[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 177 (Wednesday, December 19, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13647-S13661]
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.
       Wellstone amendment No. 2602 (to amendment No. 2471), to 
     insert in the environmental quality incentives program 
     provisions relating to confined livestock feeding operations 
     and to a payment limitation.
       Harkin modified amendment No. 2604 (to amendment No. 2471), 
     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.
       Burns amendment No. 2607 (to amendment No. 2471), to 
     establish a per-farm limitation on land enrolled in the 
     conservation reserve program.
       Burns amendment No. 2608 (to amendment No. 2471), 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.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, for all Members of the Senate, we are very 
close to working out an arrangement this morning that should be good 
for everyone. I spoke to a number of farm State Senators last night and 
they thought it was very important that Senator Hutchinson of Arkansas 
be allowed to offer an amendment. We have worked throughout the night 
and the morning with Senator Hutchinson and worked out a time agreement 
on that,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 S13648]]

so as soon as Senator Lugar arrives we will be ready to offer this 
unanimous consent agreement.
  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. DASCHLE. 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.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is our intention to go to the 
Hutchinson amendment. As I think our colleagues are aware, the 
Hutchinson amendment is largely the Agriculture farm bill passed by the 
House. It may not be exactly the same bill, but that is the intent. 
Certainly Senator Hutchinson can speak for himself, and will.
  It is my intent after that, then, to go to the cloture motion.
  So I ask unanimous consent the pending amendments also be laid aside; 
that Senator Hutchinson be recognized to offer his amendment, No. 2678; 
that there be 1 hour 15 minutes for debate with Senator Hutchinson in 
control of 60 minutes, Senator Harkin or his designee in control of 15 
minutes prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no second-
degree amendments in order prior to the vote; further, that the vote in 
relation to the amendment occur at 12:50.
  Immediately following disposition of the Hutchinson amendment, the 
Senate will proceed to the previously ordered cloture vote on the 
substitute amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I want to cooperate in every way with the majority 
leader and the managers of the bill, but I wonder if the majority 
leader, trying to make a request to have the Hutchinson amendment--I 
have no objection to that portion. I do know that Senator Grassley, 
Senator Dorgan, myself, and others have a lot of interest in the 
payment limitation. I am not positive whether or not it is germane 
postcloture.
  I guess part of your request is that we go immediately to the cloture 
vote. I wonder if you are willing to delete that second paragraph or if 
you are willing to make sure that the Grassley amendment would be in 
order, regardless of which way the result of the cloture vote would 
occur.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I would want to consult with the Parliamentarian and 
Senator Harkin and others. We have attempted, as the Senator knows, to 
accommodate a number of Senators who have asked to be exempted from 
cloture limitations following the time when cloture is invoked. I am 
not enthusiastic about expanding.
  Again, it would be my understanding that these amendments would be 
available to us postcloture, with clarification of the Parliamentarian, 
and we will offer this at another time.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, if I might inquire, at a previous time I 
asked the majority leader if this amendment would be in order, or part 
of the unanimous consent that this amendment would be in order 
postcloture, and we agreed to that. Does that agreement still carry? 
There were four or five amendments, if I remember correctly, or one or 
two, and a couple of others. If they were agreed to, there were two 
additional ones. If that still applies, that is fine with this Senator.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I intended this as a new unanimous 
consent request. Therefore, the other ones--because of the old 
unanimous consent request--have already expired. Technically, it would 
not carry.
  I think the best thing to do would be to consult with the 
Parliamentarian in terms of germaneness and make a decision at a later 
time.
  I wonder if we might proceed. The cloture vote, by rules of the 
Senate, takes place within 1 hour after we come in. We do not need the 
second portion of the unanimous consent request in order to proceed 
with cloture. But I would like to accommodate Senator Hutchinson. I 
would make that request.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object, I want to make sure what 
we are doing. First, the leader said we would like to inquire whether 
or not Senator Grassley and others want to offer their amendments. I 
want to protect their rights to offer their amendments.
  There is an amendment dealing with payment limitation. Some of us are 
kind of concerned about the underlying Harkin bill that has payment 
limitations of 250. That can be expanded to 500 per family. The 
Grassley amendment that Senator Dorgan and others have supported would 
reduce that. I want to make sure that amendment is going to be debated 
before we conclude the agriculture bill. I don't want that amendment to 
be ruled nongermane postcloture. That is what I am trying to find out 
before we make an agreement.
  Parliamentary inquiry: Is the Grassley amendment germane postcloture?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator from Oklahoma yield for a 
question?
  Mr. NICKLES. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. Is that the same as the original Dorgan amendment?
  Mr. NICKLES. That is correct.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment has not yet been 
reviewed for germaneness.
  Mr. NICKLES. I didn't catch that.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment has not been reviewed 
for germaneness.
  Mr. NICKLES. That wasn't my understanding. Regardless, I will 
vigorously oppose cloture if that is what the majority leader's 
intention is. I urge him to ask consent to postpone the cloture vote 
until we determine what the outcome of some of these amendments is. 
Some of us are going to continue to oppose cloture until we have a 
chance to have our amendments heard, debated, and voted on in the 
Senate.
  If you insist--and I am sure the majority leader is correct most of 
the time--cloture will expire after so many hours. But I will just tell 
him that some of us are going to be opposing cloture vigorously until 
the Senator from Iowa and others have a chance to have their amendments 
heard and voted on.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am very sympathetic to the Senator from 
Oklahoma. We have been on this bill for an awfully long time. I think 
we are almost at a point where we have broken the record now for the 
length of time we have been on a farm bill. Senators had many 
opportunities to offer amendments at night and during the day. I am not 
really sympathetic to those who suggest that somehow we have not 
accorded enough time to some of these amendments.
  I also say we have come to the conclusion that we are going to have 
to make a decision about the farm bill. If we are unable to invoke 
cloture, it is my intention to put it back on the calendar, 
regrettably, and then move to other issues. We have conference reports 
that have to be done before we leave. There are other pieces of 
business that are required of us. This will be the third cloture vote. 
There will be no more cloture votes in this session of Congress on the 
farm bill.
  Senators are going to have to make up their minds: Do they want to 
indefinitely postpone and thereby kill our chances for completing work 
on the farm bill this year or not? If they want to kill it, they will 
vote against cloture. If they want to support completing our work, they 
will vote for cloture this afternoon and we will complete our work. 
That still requires 30 hours of debate on the bill prior to the time we 
complete our work. That means that relevant amendments will be 
entertained, will be accepted, or voted upon and considered as germane 
amendments. That is the prerogative of every Senator even after 
cloture. Perhaps amendments can be designed to be germane. I certainly 
think a payment limit amendment is germane to the bill.
  We ought to find the language that accommodates the Senator from 
Oklahoma, if that is his intent.
  But I will say we have been on this bill for a record amount of time. 
It will be virtually a record if we complete our 30 hours. We do have 
other very important matters pending.
  I want to make sure all Senators are put on notice. Three times, and 
we are out in terms of cloture. And three times, it seems to me, ought 
to be adequate time for everybody to have had

[[Page S13649]]

their amendments considered. As we have noted, a number of other 
colleagues have asked for special consideration for their amendments. 
We are attempting to do that. We have to move on.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.
  Mr. REID. I say to the distinguished majority leader that I have 
received two notes from the cloakroom that they want to put out a list 
if in fact there is a postcloture list of amendments.
  I also say that last night I had a conversation with a number of farm 
State Senators who have been voting against cloture. They said if we 
would allow Hutchinson a vote, they would be willing to vote for 
cloture.
  We worked last night and all morning trying to work out an 
arrangement where there could be a vote on Hutchinson. We have given 
the Hutchinson forces 1 hour. We have taken 15 minutes to show that we 
are serious about moving this bill forward. It appears that no matter 
what we do, it isn't quite enough.
  I hope my counterpart, the distinguished assistant minority leader, 
will allow us to go forward. This is an opportunity, in my opinion, to 
pass a farm bill. We will live by whatever the rules are.
  I was informed, obviously incorrectly, yesterday that 
the Parliamentarian thought Dorgan would be in order postcloture. I 
hope it is. I think it is something we should debate.

  But the fact of the matter is we have gone a long way this morning in 
working this out. I applaud the Senator from Arkansas. He wanted more 
time than the hour--an hour and 15 minutes. He believed, I guess, that 
was fair.
  I think we should go forward and then have a fair third and final 
vote on cloture.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as the Senator from Nevada noted, our 
colleague for good reason wanted to be able to offer the so-called 
Cochran-Roberts alternative. We have done that. We have had very good 
debates on a number of other questions over the last couple of weeks. 
In order to accommodate the Senator from Arkansas and others who 
believe we ought to at least have a chance to vote on the House-passed 
bill, we are now going to do that.
  I honestly think we have been as fair and responsible as we can be to 
the request made by our colleagues. I hope now that we can get this 
agreement.
  I renew my request.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, 
parliamentary inquiry: Is the Grassley amendment germane postcloture?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is being reviewed at 
this time.
  Mr. NICKLES. I ask the majority leader to modify his unanimous 
consent request so that the Grassley amendment be considered germane 
postcloture in the event cloture is invoked.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Reserving the right to object, I think I have something 
better than being part of the unanimous consent agreement, or something 
better than even a veto to do this. I had the word of the Senate 
majority whip that I was going to be able to bring my amendment up 
right after the Durbin amendment this morning after 11:30. It seems to 
me, if I have the word of a fellow Senator that I have a chance to 
bring my amendment up, I don't even have to be included in a unanimous 
consent. If you want to nail it down that way, nail it down; it is OK 
with me. But it seems to me I was told by the majority leader that I 
was going to be able to bring my amendment up, and that word is better 
than anything else that can go on in this body.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will my friend from Oklahoma yield?
  Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. There is nobody for whom I have more respect than the 
Senator from Iowa. We serve together on select committees. He is 
absolutely right. We thought when we came here this morning we were 
going to go to the Durbin amendment and then a Republican amendment. He 
had been standing around waiting for a while, and we did say that. But 
the fact is, there have been intervening things. I am not going back on 
my word. We thought we were going to do a totally different thing. And 
I am sorry there has been some misunderstanding. But I would never 
intentionally mislead the Senator from Iowa.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I can regain my right to the floor, 
let me simply say that we moved the cloture vote to 1:30 to accommodate 
some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. That has been 
locked in at 1:30. We also attempted to accommodate the Senator from 
Arkansas with this unanimous consent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time is 1:15, not 1:30.
  Mr. DASCHLE. The UC was 1:15?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes.
  Mr. DASCHLE. OK. We hoped we could accommodate the Senator from 
Arkansas with a vote on his amendment so that it could be taken before 
the cloture vote. That is all this unanimous consent request is 
designed to do. So if we cannot get it, we will just proceed, the 
Senator from Arkansas can offer his amendment, and we can do it without 
a UC. So if I cannot get that agreement, I will simply withdraw the 
request and perhaps we can proceed with the amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I want my friend from Iowa, because I want to protect 
his interests on this amendment----
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I know you are.
  Mr. NICKLES. The majority leader is basically saying we have an hour 
and 15 minutes to debate the Hutchinson amendment, and then we will 
vote on cloture. And then we are going to find out that the Grassley 
amendment is nongermane postcloture if cloture is invoked. So it would 
not be in order to take up the Grassley-Dorgan amendment.
  I have been here for 3 or 4 days trying to make sure we get a vote. 
No one has been filibustering this bill--no one. I know Senator 
Grassley was here late last night trying to offer this amendment. I 
know yesterday, three or four times, I came up and said: I am ready to 
do a payment limitation amendment. Every amendment we have had has been 
germane to the bill.
  We did not offer the energy package. We did not even offer the 
stimulus package; I thought about it. I might still do that if it is 
still the pending bill. I want to get the stimulus done before we get 
out of here. The amendments have been germane on agriculture.
  To have an amendment such as payment limitation, when the underlying 
bill allows a few farmers to make hundreds and hundreds of thousands of 
dollars, to be squeezed out because of cloture I think is wrong.
  So I guess the essence is that I will not object to a time limit on 
Senator Hutchinson's amendment. If the majority leader proceeds with 
the cloture vote, I will urge my colleagues, in the strongest terms, to 
please vote no on cloture so amendments that are germane--that are 
really germane that might fall on the strict interpretation of 
postcloture--that they will have a right to offer those amendments.
  I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, who respect 
individual Senators having the right to amend a bill that is enormously 
complicated but important--that they have a right to offer those 
amendments.

