[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 8 (Wednesday, February 6, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S402-S423]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION, AND RURAL ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2001--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1731) to strengthen the safety net for
agriculture producers, to enhance resource conservation and
rural development, to provide 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.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, what is the pending issue before the Senate
on the farm bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Burns amendment No. 2608.
Mr. REID. 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. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, here we are. It is now February 6, 2002.
That comes as no shock to anyone. We are back on the farm bill--where
we were back on December 6, 2001.
Again, we are trying to get this bill finished before it gets too
late in the planting season. I am hopeful that we can work out some
arrangements to do that. The beginning of a new session always marks an
opportunity for a renewed effort to solve the challenges before us. In
a spirit of cooperation, I look forward to working with my colleagues
to pass this new farm bill without further delay, in order to provide
farm families in rural communities critically needed stability and
insurance for this year and in the future.
There is widespread agreement that farm families and rural
communities are in dire need. The Senate has dealt with the farm bill
for 12 days already. Again, I want to underscore that rural America
cannot survive under the current Freedom to Farm bill. It will suffer
severely if the farm bill here is further delayed. I look forward to
working with Senators on both sides of the aisle to get the bill
finished deliberately but quickly, and we will work our way through
amendments. I hope that maybe even this afternoon sometime we may reach
an agreement on a finite list of amendments, with a reasonable amount
of time to debate them. Then we can work through that list of
amendments and, hopefully, within 2 or 3 days, go to third reading and
passage.
I believe we can get the conference done in adequate time to have the
bill enacted for this crop year. A tremendous amount is at stake in
this farm bill, not only for farmers but for rural and agriculture-
related businesses, rural communities, conservation, trade, nutrition
programs, and renewable energy.
The Department of Agriculture recently predicted a 20-percent drop in
net farm income for this year if we do not take action on this new
legislation--20 percent. Farmers are struggling as it is. They most
certainly cannot afford to take a fifth off their net income.
I understand that after the farm bill the Senate will take up an
energy bill. During debate on the energy bill there will be a lot of
discussion about CAFE standards, and about drilling for oil in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which I am sure will be a hotly
contested issue. Well, this farm bill has a new energy title in it. As
it is written now, the energy title calls for an investment of half a
billion dollars in mandatory money over 5 years to spur production of
renewable energy.
Even if we do drill for oil in ANWR, we will remain dependent on
foreign oil unless we begin making significant investments in the
production of renewable energy. Moreover, a greater emphasis on
renewable energy in our nation's energy policy will also create new
markets for agricultural products. We need to develop these new
markets, and I submit that one of the biggest opportunities we will
have to do this in the future will be in the area of renewable energy.
It has been said that anything that can be made from a barrel of oil
can be made from a bushel of corn, soybeans, cottonseed oil, or any
number of other crops that we grow in this country.
I visited a project in northern Iowa last week involving agriculture-
based industrial lubricants. It is a project sponsored and supported by
the University of Northern Iowa. I actually visited a farm where they
have set up equipment. They bring in raw soybeans, crush them, take out
the oil, and they mix it and put it through another machine I can't
describe, and they get grease, like axle grease. It looks just like
that--the same thing you use in your grease gun when you
[[Page S403]]
are greasing a car, or an axle, or anything such as that. I understand
the Norfolk Southern Railway has begun using this product to grease the
railroad tracks. Trucking companies are using it for the fifth wheels
on trucks, where they put a lot of grease.
The beauty of this is it is all biodegradable. I understand some
railroads, because of the grease going down the railroad track lines,
have to put down liners underneath the tracks. This agriculture-based
industrial lubricant is a new product that can take the place of all
the grease we use, it is made out of soybeans and it is biodegradable.
All the hydraulic fluid required by machinery could one day be made out
of soybean oil.
And then there is ethanol. We haven't even scratched the surface in
terms of the use of ethanol. Fuel that is 80 percent ethanol--developed
over the next 10, 15 years--can drastically reduce our dependence on
foreign oil and help clean up our atmosphere. Again, that is
biodegradable, and it is renewable every year, with every corn crop.
So I think if we really want to become more energy independent and
less dependent on the Middle East for our oil, it is not drilling in
ANWR that will accomplish that--at least not from the data I have
seen--it is developing new markets for agricultural products in this
country by supporting the development of renewable fuels made from
agricultural commodities.
We now have over 30 buses running in Cedar Rapids, IA, on soy diesel.
All the trucks on the nation's highways could one day be burning soy
diesel. When one thinks about the potential market for agricultural-
based lubricants, fluids, and fuels, that market is the same as the
market for the oil we are getting from the Middle East now. Maybe we
cannot take up all of that market with renewable lubricants, fluids and
fuels, but we can take up enough of it so the producers of oil in the
Middle East will not have us by the throat any longer. We can have
enough of that market that the Middle East will be a minor supplier,
not a major supplier, of the energy we use in this country. There is a
lot in this farm bill to start moving us in that direction.
We have done our work in the Committee. We had an aggressive schedule
of hearings on the farm bill. We had hearings here in Washington, DC,
and in several States across the country. Then, of course, our
timetable was set back by the terrorist attacks on September 11.
Nonetheless, we moved ahead and started marking up the bill on October
31, voted to report the bill out of committee on November 15, and we
were on the Senate floor November 29. We acted expeditiously to get
this bill done. We went from markup on October 31 to the Senate floor
on November 29, and yet we are still here today, February 6, 2002.
It is essential that the new farm bill be completed without further
delay before the planting of this year's crop. Again, if we do not pass
it in time, this year's crop will be covered by the existing Freedom to
Farm legislation and, Mr. President, as you know, we will probably have
to come up with another supplemental payment for this year's crops.
That is why we need a new farm bill and not more uncertainty.
The longer the bill is delayed, the greater the risk the $73.5
billion in new farm bill funding will be forfeited. As I said, the
planting season is here. The stimulus bill just went down, as I
understand it, but this farm bill is also a stimulus bill a stimulus
bill for rural America.
President Bush was recently in Moline, IL, which is part of the quad-
cities area, across from Davenport and Bittendorf, IA. Of course,
Moline is the home of John Deere. A lot of Iowans across the river work
at that Moline plant. We also have John Deere plants in Iowa.
President Bush visited that plant a couple weeks ago. I was with him,
as were other Senators and Congressmen. In a meeting with the CEO of
John Deere, it was said by him or by some of the other people in the
management of John Deere that they have laid off a lot of people. They
have 300 people working at the plant who are working because of
contractual arrangements with the union, but they are not building
anything. I asked whether there is any hope that these people can start
building again.
The response was: Yes, we know there are orders out there or pending
orders for new combines, tractors, planters, and other equipment, but
the farmers are going to the bankers to get the financing to buy the
equipment, and the bankers are saying: What is your income going to be
like this year? What are you counting on? And the farmer says: I don't
know, they haven't passed the farm bill yet.
The message came through clear to me and others and, I hope, to the
President that we have to get this bill done. It not only helps the
farmers, but it helps rural America and it helps the workers in that
John Deere plant, too. It helps them get back to work. That is why we
need to get this bill through in as short order as possible.
I believe bipartisanship has been the hallmark in our work of
crafting this farm bill. At the outset, Senator Lugar, the committee's
ranking member and former chairman, and I developed a set of
objectives. We worked in consultation with other members of the
committee on all titles of the bill that the committee reported out,
with the exception of the commodity title, to be honest, where we
recognized we probably would not find any agreement.
Other than the commodity title, all reported titles were approved by
voice votes. Of the votes on amendments to those titles, not one was
along party lines. We did have a recorded vote on adopting the
commodity title, as I said, and even that was a bipartisan vote.
We have tried to come out with as bipartisan a bill as possible, and
I believe that is what we have done. This is a balanced, comprehensive
bill. It is a bill that does very well by commodities but also goes
well beyond the commodity programs to address needs in the areas of
conservation, trade, rural development, research, energy, which I
mentioned earlier, credit, nutrition, and forestry.
On the commodity side, we have maintained full planting flexibility,
and we have restored a stronger countercyclical income protection
system. The bill continues fixed direct payments but phases them down,
not totally out, as a new countercyclical payment system is phased in.
Also, farmers may elect to update their program bases and payment
yields instead of using outdated ones, but they may keep the old bases
and yields if that is more advantageous to them. We leave that choice
up to farmers.
The bill continues marketing assistance loans with modestly higher
loan rates for feed grains, wheat, and cotton. The soybean loan rate is
reduced by 6 cents but that reduction is offset by new fixed and
countercyclical oilseed payments which were not in the previous Freedom
to Farm bill. Keep in mind, all of these loans are marketing assistance
loans, so the higher loan rates will not build stocks and will, in
fact, enhance our international competitiveness.
When I hear arguments that somehow the higher loan rates will price
us out of the market, I do not understand that. These are marketing
assistance loans so that cannot be true.
One key difference between the Senate bill and the House bill is the
approach to farm income protection. The Senate bill puts a greater
emphasis on countercyclical income protection. If commodity prices are
not as high as predicted, which is usually the case, then the Senate
bill offers the better income protection. There is a built-in price
protection mechanism to increase payments if prices fall.
Again, one of the biggest outcries I heard about the Freedom to Farm
bill is that in the good years--the initial years under Freedom to Farm
when farmers were making good money from the market--they were still
getting Government payments. That did not seem to make sense to anyone.
What we have done is phase those payments down, and we will have a
countercyclical program so if prices go down, farmers will be held
harmless.
The majority of people in this country do not know a lick about
agriculture but would support it. They say there are certain times when
for certain reasons--whether it is trade, the strength of the dollar,
or other factors--prices for agricultural commodities just go all to
heck.
I think most people recognize the cyclical nature of agriculture,
that it is
[[Page S404]]
different from a hardware store, that it is very reliant on so many
outside factors over which a person has no control.
I believe most Americans would say: Yes, if these things happen and
prices fall, you ought to support the farmers until we can get the
prices back up. I find general acceptance of that. What I do not find
is any support anywhere for the proposition that if farmers are doing
well in the marketplace we ought to give them more money. I do not find
any support for that anywhere. That is what we tried to do in this
bill: to get off that old system and get onto a new system of
countercyclical payments.
Regarding international trade, the Senate bill will comply with our
WTO commitments and will put our Nation in a strong position to
negotiate new trade agreements.
This bill gives the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to adjust
support payments to make sure we do not violate WTO limits. However,
there is only a very remote chance this authority will ever be needed.
Under the expected market conditions for the next 10 years, the amber
box limit ``amber box'' means that under WTO agreements we can only
spend so much money on certain types of support--is $19.1 billion.
Under all of the scenarios we have run on our bill, the most we can see
is about $16 billion in amber box payments.
Now I have heard--I will admit I have not heard it lately, but last
December I heard a lot of talk from the administration and the
Department of Agriculture that somehow what we had in our bill would
bump us up against the WTO limits, and that would take us to court and
all kinds of dire things would happen. At that time, I challenged those
who were making such statements to come forward and give us the proof,
give us the data, show us what they mean, how we were going to bump up
against the $19 billion limit. Well, I have been waiting since then. I
still do not have it.
So I said at the time, if the administration keeps saying this, then
I am simply going to have to call another hearing of the Agriculture
Committee and we will have to have the Secretary of Agriculture down to
tell us. If they have data, I would like to see it. I think the fact is
that it is not so. Even if we do get up around $16 billion or $17
billion, so what? That is well within our limit.
It seems to me there is some thought we ought to be down around $10
billion or less. I say, why? Do you think the Europeans would do that?
Of course not. They are going to be right up to their limits under the
WTO.
Well, we are not even that close. We are still quite a bit under the
limit. All I can say is, if we ever got to the point where our payments
would bump up against that $19.1 billion, we would be in such bad shape
that the WTO would be the least of our worries.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask the Senator from Iowa if he would
yield for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I am glad to yield to our assistant majority leader.
Mr. REID. While the two managers have been speaking, I did what they
asked me to do, and we now have a unanimous consent agreement that will
move us through a good part of the afternoon. I ask unanimous consent
that there be a time limitation on the following pending amendments: 40
minutes equally divided on both of the pending amendments by Senator
Burns, Nos. 2608 and 2607; 40 minutes equally divided on Senator
Wellstone's amendment No. 2602; and 30 minutes equally divided on
Senator Harkin's amendment No. 2604.
I further ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin do his amendment
first--there has been a request that he do his amendment first and the
others can come up later--that all times be divided in the usual form;
that no other amendments be in order prior to disposition of the above
listed amendments; that at the conclusion or yielding back of time on
all of these amendments, the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation
to each amendment, with 2 minutes for debate equally divided between
the votes following the first vote; that the vote sequence be as
follows: Senator Harkin be first; Senator Burns; Senator Burns; and
then Senator Wellstone; that if any amendment is not disposed of after
the first vote, they remain debatable and amendable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). Is there objection?
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I think
the agreement is an excellent one. I simply want to raise the question
with the distinguished Senator. After Chairman Harkin has completed his
opening statement, I would like to make an opening statement before we
proceed to the amendments.
Mr. REID. I think that would be entirely appropriate. Does the
Senator request up to half an hour?
Mr. LUGAR. That would be adequate, yes.
Mr. REID. I further ask unanimous consent--the only change that has
been brought to my attention by the staff on both sides--that the
language be that ``no other amendments be in order prior to the votes
in relation to the above listed amendment'' rather than ``the
disposition of the above listed amendments.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. HARKIN. A point of clarification: Is that 40 minutes on each of
the Burns amendments?
Mr. REID. Forty minutes total.
Mr. LUGAR. I have a question for the distinguished manager. Then we
would have four stacked votes? Members could anticipate, once we begin
voting, there will be four votes?
Mr. REID. Probably around 4 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. That is good news. I thank the assistant majority leader
for working this out, and I thank Senator Lugar for working this out on
all sides. That is progress. So we are going to be able to dispose of
four amendments that have been hanging since December, and hopefully
that indicates some progress on this farm bill. So I will wrap up my
comments very shortly.
