[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 178 (Thursday, December 20, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13915-S13918]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               FARM BILL

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to share my dissappointment 
about the farm bill with you. It is vital that we get a strong bill 
passed before we adjourn this year and, unfortunately, that isn't going 
to happen. To put it simply: Our farmers and ranchers deserve more from 
their representatives.
  As long as I have been in the Senate, I have never seen the 
agricultural community more united than they were yesterday in invoking 
cloture and getting the Senate farm bill passed the floor this year.
  The farm bill we passed out of committee is a good bill. It is not a 
great bill. But it's a good step in the right direction. We had the 
opportunity to work together to make this bill as comprehensive, full 
of common sense, and strong as possible. My sleeves were rolled up and 
I was dedicated to passing the farm bill this year. And I'm still 
dedicated to passing a bill when we get back next month.
  We need to support our Nation's agricultural producers. Now. We can't 
wait until the current bill expires. We rely on our producers for a 
safe and affordable food supply. Now they are relying on us for 
survival.
  Our agricultural producers are suffering. Years of low prices and 
drought have made it nearly impossible for farmers and ranchers to 
break even.
  Low prices and drought have been disastrous not only to agricultural 
producers, but also to the surrounding rural communities. When 
producers are hurting, they can't invest in our economy. Agriculture is 
the backbone of Montana's economy. And the backbone of rural America's 
economy. The ripple effect is being felt throughout the country.
  To help with the ongoing drought, it is important that we provide our 
farmers and ranchers with natural disaster assistance. I included more 
than $2 billion towards disaster assistance in my economic stimulus 
bill, but that bill has fallen to the same fate as the farm bill--it's 
at a stalemate this year. I'm dedicated to including disaster 
assistance in the farm bill, in another economic stimulus bill, or any 
other vehicle I see available. The assistance isn't something our ag 
community can wait for and I'll keep working to see that they don't 
have to.
  The Senate's failure to pass a farm bill this year not only hurts our 
producers, it hurts our lenders and our rural businesses as well. The 
bill that we passed by the Senate Agriculture Committee includes a 
Rural Development Title that would have provided rural economies with 
much needed support. It's long overdue that we provide stability for 
our agricultural producers and our rural economies.
  Lenders in Montana and across the country are getting nervous as the 
lean years of production are starting to add up. Their nervousness is 
compounded now that we failed to act this year.
  The time has come. We can no longer wait to repair the current farm 
bill. The health and stability of our producers, of our rural 
communities, and of America is up to us. Our Nation depends upon our 
agricultural producers for a safe, affordable, and abundant food 
supply. Now our producers are depending on us to provide them with a 
safety net they can rely upon. The time is now. We must all dedicate 
ourselves to getting back to work on the farm bill in January. We must 
work together to pass a strong, stable, and comprehensive farm bill 
quickly.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, over the past 2 weeks, the Senate has 
engaged in what is probably a first in the history of this body: it has 
worked to complete a task before a deadline. Even as appropriations 
bills remained unfinished 3 months into the fiscal year, we have, for 
the past couple of weeks, debated a farm bill a full 9 months before 
the current authorization lapses.
  As admirable as it is to work ahead of schedule, this has been an 
unnecessary exercise. There is no reason that the Senate has had to 
debate the farm bill when these programs don't expire until the end of 
the fiscal year.
  I joined in the successful effort here in the Senate to postpone 
debate on the farm bill until next year. It is my hope that we will do 
a better job at writing a bill that will address the needs of our 
farmers in a fiscally responsible way, rather than rushing a bill 
through Congress for the sake of passing a bill.
  The only reason we have debated this bill a year ahead of schedule is 
because some fear that the fiscal year 2003 budget resolution won't 
have enough room in it to load up whatever farm bill the Senate 
considers with all the spending the majority desires.
  Indeed, according to an article in the December 8th edition of 
Congressional Quarterly, ``lobbyists fear that if Congress waits until 
2002, when the current authorization bill expires, then the $73.5 
billion in new spending for agriculture programs over the next 10 years 
that was set aside by this year's budget resolution might vanish.''
  Senator Kent Conrad, the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, who 
clearly must understand our country's financial condition, has said, 
``the money is in the budget now. If we do not use the money . . . it 
is very likely not going to be available next year.''
  That does not sound like ``need'' to me, it sounds like opportunism, 
and opportunism is not sufficient reason for the majority to rush 
through a bill this important and this expensive.
  I agree with the analysis of Senator Lugar, the Agriculture 
Committee's Ranking Member, who correctly stated on the Senate floor 
last Tuesday, December 11, that, ``Proponents of the bill, S. 1731, 
fastening on to a budget resolution adopted earlier this year, said we 
have pinned down $172 billion over 10 years, $73.5 billion over 
baseline, over the normal expenditures that have been occurring year by 
year in the agriculture bills . . . I and others have pointed out that 
[the money] really is not there.''
  Now, I take a back seat to no one in terms of my concern for the 
American farmer. When I was governor of Ohio, agribusiness was my 
number one economic development initiative.
  Many people, even Ohioans, don't realize that food and agribusiness 
means more than $73 billion to Ohio's economy each year. In fact, one 
in six Ohioans is employed in one aspect of agriculture or another.
  I gave agriculture more attention and priority than any governor in 
memory, and I continue my close relationship with Ohio's agribusiness 
community.
  Nevertheless, I could not support the majority's farm bill as 
written, and honestly, I am disappointed at the apparent lack of 
respect some of my colleagues seem to have for the American farmer.
  Every farmer worth his salt knows that if he or she wants to stay in 
business, they have to be fiscally responsible and make tough choices. 
They know that the United States has to do so as well. They understand 
that the majority's farm bill did not focus on proper planning and 
making the right choices, but rather ``getting while the getting is 
good.''
  Some here in Washington think that viewpoint epitomizes the American