  So I will not object to the majority leader's request to have a time 
limit on the Hutchinson amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank my colleagues.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arkansas.


                Amendment No. 2678 To Amendment No. 2471

              (Purpose: To provide a complete substitute)

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I 
ask for its consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
pending amendments are laid aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2678 to amendment No. 2471.


[[Page S13650]]


  Mr. HUTCHINSON. 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 and Proposed.'')
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add, as 
cosponsors to the amendment, Senators Lott, Helms, Sessions, and Kay 
Bailey Hutchison.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader, the 
majority whip, and Senator Harkin for their cooperation and their 
willingness to allow us to have this debate on, essentially, the House-
passed bill.
  This is the bill that was introduced earlier this year in an effort 
to break the logjam on a farm bill. It is a bipartisan bill, as it was 
introduced with four Democrats and three Republicans. To me, there is 
no doubt, as we come to this impasse, that the only way--absolutely the 
only way--we will get a farm bill signed into law this year is for us 
to take up an easily conferenceable bill with the House.
  I have talked with the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. 
If we would pass this bill--this amendment, and then the amended bill--
we would be able to conference it within an hour, and we would be able 
to send it to the President. That is the only prospect we have of 
getting a much needed farm bill to the President this year. That is why 
I rise to urge my colleagues to move forward and support this 
amendment.
  Since the beginning of this debate, I have been urged by the farmers 
of my State to try to get a farm bill completed this year. Time and 
time again, I have told them that I would do everything I could to get 
a farm bill completed this year. I have expressed support for the House 
farm bill. I have worked with my colleagues to craft and introduce this 
bipartisan proposal. It was originally, when introduced, sponsored by a 
number of Members on both sides. I supported, in the committee, the 
Cochran-Roberts plan. I supported the chairman's commodity title. In 
fact, I believe I was the only Republican in committee to support the 
chairman's commodity title. I supported the passage of the chairman's 
farm bill out of the Agriculture Committee. And I have supported 
cloture on the chairman's substitute two times.

  I want a farm bill. I voted in support of moving forward at every 
point during this debate.
  If this substitute is not going to move forward and go to conference, 
perhaps it is time for a new approach. It is clear, after two cloture 
votes, that the Harkin-Daschle substitute does not have adequate 
support to move to passage. And, may I say, if we were somehow able to 
move the Harkin-Daschle substitute through, get cloture, and get it 
passed this week, we would have an enormous gap between this bill and 
the House bill, and, as Senator Harkin admitted last night, it would be 
weeks before we could reach a consensus on those two bills. This is why 
I am offering the bill that I offered with Senators Lincoln, Helms, 
Miller, Sessions, Landrieu, and Breaux earlier this year.
  We can debate the merits of the bills. There is no doubt that as this 
day and this debate goes on, we will engage in some substantial policy 
issues. However, at the end of the day, we must have a bill that can 
get the votes necessary to pass the Senate, be conferenced, and signed 
by the President this year. So far, the bill that has been offered has 
not been able to garner the support necessary to get out of the Senate 
and provide the support and certainty that our farmers are asking for 
and desperately need.
  The fact that these votes appear to be breaking down on party lines 
should be troubling because agriculture is not a partisan issue. 
Agriculture spans across all of our States and should not be allowed to 
degenerate into a partisan finger pointing contest. That is what I have 
been hearing: accusations that one party or the other is blocking the 
move on a farm bill this year.
  That is why I am offering this amendment. It is my sincere hope that 
this bipartisan proposal can help break this logjam which is keeping us 
away from our home States and, more importantly, is denying our 
Nation's farmers the necessary fixes to what amounts to a broken farm 
policy.
  Is this the absolute best policy that can come out of this Senate? 
Maybe not. Will it have the type of funding numbers in it that everyone 
can go back to their home State and expect resounding praise for? 
Probably not. That is probably unlikely as well.
  However, we must also consider whether this proposal is, in fact, 
better than the policy with which our farmers are currently dealing. 
What I hear from the farmers in Arkansas--and I think this is true 
across this Nation--is that they need certainty and predictability. If 
they are going to have certainty and predictability, they need to have 
a farm bill. As they go to seek financing arrangements for this next 
year, bankers are looking for some predictability, some certainty in 
farm policy. That can only happen if we pass a bill.
  So the question is, is this amendment that I am offering today--one 
that was originally offered as a bipartisan proposal in this Chamber, 
and that was a bipartisan vote in the House. In fact, in the House, 
there were 151 Republicans, 139 Democrats, and one Independent who 
voted for this bill. This is the only true bipartisan approach. If it 
is, in fact, better than current farm policy, and is the only prospect 
of getting a bill to the President this year, should we not, then, on a 
bipartisan basis, unite behind it?
  I think it is clear that the farm policy in this amendment is much 
better than the current policy. We must also consider whether our 
farmers are better off with no farm bill at all, which appears to be 
where we are headed right now. I think my farmers have been quite clear 
with me on this issue, as I am sure farmers in other States have made 
it clear to their Senators.
  This amendment, as I have said, is very similar to the House-passed 
farm bill which ended up passing on a bipartisan basis. I realize there 
were many hotly contested amendments throughout this process, but in 
the end this bill in the House enjoyed resounding bipartisan support 
and should garner that kind of support in this Chamber as well.

  I am keenly aware that a number of my colleagues from the other side 
of the aisle believe they have garnered concessions from Senator Harkin 
and Senator Daschle and that their concerns have been addressed in the 
Harkin-Daschle substitute. I am aware of that. I appreciate the 
willingness of Senators Daschle and Harkin to make those concessions 
and to address concerns that various Senators had. But if those 
concessions come at the price of refusing to support a bipartisan 
approach and the end result is that we have no bill that goes forward 
out of this Chamber this year, we have no bill that is passed and goes 
to the President for his signature, then I suggest that all those 
concessions and all those improvements in the Harkin-Daschle substitute 
bill are in fact meaningless because they are not passed into law.
  On Monday of this week, the American Farm Bureau sent a letter, a 
public letter, in which they wrote:

       The American Farm Bureau Federation encourages the Senate 
     leadership to expedite debate and for the Senate to complete 
     a new farm bill by noon next Wednesday, December 19.

  That is the moment we have just passed. The Farm Bureau continued:

       It is vitally important that this legislation be enacted 
     this year to provide an important economic stimulus to rural 
     America before Congress adjourns.

  I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments of the American Farm 
Bureau in this letter. This is why I am offering this amendment. If 
this amendment is adopted, I am confident we will be able to move to 
invoke cloture and we will pass a farm bill this year. I promised the 
farmers of my State I would do everything I could do to get a farm bill 
completed this year. I am sure many of you have made the same promise. 
This is our opportunity to make good on that promise and on that 
commitment.
  To say to the farmers of America, I am going to march in lockstep 
with my party leadership in spite of the fact that the end result of 
that approach will be no bill, no cloture, no Presidential signature, 
and no farm bill by December 31, is blind partisanship that

[[Page S13651]]

hurts the farmers of this country. This is our opportunity to pass a 
farm bill this year.
  The policies included in this amendment have been supported by both 
Republicans and Democrats in the House. The policies included in this 
amendment have been supported by both Republicans and Democrats in this 
Senate. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the amendment 
offered today.
  I urge my colleagues to support the completion of a farm bill this 
year. It is not sufficient to say: I voted for cloture to end debate 
and get a farm bill this year, if you know in your heart that because 
of that stand, because of voting in lockstep and an unwillingness to 
take a bipartisan approach, an approach that we know can be conferenced 
with the House this year, that is a self-defeating approach that will 
not be a sufficient answer to the farmers in this country.
  This is our opportunity to get it done. Let's not waste it.
  I ask my colleagues for their support for the amendment. Will it have 
everything in it? It most assuredly will not. It will in some areas. 
Will the funding be as high? Will the commodity title not be as high as 
it is in the Harkin bill? The answer to that is, that is true. In some 
areas, it won't. It won't be a bill that will satisfy everybody. But it 
is the only vehicle before the Senate. It is the only possible answer 
to the conundrum in which we find ourselves. It is the only possible 
way we can get a bill signed into law by the President of the United 
States.
  I repeat, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the House has 
said this amendment, if adopted, would be easily and quickly 
conferenceable with the House-passed bill, meaning that before we leave 
this place for Christmas, we will be able to reward the farmers of this 
country with an end-of-the-year commitment that their farm policy is 
taken seriously by Congress, that we have risen above blind 
partisanship, that we are willing to put the farmers of this country 
above party loyalty, and that we have done absolutely our level best to 
get a bill signed into law by the President.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the House 
Agriculture Committee's Web page statement today, December 19, 2001.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

