nearly 30 percent. Finally, Tyson, now the single largest meat 
processor in the world with its purchase of IBP, tripled profits in its 
most recent quarter.
  Conversely, crop prices took a nose dive so severe in September that 
it marked the worst 1-month drop in crop prices since USDA has been 
keeping records, some 90 years now. We must inject some real 
competition, access, transparency, and fairness into the marketplace if 
we are to see these tragic circumstances change.
  That is why I authored an amendment which was accepted by a 51-46 
vote in the Senate yesterday to prohibit meatpackers from owning 
livestock prior to slaughter. This amendment was modeled after 
legislation I crafted last year, S. 142, the Rancher Act. I thank 
Senators Grassley, Wellstone, Harkin, Thomas, Dorgan, and Daschle for 
cosponsoring this amendment. It prohibits meat packers from owning 
cattle, swine or sheep more than 14 days before slaughter. However, it 
exempts cooperatives as well as all producer owned plants with less 
than 2 percent of the national slaughter. Packer ownership and control 
of livestock has been disrupting markets and hampering competition at 
the farm gate level for a long time. This amendment is a major first 
step towards correcting the problem. If this passes, packers will now 
have less opportunity for self dealing and giving preference to their 
own supplies. Rather, they will have to go out on the market and 
compete for livestock.
  In addition to competition, another new farm bill strategy I promoted 
was to increase the capacity of renewable energy produced on American 
soils. Agricultural producers in South Dakota are poised to 
dramatically increase the production of ethanol and biodiesel for our 
Nation, and the farm bill's energy title will provide incentives to 
move those value-added opportunities along. Everyone should recognize 
that home-grown, renewable fuels need to become an integral part of our 
national security strategy, which is why I asked Chairman Harkin to 
include a new ``energy title'' in the farm bill. The energy title in 
the Senate bill includes loan and grant programs to promote the 
increased production of ethanol, biodiesel, biomass, and wind energy. 
This is a landmark change to farm policy because neither the current 
farm bill nor the new proposal in the House contains this innovative 
energy title.
  Farmers, ranchers, and their lenders also need some assurances that 
price supports in the new farm bill will be predictable and meaningful, 
especially in times of woefully low crop prices and rising input costs. 
Again, this farm bill is not perfect, but, I remain confident the 
changes made in the Senate proposal will better stabilize farm income, 
minimize the impact of catastrophic market losses, and reduce the 
financial risks associated with production agriculture. Specifically, I 
believe that the commodity support provided through loan rates, 
countercyclical payments, and direct payments in the Senate farm bill 
is a significant improvement over the current farm bill.
  The Senate bill retains total planting flexibility which has proven 
extremely popular among the Nation's farmers, moreover, it allows 
producers the option to update their base acres and yields, using 
planted acreage and yield data from 1998-2001, for the purpose of 
receiving both direct (AMTA-like), payments and the new countercyclical 
payment, which is made when crop prices fall below a certain target 
level. While an outside observer may think it is only fair to base 
payments on a farm's current yields from crops that are actually 
planted on a farm, remarkably, this is not the case with the 1996 farm 
bill. Rather, the current farm bill bases payments on what farmers 
planted 20 years ago and calculates payments upon 20-year-old yields.

  Therefore, this significant change to update yields and planted acres 
contained only in the Senate farm bill may prove one of the most 
important ways we can improve support to South Dakota's farmers. Crop 
yields in South Dakota have made enormous advances over the last twenty 
years, primarily because South Dakota farmers have become more 
productive, efficient and prolific in their use of innovative cropping 
methods and practices. I am very pleased that the Senate farm bill 
proposal offers a reward to South Dakota farmers for these yield 
improvements. The direct and countercyclical payments will be made on 
100 percent of a farmer's updated base acreage and yield.
  I am troubled by the fact that the alternative expected to be offered 
by Senators Cochran and Roberts, as well as the House-passed farm bill, 
does not reward farmers with an allowance to update their yields for 
basing payments--yields used to make payments under the Cochran-Roberts 
and House bill will remain at 1985 levels. While updating base acres 
for calculating payments, the House farm bill and Cochran-Roberts 
alternative do not benefit South Dakota family farmers for yield 
increases or an update on yields to calculate support under the fixed 
payment and countercyclical programs. Moreover, the House farm bill and 
the Cochran-Roberts alternative simply make payments on 85 percent of a 
farmer's 20-year-old yields and updated acres. Unfortunately, these 
proposals perpetuate some of the most glaring failures of the 1996 farm 
bill.