I was talking about the WTO, and I will wrap it up in terms of income
protection for farmers. I describe our bill as having four legs, which
makes it very sturdy. We have fixed payments, countercyclical payments,
marketing loans, and conservation payments, all of which will help
support farming.
Lastly, I want to talk a little bit about the conservation title. We
have been able to accomplish a great deal on the conservation title. It
is important in and of itself. Farmers and landowners desire to
conserve soil, water, and other natural resources. Sound conservation
is one of the best ways for agriculture to continue to build good will
with the rest of America. Plus, it is also a way in which we can help
promote better farm income. So we have funded programs like the
Wetlands Reserve Program, the Farmland Protection Program, the Wildlife
Habitat Incentives Program. Those three programs, I might add, are all
out of money right now. So every day we do not pass this farm bill and
get it through, none of those programs will be funded.
We made a large increase for the EQIP, the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program, and I think improved that substantially for
livestock, dairy, and poultry producers.
Our main emphasis in conservation in this bill has been on land in
agricultural production. I believe that is where our focus should be,
and the Senate bill reflects that. It contains the new Conservation
Security Program, which will provide incentive payments for maintaining
existing and adopting new conservation practices on lands that remain
in production. Thus, it does both, promotes conservation and supports
farm income.
The other good thing about it is that it is fully within the WTO
green box. So whatever we spend to help support farm income does not
bump up against our WTO limits.
One other thing I will mention before I yield the floor is what I
said before, in December--I think I may have said it in committee, too:
If this farm bill devolves into being a commodity bill, then I think we
will do a great disservice to our farmers and to all of America because
we will have narrowed the farm bill to a very small scope of people who
produce storable commodities. I think the farm bill is much broader
than that. It speaks not only to those who produce the food and fiber
and to those who produce our livestock, but also to those who produce
[[Page S405]]
fruits and vegetables, specialty crops, orchards, many of the items we
buy in our grocery stores that do not come from row crops.
And it is even more than that. It is rural economic development. It
is small towns and communities. It is making sure we have jobs and
economic opportunity in our small towns. This bill has a very strong
rural economic development portion to it. There are even things in the
bill to get broadband access to our small towns and communities.
I happened to meet a farmer this morning from northwest Iowa. I asked
him what he was doing here. He said his wife was here on a business
trip and he was accompanying her and sort of relaxing a little bit,
going down to the Smithsonian and coming to watching the Senate--things
like that.
I asked him what kind of business his wife is in. Well, it is over my
head, but it has something to do with computers and software. So I got
to thinking about that and thinking, here is someone who lives in a
small town in northwest Iowa doing a job that normally might be done in
a large city. Now, again, the problem is getting broadband access so
that they have all of the access to the Internet in a high-speed
setting. We can develop those types of job opportunities for people who
live on our farms in rural America. That is in this bill, too.
Commodities, yes, but it is broader than that. Rural economic
development, as I mentioned, is so important. That is why in this bill
we have a treasury equity fund, a rural business investment program to
support equity groups. We have a national rural cooperative and
business equity fund to try to get equity capital to rural areas so we
can promote the kind of business development we need. We have a
fourfold increase in the value-added agricultural product market
development grants. These grants help develop solid value-added
enterprises owned by agricultural producers. The business and industry
loan guarantee program is improved. We provide $100 million a year for
broadband Internet access to our small town communities.
This is a broadly based bill. I not even touched on the enhanced
nutrition, forestry, or trade programs. We put more funds and guidance
and direction into the foreign market development program and the
foreign market access program. We enhance our trading abilities. For
forestry, we have new language and new programs to provide more support
for the private forests and renewable forestry incentives.
There is a lot more than just commodities in this bill. That is as it
should be. Agriculture touches everyone in America. It is more than
just that one person on a farm. It is people all up and down the food
chain: our processors, shippers, wholesalers, grocery stores, and
consumers. We have put a lot in here to protect consumers, to make sure
we have the safest and most affordable and steady food supply of any
country in the world.
That is why this bill is so important and why we have to move this
bill. I think it does no one any good to continue a filibuster or
delay. I am hopeful with the breakthrough we had this afternoon with
these four amendments, we look forward tomorrow to continuing to debate
some amendments. I hope some time, perhaps even later today, we can
reach an agreement on a finite list of amendments, and how much time.
Then we will know exactly when we will finish the farm bill and get to
conference and get it to the President as soon as possible.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I appreciate the excellent statement by
the distinguished chairman of our committee. I join him in attempting
to work constructively for completion of a good piece of legislation.
There is broad agreement among Members of the Senate Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, on the titles, aside from the
commodity title. We have had amendments that have pertained to the
other title and some may still be heard from Members who were not a
part of our committee deliberations.
Clearly, the bill before the Senate does excellent things in the area
of conservation, possibly a credit for young farmers, rural
development, nutrition, agricultural development, to try to get jobs in
rural America for people not engaged in farming.
This is why I regret that the commodity section, as it now stands,
seems to me to be a considerable step backward. I am not going to
engage in extravagant language about the situation. Honest Senators can
differ as to the implications of this. One good reason the Senate chose
not to pass legislation before Christmas was that this disagreement
pertains to a lot of farmers and other Senators who are not farmers
wanted to take a second and third look at this legislation.
I want to talk during these informal remarks at the beginning of our
session today about the prospect of some who are well informed who have
looked at our work so we might improve it through the amendment process
we are about to undertake. I mention, first of all, a report by the
Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, well-known to Members
of our Agriculture Committee, and, I think, to the general public as an
extraordinarily reputable agricultural institution at the University of
Missouri and Iowa State University. I cite specifically their report of
November 2001, at the time we were last deliberating on the farm bill,
on the trade issues.
The distinguished chairman has mentioned the attempt by the committee
to stay clear of ceilings that might lead the United States to severe
difficulties with the World Trade Organization and our other trading
partners. Some Senators might say that is the tough luck of anybody
else who happens to stand in our way; this is the United States of
America, and if we want to spend money on our farmers, by golly, we
ought to do that--leaving aside whether we run into conflict that is
likely to lead to lawsuits, less exports, and blockages that are
already considerable with foreign trading partners.
Clearly, in most of our debates on agriculture, we are in agreement
that if farm income is going to go up substantially in the United
States, it will have to be through exports because we have a market in
the United States which is often termed mature. There is only so much
food that we can consume in the United States of America. Even though
we must do a better job with our food pantries, with feeding programs--
and this farm bill does address those issues and they are important for
low-income Americans and for those who are unfortunate--the fact is,
given the productive capability of American agriculture, we have to
move the product.
In order to move the product, we have tried to work with other
nations under an agreement called the World Trade Organization. That
gives us some certainty of legal status in other countries. If they
complain and were to take action to stop our exports, we have an action
to get moving, to move this through arbitration or decisions of the
World Trade Organization. Most people in the agricultural business
understand that.
What is in dispute is whether the Harkin-Daschle bill now before the
Senate bumps up against the ceilings or, in fact, goes through them.
The distinguished chairman has said in his best calculation, in fact,
we are well below the ceiling, in a safety margin. However, if the
FAPRI is not so assertive, and I read from page 7 of the November 2000
report:
Under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture, the
United States agreed to limit spending on domestic support
programs that are considered trade distorting to $19.1
billion per year.
We made that agreement.
Given the structure of the proposed policy changes, we
calculate a 30.3 percent chance that the United States will
exceed this limit in the 2002 marketing year.
This is the marketing year that will begin later this calendar year
after the 2002 crops are harvested this fall.
Over the projection period, price increases result in
smaller marketing loan expenditures, which will tend to
decrease this probability. But the counter-cyclical program
begins payments in the 2004 marketing year, essentially
replacing green box expenditures. . .with amber box
expenditures.
Those are ones that become more dangerous in the calculations.
This substitute increases the probability that the U.S.
exceeds its WTO limits.
I mention that because clearly this can still be remedied. We are in
the course of having a debate in which
[[Page S406]]
other Senators or other institutes may make calculations. But I am
suggesting that we have a serious point of jeopardy here that may not
be well understood by Senators. That is why in this opening statement I
move, not to the rhetoric of my colleagues, but rather to an
independent organization that is in a position to make informed comment
on this.
We have a further problem that is posed simply by the way this bill
is structured in the payments. I cite an article by Philip Brasher of
the Associated Press, dated today, in which he points out:
A Democratic-backed farm bill pending in the Senate would
use an estimated $45 billion by the end of 2006
This is of the $73.5 billion in new spending over a 10-year period of
time that has been often mentioned--leaving but $28.5 billion for the
remaining 5 years. The problem comes up that the Department of
Agriculture has spoken, through the Secretary, Ann Veneman, who said,
again yesterday, that the money should be distributed evenly over the
10-year period of time.
Secretary Veneman says:
We feel strongly that we shouldn't front-load a farm bill.
Let me mention that this is a fairly large sum of money. Just a quick
division of the $73.5 billion, if one agrees that much more on top of
the baseline ought to be spent, would mean if we were to have fairly
level payments, our work should come out at something less than $37
billion.
The Daschle-Harkin bill amounts to $45 billion now. Some others have
cited figures between $42 billion and $43 billion. It would appear to
be $5 billion or $6 billion too rich in the first 5 years. It got that
way through a number of compromises.
I sympathize with the distinguished chairman of the committee who
must entertain all sorts of suggestions from people who come in and
have enthusiasm for doing it now, but I would point out one reason for
not moving ahead in November or December, with the farm bill, is that,
obviously, we have a disagreement.
One may say the Secretary of Agriculture is entitled to her opinion
and we may be entitled to ours. If we want to stack the $73.5 billion,
$50 billion in the first 5 years, that is up to us. But on the other
hand, at this point the administration has indicated the $73.5 billion
is available, that the budget assumptions that have been made are the
ones that have been followed through, and, indeed, the President's
budget submission includes this.
But she is saying maybe enough is enough. We don't want to spend any
more of that money in the first half because that is going to make for
a very difficult period following that, in which the suggestions of
Senators will be: Let's at least do what we have been doing before. At
that point we have a much richer product over the 10-year period of
time than the administration or the Budget Committees have agreed to.
In any event, we will address that, I am certain, in several amendments
that will reduce that sum of money in the first 5 years.
A more comprehensive critique of what we have been doing appeared in
the Washington Post this morning. It appeared earlier in Newsweek
magazine under the byline of the noted economist Robert J. Samuelson. I
wish to quote directly from some of the paragraphs of economist
Samuelson's analysis.
He starts with the proposition:
Government programs are, for all practical purposes,
immortal.
Perhaps so and perhaps not. But then he offers as evidence of this.
Anyone who doubts this last proposition should examine the
farm subsidy programs, which are the classic example of how
unnecessary spending survives. Here is a parable for our
larger budget predicament. Every year the government sends
out checks to about 700,000 to 900,000 farmers. Since 1978,
federal outlays to support farmers' incomes have exceeded
$300 billion. How large is that? Well, the publicly held
federal debt (the result of past budget deficits) is about
$3.3 trillion. The past 23 years of farm subsidies equal
almost 10 percent of the debt.
But wait: Congress is about to expand the subsidies. The
Congressional Budget Office estimates that new farm
legislation would increase costs by $65 billion over a 10-
year period, on top of the $128.5 billion of existing
programs. (And these figures exclude costs for agricultural
research, trade and nutritional programs.) The Republican-
controlled House has passed one version; the Democratic-
controlled Senate is about to debate a slightly different
version. And the Bush administration has supported what it
calls the bill's ``generous'' funding levels. ``Extravagant''
would be more like it.
Government spending should reflect some ``public
interest.'' For farm subsidies, this is hard to find.
Let's examine the possibilities. Do we need subsidies to
ensure food production? No. The subsidies go mainly for
wheat, corn, rice, cotton, soybean and airy production,
representing about a third of U.S. farm output. The rest
(beef, pork, chicken, vegetables, fruits) receive no direct
subsidies. Has anyone noticed shortages of chicken, lettuce,
carrots or bacon? The idea that, without subsidies, America
wouldn't produce ample wheat for bread, milk for ice cream or
corn for animal feed is absurd. Before the 1930s no federal
subsides existed, yet annual wheat production rose 77 percent
to 887 million bushels from 1880 to 1930.
Do subsidies ``save the small family farm''? In the 1930s,
or even 1950s, this argument might have been plausible. No
more. Mechanization and better seed varieties have promoted
farm consolidation. In 1935 there were 6.8 million farms. In
1997 there were 1.9 million and, of these, about 350,000
accounted for almost 90 percent of farm production. These
farms had at least $100,000 in sales. About 42 percent of
food production came from farms with $1 million or more in
sales. Countless newspaper stories complain that subsidies go
overwhelmingly to large, wealthy farmers. But given the
distribution of food production, they must go to large
farmers--unless government decides to subsidize farmers who
essentially don't farm.
Do subsidies stabilize farm incomes, offsetting period of
low prices? Not much. There are two problems. First: When
crop prices drop, the subsidies promote overproduction, which
prolongs and deepens the price decline. Second: The value of
the subsidies increases the prices of agricultural land by
about 20 percent, according to the Agriculture Department.
This raises the purchase prices for new farmers or lease
payments for farmers who rent their fields.
We found in the USDA report this year, 42 percent of farmers are, in
fact, renters.
About 45 percent of crop land is leased [according to
Samuelson] as opposed to the 42 percent USDA suggested. And
of course, there's this question: Why should government
stabilize farmers' incomes? It doesn't stabilize incomes of
plumbers, print shops or most businesses.
Despite farm programs' nonexistent public benefits,
Congress routinely extends the programs for political
reasons. On the public-relations front, farmers are thought
to be hard-working and, therefore, deserving. Somehow, it
seems unfair to withdraw a government benefit they're
accustomed to receiving. And if farm programs didn't exist,
the congressional agriculture committees would be less
powerful. So would various farm lobbies and interest groups.
They all have an interest in perpetuating the subsidies.