       Senate Presented With Path to Speedy Farm Bill Conclusion


   Arkansas Senator Tim Hutchinson moves for vote on House-based bill

       December 19, 2001.--House Agriculture Committee Chairman 
     Larry Combest commended Arkansas Senator Tim Hutchinson for 
     giving farmers a real prospect of getting a finalized farm 
     bill this year by urging the Senate to pass the House-based 
     farm bill. The Hutchinson provision already has the bi-
     partisan support of Senators who cosponsored the measure when 
     it was introduced in the Senate November 9. Ag Chairman 
     Combest noted the Hutchinson provision is more than 95 
     percent identical to the October 5th House-passed ``Farm 
     Security Act of 2001,'' and Senate passage of the Hutchinson 
     provision is the only chance to finalize a farm bill this 
     year.
       ``Senator Tim Hutchinson has worked for producers in a 
     positive, practical manner each step of the way to move the 
     Senate to completion of a farm bill, and today is holding 
     forth a light for Senators on the path to a speedy conclusion 
     of the farm bill,'' said Combest. ``Farmers and their lenders 
     need the certainty of a new farm bill as they prepare now for 
     the coming crop year. Senators can do a lot to ease farmers' 
     worries now and help our rural communities by passing the 
     Hutchinson provision today.''
       Like the House-passed Farm Security Act, the bill 
     introduced by Senators Hutchinson, Blanche Lincoln, Jesse 
     Helms, Zell Miller, Mary Landrieu, and John Breaux not only 
     provides for a strong safety net, but it maintains planting 
     flexibility and avoids harmful market distortions. Also, like 
     the House-passed bill, the option offered for Senate vote 
     today complies with WTO commitments and with the Budget 
     Resolution passed by Congress while increasing investment in 
     conservation programs to the highest levels ever.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will quote a portion of this for my colleagues. 
This was placed on their Web page today, December 19, 2001, from House 
Agriculture Committee Chairman Larry Combest. He commends this 
amendment ``for giving farmers a real prospect of getting a finalized 
farm bill this year.'' He urges the Senate to pass this amendment. 
Chairman Combest noted: ``The Hutchinson provision is more than 95 
percent identical to the October 5 House-passed Farm Security Act of 
2001'' and ``Senate passage of the Hutchinson provision is the only 
chance to finalize a farm bill this year.''
  To my colleagues who think there should be agreement on that point at 
this place in our deliberations, I commend Chairman Harkin for a 
tremendous good faith effort to move forward the Senate Agriculture 
Committee-passed farm bill. He has given it a wholehearted effort in 
the Senate Chamber. He has provided opportunities for amendments to be 
offered. I commend him for that, though there are still a number of 
serious amendments outstanding. We have twice voted for cloture. We 
have not seen any change in the breakdown. It is clear that as 
dedicated and as resolved as Chairman Harkin has been, the current 
Harkin-Daschle substitute cannot garner the support of the Senate and 
cannot be conferenced in time to get a bill for our farmers this year. 
Chairman Combest is absolutely right: This is our last and best hope of 
doing it.
  I suggest many of my colleagues have told their farmers face to face 
in their States that they will come here and do their best to get a 
bill passed this year. I suggest we will not have done our best without 
the passage of this substitute, this amendment I have offered today.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Will the distinguished Senator yield for a series of 
questions?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. ROBERTS. This is a most interesting approach, it seems to me. I 
credit the Senator for trying to find a road to break the logjam, to 
try to get out of the box canyon we seem to be in with regard to 
concluding the farm bill.
  I must say at the outset that it is my understanding, basically, that 
your amendment is in the form of a substitute; is it not?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. It is a substitute.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Basically what you are trying to do is take the House 
farm bill as passed. I just asked staff what it passed by over there. 
It was 291 to 120. That is a rather strong bipartisan 
declaration. Basically, what you are doing is taking the House farm 
bill under the banner that most people have been talking about--the 
farm groups, the commodity groups, all the farm organizations, and many 
of us on this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle have said 
for some time two key things: One, move the bill, make sure we move it, 
make sure we expedite it.

  I would like to respond to the distinguished leader on the other side 
of the aisle. Senator Daschle indicated we have spent probably more 
time on this bill than at any time in the history of farm bills. The 
shortest amount of time we have ever spent in the Senate--and I can 
refer to the House as well--is 5 days and the longest is 31. All this 
time hasn't been spent on the farm bill. I am not advocating more time; 
don't misunderstand me. Chairman Harkin has worked very diligently to 
move this process along. I credit him for that. But if, in fact, we are 
going to get this done--and that was the key premise of the many farm 
groups and commodity organizations and many of us who said we need to 
expedite this in an odd-numbered year, don't put it off until a 
political year. And the other premise was, if I understand the Senator 
and from most of the rhetoric in this regard, to save the investment, 
the money, the $73 billion. The administration has indicated basically 
that they don't have any quarrel with the money. Oh, I am sure they 
would like to come down somewhat, but I don't think that is the issue. 
It is the policy that is the issue.
  What the Senator is trying to do is say, OK, if we want to accomplish 
that and save the investment and expedite the progress, this is the way 
to do it, and that all this talk about stalling and putting things off 
could be answered by his amendment. Is that how he sees it?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Well, the Senator has articulated it very well. If we 
are serious about getting a farm bill done this year--and people have 
said they want a bill this year--this is it; this is the last 
alternative. If we want a bill that is conferenceable, that can go to 
the President, this is it.
  I think those who have said, ``let's expedite the farm bill, get a 
bill passed

[[Page S13652]]

this year,'' this is the litmus test. We are going to find out whether 
this is rhetoric or whether it is politics as usual, whether we want 
just an issue or a farm bill this year.
  Mr. ROBERTS. If the Senator will yield further, I am not particularly 
enamored with the House bill. If you want to go a little bit further, I 
am really not enamored with the Senate bill. But we have been through 
that. We have had the Roberts-Cochran debate and that was fair. I 
credit the chairman and everybody else for giving us the time. I think 
we are headed down the wrong track with the Senate bill. I am not 
particularly enamored with the House bill.
  Let me ask the Senator a couple of questions, if I might, to see if 
it is more preferable in my mind to the Senate bill because that is 
what this debate is all about.
  Now, the Senate bill frontloads the $73 billion to the tune of about 
$45 billion in the first 5 years. Then there is $28 billion on down the 
road. So I think we are taking away from the future baseline--that is a 
fancy word for money--for future farmers. It is my understanding that 
the House bill doesn't do that; is that correct?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. The Senator is absolutely correct. That is one of the 
strong reasons why this approach is preferable. I call it the 5 fat 
years and the 5 lean years, the 5 years of plenty and the 5 years of 
famine. That is the danger in frontloading.

  Mr. ROBERTS. If I may ask another question, I know one of the 
sticking points we have here with many western Members is the amendment 
of the Senator from Nevada regarding water. If there is one thing that 
causes a lot of concern out West, where we don't have much of it, it is 
the situation where people worry about the federalization of State 
water rights.
  I am not going to get into that argument one way or the other, but I 
know that Senator Crapo and others have a lot of concern. Some of the 
farm organizations have some concern also. That is in the Senate bill. 
To my knowledge, that is not in the House bill; is that correct?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Let me ask another question, if I might, if the Senator 
will continue to yield. One of the reasons that in the Senate bill they 
were able to move the loan rate up to $3--and I am not going to rehash 
the old discussion on loan rates, as to whether they are market-
clearing, or income protection, or it should be $4, or $5, or $3, or 
whatever. But we get into a lot of problems in terms of market 
distortion and not really enough support, and the money they use to 
increase the loan rates comes from crop insurance reform additions on 
down the road as we get into future years of the farm bill. To my 
knowledge, the House bill did not--I am using strong words--rob, steal 
did not take away or find the offset from the crop insurance reforms 
that we did just last year. Is that not correct?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. ROBERTS. In addition, I hesitate to bring this up, but we got 
into a discussion of what is amber and what isn't in the progression of 
the World Trade Organization talks. I quoted a statement from an outfit 
out of Missouri that tries to take a look at their crystal ball to 
evaluate the effects of farm bills. I think they said we had a 30-
percent chance under the Senate bill that we would be in violation of 
the WTO cap, and that that would be an amber light; that in 2 years it 
was bound to happen. I don't know what the chances are in terms of the 
House farm bill, but it seems to me they could be less. I am not an 
academic, in terms of fabric, to determine that. I don't have that 
crystal ball. Would the Senator say that would be the case?

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I say to the Senator from Kansas that it is my 
understanding that because some of the decoupled payments in the 
Harkin-Daschle substitute are phased out, the likelihood in the course 
of the farm bill of it becoming out of compliance is greater than that 
of the House-passed bill.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Then the key question is this, if the Senator will 
continue to yield. As he knows, in agriculture, we are going through 
some tough times. We are not in very good shape for the shape we are 
in. One of the real things I believe we have to do is get Presidential 
trade authority and get our exports tracking. I am not going to go into 
a long-winded speech on that, but no farm bill, whether it is the bill 
being proposed by the Senator from Arkansas, or Cochran-Roberts, or the 
Senate bill, the Daschle-Harkin bill, can be successful unless we sell 
the product.
  We have not been involved in the 133 trade negotiations--except for 
two--ever since we lost the Presidential trade authority. We exported 
$61 billion of farm products about 3, 4 years ago. Now we are down to 
50, maybe 51, 52. Subtract that difference in terms of what we are 
selling and whether that is what you add up to with emergency spending. 
I don't understand why we don't expedite consideration of the 
Presidential trade authority. That is on the back burner with the 
leadership. That should not be the case. In lieu of that, we are going 
to have to have protection for farmers. In your State there are rice, 
cotton, and soybean producers, and in my State of Kansas there are 
corn, soybean, wheat, and cotton producers--40,000 acres.
  So the question is this: In terms of the support that would be going 
to farmers, under the Senate bill that targets price, that 
countercyclical payment doesn't come into effect until 2004. A lot of 
farmers don't understand that, I don't think, or they would not be 
endorsing this bill. Under the House bill, however, that target price 
comes in right away. I might not agree with target prices--I don't like 
that system--but at least there is a countercyclical payment 
immediately in regard to the bill. Is that not correct?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator will yield for a question.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I have one other question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. I am asking the Senator from Arkansas would he yield.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Let me finish the colloquy with Senator Roberts.
  Mr. WARNER. At an appropriate time, I would like the Senator to yield 
for a minute, also. I will follow the Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The Senator from 
Arkansas should be advised that he has 19 minutes left under the 
previous order.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I will be very quick in terms of this question. The 
Senator heard me state many times, having been involved in six farm 
bills, that Kiki de la Garza, chairman emeritus of the House 
Agriculture Committee, from Texas, who served longer than any other man 
as chairman, used to talk about the best possible bill and the best 
bill possible. This could be the best bill possible if you believe you 
want to move this process along, and conference it with the House, and 
get a bill and save the investment of $73 billion. That has been the 
mantra over and over and over again.
  This is probably the best bill possible. Again, I don't particularly 
care for it. It seems to me that it would fit the description. Where 
are the bravehearts of the farm organizations and the commodity groups? 
Are they still on the sidelines? What are they doing in this regard? 
That is all I have heard for the past 2 weeks. Are the bravehearts 
getting off the sidelines or at least indicating some interest?
  I talked with the House this morning. They indicated that might be 
the case, and I am talking about staff in terms of Mr. Combest and Mr. 
Ross. Are the bravehearts getting off the sidelines or what?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I would expect that. But this was, as the Senator 
knows, filed last night and laid down this morning, so there has been 
little time for the farm groups to weigh in one way or the other.
  But I think the strongest point in the question posed--while there is 
a lot of debate about policy, we have spent the last 2 weeks at various 
times debating the policy of these various bills. The strongest point 
that you made is the one that I have tried to base this entire 
amendment upon, and that is, it is the only chance we have of getting 
improved farm policy, a bill actually signed into law this year.
  That has been the hue and cry. That has been the demand of farm 
organizations and farmers across this country,