  Finally, the Senate bill continues the availability of 9-month 
marketing loans or loan deficiency payments for program crops: wheat, 
feed grains, soybeans, oilseeds, and new marketing loan authority for 
wool, honey, lentils, and chickpeas. The loan rates in the Senate bill 
are set higher than both the House bill, and the Cochran-Roberts 
alternative, because both proposals freeze loan rates at levels in the 
1996 farm bill. It appears to me that the Cochran-Roberts and the House 
farm bill fail to recognize the desire that most producers have for a 
modest increase in loan rates, as marketing loans and are one form of 
countercyclical support.
  As we take this legislation up in the Senate, I may work with my 
colleagues to provide for more targeted payment limitations. The 
current farm bill essentially contains meaningless payment limits, and 
the House and Senate proposals aren't a whole lot better. We must 
tighten the payment limits and redirect benefits to small and mid-sized 
family farmers. The single most effective thing Congress could do to 
strengthen the fabric of family farms across the Nation is to stop 
subsidizing mega farms that drive their neighbors out of business by 
bidding land away from them. From 1996 to 2000, the top 10 percent of 
individuals and farm corporations in the U.S. snagged two-thirds of all 
the Federal farm payments and disaster aid, averaging $40,000 annually 
per individual. Conversely, the bottom 80 percent of farmers averaged a 
mere $1,089 per year. The current program especially hurts beginning 
farmers because it increases the cost of getting a start in farming. 
Current farm legislation subsidizes and induces large farmers to engage 
in aggressive competition for market share by bidding up land values in 
hopes of becoming the high-volume, low-cost producers. By reducing the 
number of middle-size and

[[Page S13273]]

beginning farmers, the current payment structure has deprived rural 
communities and institutions of the population base they need to 
thrive. We have the opportunity to stop millions of dollars going into 
the pockets of large farms, in which the end result will be viability 
of family-sized farms and ranches.
  Additionally, I may work to provide an amendment to the farm bill 
that permits farmers to elect a pre-harvest `lock-in' price for loan 
deficiency payments, LDP, prior to the time in which they harvest a 
crop. Currently, when the local cash price for corn or wheat falls 
below a commodity's loan rate price, producers are able to receive a 
loan deficiency payment as one means of counter-cyclical support. 
However, experience under current legislation has uncovered some 
regional inequities in the marketing loan and LDP provisions. For 
instance, when wheat harvest begins in Texas and Oklahoma in the 
Spring, the winter wheat crop in South Dakota and other Northern Plains 
States is virtually still in its developing stage. During this time, 
wheat stocks are often low and local cash prices have been below the 
loan rate, therefore, wheat growers in southern States have enjoyed the 
opportunity to trigger large counter-cyclical support by receiving 
sizable LDP payments early in the harvest season.
  Unfortunately, the farm bill prohibits wheat farmers across the rest 
of the country from receiving this same kind of support through an LDP 
at that same time. So, by the time July or August rolls around and 
wheat is ripe for harvest in South Dakota and other States in the Upper 
Midwest, oftentimes, a different set of market conditions limits 
farmers' choices to secure an LDP. This is due to the fact that harvest 
is nearly complete, a surplus of wheat may be hanging over the market, 
and the difference between the cash price and the loan rate is not as 
large as in the Spring. Therefore, I may offer an amendment to allow 
farmers to select an LDP prior to harvest.