[[Page S13916]]

farmer, but for anyone in this body to think that the American farmer 
is only concerned about ``what's in it for him,'' is an insult to their 
patriotism and their own understanding of fiscal responsibility.
  Let me make it abundantly clear, this bill was written and has been 
debated without any regard for the other obligations our nation now 
faces. It is heedless of America's national security needs and it does 
nothing to acknowledge the long-term fiscal responsibilities of our 
Nation. Instead, the Majority's Farm Bill really just helps the 
nation's agricultural conglomerates.
  When Congress passed the last farm bill in 1996, it did so with the 
intention that it would gradually phase out the heavy reliance on 
subsidies characteristic of previous farm bills and move towards a more 
market-oriented approach. That bill was named Freedom to Farm.
  However, had S. 1731 passed, it would have increased federal spending 
by over $70 billion over ten years, putting us back to where we were 
prior to Freedom to Farm, when farmers were more dependent on the 
federal government.
  I remain supportive of market-based farm policies, but I believe 
important improvements must be made to the current system that will 
allow our farmers to adapt to a global marketplace. Unfortunately, that 
same marketplace has kept U.S. prices and income low for the past three 
to four years due to ever increasing world supplies coupled with low 
export demand.
  The cost has been outrageous, with Congress appropriating more than 
$32 billion in emergency spending since Fiscal Year 1999 to offset low 
prices and assist farmers who suffered losses due to natural disasters. 
I have to ask: What happened to Freedom to Farm?
  I have opposed these emergency measures, not only because they were 
not offset, which has added to our current budget crisis, but also 
because ``stop gap'' emergency measures only meet a temporary need, and 
do nothing to help the long-term outlook for the American farmer.
  Unfortunately, the majority, in their bill, attempted to rectify this 
situation by making these emergency payments essentially permanent.
  In a December 14 editorial titled ``A Piggy Farm Bill,'' the 
Washington Post labeled S. 1731 ``obscene,'' and pointed out that 
billions indeed have been made available in the past few years in 
``emergency'' payments, however, the Post goes on to say ``the effect 
of the new bill would be to regularize those [payments], thereby 
abandoning the five-year experiment in supposed market reform.''
  Another contention that I have with the majority's bill, is that 
passage of S. 1731 as written could very well have put the U.S. in 
violation of our obligations under the World Trade Organization and 
weakened our demands that Europe and other countries cut subsidy 
payments to their agricultural producers.
  In an article that appeared in the December 18 edition of the 
Financial Times, former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy, noting 
Congress' apparent willingness to abandon a market-based approach to 
agriculture, stated ``It's very awkward. Here we are involved in a 
global effort to reduce subsidies, and this [bill] flies in the face of 
that effort.''
  Current Agriculture Secretary, Ann Veneman, said in the same article 
that the legislation would ``exacerbate overproduction and perpetuate 
low commodity prices,'' which would undermine our ability to expand 
into new foreign markets.
  That's because the majority's farm bill would put in place counter-
cyclical payments, which pay farmers a subsidy as the price of their 
commodity falls. This approach most assuredly would run afoul of the 
WTO treaty.
  What's more, the subsidies under the majority's proposal would go to 
millions of farmers and quite a few wealthy individuals and even some 
Fortune 500 corporations.
  Again, the Financial Times article references an organization known 
as The Environmental Working Group, which has on its web-site a 
compilation of more than 2.5 million farmers who receive subsidies. Of 
that total, the largest farms get the most amount.
  To quote the news article, ``just 1,290 farms have each received more 