[[Page S13653]]

that we finish a bill this year. This is the only way we can do it.
  Chairman Combest has said that. I think it is patently clear that, 
even were the Harkin-Daschle substitute to be agreed to at this point, 
the differences between the House bill and the Harkin-Daschle 
substitute are so great that, in fact, it would take at least 3 weeks, 
as Senator Harkin said last night, for that conference to be completed. 
We would not have a bill in time to help our farmers or to meet that 
demand for it to be finished this year.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator for yielding. I have taken up too 
much time. There are very crucial questions, it seems to me, about what 
is in the Senate bill and House bill and how fast we can move.
  I thank the Senator for his leadership.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I have been told my time has been reduced. We started 
this debate late and the vote is still scheduled for 12:50, I believe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will yield if the time will come from that side of 
the aisle.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time were the proponents offered 
on this unanimous consent request, and how much time are we offered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the vote is called 
for 12:50. After the reduction of the time, the Senator from Arkansas 
had 45 minutes and the Senator from Iowa had 10 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. It is 45 minutes and 10 minutes. I am asking the Senator 
if he will yield for a brief question.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Not on my time.
  Mr. HARKIN. I will yield 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me ask if the Senator will yield and I will use a 
moment of time from the Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a quick question?
  I thank the Senator for his work on peanuts. This is an industry 
which is threatened. In my State, we are talking about small farmers, 
not the billions going to the grain belt. I don't criticize that, but 
it is the small farmer out there.
  We are dealing with people who are farming 40 acres, maybe 100 or so 
acres, sometimes 200. If I am correct, you are raising the target price 
to $5.50?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank you for that. Then 10 cents a pound quota buyout 
for 5 years, that is there. And allowing the producer to assign their 
base the first year and then reassign it the second year, that is very 
important. I thank the Senator and for that reason I give my strongest 
support for his legislation.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia, and 
I am grateful for that commitment of support.
  I inquire of the Senator, my colleague from North Dakota, how much 
time does he request?
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me ask the Senator to yield. I will use 2 minutes of 
time that is allocated to the Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has the floor.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Well, parliamentary inquiry: We are using the time of the 
Senator from Iowa but he doesn't yield the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. DORGAN. I so appreciate the generosity here. Let me ask the 
Senator from Arkansas a question.
  He says this is the last opportunity for a farm bill, this amendment 
he is offering. Is it not the case we will have a cloture vote 
following that and the last opportunity for a farm bill will be for us 
to break the filibuster that has occurred now day after day after day 
on the underlying amendment? Is that not the last opportunity for the 
Senate to move a farm bill?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. As I said, I have voted for cloture and I will again 
vote for cloture. But even if cloture were invoked and the Harkin-
Daschle substitute were adopted, it is not possible to conference it 
and get a farm bill to the President this year.
  Mr. DORGAN. That is a judgment I don't share. The Senator has, in 
fact, voted for cloture. Almost all of his colleagues on that side of 
the aisle have not. We have decided today to allow the Senator from 
Arkansas to offer his amendment, which is essentially a farm bill. We 
say, yes, you offer yours; let's have a vote on that.
  Why are the majority of the Members on your side not willing to do 
the same for our farm bill?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I am sorry. I am not sure----
  Mr. DORGAN. We have had a filibuster day after day after day. We have 
had two unsuccessful votes to try to break it. Almost everyone on your 
side of the aisle has voted to continue the filibuster. You are now 
offering your amendment. We say go ahead and get a vote on your 
substitute farm amendment; go ahead. We will agree to a vote on yours. 
Why do most of the members of the Republican caucus not agree to the 
same thing with respect to the Harkin bill, or the Daschle bill that is 
the underlying bill on the floor of the Senate?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I can't judge their motives and I do not seek to. I 
have urged them to vote for cloture. I think it is very important we 
have a farm bill this year. But time is running out and I urge they 
support cloture.
  Mr. DORGAN. I would say the discourse between----
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Regular order, Mr. President.
  Mr. DORGAN. The regular order is 2 minutes on our time. How much of 
that is consumed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired.
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues for the 
opportunity to visit.
  I inquire as to exactly how much time we have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 13 minutes 42 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I note many of the questions that 
arise in a farm bill debate--some of those posed by both Senator Warner 
and Senator Roberts--deal with the commodity title. Obviously, those 
are great concerns because all of us have our own constituencies.
  The Harkin substitute that we are seeking to amend includes many 
elements that farmers of Arkansas would support. It includes a yield 
update as well as a base acre update; it includes a 100-percent base 
acreage coverage versus the 85-percent base coverage included in the 
House bill and my amendment.
  These are, frankly, changes that would benefit many farmers in 
Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi. That is one of the 
reasons that I have supported the chairman's mark.
  However, this is what we must remember. If these changes mean we will 
not be able to get a farm bill this year, it is time for us to seek a 
different approach. While some of the funding levels for the various 
commodities may not be as high as we have in this substitute, the 
average gross receipts are rather attractive to many farmers in my 
State and other States as well.
  I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yes.
  Mr. NICKLES. I want to maybe take issue with the comments that were 
made that Republicans have been conducting a filibuster on this bill. 
Will the Senator correct me, but haven't we had germane amendments 
every day we have been on this farm bill?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. NICKLES. Then on the issue of cloture, some people are assuming 
if you vote no on cloture you are filibustering the bill. I disagree.
  Isn't it correct, if cloture were invoked, the amendment you are now 
offering would be nongermane?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. That is absolutely correct.
  Mr. NICKLES. Isn't it correct we have asked the Parliamentarian to 
give us a ruling on Senator Grassley's amendment? Senator Dorgan was a 
cosponsor. I hope he still is. I am afraid that would be nongermane.
  Isn't it correct that a lot of people who have very legitimate 
interests in

[[Page S13654]]

agricultural policy want to offer amendments that, if cloture is 
invoked, they are denied that opportunity to do so?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. The Senator is, of course, correct. I respect that. 
The fact is, the farm bill came very late in this session because we 
have been very involved with a lot of important legislation dealing 
with 9-11.
  My support for cloture, and the reason I urge my colleague to support 
it, is because we are running out of time. While there are legitimate 
amendments and there are important amendments, I think we had too much 
finger pointing, too much of Democrats saying Republicans are 
filibustering. Frankly, some of us question the motives on the other 
side. We are running out of time.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield, that is the reason why I came 
to the floor. I heard this ``filibuster'' and I thought, wait a minute, 
this is a very complicated bill. We have been on it for a couple of 
days. But every single amendment--I believe we have had just as many 
amendments offered by Democrats as Republicans or very close and they 
have all been germane.
  I know there are several other amendments that are very germane but 
might fall postcloture. I just wanted to understand from my colleague 
and maybe make an assertion that there is not a filibuster. There is a 
desire to improve a bill that some of us believe is fatally flawed.
  I will also ask my colleague, the bill we have pending, the so-called 
Harkin-Daschle bill that was reported out of the partisan Agriculture 
Committee, isn't that unusual? The facts are that the markup of 
agricultural policy for decades has been bipartisan. Unfortunately, it 
was not in this case in the markup of the Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I say to my colleague from Oklahoma that my history 
on the Agriculture Committee is pretty thin. This is my first time on 
an agriculture bill markup, so I can't really answer this question. But 
I will say this. While the bill that came out of committee has been 
described as being a bipartisan bill, I was the only Republican to 
support that bill. So that cannot be considered nearly as bipartisan as 
the amendment I am now offering which originally, when offered as a 
freestanding bill in the Senate, had four Democrats sponsoring it and 
three Republicans.
  So I would suggest if we are going to talk about a bipartisan 
approach, this is far more bipartisan than the bill that came out of 
committee, unfortunately.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I inquire of my colleague from Arkansas as to how 
much time she would request.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. About 5 minutes.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield Senator Lincoln 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, today is December 19. Twenty days ago, on November 30, 
our leaders made a motion to move to debate on the farm bill. That was 
just after Thanksgiving. Many farmers in Arkansas probably thought, 
finally, the Senate is going to start voting on the merits of the farm 
bill. Members on the other side of the aisle objected; they were not 
ready to move to the farm bill. They said we did not need a farm bill 
this year and we did not have to deal with that issue right now; we 
could put it off for another year, just as we have been putting farmers 
off for the last 4 or 5 years. They forced us to have a procedural 
vote.
  The White House continued issuing statements against considering a 
farm bill this year, and our farmers waited. Our farmers all across 
this Nation waited.
  On December 5, 5 days later, we had a vote that is hard to explain to 
folks outside the beltway. We voted on the motion to invoke cloture on 
the motion to proceed to the farm bill. It passed 73 to 26. In other 
words, 73 Senators thought we should begin debating the farm bill. But 
rather than allowing the Democratic leadership to move forward with the 
bill, Republicans forced us to wait several days and then vote on the 
motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the farm bill. 
Now, with that vote behind us, many farmers in Arkansas probably 
thought, finally, finally, the Senate is going to start voting on the 
merits of a farm bill now.
  Then, on December 5, December 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12, we discussed the 
farm bill. Hanukkah came and went.
  As my colleague from Oklahoma mentioned, this is a difficult bill. 
Farm bills always are. That is why we spent the last year and a half 
discussing the issues of this bill.
  In years past, we have tested the issues of a 5-year farm bill. And 
in the last farm bill we found that the policy we enacted in 1996 was 
completely inadequate. We have been discussing that for a year and a 
half. We have been talking about it in committee. We have been talking 
about it among ourselves and with our colleagues on the other side of 
the Capitol.
  The Senate is supposed to be the deliberative body, and we have 
proven that again with the weeks of debate on a farm bill that took up 
3 days of business in the other body. For 3 days the other body 
deliberated this issue, and we have spent how much time here over the 
course of the last 3 weeks?