  The farm bill is about many national priorities, and I am pleased the 
rural development title of this bill addresses the small, rural 
communities that serve as the backbone of our economy. It is important 
that our farm bill provide opportunities for value-added agriculture, 
small businesses, and rural communities. The level of funding for rural 
development initiatives in S. 1731 is a huge win for rural citizens and 
communities in South Dakota. Namely, I am pleased with the $75 million 
per year for value-added grants. South Dakota has been on the cutting 
edge of developing value-added projects in recent history. With the 
expansion of funding for these grants, we can expect to see profits 
from value-added agriculture increase in South Dakota. As in much of 
the Upper Midwest, unpredictable weather is a way of life for South 
Dakotans. With $2 million in funding to acquire more weather radio 
transmitters, people in rural communities can rest easy knowing they 
will have better access to accurate and up to the minute weather 
reports as a result of the farm bill.
  Additionally, South Dakota is one of the States included in the 
reauthorized Northern Great Plains regional authority in the rural 
development title. This Authority has access to $30 million per fiscal 
year to provide grants to states in the Northern Great Plains Authority 
for projects including transportation and telecommunication 
infrastructure projects, business development and entrepreneurship, and 
job training. I applaud the chairman for all of his hard work in 
maintaining a priority for America's rural communities.
  A priority of mine, the Senate farm bill provides more emphasis on 
conservation than any farm bill passed by the House or Senate 
heretofore. Our bill contains a number of conservation programs, 
including a reauthorization of the very successful Conservation Reserve 
Program and an increase in the total acreage eligible for the program 
to 41.1 million acres. While this is not the 45 million acre cap that I 
have advocated with legislation in the past, it is a step in the right 
direction. As we move forward to expand CRP, it is my belief that 
Congress and USDA must look at the criteria chosen by USDA to award 
contracts to landowners. Too often, South Dakota producers and 
landowners have been penalized by the Environmental Benefits Index 
which now requires very costly mixtures of seed varieties to be planted 
on new CRP tracts. It is my hope we can apply some greater flexibility 
to the EBI so this program can be effective in South Dakota. I believe 
the farm bill must direct more attention towards programs such as CRP 
which protect soil and water, promote habitat and wildlife growth, and 
compensate family farmers and ranchers for taking measures to conserve 
our resources. Additionally, the bill includes a version of the Harkin-
Johnson Conservation Security Program which is a new initiative placing 
emphasis on conservation practices that are compatible to working lands 
on farms and ranches. Furthermore, the conservation title includes a 
reauthorization of my Farmable Wetlands Pilot, which is reauthorized 
through the life of the new farm bill, 2002 to 2006. This Farmable 
Wetlands Program was crafted last year by South Dakotans to protect 
small and sensitive farmed wetlands and to compensate producers for 
taking these acres out of production. When USDA would not 
administratively implement this idea, Senator Daschle and I introduced 
legislation which was signed into law. The legislation called for a 
two-year pilot program to enroll small, farmed wetlands, up to 5 acres 
in size, into CRP. I am very proud that South Dakota common-sense left 
an imprint on the conservation title of this farm bill with the 
extension of this Farmable Wetlands program. Finally, the conservation 
title contains a new Grassland Reserve Program to protect prairie and 
grasslands across the country.

  Finally, I am also pleased with the nutrition title within the Senate 
farm bill that would ease the transition from welfare to work, increase 
benefits for working families and children, simplify regulations 
within, and increase outreach for the Food Stamp Program. Given our 
Nation's current economic conditions, it is especially important now 
that we reach out and provide services to our South Dakota neighbors in 
need. I would like to make special note of a provision included in this 
bill that would prevent the School Lunch Program from losing at least 
$100 million over the next 2 years by adjusting the way the program 
counts the value of commodities in the program. I introduced 
legislation earlier this year to prevent this problem, and I am pleased 
that this provision was included in the committee version of the bill.
  In agriculture, I think the best economic stimulus is a long-term 
strategy that provides a meaningful income safety net for family 
farmers and ranchers. Therefore, the farm bill is the economic stimulus 
for rural America and family farmers and ranchers. The facts about the 
need to act are clear. In September, crop prices experienced the most 
dramatic one-month price drop in recorded history. We must enact a farm 
bill to provide greater economic security to our Nation's family 
farmers and ranchers.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the letters in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                 December 2, 2001.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
         Forestry, U.S. Senate.
     Hon. Richard G. Lugar,
     Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
         and Forestry, U.S. Senate.
     Hon. Larry Combest,
     Chairman, House Agriculture Committee, House of 
         Representatives.