Finally, there's control of Congress.
At this point, Mr. Samuelson quotes me. So this quote was my own.
``The main factor is a concern among lawmakers of both
parties that power in Congress could hinge on a few races in
heavily subsidized agricultural regions,'' Sen. Richard
Lugar, Republican of Indiana, bravely wrote in The New York
Times. ``If either party stands in the way of this largesse,
they risk being labeled the `anti-farm party' and targeted
with sentimental imagery associated with farm failures.''
Back to Samuelson:
Farm subsidies are huge political bribes. Though they're
perfectly legal, the ethics are questionable. The trouble is
that hardly anyone raises the questions. The silence defines
Washington's self-serving and hypocritical ``morality.''
Everyone in Congress is justifiably outraged these days by
Enron's collapse and the losses for workers and investors.
But the same legislators will vote for massive giveaways of
billions of dollars to farmers without any sense of shame or
outrage. There is no inkling that they might be plundering
the public purse and doing wrong. (The press is guilty of
similar hypocrisy. Farm subsidies excite casual, intermittent
curiosity.
I am hopeful that these remarks will excite both Senators and the
press because I think we are on the threshold of a very large mistake
in the commodity section.
I have made these points before, but let me tick through them
quickly.
One problem with the farm bill that now lies before us is that it
does increase subsidies very substantially.
From the beginning of the debate, the suggestion has been that the
Budget Committee set aside $73.5 billion for additional farm subsidies
over the next 10 years. The dilemma here is that the subsidies will
create incentives for more production. They are production based. The
more bushels, the more dollars for the farmer who produces the bushels.
As a result, unless El Nino, or some extraordinary weather phenomenon
such as a comet crash, or something of that variety occurs, it is
[[Page S407]]
very predictable that production of the five basic row crops--cotton,
rice, soybeans, corn, and wheat--will increase very substantially over
the next 5 years. Perhaps export demand will escalate rapidly. Perhaps
we will do the things we need to do and evade the blockages of the
World Trade Organization and our trading partners that for the moment
are outraged by this bill.
Letters I have received from ambassadors from friendly trading
countries--the Australian Ambassador, for example, or Commissioner
Fisher of the EU, and others--point out very troubled waters ahead. But
perhaps we will overcome that. I hope we will because there is no way
out of the box unless we export a whole lot more to meet the production
gains we are going to have.
The genius of American agriculture is that the yields continue year
by year. That is the potential salvation for feeding people all over
the world. But between now and then, the question is, How do we get the
product out of the country? Failure to do that will lead to oversupply
in the country and lower prices. That will trigger higher subsidies.
This is what countercyclical is all about. It never counters, it goes
one way --down.
If that were all of it, that would be bad enough. But the problem is
that only 40 percent or fewer of American farmers are going to receive
any of these subsidies. That is the nature of the row crop situation.
Sixty percent--three-fifths--a majority of farmers, really have no
interest in these subsidies at all. At least they are not going to
receive them. That is not widely understood among farmers, quite apart
from the public as a whole. The public as a whole, when they hear of
that, say: How can this be? This is the way the program started in the
1930s, and it has been perpetuated.
That is not the half of it. Take this 40 percent. The statistics show
in State after State over two-thirds of the money--just in this 40
percent--goes to this 10 percent of the 40. The 4 percent is the total.
Stated another way, we are now down to 60 percent at zero, and 10
percent of the 40, or 4 percent, are getting about two-thirds of all
the money. The public say, that is preposterous; how in the world can
people in a democratic legislative body skew the payments in such a
distorted manner that 4 percent of the farms get two-thirds of all the
results? We are doing it. We have done it, and we are about to compound
it.
It is no wonder that small farmers go out of business. These bills
guarantee it. The same Senators on the floor today who will say, What
about the small family farmer, and what about the medium-sized family
farmer--I am here to tell you that farmer is not going to do well under
this bill. Land prices will continue to go up. I do not predict a
bubble. Nevertheless, in my own farm situation, I have witnessed
management--I have owned farms since 1956--and at least two situations
of crash and burn. I can recall--I think most Senators who are
following this in our committee will recall--the boom of the 1970s in
which those of us who had land throughout that greater time saw an
increase of two or three times the value only to see 50 or 60 percent
of that stripped away in the early years of the 1980s.
Why is it that we are failing by going through this history again and
again? We do it because our programs almost mandate it. USDA's 120-page
booklet goes through chapter and verse about how it happens. It is no
mystery.
The problem is, for young farmers looking into this, it is a tragedy
in terms of entry. For 42 percent of our farmers who rent, it is a
tragedy because their rents go up. That is a big percentage.
Whether Members understand who the farmers are in their States or
not, the farmers understand their predicament, and the 60 percent who
are getting nothing understand that zero. By now, given the
Environmental Working Group site, the rest of the farmers understand
who the 10 percent are who are getting two-thirds of what happens in
their States. They have them listed by name. That is new. And a good
number of farmers are suggesting is not fair because it is an intrusion
of Government payments. It is an intrusion because in some cases
farmers have been receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
I don't go into the extraordinary cases of movie stars, basketball
players, universities, and so forth. After all, under the rules of the
game, they own the land and they produce the stuff. Nevertheless, there
are some anomalies here that have not been taken well.
The predicament is that we have a farm bill as it stands before us,
before we start amending it, that, in my judgment, almost guarantees
lower prices, guarantees larger payments, and the payments we know go
to very few people. They are huge.
In November and December, I made the point--and I will make it even
more forcefully now--that this debate occurs in almost an ``Alice in
Wonderland'' situation in which somehow we can talk about farm policy
as if it were totally divorced from the budget of the U.S. Government
or from the needs of ordinary people.
The distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad,
and others on the committee have pointed out that the billions of
dollars in deficit that we are now piling up are taken out of the
Social Security funds. That is now clear. We are in deficit finance. We
are not in surpluses. This is not free money. Social Security
recipients surely understand that the $73.5 billion is coming out of
the Social Security fund. It is money that could be spent perhaps for
reform of Medicare, prescription drugs for the elderly, and other items
that most of us in our campaign talked about and promised but clearly
are not going to occur so long as our Government is running huge
deficits.
We are doing the deficits because we have a war on. And that is
proper because terrorists hit our country on September the 11th. But
that is the country in which we live. Agriculture is not divorced from
that which is our country. It is not another world in which we deal
with a very few farmers, maybe 4 percent of the people who are doing
business.
How farmers could get into such a predicament is easily predictable,
given the types of policies we are about to formulate; albeit, telling
the farmers: We are doing it for you and we want your support.
If farmers ever figure this out, we will not have their support. They
will wonder how misguided we could have been.
We have been through these arguments several times. I appreciate the
indulgence of my colleagues in listening to them again. But we do have
a second chance. Thank goodness we did not adopt this legislation in
unamended form in November or December because we will be coming into
conference with a House bill that, in my judgment, is equally
disastrous.
Madam President, with these thoughts in mind, I hope we can proceed
through the amendments in an orderly way. I promise to work with the
distinguished chairman to make that so.
We are now getting the ideas from all of our Senators on this side of
the aisle. I understand that is occurring with the chairman. Hopefully,
we will have a finite list of amendments and have an idea of a roadmap
for a successful conclusion.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2604
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the
business before the Senate at this time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's amendment No. 2604 with a 30-
minute time limit.
Mr. HARKIN. With a 30-minute time limit?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam President, this amendment is cosponsored by Senators Grassley,
Feingold, Wellstone, and Enzi. This is the livestock production
contract amendment that I offered in December. This amendment furthers
one of the
[[Page S408]]
most important goals of this farm bill, and that is to promote
competition.
We had a competition title in the original farm bill I introduced in
the committee. Two other amendments have already been adopted: Senator
Feingold's amendment prohibiting mandatory arbitration in livestock
contracts, and Senator Johnson's amendment on packer ownership.
My amendment will address yet one more issue in the competition
arena, and that is livestock production contracts and the right to
discuss contracts with close advisers.
The amendment does two things: It closes a loophole in the Packers
and Stockyards Act by including livestock production contracts under
its jurisdiction; and, secondly, it provides livestock producers the
ability to discuss terms of their contracts with certain people, such
as their attorney, banker, landlord, and Government agencies charged
with protecting a party to the contract.
Livestock production contracting is an arrangement between a packer
or another owner of livestock and a farmer. The basic contract requires
a farmer to provide the buildings, the equipment, and the labor to
raise the livestock; and the livestock is owned by someone else, the
contractor.
This type of arrangement differs from the traditional livestock
industry structure where the farmer both owned and raised the
livestock. In the poultry sector, production contracting is nearly
universal and, I might add, has been covered by the Packers and
Stockyards Act since 1935. It is becoming more prevalent in hogs, and
is growing in the cattle industry.
What this amendment would do is protect livestock production growers
from unfair and deceptive acts. The same type of fairness rules are
common in other markets where people are threatened by inequitable
bargaining positions. For instance, Federal law affords similar
protections to produce and vegetable growers, automobile dealers,
gasoline franchisees, individual securities investors, and livestock
farmers who own the livestock.
Currently, the Packers and Stockyards Act provides protections for
farmers who sell livestock to packers. That has been in the law since
1921. But the act does not protect those who raise livestock, under a
production contract, for someone else. The amendment would close this
loophole. Current law does not fit current practice. Production
contracts, as I said, are becoming more common.
In 1990--just 11, 12 years ago--production contracting in the hog
industry was almost unheard of. By the year 2000, 34 percent of hogs
were raised under production contracts.
So again, farmers and ranchers need this amendment because the
consolidation and vertical integration of the markets are providing
them an unequitable bargaining position.
Livestock production contract growers are the ones most at risk of
unfair conduct because, like a franchisee, they tend to make large
investments to enter into a contract, and then they feel constrained to
endure unfair treatment because of their large capital investments.
Basically, the amendment would allow a producer to share his or her
contract with their attorney, business adviser, landlord, manager,
family, and State and Federal agencies charged with protecting parties
to the contract.
The amendment does not require anyone to share the contract if they
do not want to. And it does not say the contract should be made public
in any way. The provision even allows contracts between a contractor
and farmer to prohibit farmers from sharing a contract with their
neighbors or the contractor's competitors, for example.
So, again, the amendment enjoys broad support. The American Farm
Bureau Federation and the National Farmers' Union--the two largest
general farm organizations--as well as dozens of other farm and
consumer groups, support the amendment.
It is bipartisan. As I mentioned, there is support on both sides of
the aisle for this amendment. I am hopeful we can adopt the amendment.
Amendment No. 2607, As Modified; Amendment No. 2608, As Modified; and
Amendment No. 2602, As Modified
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment
Nos. 2607 and 2608 be modified with the text at the desk, and that
Wellstone amendment No. 2602 be modified with the text of amendment No.
2631.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
The amendments (No. 2607, as modified; No. 2608, as modified; and No.
2602, as modified) are as follows:
amendment no. 2607, as modified
On page 205, strike lines 8 through 11 and insert the
following:
(c) Maximum Enrollment.--Section 1231(d) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), the
Secretary'';
(2) by striking ``36,400,000'' and inserting
``41,100,000''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Per-farm limitation.--In the case of a contract
entered into on or after the date of enactment of this
paragraph, or in the case of a contract entered into before
that date that expires on or after that date, an owner or
operator may enroll not more than 50 percent of the eligible
land (as described in subsection (b)) of an agricultural
operation of the owner or operator in the program under this
subchapter.
``(3) Expenditure of funds.--In carrying out this
subsection, the Secretary shall ensure, to the maximum extent
practicable, that the total amount of payments made under the
program under this subchapter does not exceed the amount made
available to carry out the program for the fiscal year in
which the payments are made.''.
____
amendment no. 2608, as modified
On page 212, strike lines 13 through 15 and insert the
following:
reduce the amount of payments made by the Secretary for other
practices under the conservation reserve program.
``(j) Per-Acre Payment Levels.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall conduct a
study to determine, and promulgate regulations that establish
in accordance with paragraph (2), per-acre values for
payments for various categories of land enrolled in the
conservation reserve program.
``(2) Values.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall ensure that--
``(A) the per-acre value for highly erodible land or other
sensitive land (as determined by the Secretary) that is not
suitable for agricultural production; is greater than
``(B) the per-acre value for land that is suitable for
agricultural production (as determined by the Secretary).
``(3) Expenditure of funds.--In determining the per-acre
values for land under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall
ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that the per-acre
values are such that the total amount of payments under the
program under this subchapter made in accordance with those
values will not exceed the amount made available to carry out
the program for the fiscal year in which the payments are
made.''.
____
amendment no. 2602, as modified
Beginning on page 226, strike line 1 and all that follows
through page 235, line 6 and insert the following:
``(4) Large confined livestock feeding operations.--
(A) Definition of large confined livestock feeding
operation.--In this paragraph:
(i) In general.--The term `large confined livestock feeding
operation' means a confined livestock feeding operation'
means a confined livestock feeding operation designed to
confine 1,000 or more animal equivalent units (as defined by
the Secretary).
(I) Waiver.--The Secretary may on a case by case basis
grant states a waiver from the requirement in (4)(A)(i), of
this section, in accordance with Volume 62, No. 99 of the
Federal Register.
(ii) Multiple locations.--In determining the number of
animal unit equivalents of the operation of a producer under
clause (i), the animals confined by the producer in
confinement facilities at all locations (including the
producer's proportionate share in any jointly owned facility)
shall be counted.
(B) New or expanded operations.--Subject to (4)(A)(i)(I) of
this section, a producer shall not be eligible for cost-share
payments for any portion of a storage or treatment facility,
or associated waste transport or treatment device, to manage
manure, process wastewater, or other animal waste
generated by a large confined livestock feeding operation,
if the operation is a confined livestock operations that--
(i) is established as a large confined livestock operation
after the date of enactment of this paragraph; or
(ii) becomes a large confined livestock operation after the
date of enactment of this paragraph by expanding the capacity
of the operation to confine livestock.