than $1 million in the past five years; Tyler Farms of Arkansas, which 
grows cotton, rice and soybeans, led the list at more than $23 million. 
In addition, 11 Fortune 500 companies, including Chevron and 
International Paper, also received farm subsidies. In contrast, the 
average farm in the bottom 80 percent got just $5,830.''
  While I would have voted against the bill proposed by the majority, 
the Cochran-Roberts Amendment that was considered on Tuesday provided a 
workable alternative.
  Instead of creating a counter-cyclical program, the Cochran-Roberts 
Amendment would have created farm savings accounts for producers to 
participate in on a voluntary basis, with matching funds provided by 
the USDA. This money would help farmers make ends meet during the lean 
years and would be a great improvement over the current practice of 
relying on touch-and-go so-called ``emergency'' supplemental farm 
spending bills.
  While I am still concerned with the expense of the Cochran-Roberts 
Amendment, it evenly divides its spending over the first and last five 
years, and is thus more fiscally responsible than the Majority's 
proposal which frontloads $45.3 billion of their $73.5 billion bill in 
the first five years. Unfortunately, the Cochran-Roberts amendment was 
defeated along party lines.
  So we were left with the bill pushed by the majority with a price tag 
we cannot afford. It will most assuredly exceed the $73.5 billion, 10-
year spending increase allowed by the fiscal year 2002 Budget 
Resolution.
  As we near the end of this year, we find ourselves facing challenges 
that could never have been predicted a year ago. An economic slowdown 
that began in the spring of 2001 has now been deemed a full-fledged 
recession; a recession that was exacerbated by the events of September 
11.
  As Americans have responded generously to the needs of the victims 
and their families, the federal government has acted quickly and 
significantly as well. We've passed a $40 billion emergency 
supplemental bill, as well as $5 billion in grant funding to help 
prevent the collapse of the airline industry. In addition, we could 
spend another $100 billion for an economic stimulus package soon after 
we return from recess.
  Add all that to the $25 billion that Appropriators and the White 
House agreed this summer to spend over and above the fiscal year 2002 
budget resolution that Congress passed, and we could spend some $170 
billion over the budget resolution.
  To put that in perspective, $170 billion represents 30 percent of all 
the regular discretionary spending Congress enacted in fiscal year 
2001.
  Given this amount of spending, the Senate is poised to spend every 
last tax dollar, all of the Medicare surplus and the entire $174 
billion projected Social Security surplus. Even that won't be enough.
  To cover all of this spending, including the spending in the 
majority's farm bill if it passed, the federal government would have to 
issue tens of billions of dollars in new debt this fiscal year 
depending on the size of the stimulus bill, any additional defense 
spending we pursue, plus the inevitable emergency supplementals 
Congress will pass between now and the end of the fiscal year.
  It's amazing that a few months ago, people here were worried we would 
run out of debt to repay. Now, we are in a far different situation.
  In fact, Treasury Secretary O'Neill sent a letter to the Majority 
Leader last week requesting that the government's debt ceiling be 
raised. The Secretary indicated that the current borrowing limit of 
$5.95 trillion will be reached by February and that the administration 
requests that the national debt ceiling be raised to $6.7 trillion.
  As recently as August, the administration projected that the current 
borrowing limit would not be reached until September 2003. This is 
disturbing.
  I am pleased we are not going forward with a farm bill that we cannot 
afford at a time of fiscal crisis, and that we are not going forward 
with a bill that is frankly not in the best interest of our farmers and 
definitely not in the best interest of the American people. It is 
unfortunate, though, that we spent two weeks debating the majority's 
farm bill, when there are three

[[Page S13917]]