  On December 12, the distinguished former chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee, the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, offered his alternative 
to the commodity title of this bill. We debated its merits, and then it 
failed by a vote of 70 to 30.
  Many farmers in Arkansas probably thought, finally, the Senate is 
going to finish up the farm bill. The leading Republican on the 
Agriculture Committee had offered up his best, and the Senate had voted 
no. Now maybe we could pass the farm bill. And then we continued to 
deliberate. We deliberated on December 13, 14, on December 17 and 18.
  Christmas grows near. Yesterday we had another procedural vote in an 
attempt to move the farm bill. The Senate voted on cloture. But we fell 
6 votes short of the 60 needed to move forward. Most Republicans voted 
no. They wanted more time to deliberate.
  It is beyond me who it may be out there in our farmland of America, 
from whom they are hearing, who thinks we are not in an urgent 
situation of providing good agricultural policy. And I do not know, but 
maybe the Senator from Arkansas and I are the only ones who hear from 
farmers who are extremely anxious about whether or not they are going 
to get their financing to put seed in the ground next year or whether 
or not they are going to be able to continue a family farm that has 
been in their family for generations, whether they are going to have to 
continue to farm out the equity of that farm in order to be able to 
continue farming.
  Then the distinguished former chairman of the Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee and the former chairman of the House 
Agriculture Committee offered their alternative. Before yesterday, 
there had not been any written copy of the Cochran-Roberts bill. We 
could not review the bill on its merits. So it became known on this 
side of the aisle as ``what will it take to get your vote?''

  A version of that bill had failed during committee consideration. But 
yesterday, it got its day in the Sun. And it was fully debated on the 
Senate floor. And it failed by a vote of 55 to 40.
  With that vote behind us, many farmers in Arkansas probably thought, 
Finally, the Senate is going to pass the farm bill.
  And that brings us to this day on the brink of another vote to bring 
the Agriculture Committee's farm bill to an up-or-down vote in the 
Senate.
  Now my good friend from Arkansas is prepared to offer a bill that he 
and I introduced prior to the Senate Agriculture Committee considering 
the farm bill.
  We introduced that bill when we were concerned that the Senate 
Agriculture Committee wouldn't pass a farm bill.
  But the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator 
Harkin, worked closely with us to craft a bill that fits the needs of 
all producers.
  I am proud of the bill that came out of committee. And I want to 
commend Chairman Harkin for his hard work.
  I am prepared to vote in favor of final passage of the Harkin farm 
bill right now. It is a good bill. A strong bill that has weathered 20 
days of debate.
  But my friend from Arkansas wants a vote on the bill we introduced 
earlier this fall.
  I will vote in favor of the Hutchinson amendment because it reflects 
a bill that I wrote.

[[Page S13655]]

  But I warn my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Regardless 
of the outcome of this vote, if you vote against cloture at 1:15, you 
will reveal your true intentions regarding U.S. farm policy for all 
America to judge.
  There will be no denying that you have no interest in moving a farm 
bill this year.
  It will be obvious to every farmer who is watching this debate.
  America's farmers will know, without qualification, that you 
preferred to turn your back on them. You will have abandoned them in 
this time when they are desperate for a farm policy based on the 
realities of American farming in the 21th century.
  That is a fine ``Merry Christmas'' wish for rural America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. May I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is controlled by the other Senator 
from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I ask for 1 additional minute.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask the Chair how much time is remaining on my 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Judging from the fact this is not a wholehearted 
endorsement of my amendment, perhaps the----
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I was just describing the debate so far.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Perhaps the request can be granted from the other 
side.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time do I have, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. May I inquire of the Chair, do I still control the 
floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair was inquiring who yields time, and 
the Senator from Iowa made an inquiry and was recognized. The Senator 
from Iowa has the floor.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I simply was going to reserve the remainder of my 
time for closing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is reserved.
  The Senator from Arkansas has 4 minutes. The Senator from Iowa has 
7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will yield myself 5 minutes, and I would 
appreciate the Chair announcing when my 5 minutes is up.
  Mr. President, first of all, this is not the House bill. This is not 
even the bill that my friend from Arkansas introduced last night. In 
order to comply with the budget, they made changes, and what were the 
changes made? It is very interesting. Let's just take a look at two 
areas.
  The Hutchinson amendment really does gut conservation. In the Senate 
bill we put $21.5 billion. The House has $15.8 billion. The Hutchinson 
amendment lowers that to an even $14 billion. But here is where most of 
the money came from. I say to my friend from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln 
and others, we are interested in the small towns and communities. We 
want rural development.
  In the Senate bill we had $1.7 billion--listen to this--over 5 years 
for rural development. The House bill has $1.17 billion over 5 years 
for rural development. So we are pretty close. The Hutchinson amendment 
has--listen carefully--$200 million over 10 years for rural 
development. Gutted.
  So if you want to have a balanced farm bill and one that helps our 
small towns and communities, forget about that amendment. He guts rural 
development and puts it all into commodities. But even putting it into 
commodities, they backload it in 10 years.
  What we have done is said there is a crisis out there right now and 
we need to help farmers right now. For the life of me, I do not 
understand, Mr. President, why the Senator from Arkansas would want to 
hurt his own rice producers.
  Next year, under the committee bill, the payment per acre for rice is 
$148.13 under our bill. Under the amendment of the Senator from 
Arkansas, the payment will be $96.18 per acre for his own rice farmers. 
Why he would want to offer an amendment to penalize his own rice 
farmers, I have no idea, because they go back to the old bases and 
yields. We update the yields. Look at next year. Our payment next year 
is $148 per acre on rice; the Hutchinson amendment is $96 per acre on 
rice.
  With corn, we pay $36.67 per acre; the Hutchinson, $26 per acre. 
Wheat is $18.90 under our bill, $15.54 under Mr. Hutchinson's 
amendment.
  This amendment is not well thought out. It is not even the House 
bill. It is not the House bill at all.
  One more time for the record, I say to my friend from Oklahoma, nine 
titles were approved in our committee unanimously--unanimously. 
Bipartisan, not one dissenting vote. Senator Lugar and I worked it out. 
We worked it out with Senator Hutchinson and all the Republicans and 
Democrats on the committee. The only title that did not come out 
unanimously was the commodity title. Even the Senator from Arkansas 
voted for that, so at least it has some bipartisan support.
  When the Senator says this is some kind of hugely partisan bill, that 
is nonsense on its face. All you have to do is please check the record. 
This bill had strong bipartisan support in the committee.
  Again I respond to my friend from Kansas who said we robbed the crop 
insurance program to increase loan rates. Let the record show, all we 
did was include a provision that extends the very same provision that 
Senator Roberts put in his crop insurance bill last year. It was OK 
when he put it in last year. All we are doing is extending it. Now 
somehow he says it is not OK. We did not gut the crop insurance. If it 
was good enough for Senator Roberts last year, it is good enough for us 
to put it in now and extend it into the future. That is all we did. We 
did not in any way touch or gut the crop insurance program.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. It is my hope to close for the amendment. Is it the 
intent of the opponents of the amendment to use the remainder of their 
time?
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2\1/2\ minutes for the Senator from 
Iowa.
  Mr. CONRAD. I would like 1 minute if I may.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield 1 minute to my friend from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa yields 1 minute.
  Mr. CONRAD. I have said many times that the House-passed farm bill 
represents a good starting point. But it is a starting point that can 
be improved. For example, the House bill falls well short of the bill 
out of the Agriculture Committee in its treatment of commodities such 
as sugar, soybeans, sunflowers, canola, barley, and the pulse crops of 
dry beans, lentils, and chickpeas. In dairy, the Senate bill is 
substantially better than the House bill.
  The House bill skimps on commodity support in its first year, 
providing less than half the support provided by the Senate bill in its 
first year. If the House bill prevails, we may very well find ourselves 
back here late next year considering supplemental support for 
agriculture again. I believe our goal should be to improve the House 
bill. We cannot do it if we simply accept it today.
  The chairman has made clear what is before the Senate is not even the 
House bill.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I have 4 minutes remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer and my 
colleague.
  It seems to me we have a paradox of enormous irony. The majority has, 
for weeks, talked about and urged passage of a farm bill to protect the 
investment in agriculture, the $73 billion provided