(C) Modification of operation.--A modification of a large
confined livestock operation shall not be considered an
expansion under subparagraph (B)(ii) of this section, if as
determined by the Secretary, the modification involves--
(i) adoption of a new technology;
[[Page S409]]
(ii) improved efficiency in the functioning of the
operation or,
(iii) reorganization of the status of the entity; and
(iv) the capacity of the operation to confine livestock is
not increased.
(D) Multiple operations.--A producer that has an interest
in more than 1 large confined livestock operation shall not
be eligible for more than 1 contract under this section for
cost-share payments for a storage or treatment facility, or
associated waste transport or transfer device, to manage
manure, process wastewater, or other animal waste generated
by the large confined livestock feeding operation.
(E) Flood plain sitting.--Cost-share payments shall not be
available for structural practices for a storage or treatment
facility, or associated waste transport device, to manage
manure process wastewater, or other animal waste generated by
a confined livestock operation if
(i) the structural practices are located in a 100-year
flood plain; and
(ii) the confined livestock operation is a confined
livestock operation that is established after the date of
enactment of this paragraph.
(e) Incentive Payments.--The Secretary shall make incentive
payments in an amount and at a rate determined by the
Secretary to be necessary to encourage a producer to perform
1 or more practices.
(f) Technical Assistance.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall allocate funding under
the program for the provision of technical assistance
according to the purpose and projected cost for which the
technical assistance is provided for a fiscal year.
(2) Amount.--The allocated amount may vary according to--
(A) the type of expertise required;
(B) the quantity of time involved; and
(C) other factors as determined appropriate by the
Secretary.
(3)Limitation.--Funding for technical assistance under the
program shall not exceed the projected cost to the Secretary
of the technical assistance provided for a fiscal year.
(4) Other authorities.--The receipt of technical assistance
under the program shall not affect the elgibility of the
producer to receive technical assistance under other
authorities of law available to the Secretary.
(5) Incentive payments for technical assistance.--
(A) In general.--A producer that is eligible to receive
technical assistance for a practice involving the development
of a comprehensive nutrient management plan may obtain an
incentive payment that can be used to obtain technical
assistance associated with the development of any component
of the comprehensive nutrient management plan.
(B) Purpose.--The purpose of the payment shall be to
provide a producer the option of obtaining technical
assistance for developing any component of a comprehensive a
nutrient management plan from a certified provider.
(C) Payment.--The incentive payment shall be--
(i) in addition to cost-share or incentive payments that a
producer would otherwise receive for structural practices and
land-management practices,
(ii) used only to procure technical assistance from a
certified provider that is necessary to develop any component
of a comprehensive nutrient management plan; and
(iii) in an amount determined appropriate by the Secretary,
taking into account--
(I) the extent and complexity of the technical assistance
provided;
(II) the costs that the Secretary would have manned in
providing the technical assistance; and
(III) the costs incurred by the private provider in
providing the technical assistance.
(D) Eligible practices.--The Secretary may determine, on a
case by case basis, whether the development of a
comprehensive nutrient management plan is eligible for an
incentive payment under this paragraph.
(E) Certification by secretary.--
(i) In general.--Only persons that have been certified by
the Secretary under section 1244(f)(3) shall be eligible to
provide technical assistance under this subsection.
(ii) Quality assurance.--The Secretary shall ensure that
certified providers are capable of providing technical
assistance regarding comprehensive nutrient management in a
manner that meets the specifications and guidelines of the
Secretary and that meets the needs of producers under the
program.
(F) Advance payment.--On the determination of the Secretary
that the proposed comprehensive nutrient management of a
producer is eligible for an incentive payment, the producer
may receive a partial advance of the incentive payment in
order to procure the services of a certified provider.
(G) Final payment.--The final installment of the incentive
payment shall be payable to a produce on presentation to the
Secretary of documentation that is satisfactory to the
Secretary and that demonstrates--
(i) completion of the technical assistance; and
(ii) the actual cost of the technical assistance.
(g) Modification or Termination of Contracts.--
(1) Voluntary modification or termination.--The Secretary
may modify or terminate a contract entered into with a
producer under this chapter if--
(A) the producer agrees to the modification or termination;
and
(B) the Secretary determines that the modification or
termination is in the public interest.
(2) Involuntary termination.--The Secretary may terminate a
contract under this chapter if the Secretary determines that
the producer violated the contract.
SEC. 1240C. EVALUATION OF OFFERS AND PAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--In evaluating applications for technical
assistance, cost-share payments, and incentive payments, the
Secretary shall accord a higher priority to assistance and
payments that--
(1) maximize environmental benefits per dollar expended;
and
(2)(A) address national conservation priorities,
including--
(i) meeting Federal, State, and local environmental
purposes focused on protecting air and water quality,
including assistance to production systems and practices that
avoid subjecting an operation to Federal, State, or local
environmental regulatory systems;
(ii) applications from livestock producers using managed
grazing systems and other pasture and forage based systems;
(iii) comprehensive nutrient management;
(iv) water quality, particularly in impaired watersheds;
(v) soil erosion;
(vi) air quality; or
(vii) pesticide and herbicide management or reduction;
(B) are provided in conservation priority areas established
under section 1230(c);
(C) are provided in special projects under section
1243(f)(4) with respect to which State or local governments
have provided, or will provide, financial or technical
assistance to producers for the same conservation or
environmental purposes; or
(D) an innovative technology in connection with a
structural practice or land management practice.
SEC. 1240D. DUTIES OF PRODUCERS.
(a) To receive technical assistance, cost-share payments,
or incentive payments under the program, a producer shall
agree--
(1) to implement an environmental quality incentives
program plan that describes conservation and environmental
purposes to be achieved through 1 or more practices that are
approved by the Secretary;
(2) not to conduct any practices on the farm or ranch that
would tend to defeat the purposes of the program;
(3) on the violation of a term or condition of the contract
at any time the producer has control of the land--
(A) if the Secretary determines that the violation warrants
termination of the contract--
(i) to forfeit all rights to receive payments under the
contract; and
(ii) to refund to the Secretary all or a portion of the
payments received by the owner or operator under the
contract, including any interest on the payments, as
determined by the Secretary, or
(B) if the Secretary determines that the violation does not
warrant termination of the contract, to refund to the
Secretary, or accept adjustments to, the payments provided to
the owner or operator, as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate;
(4) on the transfer of the right and interest of the
producer in land subject to the contract, unless the
transferee of the right and interest agrees with the
Secretary to assume all obligations of the contract, to
refund all cost-share payments and incentive payments
received under the program, as determined by the Secretary;
(5) to supply information as required by the Secretary to
determine compliance with the program plan and requirements
of the program, and
(6) to comply with such additional provisions as the
Secretary determines are necessary to carry out the program
plan.
SEC. 1240E. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM PLAN.
(a) In General.--To be eligible to receive technical
assistance cost-share payments, or incentive payments under
the program, a producer of a livestock or agricultural
operation shall submit to the Secretary for approval a plan
of operations that specifies practices covered under the
program, and is based on such terms and conditions, as the
Secretary considers necessary to carry out the program,
including a description of the practices to be implemented
and the purposes to be met by the implementation of the plan,
and in the case of confined livestock feeding operations,
development and implementation of a comprehensive nutrient
management plan.
(b) Avoidance of Duplication.--The Secretary shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, eliminate duplication of planning
activities under the program and comparable conservation
programs.
SEC. 1240F. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.
(a) To the extent appropriate, the Secretary shall assist a
producer in achieving the conservation and environmental
goals of a program plan by--
(1) providing technical assistance in developing and
implementing the plan;
(2) providing technical assistance, cost-share payments, or
incentive payments for developing and implementing 1 or more
practices, as appropriate;
(3) providing the producer with information, education, and
training to aid in implementation of the plan; and
(4) encouraging the producer to obtain technical
assistance, cost-share payments, or
[[Page S410]]
grants from other Federal, State, local, or private sources.
SEC. 1240G. LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the total
amount of cost share and incentive payments paid to a
producer under this chapter shall not exceed--
(1) $30,000 for any fiscal year, regardless of whether the
producer has more than 1 contract under this chapter for the
fiscal year,
(2) $90,000 for a contract with a term of 3 years,
(3) $120,000 for a contract with a term of 4 years, or
(4) $150,000 for a contract with a term of more than 4
years.
(b) Attribution.--An individual or entity shall not
receive, directly or indirectly, total payments from a single
or multiple contracts this chapter that exceed $30,000 for
any fiscal year.
(c) Exception To Annual Limit.--The Secretary may exceed
the limitation on the annual amount of a payment to a
producer under subsection (a)(1) if the Secretary determines
that a larger payment is--
(1) essential to accomplish the land management practice or
structural practice for which the payment is made to the
producer, and
(2) consistent with the maximization of environmental
benefits per dollar expended and the purposes of this
chapter.
(d) Verification.--The Secretary shall identify individuals
and entities that are eligible for a payment under the
program using social security numbers and taxpayer
identification numbers, respectively.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HARKIN. How much time does the Senator want on this amendment?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Could I have 10 minutes?
Mr. HARKIN. I yield the Senator 10 minutes.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I am sorry, I did not realize we were under time
agreements.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Harkin). The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to go back to a very
important subject that the Senator from Indiana brought up, and that is
whether or not the bill is compliant in the future with some of our
World Trade Organization obligations.
I think it is very obvious that the committee anticipated that it
might not be compliant because on page 35 of the report there is a
paragraph on the Secretary of Agriculture doing an adjustment to farm
payments if that becomes a problem.
I cannot find fault with the writers of the legislation for putting
this in here because in the other body, in the House bill--a Republican
bill--they saw this as a problem, too.
On page 131 of that House bill it says: The Secretary may make
adjustments in the amount of such expenditures during that period to
ensure that such expenditures do not exceed but in no case be less than
such allowable levels.
To me, it is a very serious problem we have; albeit, you might say it
is going to happen--if it happens at all--in a minority of the
instances because, as the Senator referred to FAPRI of Iowa State and
Missouri, you said you think they said it would happen 30 percent of
the time.
But if you are in a situation where it happens that 37 percent of the
time and we exceed and we are retaliated against, and that would be
legal retaliation and it would be retaliation at a time, presumably, we
get high payments, farmers are already in trouble or they wouldn't get
the additional payments. So you could find yourself in a situation
where at the very time prices are going down, and we also have the
additional problems that we can't export because we are being
retaliated against, that just at the time farmers need the safety net,
then that safety net has one great big hole in it.
We need to find some way to protect the American farmer so that the
safety net the farmer has doesn't have a big hole in it. And we ought
to also do it because we are in the leadership of all the nations of
the world on reducing barriers to trade, particularly through our work
in the Cairns group of nations. We are trying to get impediments to
agricultural trade down to zero, both from the standpoint of market
opening and from the standpoint of tariffs. That is our goal in the
next round of negotiations under WTO.
If we are a nation in trade that believes in the rule of law, we have
to follow the rule of law. We anticipate we would be in trouble on that
because of the farm bill. It seems to me at a time that we are talking
about a safety net for farmers, we ought to do what we can to make sure
that hole is mended before this bill leaves the Senate. If it goes to
the House and the House is willing to ignore it, then where are we? We
are in a situation where down the road 5 to 10 years, depending on how
long a farm bill we have, we have a big potential problem for the
American family farmer. When they need help, they aren't going to get
it. We can't go to the WTO and complain because we ourselves have
recognized the possibility we might be in jeopardy.
In this regard, since we are going into the negotiations in the WTO--
they start next week--I think, in the special round on agriculture that
is going to be discussed in Geneva, for example, even the larger
negotiations of the Doha development round, we are hoping to accomplish
a great deal in reducing or eliminating tariff barriers and tariffs on
agricultural products. In fact, it is such an important item, I think
eventually we are going to start referring to this as the agricultural
round. We are going to set an example. We have always tried to set an
example.
Where we are, if we pass a bill that potentially violates WTO, we are
giving encouragement to the competitor that we most have trouble with--
Europe. Europe has about 85 percent of all of the subsidies for exports
in the entire world. Europe has about a $400 billion common
agricultural program.
We want that common agricultural program reduced. I think Europe
knows they have to reduce it. We are going to be in a situation where
we pass this legislation and, as they are looking at their common
agricultural program, which they are doing, they are going to put off
the big decisions of reducing that until probably the year 2005.
In the process of our complaining to them about they aren't doing
enough, they are obviously going to cite not only what they believe the
impact of our legislation is, but they are also going to cite that our
legislation actually recognizes that as based upon this paragraph on
page 35 and based upon the House bill.
I don't know why we don't live in the real world and why we don't try
to deal with this. I am not saying that in a denigrating way to the
Senator from Indiana. I am just saying that in a commonsense approach
because he recognizes it. I suppose for the people who write the bill,
they don't find an easy way to get out of it other than putting this
paragraph and this language in the respective bills of the House and
the Senate. This isn't directed towards Democrats because Republicans
have put us in this boat as well.
I know that the White House sees this as a problem. They want us to
work our way out of it. I happened to be able to have breakfast this
morning with the person who is going to succeed Mr. Mooree as executive
for the World Trade Organization, Dr. Supachai Panitchpakdi of
Thailand. He is a parliamentarian there. He is going to take over in
September. He expressed this concern to me as well. And, by the way,
his country is very much a participant in the Cairns group that wants
to eliminate agricultural subsidies. He reminded me, even though he has
a small country, his agricultural subsidies are $1.3 billion compared
to Europe's $400 billion. But regardless, he says that it does not put
the United States in a very good position going into the Doha round of
negotiations to be able to say to the other 142 nations, in particular,
as we address the 77 developing nations within the World Trade
Organization that tend to be more protective about their agriculture,
and wanting to do less in this area, it doesn't put us in a very good
position if we are writing legislation that we recognize is a potential
violation of the world trading organization because we are exceeding
the $19.1 billion that is in the amber box limit.