other pieces of legislation that I believe we should have been 
considering instead.
  Our number one priority should be an economic stimulus bill, or 
``jobs bill'' as it should be called.
  Just last week, I was part of a six-member bipartisan group of 
senators who were invited to the White House by the President to 
discuss the stimulus bill and the package that the Centrist Coalition 
has been working on for the past seven weeks. After the meeting, 
President Bush announced his support for our stimulus package; a 
package that responds to the needs of those who are currently 
unemployed by extending benefits and health care coverage.
  It also provides rebate checks to those Americans who pay Social 
Security taxes but who did not qualify for rebate checks earlier this 
year. It would truly be a wonderful holiday present for the working men 
and women of America as well as the nation itself since people would 
receive extra cash to help pay their holiday bills, and their spending 
would help spur the U.S. economy.
  The bill also contains other stimulus functions, including 30 percent 
depreciation bonuses to encourage investment; a reduction in the 27 
percent tax rate to 25 percent; and tax incentives to encourage small 
business owners to increase investment.
  I won't sugarcoat the fact that it will take a lot of money to 
jumpstart our $10 trillion economy, and our approach may cost up to 
$100 billion. However, I believe that it is necessary to get our nation 
out of the recession we're in.
  That's why I am somewhat dismayed that the Majority Leader did not 
bring the stimulus bill to the floor for consideration during these 
past couple of weeks. Early this morning the House passed a responsible 
bill based on the Centrist package which the President has agreed. It's 
a compromise package that reflects much of what the Majority Leader has 
said he wanted. However, that wish list seemed to shift when it became 
clear that a genuine willingness to compromise existed. The American 
public have expected us to pass such a bill, and I am disappointed that 
we have not yet done so.
  The second bill we should consider is a terrorism reinsurance bill. 
This legislation would provide government backing to help cover the 
costs of damages incurred in the event of an act of terrorism. Without 
it, we are going to see many businesses with enormous increases in 
their insurance costs. And that's for companies that can get insurance.
  As a result, projects that are on the table or in the planning 
process will not go forward and the economy will suffer.
  There is a bipartisan proposal that is being worked on, and I can see 
no reason why we should not have pushed to get this bill onto the floor 
of the Senate before the end of the year.
  The third bill is a comprehensive energy bill, one that will help our 
economy and harmonize our energy needs with our environmental needs.
  While national energy policy is being held hostage to the demands of 
environmental groups, the United States must continue to rely on energy 
sources in the Middle East. Surely I don't have to remind my colleagues 
of the political instability that exists in this area of the world.
  The most glaring example of how the lack of an energy policy is 
affecting us is the fact that we currently rely on Iraq for more than 
750,000 barrels of oil per day. As my colleagues know, Iraq is a hotbed 
of terrorism, and I have no doubt the manufacturer of weapons of mass 
destruction, run by a man who would dearly like to inflict pain upon 
the United States if given the ability.
  We have to put the interests of the American people in front of 
politics and special interest groups. I say to my colleagues that it is 
better to be able to know that we can rely upon ourselves to meet our 
energy needs than to rely on Saddam Hussein. We need to stand up and do 
the right thing and pass a comprehensive energy policy now, and to me, 
it is incredible that the Majority Leader placed it on the back-burner 
in favor of a farm bill that we can consider later this fiscal year.
  Our farmers understand the need to enact these three bills because 
they use energy, because they feel the pinch of a soft economy, and, 
because farmers know the right thing to do.
  It is my hope that we will be able to address these three issues 
quickly when we return next year and that we will do a better job of 
prioritizing all of the necessary work this body undertakes.
  There was no compelling reason why we needed to consider the Farm 
Bill one week before Christmas. In fact, with one year left on the 
authorization of the Freedom to Farm Act, we will have almost all of 
2002 to work on this legislation.
  When we return next year, and after we take up the critical issues 
like energy, stimulus and terrorism insurance, we should follow the 
President's suggestion and sit down with real numbers and put together 
a farm bill that is fair to America's farmers, the men and women who 
really need help; fair to the American taxpayer; and fiscally 
responsible. I also would encourage my colleagues to take a look at 
other farm bill alternatives, such as Senator Lugar's proposal, and the 
proposal put forth by Senators Cochran and Roberts. I believe they are 
on the right track.
  Right now, we are facing tough times that affect all Americans, 
including farmers, and the Senate needs to make tough choices because 
that is what our constituents have elected us to do.
  The majority's farm bill, S. 1731, was the wrong bill at the wrong 
time. We shouldn't have wasted precious time on flawed legislation. Our 
farmers deserve a bill that has been fully vetted, following a 
thoughtful and comprehensive debate. Sadly, S. 1731 offered our farmers 
precious little in that regard as the majority focused more on getting 
a bill done than getting the right bill done.
  It is my hope that in the months ahead, we will craft a Farm Bill 
that will help farmers succeed while reflecting the other pressing 
fiscal needs that also face our nation. I look forward to working with 
my colleagues to enact such legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Financial Times, Dec. 18, 2001]

        US Agricultural Bill Will Go Against the Grain Worldwide


  proposals to increase subsidies for farmers could violate wto rules

                           (By Edward Allen)

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From Financial Times, Dec. 18, 2001]

 U.S. Agricultural Bill Will Go Against the Grain Worldwide: Proposals 
       To Increase Subsidies for Farmers Could Violate WTO Rules

                           (By Edward Alden)