[[Page S13656]]

for in the budget, and to expedite consideration with the House of 
Representatives, and we could pass the bill this year.
  Today, let the record show, whether it might be minor differences 
between the bill offered by the distinguished Senator from Arkansas and 
the House bill, the majority is now going to vote against the House 
position before they go to conference. I think that is a paradox. I 
think that is unique. I think that is unprecedented.
  I thank the Senator for the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Let me say very quickly in wrapping up, I appreciate 
working with the chairman, and I think he made a good faith effort.
  As far as the conservation is concerned, I will respond by saying I 
offered increases: The average annual funding level from $200 million 
to $1.3 billion a year for the EQIP program. Livestock and crop 
producers each receive 50 percent of the funding. On the issue of the 
rice, the average gross receipts over the 5 years is $11.90 per 
hundredweight under the House bill and the amendment I offered.
  Yes, yours is higher, but they are not being penalized. It is a bill 
and a position that the Rice Federation and rice producers endorsed 
because they knew it was good for rice when the bill was introduced.
  However, we could argue day and night about this funding and which 
bill is better for the various crops. The reality is, if Members want a 
farm bill this year, if Members want a bill this year, this is it. You 
can bump it up another few billion and maybe everybody in the world 
will be happy, but if you cannot pass the bill, it doesn't help the 
farmers.
  The latest figures show that the Harkin substitute would cost $45.2 
billion over baseline in the first 5 years, leaving only $28.3 billion 
for the second 5 years. Basically, if we do this, we will eliminate the 
funding available in the years 2007 - 2011. That is why I say these 
will be the years of plenty and those will be the years of famine.
  This amendment is balanced, and it is reasonable, and it has broad 
support in the Agriculture Committee and the agricultural community. It 
is bipartisan. It was introduced as a bipartisan bill.
  The basic, underlying, fundamental point is this: It is the only bill 
that is conferenceable with the House. It is the only bill that has any 
chance at all of being signed into law this year. If you have told your 
farmers that you are going to do everything within your power to get a 
farm bill passed this year, then you need to vote for this amendment.
  This will be the highest of ironies, I say to my friend from Kansas, 
that those who have said they don't want to delay a farm bill are going 
to vote against the one vehicle by which they can get a farm bill this 
year; that those who have said there are obstructionists trying to get 
a farm bill passed will be in a position of voting against the one that 
could be signed into law by the end of this year.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. This does not wash--to stall for 2 months, to filibuster 
for 2 weeks, then walk around here pretending you are out of breath 
from running so far. Every step of the way, we had people on that side 
of the aisle trying to prevent us from writing a farm bill, and now 
they are coming to the floor saying: We are trying to move it along.
  This is a sure way to try to move it along--filibustering through two 
cloture votes. We will see at 1:15 if they give us help to move it 
along.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 47 seconds remaining.
  Mr. HARKIN. The time for games is over. The fact is, the White House 
itself has said we should not have a farm bill this year. The ranking 
member of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Lugar, has said that. The 
Secretary of Agriculture has said that. The entire Republican hierarchy 
downtown and here have said time and time again we should not have a 
farm bill this year. Since this amendment is different from that of the 
House, it would still require a conference.
  Again I say, Mr. President, now is the time to pass a good bill. If 
we get cloture today and we can close this bill down, we can conference 
our bill in the next 2 days and we can go into conference with a good 
bill, not with an amendment that is less than what the House has.
  I urge defeat of the Hutchinson amendment.
  I move to table the Hutchinson amendment and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The hour of 12:50 having arrived, under the previous order, the 
question is on agreeing to the motion to table. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no.''
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 376 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--38

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lott
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Akaka
     Helms
     Murkowski
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the order 
of business now before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture vote is the next order of 
business.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand there is no time remaining. I 
ask unanimous consent that I be given 1 minute and that the other side 
be given 1 minute prior to the cloture vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we will now go to a cloture vote. It will 
be the third cloture vote. The majority leader has said that will be 
it, because this is Wednesday. To finish the 30 hours after cloture, if 
we got cloture, would require the rest of the week. We all want to get 
out of here by Friday or Saturday--I hope. So this really would be the 
last opportunity to have closure on the farm bill.
  We have had good votes. We voted on the Lugar substitute. We voted on 
Cochran-Roberts. We voted on Hutchinson. There may be other amendments. 
They should be germane. Somebody said about cloture, it cuts off 
amendments. It does not cut off any germane amendments to this 
agriculture bill.
  So let's have the cloture vote. We get our 30 hours. At least then we 
can finish the bill. Then the staff can work on

[[Page S13657]]

it in January, and when we come back on January 23, we can meet in a 
short conference and get the bill to the President before the end of 
the month.
  If cloture is defeated, I can assure you, all of my fellow Senators, 
the President will not get this bill until sometime in March or April, 
if even then. So this is the last train out of the station. I hope we 
can get it done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, we worked with the distinguished chairman 
carefully. There are a large number of issues that must be discussed 
before this bill is perfected.
  In good faith, I ask the Senate to give us opportunities to perfect 
this bill. It must be perfected, in my judgment, if the President is to 
sign it, if we are to have a successful conference, and in fact if we 
are to have successful agricultural policy.
  In fairness, there are a number of amendments that must be heard 
that, in due course, will have to be heard somewhere in the land. This 
is the proper forum and the proper time. I ask my colleagues to vote 
against cloture to keep the process alive because I am confident we 
will improve the bill if we have that opportunity.
  I thank the Chair.


           changes to h. con. res. 83 pursuant to section 213

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 213 of H. Con. Res. 83, the FY 
2002 Budget Resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee to make adjustments to the allocation of budget authority and 
outlays to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, provided certain 
conditions are met.
  Pursuant to section 213, I hereby submit the following revisions to 
H. Con. Res. 83.
  The revisions follow:
Current Allocation to the Senate Committee:
                                                           ($ millions)
  FY 2002 Budget Authority.......................................21,175
  FY 2002 Outlays................................................17,856
  FY 2002-06 Budget Authority....................................69,640
  FY 2002-06 Outlays.............................................52,349
  FY 2002-11 Budget Authority...................................114,692
  FY 2002-11 Outlays.............................................80,210
  Adjustments:......................................................
FY 2002 Budget Authority............................................  0
FY 2002 Outlays.....................................................  0
FY 2002-06 Budget Authority......................................37,751
FY 2002-06 Outlays...............................................34,465
FY 2002-11 Budget Authority......................................66,150
FY 2002-11 Outlays...............................................66,150
  Revised Allocation to the Senate Agriculture Committee:...........
FY 2002 Budget Authority.........................................21,175
FY 2002 Outlays..................................................17,856
FY 2002-06 Budget Authority.....................................107,391
FY 2002-06 Outlays...............................................86,814
FY 2002-11 Budget Authority.....................................180,842
FY 2002-11 Outlays..............................................146,360
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have been on this bill for almost a 
record length of time now. I am told that tomorrow we will break the 
record for the length of time a farm bill has been debated. If we get 
cloture, of course, we will still entertain 30 hours of debate for 
germane amendments. As I have done on several occasions, we will also 
entertain unanimous consent requests to consider amendments that are 
not germane.
  But time has run out. This is the third cloture vote. We have a lot 
of other legislation that must be addressed before the end of the week. 
We have three conference reports on appropriations that must be 
completed. We have other legislation of import to both sides of the 
aisle that must be addressed and, hopefully, completed.
  I announced earlier today that if we fail to get cloture on this 
vote, we will have no other choice but to go on to other issues. That 
will terminate the debate and end any possibility that we could 
complete our work on the farm bill this year.

  I put all my colleagues on notice, after three cloture votes we need 
to move on. It is up to both of us, Republicans and Democrats, to make 
that decision. We can finish this bill. We can accommodate all the 
other items that need to be addressed, but we have to move on. Germane 
amendments for 30 hours ought to be enough for everybody who has 
debated this bill now for over 2 weeks. I ask my colleagues to vote for 
cloture. Let's get this work done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Republican leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield myself leader time so I may respond. 
I know Senator Daschle might want to close the debate.
  Let me just emphasize on this issue, first of all, I don't believe 
this is a record. I think if you go back and search the record, we have 
spent as long as 30 days on an agriculture bill. We could go back and 
forth over what the length of time was. The important thing, though, is 
to get the right thing done.
  This legislation does not expire until next year. We are not going to 
get a conference agreement on this legislation whether we complete 
action now or next week or sometime before the end of the year. The 
conference will go well into the next year. I suspect this will be a 
pretty difficult and long conference. There is no need to continue to 
have this vote.
  Unfortunately, this is the most partisan farm bill I recall seeing in 
my 29 years in the Congress. Farm bills are almost always, if not 
always, very bipartisan in the way they are brought out of committee 
and the way they are considered on the floor. Unfortunately, that has 
not been the case here.
  Farm legislation is very important. We should make sure, when we come 
back next year, this is the first issue pending and complete action. In 
the meantime though, we should keep our focus on the three 
appropriations conference reports, seeing if we can get a bill through 
that will help the families and the unemployed on the stimulus package, 
and see if we can get an agreement on the terrorism reinsurance and 
bioterrorism. Those are the issues we really can do, should do, and I 
hope we will do.
  I urge my colleagues, do not rush to judgment. Let's not be forced to 
invoke cloture when there are important amendments that would be cut 
off, such as the one Senator Grassley has on limitations.
  There is no need to be panicked here. We can do this. We can do it 
right. We cannot cut off our colleagues who have good amendments. We 
can complete action in due time and get a good farm bill well before 
the law expires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Let me respond briefly. First of all to the Grassley 
amendment, we are told now that it is germane, and certainly it would 
be eligible for consideration. That goes to the point I made just a 
moment ago. A lot of amendments that are still pending will certainly 
be entitled to consideration, entitled to a vote, and that is as it 
should be.
  I also note the Republican leader's comment that this has been a 
partisan process. I am told by the chair of the committee that we have 
never had as many unanimous votes in a markup as we had with 
consideration of this farm bill. Of the titles that were passed out of 
the committee relating to this bill, nine of them passed unanimously. 
Only one failed unanimity. That doesn't sound partisan to me.
  The commodity title was the only title that generated votes on both 
sides. Every other vote, in all nine titles, was passed unanimously.
  Again, as to the assertion that we can wait, I must say I urge you 
all to refer to the Budget Committee and their projections that, by 
waiting, we chance losing $25, $30, $40 billion in budgetary authority. 
This in essence is a vote to cut agriculture by a substantial amount of 
money, if we fail cloture now, if we don't take full advantage of the 
budget window we have available to us.
  We can't wait. I know the administration has urged that we wait, the 
Secretary of Agriculture has urged that we wait. I must say, 32 or more 
farm organizations have urged us to act now. Why? Because they are 
worried about the budgetary implications. Why? Because they want 
farmers and ranchers to have the opportunity to make the transition. 
Why? Because the Department of Agriculture normally needs 6 months to 
make the transition. There are plenty of reasons it is important for us 
to bring this debate to a close. Let's do it. Let's move on to the 
other issues we have to confront. Then let's going home for Christmas.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. The majority leader referred to the fact that a lot of 
farm

[[Page S13658]]

organizations support this bill. Was the majority leader aware that the 
American Farm Bureau Federation wrote a letter today, December 19, 
which reads in part:

       The American Farm Bureau Federation Board of Directors in a 
     special meeting on Tuesday, December 18, 2001 voted to oppose 
     senate passage of the farm bill if it contains the water 
     language that your amendment is intended to strike.