I have put forth some suggested amendments, a couple different
approaches that I would have to confess maybe don't totally meet our
requirements under the WTO, but I think tend away from heavy reliance
upon price and heavy reliance upon production, which are the two items
that if we tie our payments to tend to make us violate amber box
requirements.
I want to work with both managers of the bill and see what we can do
about this. To repeat the two or three reasons why I want to work with
them, because, No. 1, we brag about passing a safety net for farmers,
that safety net
[[Page S411]]
should be a pretty certain safety net for the next 5 to 10 years, the
length of the legislation. At a time when it is most needed, it should
be most predictable what would happen.
This language tells me that the bankers, to whom we are always
listening, have to know what the farm program is going to be so they
can make loans to farmers. They are going to look at this and say: We
really don't know.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. GRASSLEY. May I have 30 seconds?
Mr. LUGAR. I am happy to yield 30 seconds of the opposition time.
Mr. GRASSLEY. No. 2, then, so that we maintain our leadership in this
effort to reduce trade barriers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, may I ask a question of the Chair? Is there
15 minutes of opposition time, minus the concession to the
distinguished Senator from Iowa?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the legislation offered by the
distinguished occupant of the chair contains provisions that respond,
in my judgment, to a number of unintended consequences for the farm
sector of our economy.
I believe it is a matter of fact that in order for Senators to have a
pretty good idea, at least, of how this amendment shapes up, a letter
has come to me from a number of groups that are affected. Let me cite
those groups. It was signed by the American Cotton Shippers
Association; American Soybean Association; National Cattlemen's Beef
Association; National Chicken Council; National Corn Growers
Association; National Cotton Council; National Pork Producers Council;
National Sunflower Association; United Egg Producers; U.S. Canola
Association, and the Wheat Export Trade Committee.
They have written the following letter, which responds to the
Senator's amendment:
The Senate Agriculture Committee may soon be considering
legislation as part of the Farm Bill to address the issue of
agricultural competition and concentration. This extremely
broad legislation would give the U.S. Department of
Agriculture unprecedented authority to regulate corporate
relationships, commercial practices and contracts for the
production of agricultural commodities.
Tough laws already exist to ensure open and fair
competition throughout the U.S. economy--including
agribusiness. The current laws should be aggressively
enforced. Creating new laws in an already complex regulatory
environment is unnecessary and could result in serious
unintended consequences. Legislation limiting the ability of
agribusiness to attract the needed capital for future
development could harm the constituents that this legislation
is intended to serve.
Risk is an ever-present element of agriculture and
effectively managing risk is a fundamental goal of
agricultural producers. The key to effectively managing risk
involves the use of creative risk management tools. Farmers
and ranchers have worked with agribusiness firms to develop
creative solutions for managing risk. Implementing these
solutions requires capital investment, and to attract the
necessary capital, firms must offer attractive rates of
return. Statutory and regulatory burdens that focus on
agriculture--ignoring the broader economy--inhibit the
ability of agribusiness to attract the necessary capital to
stay competitive and provide innovative risk management
solutions.
Unique marketing opportunities and new products present
premium opportunities for producers. Placing agriculture
under an isolated legal umbrella could well inhibit progress
and limit the ability of agricultural producers to adopt new
and innovative systems that increase profitability and
sustainability. Modifying existing laws and statutes could
segregate agriculture from the rest of the economy, causing
capital flight and hurting long-term growth, investment,
competitiveness and success of agribusiness and consequently
American agriculture.
Several state legislatures have taken steps such as the
ones we are concerned about, and the results have been
negative not only for agribusiness, but for producers as
well. For instance, South Dakota and Missouri passed well-
intentioned price discrimination legislation that resulted in
severe cash/spot market disruptions, and Minnesota has passed
legislation that has hindered the availability of some risk
management and quality-based production contracts.
In this day and age, agriculture needs more capital and
human investment in order to remain productive for the long
term. The undersigned organizations will not support
legislation that would create unfair regulatory burdens or
cause scarce capital resources to be diverted away from
agriculture toward other sectors of the economy.
Sincerely,
American Cotton Shippers Association
American Soybean Association
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
National Chicken Council
National Corn Growers Association
National Cotton Council
National Pork Producers Council
National Sunflower Association
National Turkey Federation
United Egg Producers
U.S. Canola Association
Wheat Export Trade Education Committee
I find merit in what has been suggested by these groups. I regret
that the amendment would add, in my judgment, burdens and costs,
restrictions, and more regulations for producers. It appears to me the
tools that have been created are, in fact, both innovative and do help
to manage risk. I hope they will be perpetuated.
Processors use contracting, which is a specific subject of the
Senator's amendment, to secure stable and consistent supplies of the
products that the market desires, as well as increasing operating
efficiency.
A Purdue University study of agricultural contracting conveys the
concern that legislation prohibiting or impeding contracting in
agriculture could spur increased coordination in agribusiness. The
study discusses the need for a contract in order for a process or to
guarantee a quality and consistent product to consumers. I think that
is the heart of the argument.
In essence, contracting is helpful in managing risk. It is helpful,
at least to the buyer, to make certain of the quality and quantity and
the supply of what is required for the benefit of consumers down the
trail. Therefore, I am hopeful that the amendment will not be adopted.
I appreciate the spirit in which it has been offered. I hope Senators
will take seriously the arguments I have presented and, even more
importantly, the arguments presented by the distinguished list of
agricultural producers that authored the letter I cited.
I yield the floor.
(Mrs. CARNAHAN assumed the chair.)
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a mild colloquy?
Mr. LUGAR. Yes.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask the ranking member, is that the letter that came
last fall or is it a new one? I am not familiar with that. If that is
the one----
Mr. LUGAR. It came in November of last year.
Mr. HARKIN. I think that letter is just opposed to the whole
competition title that we had in the chairman's mark of the farm bill
last fall.
Mr. LUGAR. I am sure the Senator is correct. There are a number of
aspects of the competition title to which it would refer.
Mr. HARKIN. Yes. That is why this amendment I have offered is much
more limited in scope than the broad issue they were talking about.
Mr. LUGAR. They cited contracting in that part of it specifically,
but it covers, obviously, a much more comprehensive set of
circumstances.
Mr. HARKIN. I wanted to make sure this wasn't a different letter. I
thank the ranking member.
Madam President, when I took the chair, I had yielded some time to
Senator Grassley from Iowa. I thought he was going to talk on this
amendment. He wanted to talk on something else. I think my time has
expired on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more
minutes to respond a little bit to the letter written.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. I think, again, the letter that was read addressed the
entire competition title and it was comprehensive. This amendment is
much more narrow. It only affects production contracts in livestock.
The letter does not point out, nor have I heard anybody point out, any
specific negative consequences that could occur from this very limited
type of amendment. This provides for fairness in production
contracting. It closes a loophole in the Packers and Stockyards Act.
That act already covers production contracting in poultry and has since
1935, if I am not mistaken. But at that time there
[[Page S412]]
was no such thing as production contracting in other areas, such as
livestock, cattle, and hogs, it was not addressed. Since then,
production contracting has become much more prevalent in livestock.
As I pointed out, in 1990, there wasn't such a thing. Now, 30 to 35
percent of all our hogs are raised under production contracts. If we
will provide fairness rules for gasoline station owners, for Dairy
Queen owners, or securities dealers, or others that are franchisees, to
give them a little bit of fairness in their contracts, that is all we
are trying to do with our cattle and hog producers.
Again, this is to close the loophole in the Packers and Stockyards
Act. I cannot imagine why our cattle producers or any organization that
represents them would be opposed to that. Who are they representing?
What organization is going to tell my farmers they can't have
protections under the Packers and Stockyards Act like our poultry
producers do?
The packers, of course, want unlimited power. All we are trying to do
is put in some fairness, and this amendment does that.
I thank the Chair for yielding this additional time.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, today I rise in support of the amendment
offered by Senator Harkin. This amendment puts ranchers with production
contracts under the same umbrella of protections the Packers and
Stockyards Act provides to other livestock producers. Producers with
production contracts, excluding those that raise poultry, are not
included in the Packers and Stockyards Act. They are not protected from
unfair and deceptive practices as other livestock producers are.
In a production contract, a producer provides the labor and materials
to raise livestock owned by another individual, the contractor. Until
recently, the contractor could be a packer or another person. On
December 13, 2001, this body passed an amendment to the farm bill that
prevents packers from owning, feeding, or controlling livestock more
than 14 days before slaughter. This means that packers can no longer
directly enter into production contracts because they would own the
livestock more than 14 days before slaughter. However, the amendment we
passed in December does not prevent other individuals from production
contracting with producers. These producers with production contracts
need the same protections other producers receive against unfair and
deceptive practices.
We should not be fooled into thinking that this ban of packer
ownership we passed in December will completely shrink packer influence
over the market. This bill must still go to conference and the ban will
face incredible scrutiny. The ban will probably go the way many similar
amendments have gone in the past. Amendments that reduce the choke hold
of the packers have routinely disappeared in conference. It took years
of work to get mandatory price reporting into law. However, we all know
the packers are still withholding a fair amount of pricing information
from producers.
Many of you may be wondering why these producers need protection from
their contractors. A production contract entails a large capital
investment to feed, shelter, and care for the livestock that the
producer does not own. Many producers have suffered through unfair
treatment because their contract was too large to risk contending with
the unfair practices. This great pressure from the contractor was also
the reason the second part of the amendment was included.
The second portion of the amendment guarantees that the producers
have the right to discuss the contract with their business advisors,
landlord, managers, family, and State and Federal agencies charged with
protecting parties to the contract. In States where producers already
have this right, the pressure and intimidation from contractors is so
extreme producers forego sharing the contents of their contracts. They
fear retribution. Other producers are given contracts with secrecy
clauses that prevent them from discussing the contract terms with
individuals that could help protect their interests.
This amendment offers an overlooked group of livestock producers the
same protections others in their industry already have. They would be
protected from unfair and deceptive acts and given the right to discuss
their contracts with certain individuals. I urge my colleagues to throw
your support behind this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I appreciate the arguments made by the
distinguished Senator. It would appear to this Senator, however, that
the objectives of the Harkin amendment are already met on the statute
books. The reason I have suggested that the amendment creates confusion
is that it might subject the current law to reinterpretation. To that
extent, it seems to me that this amendment is not productive, except of
potential confusion and difficulty. Very clearly, current statutes are
against fraud, unjust practices, and abusive activity in contracting.
I say to the Presiding Officer, the groups I cited, that at least a
good number of members who are subject to the competition section, as
the distinguished Senator from Iowa has pointed out, and this part of
it in particular, object for good reason and cite this is going to be
disruptive at least in terms of their operations and capital flow in
what they are doing.
For those reasons, I do not perceive the necessity for the amendment
and ask Members to vote in opposition.
Madam President, unless there is further need of debate by my
distinguished colleague, I yield back my time on this issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: Under the
unanimous consent agreement entered into some time ago, what is the
next order of business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next order of business is 40 minutes of
debate on the two amendments by the Senator from Montana.
Mr. HARKIN. I understand the Senator from Montana will be in the
Chamber very shortly. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2607, As Modified, and Amendment No. 2608, As Modified
Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I thank my ranking member. I assume my
two amendments are in order.
Mr. LUGAR. The Senator is correct. I yield to the Senator 20 minutes
of the 40 minutes allocated for debate on the amendments for his
control.
Mr. BURNS. I thank my good friend from Indiana. I do not think I will
take that much time because these amendments were pretty well discussed
prior to the holiday break.
There was some question about a budgetary point of order. I have
since modified these amendments, and they are in concert with the
budget and ready for consideration because it is a change in policy on
how we handle CRP, the Conservation Reserve Program.
One of the amendments limits the number of acres--these will be the
new acres coming into the system or any acres that are renewed--a
farmer can enroll in the CRP.
What we are seeing in rural America is that instead of selling the
farm or the ranch to a younger farmer or putting the acres into
production, those acres are enrolled in the CRP and they do not produce
anything. In other words, the farmer who enrolls them takes the check
and it is like going to Arizona--he is still getting the paycheck and
still paying for the farm.
I think this is wrong. Those acres are enrolled for a good purpose.
The original intent of CRP was to put marginal acres in the CRP and
leave the good acres to production. What happened? The trend has
reversed, and farmers are putting in some good land. It forced some of
the fellows who needed to raise their production into breaking up some
land that was marginal for grain production.
This one amendment calls for a limitation on the number of acres a
farmer can put in the CRP. It is not the total
[[Page S413]]
acres of a county or a State but for each farmer.
The other amendment deals with the form of payment. As I said, we had
one payment for everything. It was designed to take those marginal
acres, highly erodable acres, out of production for a conservation
reason--wildlife habitat. It worked. Land was set aside. The population
of upland birds, sporting birds, and wildlife returned to those areas.
Then, because payment for the acres increased, good land was being
put into the CRP. That was not the intent of the Conservation Reserve
Program.
What my second amendment says is we will pay higher prices for those
acres that are highly erodable and should not be farmed and should be
set aside for conservation purposes--in other words, it is just good
conservation--and a lower price for the highly productive land because
that is the land that should be in production.
I do not know how many people have gone through our rural areas, but
CRP has not been a great thing for our smaller towns. One does not see
dealerships. Machinery dealerships have gone away, and feed and wheat
houses have gone away because good land was put into the CRP and taken
out of production, and nothing happens on that land. That is not what
the original intent of CRP was about.
As I stated to the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, these
issues have been pretty well aired. The purpose, as far as I can see,
is good conservation. It also is good business practice.
If there are questions, I will certainly entertain some conversation
on these amendments. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, in conversations with my friend from
Montana and with the staff, I understand there is a budget score on
these amendments that may be a problem. In discussions with the Senator
from Montana, he has obviously raised some good points. Part of the
bill addresses some of the problems already. I refer to page 213 of the
bill, section 212. We provide for a study on economic effects regarding
the Conservation Reserve Program.