     Hon. Charles W. Stenholm,
     Ranking Member, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Harkin and Combest, Senator Lugar, and 
     Representative Stenholm. The U.S. cattle industry invested 
     considerable time, effort, and money to improve, promote, and 
     advertise its finished product--U.S. beef. The U.S. cattle 
     industry now needs the ability to identify its beef from 
     among the growing volume of beef supplied by its foreign 
     competitors. The ability to differentiate domestic beef from 
     foreign beef is necessary to ensure that U.S. cattle 
     producers have a competitive, open market that allows 
     consumer demand signals to reach domestic cattle producers.
       We strongly support the mandatory country-of-origin 
     labeling language passed by the Senate Agriculture Committee. 
     Specifically, we strongly support the following key elements: 
     (1) Mandatory country of origin labeling for beef, lamb, 
     pork, fish, fruits, vegetables, and peanuts. (2) Only meat 
     from animals exclusively born, raised, and slaughtered in the 
     United States shall be eligible for a USA label. (3) The USDA 
     Quality Grade Stamp cannot be used on imported meat.

[[Page S13274]]

       Several importing and processing industry groups are 
     aggressively working to weaken the Senate Farm Bill's 
     mandatory country-of-origin labeling language. They want to 
     eliminate the exclusively born, raised, and slaughtered 
     definition of origin. They also want to exempt ground beef 
     from among the meat covered by the legislation. We strongly 
     oppose any such changes as they would severely impair the 
     competitiveness of U.S. cattle producers.
       Since 1987, the U.S. cattle industry has invested millions 
     toward a mandatory check-off program to research, promote, 
     and advertise beef. It is now time to take the next logical 
     step of requiring country-of-origin labeling so consumers can 
     identify the very beef U.S. cattle producers have worked so 
     hard to promote. Proper labeling of beef will benefit all 
     check-off contributors. The identification of meat in the 
     marketplace is also becoming increasingly important given the 
     global threat of bio-terrorism. Without labeling, we cannot 
     segregate or recall meat now flowing through our food 
     distribution channels if a contamination or outbreak were 
     announced by any one of our many trading partners. Finally, 
     consumers deserve to have accurate country-of-origin labeling 
     so they can make informed purchasing decisions.
       We respectfully urge you to fully support the mandatory 
     country-of-origin language passed by the Senate Agriculture 
     Committee and now included in the Senate Farm Bill.
           Sincerely,
         Adams County Cattlemen's Association (Washington), 
           Alabama Cattlemen's Association, American Indian 
           Livestock Association, Baker County Livestock 
           Association (Oregon), Beartooth Stockgrowers 
           Association (Montana), Belgian Blue Beef Breeders, 
           Bent-Prowers Cattle and Horsegrowers' Association 
           (Colorado), Big Horn Cattlemen's Association (Wyoming), 
           Bitterroot Stockgrowers Association (Montana), Black 
           Hills Angus Association (South Dakota), Bonner-Boundary 
           Cattle Association (Idaho), British White Cattle 
           Association of America, LTD, Cattlemen's Weighing 
           Association (North Dakota), Colstrip Community 
           Stockyard Association, Crazy Mountain Stockgrowers 
           (Montana), Eagle County Cattlemen's Association 
           (Colorado), Fallon County Stockgrowers' and Landowners' 
           Association (Montana), Grant County Cattlemen's 
           Association (Washington), Holy Cross Cattlemen's 
           Association (Colorado), Idaho-Lewis Cattle Association 
           (Idaho).
         Independent Cattlemen's Association of Texas, Kansas 
           Cattlemen's Association, Kansas Hereford Association, 
           Kootenai Cattlemen's Association (Idaho), Lane County 
           Livestock Association (Oregon), Livestock Marketing 
           Association, Minnesota Cattlemen's Association, 
           Mississippi Cattlemen's Association, Missouri 
           Stockgrower's Association, Montana Stockgrowers 
           Association, Nevada Cattlemen's Association, Nevada 
           Live Stock Association, New Jersey Angus Association, 
           New Mexico Cattlegrowers' Association, North Central 
           Stockgrowers Association (Montana), North Dakota 
           Stockmen's Association, North-East Kansas Hereford 
           Association, North Idaho Cattlemen's Association 
           (Idaho), Owyhee Cattlemen's Association (Idaho).
