[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 177 (Wednesday, December 19, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13661-S13664]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      FAILURE TO PASS A FARM BILL

  Mr. HARKIN. What was the final vote, I inquire?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas are 54; the nays are 43.
  Mr. HARKIN. We would have had 55. Senator Akaka was missing, of 
course.
  This is a sad day and not a very bright Christmas next week for 
farmers and ranchers and people who live in rural America. What we have 
said to them is: You don't count; you will come on the tail end of 
everything else. We will do this, we will do that around here, but when 
it comes to our farmers and ranchers, you are at the tail end. That is 
what my Republican colleagues have said. Go take a hike, they said to 
rural America. We will deal with you later. We will deal with you 
later.
  I come from a town of 150 people. I was born and raised there. I bet 
I am the only Senator in this Chamber who lives in the house in which 
he was born. I wasn't born in the hospital; I was born in the house. I 
still live in that house in a town of 150 people. I have a strong 
feeling about people who live in small towns and communities that need 
rural development, that need sewer and water, need better 
communications, telecommunication centers in our country, who need job 
opportunities. Our farmers surround these small communities and this is 
what they need for them and their families and their livelihood.
  We tried everything humanly possible to get this bill passed, in good 
faith, working in a bipartisan manner. Facts are devilish little things 
because facts give lie to rhetoric. We hear all this rhetoric from the 
other side that this is a partisan bill. If it wasn't so partisan, we 
could get it through.
  But the facts are devilish things. And the facts are that every 
single title of this bill we worked on, I worked closely with my 
ranking member, a good friend, an honorable person, someone who cares 
deeply about agriculture. We worked on these. We worked them out in 
committee. Every single title got a unanimous vote, all Republicans, 
all Democrats, but one title, commodities.
  Senator Hutchinson from Arkansas voted with us, so it was bipartisan. 
Basically, the same thing happened in 1995. We had to deal with the 
commodity title in the Chamber. I understood that. But then we had all 
the amendments that gutted nutrition, gutted conservation, that went 
after rural development. And we had all decided in the committee, 
unanimously, on what we reported out.
  The facts give lie to rhetoric. They have the rhetoric. They have 
been hit with the rhetoric, but the facts are on our side. This is one 
of the most bipartisan farm bills ever to come out of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee. The facts are there and cannot be denied. Again, 
they talked about reaching more of a bipartisan consensus. Again, the 
facts are devilish little things.
  We had three big amendments offered on the Republican side that were 
sort of in the nature of substitutes for a committee bill. One was the 
amendment offered by my friend from Indiana, the ranking member, 
Senator Lugar. Then we had the amendment offered by Senators Cochran 
and Roberts. And then this morning we had the amendment offered by 
Senator Hutchinson. If you listened this morning, you heard Senator 
Hutchinson and others saying this would be the only bill; if only we 
would pass the Hutchinson bill, it could be the only bill that

[[Page S13662]]

could get through conference and get to the President.
  The facts are devilish things. The Lugar amendment got 30 votes. The 
Cochran-Roberts amendment got 40 votes. The Hutchinson amendment this 
morning got 38 votes.