       Five years ago, when the US Congress last passed a major 
     bill to reform its farm policy, it pledged to wean farmers 
     from two generations of government subsidies and reintroduce 
     market pressures into US agriculture.
       This week, the Senate is set to follow the House of 
     Representatives in declaring that experiment a failure. 
     Instead, Congress is close to approving legislation that will 
     increase federal subsidies to farmers by more than $70bn over 
     the next decade.
       The sharp turnround has undermined the Bush 
     administration's preparations for the launch of a new round 
     of world trade talks that is supposed to cut sharply 
     government supports for agriculture. The increase in subsidy 
     payments to farmers could put the US in violation of World 
     Trade Organisation rules, and will seriously weaken the 
     credibility of US demands that Europe cut its farm subsidies.
       ``It's very awkward,'' said Mike Espy, a former secretary 
     of agriculture. ``Here we are involved in a global effort to 
     reduce subsidies, and this flies in the face of that 
     effort.''
       Over the past decade, the US government has tried to 
     persuade farmers that their future lies in opening up markets 
     for farm products abroad.
       But instead, US exports fell sharply following the 1998 
     Asian financial crisis and commodity prices plummeted. This 
     led Congress to approve billions of dollars in emergency 
     payments to US farmers over the past three years. ``We have 
     seen that export markets do not serve as a reliable safety 
     net in and of themselves,'' said Tom Harkin, the Iowa senator 
     who is the chief sponsor of the Senate bill. The new farm 
     bill will entrench that philosophy by institutionalising so-
     called counter-cyclical payments--subsidies that rise as crop 
     prices fall.
       Such subsidies, which have the perverse effect of 
     encouraging increased production when prices are falling, run 
     directly counter to what the US has tried to achieve in the 
     WTO. The Bush administration admitted earlier this year these 
     counter-cyclical payments fall into the so-called amber box 
     of

[[Page S13918]]

     subsidies that must be reduced under WTO rules.
       If crop prices continue to fall, automatically increasing 
     government payments to farmers, the US could run up against 
     the Dollar 19.1bn per year that is the maximum allowed under 
     these restrictions.
       The administration and some critics in Congress have tried 
     to fight back.
       Ann Veneman, agriculture secretary, said earlier this month 
     the new farm bill would ``exacerbate overproduction and 
     perpetuate low commodity prices'', and would compromise US 
     efforts to open new markets abroad. Pat Roberts, the Kansas 
     senator who was the chief author of the 1996 farm reform, was 
     blunter.
       He charged last week that the powerful farmers who will 
     reap a windfall in new subsidies ``view the farm bill as an 
     ATM machine'', the American term for automatic cash 
     dispensers. The administration and its outmanned supporters 
     in Congress are hoping to delay final passage of the bill 
     until next year when the government will produce new budget 
     numbers. Those figures, which will show the federal surplus 
     vanishing as a result of recession, tax cuts and the war on 
     terror, could create pressure to curb farm spending.
       The bloated farm bill legislation has indeed cast an 
     embarrassing new light on rural America's dependency on the 
     federal government.
       The Environmental Working Group, a non-profit organisation, 
     last month posted on its website a comprehensive list of the 
     subsidies received by more than 2.5m American farmers.
       The data, obtained under US freedom of information laws, 
     shows that a small number of large farmers gets the vast 
     majority of federal payments. Just 1,290 farms have each 
     received more than Dollars 1m in the past five years; Tyler 
     Farms of Arkansas, which grows cotton, rice and soybeans, led 
     the list at more than Dollars 23m.
       In addition, 11 Fortune 500 companies, including Chevron 
     and International Paper, also received farms subsidies. In 
     contrast, the average farm in the bottom 80 per cent got just 
     Dollars 5,830.
       The new bill would only increase that trend by linking 
     payments firmly to production, thereby rewarding the 
     country's largest farmers.
       Other agricultural exporting countries like Australia and 
     many Latin American nations are dismayed by the direction of 
     US farm policy. Warren Truss, Australia's agriculture 
     minister, said during a visit to Washington last week that 
     the new bill would ``entrench a mentality of farm subsidies 
     in the US.
       ``It is obvious that the US which once proudly boasted it 
     had the most efficient farmers in the world, has now 
     degenerated to a situation where US farmers are dependent 
     upon the taxpayers for around half their income.''
       The European Union, however, has been noticeably quiet on 
     the farm bill debate. As the world's largest provider of 
     agricultural subsidies--at least for the moment--the EU has 
     the most to gain from a bill that will do much to erase any 
     US claims to free market virtue.
       Said one EU agricultural official: ``It has certainly taken 
     the heat off us.''

                          ____________________