         Pennsylvania Cattlemen's Association, Pueblo County 
           Cattlemen Association (Colorado), Ranchers-Cattlemen 
           Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America (R-
           CALF USA), Sheridan County Stockgrowers (Wyoming), 
           South Dakota Livestock Auction Markets Association, 
           South Dakota Stockgrower's Association, Southeastern 
           Montana Livestock Association, Southern Colorado 
           Livestock Association, Spokane County Cattlemen's 
           Association (Washington), Stevens County Cattlemen's 
           Association (Washington), Utah Cattlemen's Association, 
           Valier Stockmen's Association (Montana), Virginia 
           Cattlemen's Association, Washington Cattlemen's 
           Association, Western Montana Stockgrowers Association, 
           Western Ranchers Beef Cooperative (California), Wyoming 
           Stock Growers Association.
                                  ____

                                                 December 4, 2001.
     Member,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the members of the American Farm 
     Bureau Federation (AFBF) and the National Farmers Union 
     (NFU), we write to urge your support for country of origin 
     labeling when you vote for the farm bill. The Senate 
     Agriculture Committee-passed farm bill requires mandatory 
     country of origin labeling for fresh fruits and vegetables, 
     peanuts, and meat products including beef, lamb, pork and 
     farm-raised fish.
       Producers and consumers both benefit. Country of origin 
     labeling is a valuable marketing opportunity that may improve 
     the ability of U.S. producers to compete in a highly 
     regulated market and costly environment. Likewise, consumers 
     have expressed strong support for country of origin labeling 
     for agricultural products. According to a March 1999 Wirthlin 
     Worldwide survey, 86 percent of consumers support country of 
     origin labeling for meat products.
       The U.S. General Accounting Office has reported that, 
     according to surveys conducted by the fresh produce industry, 
     between 74 and 83 percent of consumers favor country of 
     origin labeling for fresh produce. The Farm Foundation's, 
     ``The 2002 Farm Bill: U.S. Producer Preference for 
     Agricultural, Food and Public Policy'' indicates that support 
     for labeling the country of origin on food products is nearly 
     unanimous, with 98 percent in agreement, among producers.
       The Senate Agriculture committee-passed farm bill requires 
     meat products, peanuts, and perishable agricultural 
     commodities to be labeled as to the country of origin. In 
     order to qualify as U.S.-produced, meat products must come 
     from an animal born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S. and 
     fresh produce and peanuts must be exclusively grown and 
     processed in the U.S. Language is included stating that there 
     will not be a system of mandatory identification imposed and 
     that a system will be based on a current program used by USDA 
     to verify that the animals are born, raised and slaughtered 
     in the U.S.
       A significant number of U.S. trading partners have country 
     of origin labeling laws for produce and meat products. 
     According to the USDA's 1998 Foreign Country of Origin 
     Labeling Survey, the United States is among only six of the 
     37 reporting countries that do not require country of origin 
     labeling on processed meat. Since the time of the 1998 
     survey, additional countries, such as Japan, have begun 
     requiring country of origin labeling of meat. In addition, 
     some 35 out of the 46 surveyed countries require country of 
     origin labeling for fresh fruits and vegetables.
       Farmers and ranchers believe consumers have a right to know 
     where their food is produced. We hope that you will support 
     country of origin labeling as it moves to the Senate floor.
           Sincerely,
     Bob Stallman,
       President, American Farm Bureau Federation.
     Leland Swenson,
       President, National Farmers Union.
                                  ____

                                                 October 30, 2001.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and 
         Forestry U.S. Senate.
     Hon. Richard G. Lugar,
     Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition 
         and Forestry, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Harkin and Senator Lugar: We are writing to 
     ask for your support for an initiative that will allow 
     consumers to make more informed choices about their purchases 
     of fruits, vegetables and meats. We seek your support for 
     inclusion of a measure to provide mandatory country-of-origin 
     labeling for fresh produce and meat in the Senate version of 
     the farm bill.