Our staffs are going to work together to develop further language, as
I understand, that could be added to this section to for additional
studies in the area that the Senator from Montana is concerned about,
but that would not have a budget scoring implication. We will work
together with the staff of the Senator to try to develop that language.
Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I thank my friend from Iowa. I don't
think we have any other route until we complete this study. Maybe we
can enlighten our friends down at the CBO. They came up with
unbelievable numbers. We changed our language, on their recommendation.
There was a point of order raised when we first offered the amendments;
they were wrong then. Then they suggested the language. Now they say
the language is not good enough. So here we go again.
I take issue with their numbers. However, I will not take issue with
the recommendation made from the chairman of the Committee on
Agriculture. We need to complete some sort of a comprehensive study of
rural areas and the impact that CRP, specifically this program, has had
on rural communities, when you take good land out of production or you
pay the same for highly erodable land and highly productive land. I
think we can work on some language.
We would like to see what happened. Maybe they will put some little
fellow somewhere to work, give him a job for the next 2 or 3 months and
maybe we can come back and change some of this.
It defies common sense. They say that is about all the sense I have--
pretty common--but it defies common sense that this would have an
impact on the budget or outlays of money when we talk about the
enrollment of acres into a conservation program, designed for a good
reason, but that has gone astray. We are trying to fix that. That is
all we are trying to do. If it requires a study and we have to go back
and visit with those people, that is what we will have to do.
I thank my friend and his staff for that recommendation. I think it
is a good recommendation.
Amendment No. 2607, As Modified, and Amendment No. 2608, As Modified,
Withdrawn
Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I will withdraw these amendments.
If the manager of the bill will permit me a hold somewhere in there,
say, if we get the language worked out, then we can reoffer these
amendments, referring to the section that he recommended in his opening
statement.
I appreciate the help of my good friend from Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 2607 and 2608, as modified) were withdrawn.
Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Montana, we will work together to
try to get this language modified. I guarantee the Senator he will have
the opportunity to offer that at some point before we finish this bill.
Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2602
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 2602.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President and colleagues, this is a simple
reform amendment. We have done a lot of good in the farm bill--I thank
the chairman, Senator Harkin--which I really think represents a reform
measure. The energy section of the bill is very important, economic
development, and the Conservation Security Act, and the list goes on.
I think the amendment Senator Johnson offered--I was proud to offer
it with him--on captive supply is extremely important. The country-of-
origin label is really important. Later in this debate, we will
consider a payment limitation amendment that I am in favor of which
would stop subsidizing the megafarms that have driven independent
producers out of business.
Part of the problem right now in the food industry is a few
conglomerates have muscled their way to the dinner table exercising
their raw economic and political power over independent producers, over
taxpayers, and over consumers.
This debate has made me a true conservative. I am interested in
putting more free enterprise into the free enterprise system. I want
more competition in the food industry and more competition in
agriculture.
If you support a payment limitation, you should certainly be in
support of this amendment. This amendment is about stopping the flow of
benefits to these large livestock conglomerates that over the years
have been squeezing out the independent producers and that have also
all too often represented an assault on the environment.
The amendment is simple. It says we in the Congress should and will
work to help alleviate the environmental and public health threat posed
by existing large-scale animal factories. However, Congress should not
be subsidizing the expansion of these large animal confinement
operations.
My colleagues should know that this amendment has broad support from
both the farm and environmental community with groups such as the
National Farmers Union, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Defense,
Environmental Working Group, the Humane Society, the National Wildlife
Federation, National Resources Defense Council, and the Sustainable Ag
Coalition.
Problem: Current law limits payments under the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program--we call it EQIP--to small- and medium-sized
operations. Any operation with over 1,000 animal units is not now
eligible for EQIP farms. Again, any operation with over 1,000 animal
units is not now eligible for EQIP funds.
For colleagues who are not from agricultural States, what does 1,000
animal
[[Page S414]]
units mean? It means 1,143 cattle, 714 dairy cows, 5,400 hogs, 454,545
boilers, and 66,667 turkeys.
Unfortunately, the farm bill of the House of Representatives removes
the 1,000 animal unit cap, opening millions of dollars to factory farms
for managing their livestock waste. The House bill also raises the
current payment limitation to $50,000 a year. The Senate Agriculture
Committee's farm bill also eliminates the 1,000 animal unit cap and
raises current payment limits to $50,000 per year.
Over the last decade, there is little doubt and little debate that we
have seen these large-scale animal factories proliferate across the
Nation. These big operations have grown with little regard for
environmental damage and public health threats rising from the huge
amounts of animal waste generated by these operations. Many rural
communities have seen drinking water supplies and recreational waters
degraded. In some cases, neighboring property owners, including those
who have lived in their communities for generations, have been driven
from their homes as a result of the animal waste. Farmers and ranchers
have joined with others in bringing legal action against these
factories for the unbearable stench from millions of gallons of liquid
animal feces and urine or tons of poultry waste for the degradation of
surface and ground water.
This is an environmental amendment, but it is more than that.
Additionally, the expansion of these factory farms has, in large part,
led to the disruption of family farms. Across America you see this
concentration of livestock production into fewer and larger industrial
operations taking over, driving out the small businesses.
I am saying that these large operations can right now get technical
assistance. They can receive EQIP money with no problem whatsoever.
But what I am saying is they want to expand. Later in the Chamber we
are going to be talking about this again. If they want to expand, they
will be receiving more Government money. The Government ought not be in
the business of promoting this expansion by giving money to these large
conglomerates which quite often are destructive of the environment and
destructive of what is good for consumers and are driving independent
producers out of business.
Again, Senators, I will repeat what I said earlier. There is going to
be a payment limitation amendment on the floor. Anyone who is for that
certainly ought to be supportive of this amendment.
It is very simple. My amendment is simple. It says new or expanding
large-scale animal factories shall not be eligible to receive cost-
share funds under the EQIP program for animal waste structures.
Existing large animal operations would continue to be eligible.
That is a very important point for EQIP assistance. Let me be crystal
clear about that. Let me also say that there has been language added in
consultation with both the majority and the minority committee staff to
my amendment to clarify the point that adoption of new technologies
does not, absent expansion of capacity, trigger new or expanding
provisions. You can always add technology. It is not a problem. We are
not talking about new technology. We are talking about the actual
expansion of these operations.
Another point: What you have going on with these CAFOs is some of
these big conglomerates don't own just one but there is multiple
ownership.
What I am simply saying is to let us do something but let us do
something for the family farmers. Let us not oversubsidize corporate
operations that own multiple CAFOs around the country. Some of the
biggest hog producers in the United States are these large corporations
that own 10, 15, or 20 CAFOs.
My amendment says if you own more than one CAFO, you don't get any
taxpayer subsidy. I am sick and tired of this taxpayer subsidy in
inverse relationship to need in agriculture. By the way, so are
consumers, so are taxpayers, and so are the citizens we represent.
Finally, this amendment also disqualifies funds for construction of
new livestock waste facilities located in a 100-year floodplain. That
is a no-brainer. I don't I think even need to explain it.
But I do want to point out that this revised amendment would allow
livestock operations to expand up to 1,000 animal units, even if they
are in a 100-year floodplain, but would retain the restriction on
establishing new facilities in the floodplain.
Colleagues, I have already made it clear that the payment goes not
from 10 to 50 but 10 to 30. So we increase the payment.
I have also made the case that for those who say we ought to be
targeting the assistance, we ought not to have this largess going out
to the largest conglomerates, we ought not be using taxpayer money for
subsidizing environmental degradation, we ought to be getting this to
the independent producers, this amendment is a dream for you.
If we do not pass this amendment, you are going to have editorials,
and I am sure there will be a Web site somewhere that is going to track
these CAFO payments and reveal just how these integrators and
corporations are receiving them. Frankly, the reason for that is
Congress just gave it away.
This is a reform amendment. I urge my colleagues not to go down this
road again. I urge my colleagues to retain some degree of
reasonableness on the payment limit issue.
For those who support reform on the crop side, we should support this
measure. If we don't pass this amendment, we will see the same abuses
in the EQIP program as we have seen under the commodity programs with
all of the money going to the very biggest of the operators. Let us
make sure that the small and midsize producers are the ones that get
the help. Let's make sure they have access to environmental quality
incentive payments. Let's not open the floodgates wide to take care of
the full costs of any operation no matter how large it is and no matter
its environmental degradation.
I simply say the limits in my amendment are triple the size in
current law and nearly 10 times larger than the current average
payments. It is reasonable. I urge your support.
This is a reform amendment for agriculture. It should be adopted.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, how much time does the Senator from
Minnesota have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask the Senator if he will yield me a
couple minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, absolutely. I am very proud to have
the support of the chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, during the 1996 farm bill debate, I
successfully offered an amendment to limit cost-share funding under
EQIP for large confined animal feeding operations, which is present
law.
I offered that amendment because of the special environmental
concerns associated with these large operations. Again, let's keep in
mind, as the Senator from Minnesota said, these are large CAFOs,
operations larger than 1,000 animal units. That is 4,000 head of veal,
or 5,400 head of swine, with an average weight of 185 pounds. So,
again, we are talking about pretty large operations.
I believe we need to help producers comply or avoid the need for
regulations. I believe we should provide cost-share funds to these
CAFOs to build structures that will contain waste to protect and
improve water quality, and to protect the quality of the environment.
However, as the Senator from Minnesota has said, EQIP was never
designed to subsidize expansion of livestock operations.
The underlying bill allows for the use of cost-share funds for
existing and expanding CAFOs. This amendment, as I understand it, does
not prevent the use of funds for existing CAFOs but prohibits cost-
share funding for new or expanding CAFOs; that is, operations over
1,000 animal units, but with several exceptions like for operations
that expand using innovative technologies.
So this amendment still allows cost-share funding for existing and
smaller facilities but does not subsidize growth of the very largest
livestock operations that are not yet in existence. Remember, it
grandfathers the ones that are
[[Page S415]]
already large. That is, the existing CAFOs are not limited or excluded.
I believe this amendment is consistent with the underlying bill. It
still helps all livestock producers now in operation. But, as the
Senator said, we should not be in the business of subsidizing for
further expansion. I do support the amendment and hope that it is
adopted.
I thank the Senator for yielding me time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cleland). Who yields time?
If no one yields time, the time will be charged equally to both
sides.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is informed we are
not in a quorum call.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes of the opposition's time.
Mr. President, I will not, in fact, oppose the Wellstone amendment
because it appears to me to be consistent with the legislation that is
before us with some modification with regard to expansion. But I want
to take this time to try to indicate the logic for my views on this in
view of an amendment I will be offering tomorrow that is obviously a
great deal more restrictive than the Wellstone amendment today or, in
fact, payment limitation amendments that will be offered by
distinguished colleagues.
Essentially, tomorrow, I am going to offer an amendment that would
displace the entire commodities section of the bill and substitute for
that a system of payments to farmers in this country that has basic,
fairly simple elements, unlike the present system in which 60 percent
of farmers do not receive subsidies, which includes, in most cases,
farmers who are purely in the livestock business, as well as those who
are involved in vegetables and fruits and various other agricultural
products that do not have row crop situations.
In the current situation, 40 percent of farmers receive money, and in
that group about two-thirds of the money goes to 10 percent of the
farmers. As I have mentioned earlier today, using arithmetic, this
reduces to 4 percent the number of farmers--principally, those in the
five row crops: cotton, rice, soybeans, corn, and wheat--receiving two-
thirds of the money.
I want to end all of that and, as a matter of fact, now consider
every farm in America that has $20,000 of revenue. I select that figure
because that at least denotes, in much agricultural literature, a farm
that is a serious farming effort as opposed to a hobby farm or someone
who is involved in incidental planting.
In America, there are about 800,000 farms that have $20,000 of
income--farm entities that would meet that criteria. In some of these
cases, these farms have an owner and those who are doing the farming
and they share the risk. So both of those would count for a farm entity
provided the amount of revenue coming into the farm meets my criteria.
Essentially, under my plan, each of these 800,000-plus farm entities
in the country would receive $7,000 a year for the 4 years starting
with fiscal year 2003. That means 100 percent of farms--not 40
percent--would receive money. That would be the safety net, the
cashflow, the money that we have often talked about as saving the small
family farmer and keeping everybody alive.
But it also means farmers who are now receiving hundreds of thousands
of dollars a year would, in fact, receive $7,000. We would finally come
back to market economics in terms of what we plant. We would come back
to a situation which is clearly competitive in the world trade
situation without danger of running into retaliation for trade
practices which I believe the legislation in front of us now brings us
to.
We would end the bubble effect of agricultural land being priced
beyond that which the young farmer has any hope of meeting.
We would meet the situation of 42 percent of farmers who rent as
opposed to own and do not benefit from our farm program that escalates
land values artificially.
In short, we turn around a bill which I believe has very unfortunate
implications for the future in agriculture to one of equity. And we do
so for tens of billions of dollars less than the moneys that are now
talked about in this farm bill.
That, I believe, is important for each one of us who wants to reduce
deficits, who wants to take less money from the Social Security
account, who wants to at least make possible some type of forum in
which we might talk about medical reform and other issues that are
important to the American people.
For that reason, because I am going to present that kind of an idea,
I do not plan to oppose the Wellstone amendment which in fact does have
some modest limitations in the livestock area. My amendment and others
that deal with payment limitation really pertain principally to the CCC
payment, commodity payments. It would be inconsistent to support that
kind of limitation and to find that it occurred, only to find that in
another part of agriculture people were able to proceed without
restraint and sometimes in ways which the Senator from Minnesota has
pointed out are environmentally destructive.
For these reasons, my own view is that the legislation that we now
have before us in this area is in fact reform and is important. And the
distinctions made by the Senator from Minnesota are there, but they are
not large. Therefore, I do not plan to oppose the legislation, but I
did want to explain why I took that point of view and at least the
logic of my own position in view of an amendment which will be before
Senators tomorrow.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if the other side wants to yield back
time, I will.