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

                                              American Farm Bureau


                                                   Federation,

                                Washington, DC, December 19, 2001.
     Hon. Michael Crapo,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Crapo: I am writing to convey the strongest 
     support possible of the American Farm Bureau Federation for 
     your amendment to strike the Reid water rights language from 
     the conservation title of S. 1731. This language poses an 
     extraordinary new threat to agriculture and the ability of 
     farmers and ranchers to remain economically viable.
       The water provisions in the bill set a dangerous precedent 
     that would erode historic state water law. Additionally, it 
     will expand the scope of the Endangered Species Act to cover 
     a new category of species that are not in fact threatened or 
     endangered. These changes are unacceptable to agriculture and 
     will affect agricultural producers well beyond those who 
     participate in the Conservation Reserve Program.
       The American Farm Bureau Federation board of directors in a 
     special meeting on Tuesday, December 18, 2001 voted to oppose 
     Senate passage of the farm bill if it contains the water 
     language that your amendment is intended to strike.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bob Stallman,
                                                        President.

  Mr. NICKLES. It is just one farm organization, but it happens to be 
the largest farm organization in the country.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I haven't seen the letter, but I will 
tell you, the Farm Bureau has probably been the leader of all farm 
organizations in urging the Senate not to delay. It is one thing to 
vote for or against a particular piece of legislation relating to 
amendments that may or may not be offered. But it is another thing 
altogether to complete our work. The Farm Bureau, the Farmers Union, 
virtually every farm organization known to this country has urged the 
Senate to complete its work, and to do it this week--not next week, not 
in February, not March, but now.
  The Farm Bureau, the Farmers Union, all the other farm groups have 
said that. I think those positions ought to be made clear as well.
  I yield to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to respond to my friend from 
Oklahoma. I spoke with Mr. Bob Stallman this morning on the phone. He 
is the president of the American Farm Bureau Federation. He referred to 
this letter. He referred to the conference call they had yesterday. 
That is true, they are opposed. He said to me--and I asked, May I 
relate this? He said yes--they are absolutely in favor of cloture, of 
bringing this to an end. But then again he said they would be opposed 
to the bill if it had that water right in it. But he told me on the 
phone this morning they were absolutely in favor of cloture and 
bringing it to a close.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the time has come for us to move to the 
other important pieces of legislation that have to be addressed. Let us 
complete our work on this bill. We have been on it long enough. We have 
debated every conceivable amendment. I think the time has come for us 
now to complete our work.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will yield. I know there is a Senator on the floor who 
needs to catch an airplane. This will be the last time I yield.
  Mr. SESSIONS. My request would be that there be one last attempt to 
make a bipartisan compromise here. We have people such as Senator 
Lugar, Senator Cochran, Senator Grassley, Senator Roberts, with deep 
histories in farm legislation, who are troubled by this bill. I believe 
we can work it out, as we have in several other last-minute 
circumstances. But to just shelve it with no willingness to give on the 
majority leader's side is not healthy.
  Will the majority leader try that?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me say, we will have 30 hours, 30 
hours of debate, to try every conceivable new avenue to reach some 
compromise. I am more than willing to sit down with our two managers, 
with other Senators who have an interest in completing our work.
  The real question is whether or not we want to finish the farm bill 
this year. I hope people can say on both sides of the aisle in the 
affirmative, yes, we will finish our bill this year. We will complete 
our work as all farm organizations and as our responsibility dictate.
  I yield the floor and ask for the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:


                             Cloture Motion

  We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of 
rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to 
a close the debate on the Daschle for Harkin substitute amendment No. 
2471 to Calendar No. 237, S. 1731, the farm bill:

         Paul Wellstone, Tim Johnson, Bill Nelson, Harry Reid, 
           Blanche L. Lincoln, Zell Miller, Barbara Boxer, Byron 
           L. Dorgan, Max Baucus, Thomas Carper, Ben Nelson, Kent 
           Conrad, Tom Harkin, Patrick J. Leahy, Fritz Hollings 
           and Jean Carnahan.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call under the rule has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
substitute amendment No. 2471 to S. 1731, the farm bill, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 377 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--43

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Akaka
     Helms
     Murkowski
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 54, and nays are 
43. Three fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I enter the motion to reconsider the cloture vote.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to express my grave disappointment 
at the failure of the Senate to achieve cloture on S. 1731, the Senate 
farm bill. Today, as on two other occasions in the last 13 days we have 
debated the farm bill in the Senate, a majority of our body has voted 
for cloture, a parliamentary tool applied to end excessive debate and 
to ensure we could finish the farm bill by the end of the year. 
Unfortunately, even though a majority of the Senate wants to pass a 
farm bill

[[Page S13659]]

this year, the Senate Republican leader has blocked an up-or-down vote 
on the farm bill, forcing the Senate to revisit this issue next year. 
It requires 60 votes to terminate a filibuster and to allow the Senate 
to proceed with its work.
  Today, farmers and ranchers across South Dakota and the entire 
country are busy doing their jobs. They are maintaining their 
operations, feeding livestock, deciding what to plant for the 2002 crop 
year, discussing prices, expenses and economic matters with their 
lenders, all in anticipation that Congress will do their jobs and 
complete a farm bill this year. The only problem is that Congress, 
namely a certain number in the Senate, has failed family farmers and 
ranchers by rejecting action on the farm bill this year. Despite the 
fact that every major farm and ranch organization in the country wanted 
to complete action on the farm bill this year, a certain number in the 
Senate ignored these 32 groups. In fact, Mr. Bob Stallman, the 
President of the American Farm Bureau Federation has been quoted as 
saying that a vote against cloture is a slap in the face to farmers. 
Unfortunately, Farm Bureau, Farmers Union, and all the other farm 
groups were ignored today and on two prior cloture votes. On three 
separate occasions the U.S. Senate was given an opportunity to 
demonstrate how important family farmers, ranchers, and rural 
communities are to the overall well-being of the country, because the 
Senate had cloture votes on three separate days. On three occasions the 
Senate was given a chance to say we'll write a new farm bill this year, 
we'll go to conference with the House, and we'll send a bill to the 
President. On three occasions the Senate was given an opportunity to 
send a message to farmers and ranchers all across the country that we 
care about them, that we want a better farm bill for rural America, and 
that it was important to us to deliver a new farm bill to them. Yet, on 
Thursday, December 13, the Senate obstructed action on the farm bill by 
a 53-45 vote. Then on Tuesday, December 18 and today, Wednesday 
December 19, the Senate rejected cloture on a 54-43 vote each day. 
Rejecting cloture simply means a rejection of the farm bill this year. 
That is very unfortunate.
  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.
  Some will allege the Senate did not have time to fully debate the 
merits of S. 1731, the Senate farm bill. However, that is clearly not 
the case. Rather, in the last 13 days we have debated the farm bill, 
approximately 20 amendments were proposed to the underlying bill. Three 
of these amendments were comprehensive alternatives to the farm bill 
passed out of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Of these three 
substantial alternatives, one was a proposal by Senator Lugar to 
overhaul the farm bill's commodity title with a severe reduction in 
support to South Dakota's crop producers, essentially by eliminating 
the marketing loan program. On December 12, the Senate voted against 
the Lugar amendment on a 70-30 vote. Then, yesterday, the Senate 
debated at great length an alternative to the farm bill offered by 
Senators Cochran and Roberts. Their alternative would have revamped 
many titles of the farm bill, including major changes to the commodity 
and conservation titles. Yesterday, the Senate rejected the Cochran-
Roberts alternative by a 40-55 vote. Finally, today, Senator Tim 
Hutchinson offered a near identical version of the House-passed farm 
bill (HR 2646) for consideration and debate in the Senate. Today, the 
Senate soundly rejected the House proposal by a 38-59 vote. In the 
final analysis, a clear majority in the Senate has gone on the record 
in opposition to three major farm bill alternatives. I am confident 
that if we were allowed a straight up-and-down vote on the Senate farm 
bill, we would pass it. However, certain Senators have resorted to 
stall out the farm bill, essentially killing it for the year.
  Finally, I will do all I can to make sure the farm bill is the very 
first order of business that we take up in 2002. We may still have time 
to pass a farm bill in the Senate, conference with the House, and send 
a bill to the President. In the meantime, I will continue to fight for 
South Dakota's priorities in the farm bill. Some of these priorities 
include; my provision to forbid meatpacker ownership of livestock, 
which will restore fair competition in the marketplace; my provision to 
provide for country-of-origin labeling of beef, lamb, pork, fruits, 
vegetables, peanuts, and farm-raised fish; my provision to prohibit 
USDA quality grade stamps on imported meat; an energy title that 
promotes value-added ethanol, biodiesel and wind production in South 
Dakota; a conservation title increasing the Conservation Reserve 
Program to 41 million acres; and; a commodity title containing higher 
loan rates than the House farm bill and a provision that rewards 
farmers with an allowance for an update on a farmer's yields and 
planted acreage for the purpose of making price support payments. None 
of these provisions are contained in the House farm bill.
  We have more work to do. In addition to completing action on the farm 
bill, we should address common-sense payment limitations in the farm 
bill so family farmers and ranchers truly benefit from it. I look 
forward to next year and our endeavor to provide America's family 
farmers and ranchers with a new farm bill.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise in support of the 
Daschle substitute to the committee-passed bill.
  Let me begin my statement by pointing out that every farmer I talk 
with in Nebraska wants Congress to pass a new farm bill this year. This 
legislation is awfully important to tens of thousands of farm families 
in Nebraska and they are asking me to get it done.
  For my State, with its 55,000 farm families where we have more cows 
than people there may be no greater economic stimulus package than the 
farm bill.
  Many of my colleagues have thanked Chairman Harkin, ranking member 
Lugar, and their staffs for their hard work in getting this bill 
together. Let me add my thanks. It was not an easy job.
  But then, neither is farming in an environment where commodity prices 
for crops remain at historic lows for the fourth straight year.
  Or where livestock producers--the largest sector of agriculture in my 
state--are facing costly new environmental regulations with frightfully 
few federal resources to help share the burden.
  So I rise in support of this legislation and ask my colleagues to 
join me in its consideration.
  This bill breathes new life into our commodity programs, provides 
nutrition programs for hungry children and adults, supports our 
international food donation and trade efforts, and protects millions of 
acres of environmentally sensitive land, among many other important 
priorities.
  It makes a real commitment--both in programs and funding--to rural 
development. I have worked with many Nebraskans involved in rural 
development in their communities, and these are the provisions they 
asked for: Access to venture capital. Adequate funding for water and 
sewer projects. Greater access to broadband service. More funding for 
value-added product development.
  A modest investment in these programs will have tremendous return in 
rural communities all across America. I hope my colleagues have heard 
from their constituents about the importance of these provisions and 
that they are as enthusiastic as Nebraskans are.
  This bill also includes, for the first time, a title devoted to 
agriculture-based energy. It's a terrific idea and