       American consumers prefer to know where their food is 
     grown. In multiple national surveys, more than 70 percent of 
     produce shoppers support country-of-origin labeling for 
     fruits and vegetables. In Florida, where such labeling has 
     been the law for more than 20 years, more than 95 percent 
     favor produce origin labeling in stores. Consumer surveys 
     also indicate that 86 percent of Americans prefer labeling 
     country-of-origin for meat products.
       The Consumer Right to Know Act of 2001 (S. 280) would 
     mandate point-of-purchase labeling for fruits, vegetables and 
     other fresh perishables, as well as meat products such as 
     beef, lamb and pork. Food service establishments would be 
     exempt. The bill grants USDA the authority to coordinate 
     enforcement with each state.
       Of course, manufactured goods sold in the U.S. have carried 
     mandatory country-of-origin labels since the 1930s. Today, at 
     a time when retailers sell fresh produce from dozens of 
     countries, our nation's fruits and vegetables need to carry 
     that same important information. Furthermore, consumers are 
     misled into thinking the USDA inspected grade equates a 
     country of origin label for meat products.
       Recently, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly 
     passed a similar country-of-origin labeling measure 
     (mandating labeling for fresh produce only) as part of the 
     farm bill package.
       We urge you to consider the benefits of S. 280 and support 
     inclusion of it in the Senate version of the farm bill.
           Sincerely,
       Alaska Farmers Union, American Corn Growers Association, 
     Alabama Farm Bureau Federation, Arizona Farm Bureau 
     Federation, Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation, Arkansas Farmers 
     Union, Burleigh County Farm Bureau, California Asparagus 
     Commission, California Citrus Mutual, California Grape & Tree 
     Fruit League, California Farm Bureau, California Farmers 
     Union, Center for Food Safety, Consumer Federation of 
     America, Desert Grape Growers League of California, Florida 
     Citrus Mutual, Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer 
     Services, Florida Farm Bureau Federation, Florida Farmers & 
     Suppliers Coalition, Inc., Florida Fruit and Vegetable 
     Association.
       Florida Tomato Exchange, Georgia Farm Bureau Federation, 
     Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association, Idaho Farm 
     Bureau Federation, Idaho Farmers Union, Illinois Farmers 
     Union, Independent Cattlemen's Association of Texas, Indiana 
     Farmers Union, Indian River Citrus League, Intertribal 
     Agriculture Council, Iowa Farmers

[[Page S13275]]

     Union, Kansas Cattlemen's Association, Kansas Farmers Union, 
     Livestock Marketing Association, Louisiana Farm Bureau 
     Federation, Maryland Farm Bureau, Michigan Asparagus Advisory 
     Committee.
       Michigan Farmers Union, Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation, 
     Minnesota Farmers Union, Missouri Farmers Union, Mississippi 
     Farm Bureau Federation, Montana Farm Bureau Federation, 
     Montana Farmers Union, National Catholic Rural Life 
     Conference, National Consumers League, National Family Farm 
     Coalition, National Farmers Organization, National Farmers 
     Union, National Onion Council, National Potato Council, 
     Nebraska Farmers Union, New York Farm Bureau, New York Beef 
     Producers' Association, New York State Forage & Grassland 
     Council, New Jersey Farm Bureau, Nevada Livestock 
     Association.
       North Dakota Farm Bureau, North Dakota Farmers Union, North 
     Idaho Cattlemen's Association, Northwest Horticultural 
     Council, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Ohio Farmers Union, 
     Oklahoma Farmers Union, Oregon Farm Bureau Federation, Oregon 
     Farmers Union, Organization for Competitive Markets, Public 
     Citizen, Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, Pennsylvania Farmers 
     Union, Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund (R-CALF USA), 
     Rhode Island Farm Bureau Federation, Rocky Mountain Farmers 
     Union, South Carolina Farm Bureau.
       South Dakota Farm Bureau Federation, South Dakota Farmers 
     Union, Southern Colorado Livestock Association, Texas Farmers 
     Union, United Fruits and Vegetable Association, Utah Farmers 
     Union, Virginia Farm Bureau, Washington Farmers Union, 
     Washington State Farm Bureau, Western Organization of 
     Resource Councils (WORC), Wisconsin Farmers Union, Wyoming 
     Farm Bureau Federation, Wyoming Stock Growers Association.