  What are they talking about? I assume what they mean when they want a 
bipartisan bill is they want the 30 or the 40 people to decide. That is 
not bipartisan. We had the votes. What it showed was the majority of 
the Senate wants the committee bill, but for some reason they will not 
vote for cloture to give the 60 votes.
  I ask, what is partisan about somewhat higher or lower rates? What is 
partisan about that? What is partisan about fixed payments, which we 
have in our bill? What is partisan about countercyclical payments, so 
that if the price goes down we come in and help farmers out? What is 
partisan about a strong conservation program, that even the Secretary 
of Agriculture, in the book they published earlier, touted widely?
  This is a balanced package. It was right down the middle. It was not 
radical. It was not partisan. When you get a bill that can get 
unanimous votes on our committee on every title except one, I say that 
is a pretty doggone good bipartisan bill. It may not be what every 
single person wants. Not everything in that bill is something I would 
want. But I recognize you have to balance interests--not only between 
parties, but you have to balance them geographically and between crops.
  That is what we did.
  Now, let me talk about the cloture vote. Cloture is a funny sounding 
word. I assume when farmers and the people in my small towns in Iowa 
and places where I live are watching this on C-SPAN, or they pick up 
the newspapers, or watch it on television, or hear it on the radio, 
they wonder what cloture means. All it means is that we bring the bill, 
finally, to an end at some point. There is some point at which we end. 
Even after the cloture vote, 30 more hours are added onto the almost 3 
weeks we have already been on it--30 hours with germane amendments 
allowed. Obviously, nongermane amendments would not be allowed.
  Is the other side saying they want a farm bill on which they can add 
everything that is not germane? Go out and tell that to the farmers. 
Tell them they stopped this bill because they wanted to add a stimulus 
package--some tax giveaway program or some other extraneous matters.
  I say to the farmers and ranchers and people in my small towns, all 
cloture means is we were going to reach the point of a final vote. It 
did not say how you vote. But there would be 30 more hours with 
amendments that were all germane to the farm bill.
  Even my friend from Iowa, my colleague, had an amendment on payment 
limits. He was upset this morning. There was a little to-do last night 
and this morning about it. We worked it out so his amendment would be 
germane. Yet he still voted against cloture.
  What more can you do? What more can you possibly do? This is not a 
good day for farmers, for agribusiness, for our bankers and lenders all 
over rural America. I have been here 27 years. Not as long as my 
colleague from Indiana, but I have been here 27 years. I have been on 
the Agriculture Committee 27 years--in the House and then here in the 
Senate. I have been through over a half dozen farm bills; about four of 
those in the Senate. Some of them have been pretty tough debates. We 
have had tough debates here. Farm bills engender tough debates. 
Sometimes I kind of like it. They are good debates.

  But in all of those years, I have never seen a more partisan attack 
on a committee-reported bill than I have seen in the last couple of 
weeks on the floor of the Senate. The administration, time after time 
after time, and the President's chief advisers, have said they do not 
want a farm bill this year. They want to put it off until next year 
sometime. The Secretary of Agriculture has also repeated those words.
  I would say with all due deference to my friend from Indiana, I 
assume he has said repeatedly we should not have a farm bill this year; 
we should do it next year.
  All right. That is OK, if that is their point of view. But let's vote 
on it. Let's let the majority of the Senate work its will.
  Yet we did not. So I would say, look to the administration. 
Obviously, they have their troops in order here because, I have to tell 
you, it is not in the best interests of a lot of people who voted 
against cloture to vote against cloture. They know it. Their farmers 
know it. Their farm organizations know it.
  Yet because the administration lowered the boom and said no, no farm 
bill this year, we don't get cloture. We do not bring it to a close.
  Again, hope springs eternal. I said I would do everything humanly 
possible to try to bring this to a close this week. I believe that I 
have met that commitment. I am not a dictator. I cannot force anyone on 
the other side of the aisle to vote one way or the other. I can only 
use reason, logic, and the facts, that is all--and have votes and let 
them debate and then have the amendments.
  We have done that. I am fearful next year when we come back, we are 
going to have new budget estimates. We are going to lose a lot of money 
out of this. There will be a hue and cry out of the administration that 
we cannot afford this. We are going to put our farmers and our ranchers 
in a terrible situation next year, all because of the vote that was 
held 15 minutes ago.
  How do we plan? How do farmers plan? There is huge uncertainty out 
there. So I hope as Senators who voted against cloture--have a Merry 
Christmas. I wish them all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. 
Think about those farm families out there who are going to be worrying 
about what kind of farm program they are going to have next year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). The time of the Senator has 
expired. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the distinguished chairman for wishing us Merry 
Christmas. I reciprocate. In the same serious vein, however, we both 
reciprocate with farmers across our land and all citizens who watch 
this debate and who are deeply interested, as we are, in this bill.
  Let me recognize, first of all, the leadership of our chairman, 
Senator Harkin, who came into the chairmanship in June, and organized a 
staff in a very difficult year. The farm bill cycle, one that comes 
with this Congress, requires a great deal of organization. He has 
brought together a skilled group of staff members who have worked well, 
the staff members I was privileged to serve with when I was chairman of 
the committee.
  Nevertheless, it was a difficult time to begin the farm bill 
consideration, the drafting, pulling together, at least, of the 
materials as well as the consensus that was required. I pay tribute to 
the chairman for doing that very skillfully.
  But as has been pointed out throughout the debates, many times 
members complained during the markup that they were not aware of the 
text of the bills until a few hours before consideration. These are 
complex titles. Even then, we proceeded and cooperated with the 
chairman, for reasonable debate and votes.
  The chairman is correct. In the case of the titles other than the 
commodities title, we often came to unanimity. I think I would make 
only the slight correction that I offered amendments in committee to do 
considerably more in nutrition and food stamps and feeding of the poor 
than was the will of the committee at that time. Likewise, more on 
agricultural research. Essentially, a majority of the members of our 
committee were deeply concerned throughout all the other titles about 
the amount of money that would be left for the commodities. They wanted 
to follow the money. It was all right to take a look at research and 
nutrition and the rest of it, but these were perceived as preliminaries 
to the main goal.
  As a result, we do not all get what we want in these priorities. 
Nevertheless, I had a chance to express it. We had votes, I think 
fairly narrow losses on both of those, and came back to the floor to 
try again--unsuccessfully, as it turned out. I accept that fact. This 
may be a year in which the majority of the committee and a majority of 
the Senators were eager to literally appropriate more taxpayer money 
for the traditional crops and bits and pieces of other situations to 
satisfy Senators necessary to build a coalition.