[[Page S13660]]

one whose time has come. I only wish the Agriculture Committee had the 
jurisdiction to go further!
  Nevertheless, the provisions in the energy title that provide grants, 
loans and technical assistance to farmers and ranchers to develop and 
incorporate renewable energy use will be, I predict, widely 
oversubscribed.
  In five years we will be back here trying to expand these programs, 
like we have our conservation programs, because demand has far 
surpassed the funding available.
  Speaking of conservation, let me briefly comment on the conservation 
title. The Chairman and Ranking Member of our committee deserve special 
recognition for their vision in moving farm programs toward a more 
conservation-oriented policy.
  Environmental and sportsmens' groups--the hook and bullet coalition, 
I heard them called recently have been working toward the expansion of 
these programs for years, and their efforts pay off in this bill.
  CRP, WRP, WHIP, FPP . . . the acronyms all run together, but each 
program has a distinct and invaluable purpose.
  Of particular interest to Nebraskans are the significant new 
resources for the EQIP program, which will allow it to ramp up to $1.25 
billion a year by 2006 from just $200 million now.
  It will provide assistance to thousands of livestock producers, in 
particular, to comply with new regulations. Just as importantly, it 
will assist row crop producers in protecting water supplies, soil 
quality and wildlife habitat. The House also made a significant 
commitment to EQIP and I commend them for that.
  A critical title of this legislation reauthorizes and expands 
nutrition programs. Included is a provision of particular importance to 
Nebraska and other states with military installations.
  The privatization of housing on military bases has had the unintended 
consequence of jeopardizing eligibility for the free and reduced cost 
school lunch program for qualifiying children. Because of the reporting 
requirements in the privatization legislation, service members' housing 
allowances are now being counted as income making children who 
previously qualified for the free and reduced cost school lunch program 
ineligible.
  So, unfortunately, as a result of a policy that I support--privatized 
housing on our military bases--we are improving quality of life with 
one hand and taking it away with the other.
  This bill creates a stop-gap solution to this problem, until child 
nutrition programs can be reauthorized.
  Finally, the commodity title is of course the engine driving this 
train. I cannot overstate how important it is to Nebraska.
  Farmers, as we all know, are deriving an ever-increasing share of 
their income from farm program payments under Freedom to Farm.

  The law that was supposed to rid them of the shackles of Federal farm 
programs has instead made them more dependent on the government than 
ever before. It has cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars in 
emergency assistance.
  Farmers in Nebraska have said resoundingly, ``Enough!'' and they are 
right. It is time for a new program that offers some stability and a 
reasonable chance at profitability. And it's time for a program that no 
longer offers its benefits based on what you may have planted 20 years 
ago.
  This legislation provides a modest increase in loan rates, and I do 
mean modest. Corn goes from $1.89 to $2.08; wheat from $2.56 to $3.00.
  Farmers in Nebraska have been calling for an increase in loan rates 
for years, but this is hardly what they had in mind.
  And still, there are those who call it excessive. Who say that these 
loan rates--still well below what it costs farmers to raise a crop--
will ``stimulate production.''
  I ask them: where? Freedom to Farm sent farmers checks when prices 
were at record highs and they did what any business would do--they 
invested in greater productivity. And they were successful.
  As we know too well, it took only two years of Freedom to Farm for 
prices to collapse. And they have not recovered. And still the 
government signals, ``Plant more.'' ``Buy more land.'' ``Expand your 
operation.''
  The current program, I say to my colleagues, stimulates production. 
So I do not see where all this new production is going to come from.
  What I do see is a loan rate that offers producers a fighting chance 
at making a cash flow work with their banker this spring. A safety net 
that leaves them less dependent on the continued largesse of Congress. 
And I like that, and so do they.
  The commodity title reauthorizes programs for sugarbeet growers, 
which is also important to my state. To the 550 families growing 
sugarbeets in western Nebraska, this bill is critical.
  And it meets other needs of other regions and senators that make it 
truly a national program--including peanuts and fruits and vegetables.
  So I thank Chairman Harkin for putting this bill together and I urge 
the Senate to invoke cloture and move to its immediate consideration.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, last week we voted on an amendment by 
Senator Johnson that would prohibit meat packers from feeding, owning, 
or controlling livestock. I voted for this amendment because of 
concerns from my livestock producers that the packers have too much 
control of the market.
  Since that time, I have received more information on how this 
provision would be implemented. It has come to my attention that the 
language as written would prohibit forward contracting, future 
contracts, and other pricing mechanisms.
  This is significant information. Indeed, had I known it at the time 
of the vote, I would have voted differently.
  For that reason, I took the only action available to me to correct 
the situation. I filed two alternative amendments to the farm bill: one 
that would prohibit the Johnson language from going into effect, and 
another that would substitute a study to determine the economic impact 
of such a proposal. The proposed ban on packer ownership, as offered by 
Senator Johnson, could cause widespread economic harm in the livestock 
and packing industries, but no one has explored what the true 
implications would be. My amendment would require the US Department of 
Agriculture to complete this study within nine months.
  I have always been a free market conservative; however, I regularly 
hear from ranchers expressing concerns about concentration in the meat 
packing industry. In Idaho we have two packers, and the only thing 
worse than just two packers, is to have only one. I am concerned that 
the language as passe4d could result in further consolidation within 
the packing industry.
  While I agree with my producers that we have a problem, we must be 
sure that our solution does not create an even bigger long-term 
problem.


                              meat packers

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last week the Senator from South Dakota 
and I offered an amendment which would prohibit meat packers from 
owning, feeding or controlling livestock prior to slaughter. Together, 
we had introduced legislation in the Senate to accomplish the very goal 
of our amendment. A majority of our colleagues in the Senate voted in 
favor of our amendment. However, since that time, concerns have been 
raised by the Secretary of Agriculture and some in the livestock 
industry that the language of the amendment, specifically the word 
``control'' would affect forward contracts or marketing agreements. I 
do recall that the Senator from Montana inquired as to whether this 
amendment affected such contracts and that the Senator from South 
Dakota responded that the amendment did not affect them. However, I 
would ask the Senator from South Dakota for further clarification on 
that issue.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the Senator from Iowa for his leadership on this 
issue. Additionally, I thank him for his concern for livestock 
producers and for the opportunity to clarify any misunderstandings. The 
amendment is not intended to affect forward contracts or marketing 
agreements. Such arrangements have caused or can cause problems in the 
market, but they are outside the scope of this amendment.
  The intent of the word ``control'' must be read in the context of 
ownership. In other words, control means substantial operational 
control of livestock production, rather than the mere

[[Page S13661]]

contract right to receive future delivery of livestock produced by a 
farmer, rancher or feedlot operator. ``Control'' according to legal 
dictionaries means to direct, manage or supervise. In this case, the 
direction, management and supervision is directed towards the 
production of livestock or the operations producing livestock, not the 
simple right to receive delivery of livestock raised by someone else.
  The word control is intended to close any loophole which may allow 
clever attorneys to circumvent congressional intent. Such loopholes 
could include situations where a packer that owns livestock engages in 
a transaction where a farmer takes nominal title to livestock or 
livestock feeding operations, but a packer has substantial operational 
control over the livestock production which is similar to ownership. 
Another situation is where a packer could exercise such operational 
control through a related entity. However, where a farmer or rancher 
holds true operational control, this amendment would not affect him.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from South 
Dakota does not intended the word ``control'' to include forward 
contracts and marketing agreements. However, how are such contracts 
different from operational control?
  Mr. JOHNSON. There are two reasons that forward contracts and 
marketing agreements are not within the definition of control. First, 
these contracts do not allow a packer to exercise any control over 
livestock production operation. Rather, the contracts merely provide 
the packer with the right to receive delivery of livestock in the 
future and most include a certain amount of quality specifications. 
There is no management, direction or supervision over the farm 
operation in these contracts. The farmer or rancher makes the decision 
to commit the delivery of livestock to a packer through the contract 
without ceding operational control. In fact, the farmer or rancher 
still could make a management decision to delivery the livestock to 
another packer other than the one covered in the contract, albeit 
subject to damages for breach of contract. Even where such contracts 
include detailed quality specifications, control of the operation 
remains with the farmer. The quality specifications simply related to 
the amount of premiums or discounts in the final payment by the packer 
for the livestock delivered under the contract.
  Second, several states prohibit packer ownership of livestock, such 
as Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska. The Iowa law, for example, prevents 
packers from owning, operating or controlling a livestock feeding 
operation in that state. But packers and producers may still enter into 
forward contracts or marketing agreements without violating that law 
because operational control, in the context of ownership, is the issue. 
The term control is intended to be similarly interpreted and applies in 
this amendment.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I concur and understand the distinction between control 
of livestock production in the operational sense and a mere contract in 
which a packer has the right to receive delivery of livestock in the 
future. I also understand that farmer owned cooperatives, including 
federated agricultural cooperatives, are exempt if they own a packing 
plant. But there is yet another situation in which some packers enter 
into joint ventures with farmer-owned cooperatives that has members 
which would supply the jointly owned packing plant.
  It has never been our intent to prevent cooperatives from engaging in 
relationships with packers, and the amendment does not do that. For 
example, in Iowa, Excel, which is owned by Cargill, is in negotiations 
with a beef cooperative to build a packing plant to be owned by a joint 
venture. If that deal is completed, the actual packer would be the 
joint venture entity formed by Cargill/Excel and the beef cooperative. 
Co-op members who chose to participate in that endeavor can freely 
commit all or a portion of their cattle for slaughter without violating 
this amendment. The reason is that the packer in the exercises no 
operational control over livestock production. Rather, the package 
again has a mere contractual right to receive delivery of cattle that 
meet its specifically on graduate and quality. That contract may be a 
standards forward contract or marketing agreement, or the contract may 
take the form of a membership agreement between each farmer member and 
the beef cooperative. In either even, this amendment does not affect 
this joint venture arrangement.
  Mr. JOHNSON. That is absolutely correct Senator Grassley, and we have 
advocated this position all along. Thank you from clarifying that issue 
with me. While forward contracts and marketing agreements can pose 
problems for the marketplace, they are outside the purview of our 
amendment.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Thank Senator Johnson for clarifying the scope of the 
amendment.

                          ____________________