                                  ____

                                                 November 6, 2001.
       Dear Senator: When the Senate takes up the 2001 farm bill, 
     please support legislation to require country-of-origin 
     labeling at retail for meat products and fresh fruits and 
     vegetables. Senator Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) has introduced this 
     legislation as S. 280, the Consumer Right to Know Act of 
     2001. Please oppose efforts to water down country-of-origin 
     labeling legislation by allowing domestic origin labels on 
     beef that has been slaughtered and processed--but not born--
     in this country.
       While not a food safety program, country-of-origin labeling 
     will give consumers additional information about the source 
     of their food. As a matter of choice, many consumers may wish 
     to purchase produce grown and processed in the United States 
     or meat from animals born, raised and processed here. Without 
     country-of-origin labeling, these consumers are unable to 
     make an informed choice between U.S. and imported products. 
     In fact, under the Agriculture Department's grade stamp 
     system, they could be misled into thinking some imported meat 
     is produced in this country. Country-of-origin labeling may 
     also assist small producers, many of whom are suffering from 
     low prices, consolidation among processors, and weather-
     related problems.
       Several food industry trade associations and two farm 
     organizations have proposed a voluntary ``Made in the USA'' 
     label for retailers who want to promote and market U.S. beef. 
     Their effort falls short on two counts. First, industry 
     already has voluntary labeling authorization and it has not 
     resulted in country-of-origin labeling for beef. In addition, 
     the industry proposal allows meat from cattle that have been 
     in this country for a few as 100 days to be labeled ``U.S. 
     Beef.'' This could mislead consumers into thinking a product 
     is of U.S. origin when, in fact, it is not. Meat products 
     identified as ``U.S. Beef'' or ``Made in the U.S.A.'' should 
     originate from animals born, raised, slaughtered and 
     processed here.
       When country-of-origin labeling is discussed, two 
     additional issues invariably come up: cost and trade 
     retaliation. On cost, the General Accounting Office concluded 
     that country-of-origin labeling would increase costs for both 
     industry and government but that ``the magnitude of these 
     costs is uncertain.'' Federal law, however, already requires 
     country-of-origin markings on the packaging of all meat and 
     produce imported into this country. In addition, slaughter 
     plants already segregate beef carcasses by grade and grade 
     levels already following products to the retail level. How 
     costly would it be to expand these efforts to include 
     country-of-origin labeling at retail? In Florida, which has 
     had country-of-origin labeling for produce since 1979, it 
     reportedly costs less than $10 per month per store. In terms 
     of compliance, Florida says its program is ``not costly if 
     conducted by the same inspection authority that is usually in 
     food stores.'' Florida put statewide industry compliance 
     costs for country-of-origin labeling through 1998 at less 
     than $300,000 per year. Costs of this magnitude would be a 
     reasonable tradeoff to assure accurate labeling of meat and 
     fresh produce.
       On trade, numerous foreign countries have their own 
     country-of-origin labeling requirements for perishable 
     agricultural commodities. Twenty-two of our own trading 
     partners--including Canada, Mexico, Japan and many members of 
     the European Union--have country-of-origin labeling for 
     produce. If our trading partners have these requirements, why 
     shouldn't we? In addition, many other consumer products, 
     including automobiles, must meet country-of-origin labeling 
     requirements in this country. Why should agricultural 
     products be exempt?
       Many polls, including a 1998 CBS News poll and two polls by 
     the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, have found 
     overwhelming consumer support for country-of-origin labeling. 
     In Florida, more than 95 percent favor labeling produce by 
     country of origin.
       Earlier this fall, the House of Representatives included 
     country-of-origin labeling for produce as part of its farm 
     bill. The amendment adding this provision passed by a wide 
     margin. Please support S. 280 or similar legislation when the 
     Senate debates its farm bill.
                                                    Arthur Jaeger,
                                   Consumer Federation of America.
                                                     Patty Lovera,
                                                   Public Citizen.
                                                   Linda Golodner,
                                        National Consumers League.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might be 
able to proceed for about 3 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________