[[Page S13663]]

  I also observe the driving force for all of this was a statement that 
the Budget Committee had reserved $172 billion over a 10-year period of 
time for agriculture. If this was not seized, the moment was not 
seized, the money was not seized, it would be gone. Therefore, even if 
there might be inadequate consideration of titles and texts and 
procedure, or even if, in this debate on the floor, amendments could 
not be heard, again and again we returned to the thought that if this 
did not occur in calendar 2001, the $172 billion might be lost.
  The majority leader in his comments thought maybe $30 billion or $40 
billion might be left. Therefore, those voting against cloture were 
voting for a cut in the Agriculture bill.
  Admittedly, we considered a 5-year bill, the House bill with the $172 
billion 10-year situation, but we even came back to that in a vote 
today. This preoccupation with that money is an important fact. But I 
tried to reason during some of our debate in this Chamber that we are 
all aware as Senators, quite apart from the technicalities of the 
Budget Committee, that our country is at least in a mild recession. We 
are, hopefully, going to take up stimulus spending to get it out and 
move people along--farmers included. There is not $172 billion and 
there has not been for a long time. We have continued to operate in a 
fashion in which we spent every last dime, pushing each commodity 
situation to the nth degree.
  I and others argued that that is a mistake for agriculture in 
America; it is not in the best interests of a large majority of 
farmers. This bill was crafted to benefit a fairly small number of 
farmers in America. Those of us who have talked about it have detailed 
in our own States precisely who gets the money. In Indiana, 66 percent 
of the money goes to 10 percent of the farmers. The bill we have been 
considering would concentrate it even more. What about the other 90 
percent? Are they of no consequence in this debate?
  When we talk about farm families in my State, 90 percent might say: 
Is no one looking out for us?
  And I say: I am.
  Let's get that straight. The bills we were taking a look at narrowly 
focus a lot of money to a very few people.
  They would say: We deserve it. We are the most efficient. We are the 
biggest. We are getting bigger. We have the best research, the best 
marketing.
  We applaud that, but that does not justify the American taxpayers 
transferring money to them.
  We applaud their efficiency because they make money doing what they 
are doing.
  I have no idea how the final product might have looked if we had 
invoked cloture today. But we have a pretty good idea. How interesting 
it is that so many farm groups said: We are looking at two bad bills--
the House bill and the Senate bill. But vote for a bill anyway to get 
on with the process because the $172 billion might disappear, and 
somehow a miracle might occur in conference between two bad bills. That 
is highly unlikely.
  What we have done today is given ourselves a second chance to let the 
American people in on the secrets, the facts, and then to deliberate a 
little more carefully as to how in fact we should not encourage 
overproduction and overconcentration of the money. The problems will 
surely come in the trade situation of this country when we take steps 
such as this that are clearly not tied to all of the opening up 
elsewhere in the world that we espouse.
  We have a lot of work to do. I look forward to working with the 
distinguished chairman of the committee. I am grateful we have a second 
chance to do much better for American farmers.
  As I have said throughout the debate, as one who is among that group, 
I take farming seriously and personally--in my family as well as in my 
State. I think I have a pretty good idea, as a matter of fact, of what 
may be beneficial to Indiana agriculture.
  The bill that was before us without amendments and without 
substantial changes would have been harmful to my State. That is 
counterintuitive. Indiana is one of the big winners as you look down 
the number of farmers receiving subsidies and the amounts of money.
  The fact is we have been running the markets off the tracks by the 
Government interfering and stimulating overproduction year after year. 
You depress prices year after year. There is no way prices could get 
up, given the bill we are taking a look at. You depress it by the very 
nature of the bill and then complain that prices are at all-time lows. 
Of course, they are. If we passed this bill, prices would be low for 10 
years. That would guarantee a crisis.
  I predict that unless we cure this, we will be back in July and 
August despite the protestations, and we will say somehow this just 
didn't work; it wasn't the right formula; we need more money, and we 
will vote for more money, as we have annually year after year, because 
the politics of competition between the parties would really not permit 
anyone to opt out at such a moment.
  I am more optimistic than my colleague from Iowa. I think we are 
going to progress and do the right thing, as we always attempt to do in 
this body. I think we are going to have more constructive deliberation 
outside of the Chamber and then hopefully have a more focused debate 
inside the Chamber and come to the right conclusions.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time is there?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 10 minutes allowed each Senator to 
speak in morning business.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Let me thank both my colleagues for different reasons.
  First of all, I thank Senator Harkin, who I think has done a yeoman 
job of reporting not a perfect bill but a good bill out of the 
Agriculture Committee and bringing together a lot of different people 
representing a lot of different viewpoints with a unanimous vote on all 
of the provisions of the bill except the commodity provision.
  I thank Senator Lugar for his typical graciousness and civility. Let 
me add that the differences I have with him are not ever personal but 
more a matter of policy.
  These are the facts as I see them. When Senator Lugar talked about 
too much AMTA payments being inverse in relationship to need, I quite 
agree with him. But I see a good part of that as being the outgrowth of 
the failed ``freedom to fail'' bill and the AMTA payments that have 
gone out to people. I can't think of a more failed farm policy, I say 
for all of my colleagues who supported that bill.
  There are many who filibustered this bill and supported what was 
called the Freedom to Farm bill--what we call the ``freedom to fail'' 
bill.
  Essentially what has happened, because it was such a miserable 
failure, is we now have farmers and agriculture in a large part of 
rural Minnesota and rural America dependent on these Government 
payments. Quite frankly, these AMTA payments especially are inverse in 
relationship to need. There is no question about it.
  Farmers in our State--livestock producers, corn growers, wheat 
growers, and dairy farmers--hate being dependent on the Government 
checks.
  I think what is going on here is as follows: This administration's 
definition of a good farm bill is low loan rates and low prices for 
family farmers. It is that simple. As a matter of fact, in the 
substitute Senator Hutchinson presented today, the House bill actually 
would enable the Secretary of Agriculture to lower the loan rates from 
where they are right now.
  There is a lot of arcane language that goes with agricultural policy. 
But basically what we are talking about is a way in which farmers have 
some negotiating power vis-a-vis grain companies, or other exporters, 
with the loan rates so they can get a better price. When they get the 
better price, they do not have to take out any loans. The Government 
doesn't pay them any money.
  If I had my way, if Senator Dayton had his way, and if other farmers 
had their way, we would have had a Grassley-Dorgan amendment which 
would have made this more targeted. We would raise the loan rate.
  Let us be clear about this. What is at issue is that this 
administration's definition of a good farm bill is low prices for 
family farmers. They want the loan rate down. For the large 
conglomerates--be they the grain traders or other exporters--low prices 
are great. They pay the independent producers low prices, they export, 
and they make a big profit. That is what this is about.

[[Page S13664]]

  I was the last to join the Agriculture Committee. I was so hopeful 
that we would write a new farm bill. It is not just strategy here in 
the Senate, or strategy here in Washington DC; it is a lot of people 
who are being spat out of the economy--broken lives, broken dreams, 
broken families. All family farmers say: That is what I care about.
  Frankly, my passion isn't for all of the food industry. I am not 
worried about Tyson Foods or IDP. I am not worried about the big grain 
companies. They do fine. The part of agriculture or the food industry 
for which I have the passion is the family farmers--the people who not 
only live the land but work the land, and who are basically saying: We 
want to have a living wage. We want to have a price whereby we can make 
a little bit of profit based on our hard work so that we can support 
our families and live in the part of Minnesota and America that we 
love--rural America and rural Minnesota.
  I am not a farmer. But in an odd way, when we moved to Northfield, 
MN, in 1969, I started organizing with farmers. I have been organizing 
with farmers now for almost 30 years. If there is one thing I advocate 
for, it is for trying to make sure farmers have some leverage to get a 
decent price.
  We had rural economic development provisions in this bill. We had 
energy provisions in this bill. We had good conservation measures in 
this bill. We had food nutrition in this bill, which wasn't as strong 
as Senator Lugar would like or that I would like, but much better than 
the House bill. A number of us had amendments ready that we thought 
would have strengthened it.

  In addition, it was not perfect, but the effective target price, loan 
rate, with some additional assistance, would have provided some real 
help to family farmers--not as in you are directly now dependent upon 
all Government payments, but as in you are going to have a chance to 
get a better price in the marketplace.
  Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.
  Mr. DAYTON. My distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from 
Minnesota, has been in this body for 10 years. This is my first year in 
this body. I know, from my own experience in Minnesota, that it is 
unusual for the Minnesota Farm Bureau and the Minnesota Farmers Union 
to be in complete agreement. In this case, I believe we were both 
hearing from those organizations and many other farm organizations in 
Minnesota that represent the farmers in our State, that they wanted 
this bill. They wanted this bill to pass the Senate.
  My question is, not having been in this body as long as my senior 
colleague, in the 10 years my colleague has been in this body, is the 
Senator aware of a time when both national farm organizations--the 
American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Farmers Union--were 
standing at a press conference, the two of them, with Senators such as 
ourselves, and saying the same thing about this bill?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Minnesota, no. I think the 
reason for it is, if this bill had passed, it would have been an 
increase of net farm income of $3 billion a year over the next 10 
years.
  We need that in farm country. I have never seen the Farm Bureau and 
the Farmers Union so united. I cannot believe that Senators actually 
voted to block this bill, obstruct this bill from passing.
  Mr. DAYTON. I also ask the Senator--again, this is my first year in 
this body--I have just been in awe of Chairman Harkin. And I expressed 
last week my deep respect for Senator Lugar, who was the former 
chairman and now ranking member of the committee.
  I have never before, in this process, seen anyone lead a committee as 
he has hold hearings for months, and have the committee markup, where 
all points of view were recognized, where we voted and passed it out.
  Has the Senator ever seen a committee chairman give any stronger and 
better leadership to a committee bill than this one?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Minnesota, no. I think 
Senator Harkin made such an effort to reach out that he would infuriate 
some of us on the committee. He really went out of his way to work with 
Senators on both sides of the aisle. The proof of that, again, is that 
every provision in the bill--except for one--was passed with a 
unanimous vote. It was a good markup. It was substantive. I think 
Senator Lugar had a lot to do with that as well.
  I think Senator Harkin did everything he could to make this bill a 
bipartisan bill.
  Mr. DAYTON. I would hope all the farmers in the State of Iowa, the 
Senator's home State, and all the farmers in America would understand 
and know that Chairman Harkin has done everything for countless hours 
and hours over the last months to bring this bill to the floor, making 
it a good bipartisan bill, and one that, most importantly, speaks to 
the critical financial circumstances in which many Minnesota and other 
American farmers find themselves. I think it was extraordinary and 
heroic. I want to give the chairman that due credit.

  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I agree with my colleague.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, before I get into my statement, I just want 
to say one thing about all of this deliberation on the farm bill. As 
far as family farmers are concerned, I am glad for Virginia family 
farmers in the peanut business that this law is not going to be changed 
before October of 2002. Changing those laws would have been devastating 
to those family farmers. And while the Cochran-Roberts and Hutchinson 
amendments were better, because of the fact this is not going into 
effect now, they can plan, with their leases for equipment, in this 
final year of this farm bill.
  (The remarks of Mr. Allen and Mr. Wellstone pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 1848 are printed in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________