I thank the Senator from Indiana for his intellectual integrity. The
argument he made, if I understood--and I do not want to at all
misconstrue his point--was that he will not oppose this amendment
because that would be inconsistent with his very strong focus on
payment limitation. I am thrilled because I very much want to pass this
amendment. I think it is the right thing to do.
If the other side wants to yield back its time, I will as well. We
can move forward.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I know of no other Senator who wishes to
speak in opposition. And having called for such and not finding the
same, I am prepared to yield back. Let me ask, however, for just a
moment to make sure, as we check our cloakroom, that there is not
someone who wants to speak and who will be precluded from doing so. For
that reason, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes of the opposition
time to the distinguished Senator from Iowa and 3\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished Senator from Wyoming.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by my colleague, the Senator from Minnesota. I certainly
commend the Senator's role of reversing the trend towards larger farms
and greater concentration in agriculture. I have been pleased to work
with Senator Wellstone to address a number of concerns related to
concentration and consolidation in the agricultural industry. Most
recently we worked together to secure passage of the bipartisan
amendment to address vertical integration by limiting packer control
over livestock.
While the Senator from Minnesota and I share the goal of reversing
that, I am concerned that this amendment would fall short of that goal.
In short, Senator Wellstone's amendment would have the detrimental
effect on many midsize family farmers who are struggling to comply with
stringent new environmental regulations by slashing the amount of
funding available to make responsible environmental improvements in
rural areas.
[[Page S416]]
The reason I take some caution in addressing opposition to his
amendment is that I complimented the Senator from Minnesota, as we were
debating this bill in December, that he was going to offer this
amendment. But when I held meetings in my State of Iowa during the
month of January--I held several town meetings just on the farm bill--
I had this concern from people who are strictly family farmers who came
to my meetings. They were very concerned about the CAFO regulations
that they have to meet and the fact that if they have to meet those,
they may not be able to stay in livestock. They did find EQIP
provisions in the original farm bill to be helpful to meet those
requirements so they could stay in agriculture.
So I changed my mind, I need to tell the Senator from Minnesota. I
say it apologetically, in the sense that I had encouraged him in the
first instance. I think these stringent, new regulations proposed by
EPA are meant to get help from the provisions of this farm bill in
addressing water pollution from livestock operations. According to
EPA's own estimate, the new regulations could cost producers from
$280,000 to $2.4 million over 10 years.
While the goals of the new regulations are certainly commendable, we
obviously have to take the financial costs of the regulations into
consideration. I drew the conclusion, after my meetings in January,
that it was too much for many family farmers to absorb.
Recognizing the dire situation of these farmers, last year the Senate
supported the amendment I offered to the budget resolution to increase
EQIP funding by $350 million in each of the next 10 years. This
important funding will provide cost-sharing assistance to family
farmers to help them comply with the new CAFO regulations.
The Wellstone amendment would significantly reduce the level of EQIP
funding available to family farmers. According to EPA estimates, over
1,000 livestock operations in Iowa would be ineligible for EQIP funds.
Mr. President, again, I am in opposition to the amendment offered by
my colleague, the Senator from Minnesota. Let me first say that I
certainly commend the Senator's goal of reversing the trend toward
larger farms and greater concentration in agriculture. I have been
pleased to work with Senator Wellstone to address a number of concerns
related to concentration and consolidation in the agriculture industry.
Most recently, we worked together to secure passage of a bipartisan
amendment to address vertical integration by limiting packer control
over livestock.
While the Senator from Minnesota and I share the goal of reversing
concentration, I am concerned that this amendment falls far short of
that goal. In short, the Senator's amendment would have a detrimental
effect on many of my state's mid-sized family farmers who are
struggling to comply with stringent new environmental regulations by
slashing the amount of funding available to make responsible
environmental improvements in rural areas.
Mr. President, the future prosperity of Iowa's family farmers, and
farmers across this nation, is currently threatened by stringent new
regulations proposed by the EPA aimed at addressing water pollution
from livestock operations. According to EPA's own estimates, the new
regulations could cost producers from $280,000 to $2.4 million over the
next ten years.
While the goals of the new regulations are certainly commendable, the
financial costs of these regulations will simply be too much for many
family farmers to absorb.
Recognizing the dire situation of these farmers, last year the Senate
supported an amendment that I offered to the budget resolution to
increase EQIP funding by $350 million in each of the next ten years.
This important funding will provide cost-sharing assistance to family
farmers to help them comply with these new regulations.
The Wellstone amendment, however, would significantly reduce the
level of EQIP funding available to family farmers. According to EPA
estimates, over 1,000 livestock operations in Iowa would be ineligible
for EQIP funds. Another 500 to 1,000 could be ineligible if they expand
in order to remain competitive or to comply with the new rules by
building new structures with new technologies.
The bottom line is that if these family farmers are denied EQIP
assistance, the result will be poorer management systems and practices,
and the environment will suffer.
The farm bill reported by the Agriculture Committee makes reasonable
changes to the rules of the EQIP program by limiting eligibility by a
simple and reasonable payment limit--not by the size of the operation.
A payment limit puts livestock and poultry operations on an even
footing with the program limits for row-crops.
Without the technical and cost-sharing assistance provided by EQIP,
many family farmers in my state will be forced out of business--leaving
only the largest farms who can absorb the costs--and leading to even
greater concentration in the industry. In this farm bill, we have made
great strides toward reducing the level of concentration and vertical
integration in agriculture. Unfortunately, this amendment would be a
step backwards.
Over 80 percent of Iowa's farms are individually or family-owned.
It's these producers I have always sought to help. These are the people
who produce our food and keep main streets in rural America in
business. These are the farmers who depend on the assistance from the
EQIP program. It is for these farmers that I will oppose this amendment
and support a strong EQIP.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is----
Mr. WELLSTONE. Might I inquire, Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 5 minutes remaining.
The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I
think what we really have to do, as in the case of other kinds of
issues, is look at what it is we are seeking to do. If the purpose of
this EQIP program--which, by the way, is used thoroughly in my State
with a lot of good success--is to limit the environmental impact, or if
it is to help with the technical information necessary for operators to
do something about the impact of the CAFO regulations or those kinds of
things--if you want to try to find a way to limit the size of farms and
redistribute income, those are two different things.
The purpose here is to find the most efficient way we can to deal
with the most livestock out there putting the environment at risk, so
we can do something about it, and to then provide it to those people
who can have the most impact on doing something about the environment.
That is what it is all about. It is not about trying to keep farmers
smaller or having to do with size. There is a limitation under the law
on how much money can go to any operator during the period of the life
of the farm bill, over the 6-year period. So I think we may want to,
obviously, do something about payments, total payments. That is a
different question.
The question here is, how do you best utilize the resources in an
effort to help farmers and ranchers deal with the question of
environment and, more particularly, to deal with the regulations that
have been put in place for nonpoint source pollution, and the idea of
having lots and corrals and feedlots along water supply sources. I
think it is very important that we look at it in a broader sense. If
EQIP cost-sharing assistance is not made available to operations with a
thousand animal units or more, EQIP would fail to meet the needs of the
producers managing more than half the livestock in the country.
If you are trying to do something about the pollution problems and
give help to people who are seeking to limit the livestock's
involvement in pollution of water and nonpoint source waters, then I
think this kind of a limitation is not in keeping with that purpose and
indeed hinders that purpose. Like my friend from Iowa, I joined with
the Senator from Minnesota on several amendments, and I certainly want
to continue to do that. I just don't believe this amendment helps to
accomplish the goals out there for the EQIP program. So I hope people
will vote against this amendment so we can move on to accomplishing
environmental solutions.
[[Page S417]]
I yield the floor.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the farm bill before us recognizes the
importance of environmental conservation in agriculture and provides
funding for programs that support those measures. California livestock
operations come in all sizes, but many of them are large operations
requiring substantial environmental management activities. Access to
programs that support environmental improvements is key to ensuring
that the best environmental practices are undertaken on these farms.
Senator Wellstone's amendment, which would limit access to
conservation funding based on factors like the size of the farm, falls
disproportionately hard on California farmers and would ultimately slow
down environmental improvements. Limitations on these payments will not
eliminate those farms, it will only limit support for conservation
efforts that are so critically important in these operations. For those
reasons, I must vote against the Wellstone amendment and support
conservation funding for California farmers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, both my colleagues and good friends,
the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Wyoming, break my heart.
First of all, actually with this amendment, under current law, if you
are over a thousand animal units, you don't get any EQIP money
whatsoever. Under my amendment, if you are over a thousand animal
units, you can get the money. We go from $10,000 to $30,000 a year. If
you are over a thousand units, you can get money. You can't right now.
We are saying that if you are under a thousand units and you want to
expand to over a thousand, or you are over and you want to expand even
further and you want to get bigger and bigger, at that point the
Government ought not to be subsidizing this expansion.
This is a reform amendment. This is consistent with those who are in
support of payment limitations. This is ranked by the environmental
community as a key environmental amendment because it is crazy for the
Federal Government to be subsidizing this environmental destruction.
I say to my colleague from Iowa, we are going to provide the money.
Right now, under current law, if you are over a thousand animal units,
you can't get EQIP money. Under this amendment, you can. If you want to
expand it more and get bigger, at that point it is not appropriate for
the Government to provide the payments. That is exactly what the
Grassley amendment is going to say when it comes to payment
limitations. It is exactly the same philosophy.
This is a reform amendment. It is an environmental amendment. It is
an amendment that is for our independent producers. If you look in your
State and at your producers, the vast majority of them are helped by
this amendment, as opposed to current law. The only thing this
amendment says is, if you want to get bigger and expand even more, at
that point, you are not going to get any more Government money. This is
a reform amendment. It deserves support.
I yield the floor, and if my colleagues want to yield back the
remainder of their time, I will do so also.
Mr. LUGAR. How much time remains on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen seconds.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair. We are prepared to yield back that
time.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on
agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Thompson), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from
New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 52, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 15 Leg.]
YEAS--44
Akaka
Biden
Byrd
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Gregg
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Mikulski
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith (NH)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Torricelli
Wellstone
NAYS--52
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cantwell
Cochran
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Edwards
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Landrieu
Lincoln
Lott
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Thomas
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
Domenici
Jeffords
McCain
Thompson
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 2604 to Amendment No. 2471
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are now 2
minutes evenly divided prior to the vote on the Harkin amendment.
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment closes a loophole in the
Packers and Stockyards Act by including livestock production contracts
under its jurisdiction. It also provides livestock producers the
ability to discuss the terms of the contract with certain people, such
as their attorney, banker, landlord, and government agency charged with
protecting a party to the contract. It does not say they have to but
they are so allowed.
Basically, since 1935, poultry producers have uncovered production
contracts under the Packers and Stockyard Act but other livestock were
not--for example, swine and cattle were not. But production contracts
are becoming a bigger and bigger part of the establishment. Yet they
are not covered under the Packers and Stockyards Act.
The two largest farm organizations, the American Farm Bureau
Federation and the National Farmers Unions, as well as dozens of other
farm groups, support this amendment. It does not create any regulatory
burden.
As I said, we have had this provision under the Packers and
Stockyards Act since 1935. If we can help Dairy Queen franchisees and
gasoline franchisees, and if the poultry people have lived under this
since 1935, I think it is time we give the cattle producers and the
pork producers in this country the same kind of protections under the
Packers and Stockyards Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I oppose the Harkin amendment on the basis
that it is likely to confuse interpretation of the contract issue. It
is a narrow issue we are discussing. The amendment offered by the
distinguished chairman of the committee is a narrow issue. On balance,
it appears to me to be unnecessary and redundant.
It is opposed by a host of livestock and poultry organizations for
those reasons. I cited a letter from many of them with regard to a
number of competitive issues that are in the bill, and this one in
particular.
For these reasons, I suggest a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, for all Members, this will be the last vote
of the day. We have an agreement tentatively worked out that is being
cleared by both sides that there will be debate on an amendment offered
by Senator Durbin tonight. There will be a second-degree amendment
offered by Senator Gramm of Texas on that amendment tonight or in the
morning. I think Members can expect a rollcall vote around 10 or 10:30
in the morning,
[[Page S418]]
after which there will be two amendments that will take approximately 4
hours. There will be a vote after each one of those. So we have until 3
or so tomorrow afternoon already tentatively worked out on this bill.
We also are going to try to work out a finite list of amendments. The
minority and majority staffs are now working to whittle that down. It
is down now, even as we speak, to a fairly small number of amendments.
So hopefully there is some end in sight for this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment,
No. 2604, as modified. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Thompson), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from
New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 82, nays 14, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 16 Leg.]
YEAS--82
Akaka
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Thomas
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--14
Allen
Biden
Campbell
Carper
Cochran
Craig
Helms
Hutchison
Kyl
Lugar
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thurmond
NOT VOTING--4
Domenici
Jeffords
McCain
Thompson
The amendment (No. 2604), as modified, was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: For the benefit of
all Senators, what is next on the agenda under the unanimous consent
agreement?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That particular unanimous consent agreement
has run its course.
Mr. REID. I did not hear the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That particular unanimous consent agreement
has run its course. The pending question is now the Harkin substitute.
Mr. HARKIN. I yield the floor.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin
be recognized now to offer a Durbin-Lugar amendment, as modified,
regarding cropping history and nutrition, with 60 minutes for debate in
relation to the amendment this evening, equally divided in the usual
form, with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the
amendment; further, that when the Senate resumes consideration of the
farm bill at 10 a.m., on Thursday, there be 5 minutes for closing
debate in relation to the Durbin-Lugar amendment, followed by a vote in
relation to the amendment; further, that following the vote, regardless
of the outcome, Senator Dorgan, for himself and Senator Grassley, be
recognized to offer an amendment regarding payment limitation; that
there be 105 minutes for debate in relation to this amendment, equally
divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time,
the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Dorgan-Grassley
amendment, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote;
further, that following the vote, regardless of the outcome, Senator
Lugar be recognized to offer an amendment regarding payment mechanism,
that there be 2 hours for debate, equally divided in the usual form,
with no second-degree amendments in order prior to a vote on the Lugar
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Record should be clear that on the Lugar
amendment, the unanimous consent agreement should read: ``On or in
relation to the Lugar amendment,'' rather than ``on the Lugar
amendment.'' I ask unanimous consent for that modification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I advise all Members, we are trying to work on a finite
list of amendments. We are whittling ours down significantly. The staff
is going to exchange those shortly. Maybe tonight we can enter into an
agreement as to a finite list of amendments on both sides.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Nevada yield?
Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator for his unanimous consent request he
propounded. I do not believe I am going to use the 30 minutes allotted
to me, but I would like to have the opportunity to yield, during the
course of that time, to the Senator from Michigan, who has asked for a
brief period of time to speak.
If there is no objection, I would like to have that included in the
unanimous consent request.
Mr. REID. It is certainly appropriate. The Senator has been waiting
all afternoon to make this statement. She can do so whenever it is
appropriate.
Mr. President, before I yield the floor, it is my understanding that
Senators Durbin and Lugar have worked out their modification on this
amendment.
Is that right?
Mr. DURBIN. Responding to the Senator from Nevada, Senator Gramm is
working on language which is coming during the course of this debate. I
have agreed to accept his second-degree amendment, and I will speak to
it during the course of my remarks.
Mr. REID. If, for some reason, you cannot work this out, we would
have to come back later and revisit this.
Mr. DURBIN. That is correct.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, may I respond briefly to the leader's
comment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. My understanding, as Senator Durbin has represented it, is
that Senator Gramm has offered language that has been accepted. The
language is being written even as we speak. The presumption is that it
will be acceptable. In the event, for some reason, it should not be,
then, at that point--I suppose tomorrow morning--we would have to deal
with a second-degree amendment. But, obviously, we hope we have dealt
with it this evening. And I believe we have.
On a second point, I understand staff will be working--even as we
debate this amendment--on the overall list. There has not been
agreement, as I understand it, but, nevertheless, constructive work has
occurred in defining the issues that still remain.
Mr. REID. I am confident that Senator Gramm of Texas and Senator
Durbin will work this out. They have already agreed. You always have to
be careful when people start putting things in writing; there could be
a problem.
I say to the distinguished manager of the bill, the senior Senator
from Indiana, in his usual, deliberate manner, with the background of
being a Rhodes scholar, he has explained it better than I did.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator.
[[Page S419]]
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Indiana yield?
Since I have not seen the language from Senator Gramm, and I want to
have a chance to reflect on it this evening, could we leave open the
possibility, if there is any disagreement--I want to make it clear on
the floor, I will protect Senator Gramm's right to offer and debate the
second-degree amendment without any objection-- then I would have a
chance, after his second-degree amendment has been considered, to offer
my amendment.
Mr. LUGAR. That is our understanding.
Mr. DURBIN. Any disagreement would have to be reflected on the
contents.
Amendment No. 2821
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself, Mr.
Lugar, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Graham, Mr. Wellstone,
Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Smith of Oregon, proposes an amendment
numbered 2821.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To restrict commodity and crop insurance payments to land
that has a cropping history and to restore food stamp benefits to legal
immigrants who have lived in the United States for 5 years or more)
On page 128, line 8, strike the period at the end and
insert a period and the following:
SEC. 166. RESTRICTION OF COMMODITY AND CROP INSURANCE
PAYMENTS, LOANS, AND BENEFITS TO PREVIOUSLY
CROPPED LAND; FOOD STAMP PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN
QUALIFIED ALIENS.
(a) Restriction of Commodity and Crop Insurance Payments,
Loans, and Benefits to Previously Cropped Land.--Section 194
of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-127; 110 Stat. 945) is amended to read as
follows:
``SEC. 194. RESTRICTION OF COMMODITY AND CROP INSURANCE
PAYMENTS, LOANS, AND BENEFITS TO PREVIOUSLY
CROPPED LAND.
``(a) Definition of Agricultural Commodity.--In this
section:
``(1) In general.--The term `agricultural commodity' has
the meaning given the term in section 102 of the Agricultural
Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602).
``(2) Exclusions.--The term `agricultural commodity' does
not include forage, livestock, timber, forest products, or
hay.
``(b) Commodities.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this title, except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall not provide a crop payment, crop loan, or
other crop benefit under this title to an owner or producer,
with respect to an agricultural commodity produced on land
during a crop year unless the land has been planted,
considered planted, or devoted to an agricultural commodity
during --
``(A) at least 1 of the 5 crop years preceding the 2002
crop year; or
``(B) at least 3 of the 10 crop years preceding the 2002
crop year.
``(2) Crop rotation.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an
owner or producer, with respect to any agricultural commodity
planted or considered planted, on land if the land--
``(A) has been planted, considered planted, or devoted to
an agricultural commodity during at least 1 of the 20 crop
years preceding the 2002 crop year; and
``(B) has been maintained, and will continue to be
maintained, using long-term crop rotation practices, as
determined by the Secretary.
``(c) Crop Insurance.--Notwithstanding any provision of the
Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation shall not pay premium
subsidies or administrative costs of a reinsured company for
insurance regarding a crop insurance policy of a producer
under that Act unless the land that is covered by the
insurance policy for an agricultural commodity--
``(1) has been planted, considered planted, or devoted to
an agricultural commodity during--
``(A) at least 1 of the 5 crop years preceding the 2002
crop year; or
``(B) at least 3 of the 10 crop years preceding the 2002
crop year; or
``(2)(A) has been planted, considered planted, or devoted
to an agricultural commodity during at least 1 of the 20 crop
years preceding the 2002 crop year; and
``(B) has been maintained, and will continue to be
maintained, using long-term crop rotation practices, as
determined by the Secretary.
``(d) Conservation Reserve Land.--For purposes of this
section, land that is enrolled in the conservation reserve
program established under subchapter B of chapter 1 of
subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C.3831 et seq.) shall be considered planted to an
agricultural commodity.
``(e) Land Under the Jurisdiction of an Indian Tribe.--For
purposes of this section, land that is under the jurisdiction
of an Indian tribe (as defined in section 4 of the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450b)) shall be considered planted to an agricultural
commodity if--
``(1) the land is planted to an agricultural commodity
after the date of enactment of this subsection as part of an
irrigation project that--
``(A) is authorized by the Bureau of Reclamation or the
Bureau of Indian Affairs; and
``(B) is under construction prior to the date of enactment
of this subsection; or
``(2) the land becomes available for planting because of a
settlement or statutory authorization of a water rights claim
by an Indian tribe after the date of enactment of this
subsection.''.
(b) Partial Restoration of Benefits to Legal Immigrants.--
Section 403(c)(2)(L) of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.
1613(c)(2)(L)) (as amended by section 452(a)(2)(A)) is
amended by inserting ``provided to individuals under the age
of 18'' after ``benefits''.
(c) Food Stamp Exception for Certain Qualified Aliens.--
(1) In general.--Section 402(a)(2) of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)) (as amended by section 452(c)(2))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(M) Food stamp exception for certain qualified aliens.--
With respect to eligibility for benefits for the specified
Federal program described in paragraph (3)(B), paragraph (1)
shall not apply to any individual who has continuously
resided in the United States as a qualified alien for a
period of 5 years or more beginning on the date on which the
qualified alien entered the United States.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
takes effect on April 1, 2003.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues who are cosponsoring
this amendment, Senators Harkin and Lugar, who come to this floor in
their capacities as chair and ranking member of the Agriculture
Committee, both of whom have joined me in cosponsorship of this
amendment, together with several of my other colleagues.
What we are trying to do in this amendment is twofold. In the first
instance, we are trying to avoid overproduction on farmland in America
that would be encouraged by the farm bill--not by the market, not by
any other consideration. We don't want to create a farm bill which
pushes farmers into overproduction, bringing prices down. What we are
trying to do is to increase production but only in a way that is at a
price level, a cost level so that a farmer can make a fair living. And
so we are trying with this amendment to protect from that possibility.
The second part of the amendment sounds so totally unrelated, people
may wonder why it is in the farm bill. The second part relates to the
Food Stamp Program. If my colleagues are aware of the Department of
Agriculture, they know that it administers the Food Stamp Program. A
decision was made some years ago--I will address it in my remarks--that
those who are legal immigrants to the United States would not qualify
for food stamps. On reflection, we have seen that the victims of that
policy have primarily been poor children in America. I am heartened by
the fact that President Bush, in his budget message, has decided to
change this policy. He has said that we will allow legal immigrants to
receive food stamps. That is the right and humane thing to do. It is
the right thing to do to make certain children are healthy. If we are
going to have a strong Nation, we need healthy kids. So the second part
of my amendment addresses the restoration of eligibility for food
stamps for legal immigrants.
Senator Gramm of Texas has his own opinion as to what we should
include in the food stamp portion of the amendment. He is preparing
that now. We have discussed it briefly. I will repeat what I said
earlier: If the second-degree amendment that he has proposed ends up
being something I cannot personally accept, I promise that I will
protect his right to offer and debate that amendment and bring it to a
vote before there is a vote on my amendment. So there will be no
disadvantage to Senator Gramm, even if there is some disagreement in
terms of the content of his amendment.
Let me speak briefly to what my overall amendment does. This
amendment has one basic purpose, and that is to provide a safety net
for farmers
[[Page S420]]
without distorting the marketplace. Everybody in this debate on the
farm bill wants to protect farmers. I hope we can agree that we don't
want to do it at the expense of the supply and demand laws which govern
our economy.
This amendment will help to meet both goals. It simply states: Crop
support payments will not be made for crops that are grown on land that
is not already being used for agricultural production. It only applies
to land that has not been cropped even 1 year in the past 5 years or 3
years in the past 10. So if I am a farmer in downstate Illinois and I
have acreage that has not been used for agricultural production, even 1
year out of the last 5 or 3 out of the last 10, I cannot bring that
into the program and say: Now that you have a farm bill that may
compensate me, I am going to produce on this land and I am going to get
payments from the Federal Government.
That land was taken out of production for market reasons or other
reasons. And we believe that no farm bill should drag it back into
production.
If I am a farmer, though, and want to produce on the land, that is my
right; I own the land. But I can't go to the Federal Government, having
made that decision, if I haven't put a crop on that land for 1 out of 5
years, 3 out of 10 to support this effort.
I yield to the Senator from Michigan.
(The remarks of Mrs. Stabenow are located in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. DURBIN. My goal is to make certain that farmers make decisions
based on the marketplace, not based on the farm bill, particularly when
it comes to that land that has not been in production. That is what
this amendment seeks to achieve.
It is in no way a restriction on a farmer's freedom. A farmer is
still free to plant any new ground he wishes. What we are talking about
is eligibility for Federal payments. The amendment uses an extremely
broad definition of agricultural commodity. Farmers can switch crops on
land and, despite that switching of crops, not lose eligibility under
this amendment. That is only fair because in many good farming
practices, that is done on a regular basis. It allows long-term crop
rotation, permits an exception for that. There are some lands primarily
used for hay but that may be cropped 1 or 2 years between hay
plantings. This amendment would not deny support payments to the crops
during that period. However, it is intended to be a narrow amendment,
only for those who can demonstrate that they have both established and
are maintaining such long-term rotation.
The amendment does not interfere with the CRP program in any way. The
Conservation Reserve Program is an important program. It conserves
America's natural resources. This amendment simply provides that when
farmers decide to plant on new ground, they will do it because of the
market, not because of Government subsidy.
Prior to the 1996 farm bill, the farm policy of our country
recognized that our support programs could drive up supply. So for
decades, farm policy attempted to limit subsidies in one form or
another.
This was done through various definitions of base acres. I remember
as a Member of Congress for many years in the House, and now in the
Senate, dealing with farmers who were trying to establish their base
acreage and qualifications eligibility for Government payment. In 1996,
Congress did away with all these rules on the theory that it was going
to phase out support payments.
We now know that, at least today, we can't phase out support payments
without jeopardizing our farms. However, we need to be careful that we
don't inadvertently encourage farming of new land when market
conditions don't warrant it.
In essence, under prior farm policy, support payments had a foot on
the pedal driving new production, but also with a foot on the brake.
New policy, as currently envisioned, fails to add in the brake. That is
what this amendment does.
This amendment will not reinstate it completely, but it will ease up
on the pedal. The farmers can still drive themselves into new cropland,
but the Government would no longer drive them there.
What is the environmental impact of this amendment? The facts show
that this amendment is needed. According to the USDA, the United States
lost 22 million acres of grassland between 1982 and 1997. The vast
majority of that became new croplands.
This occurred even while the Federal Government was laying out
roughly $30 billion over the same period to take more than 30 million
acres of cropland from production through the Conservation Reserve
Program, the twofold purpose of which was to increase conservation
efforts and limit supplies so as to boost prices.
What this means is that while our Government was trying to limit
supplies in order to boost prices on the one hand, it was effectively
encouraging farmers to convert new land into cropland on the other.
This has undoubtedly contributed to the current situation in which
farmers have faced record low prices in recent years.
This loss of grassland as an environmental impact throughout the
country contributed to the decline of many bird species that nest in
grasslands. Grassland birds as a whole are the most threatened category
of birds in our country. This amendment makes environmental sense as
well as economic sense.
This amendment has the added benefit of saving money. The
Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Durbin amendment would
reduce crop overproduction which will result in $1.4 billion in savings
over the next 10 years.
Let me tell you that the second half of the amendment takes the
savings and uses it for the Food Stamp Program. The savings generated
by this bill will further strengthen the nutrition title of this same
farm bill. This is really a farm and nutrition bill. I think addressing
the Food Stamp Program along with the farm program is appropriate
because both are under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Agriculture.
Food stamps are a part of our Nation's first line of defense in
America to protect families in a recession. Now, as we reauthorize the
Food Stamp Program, we should make sure to effectively put into place
protections against economic downturns.
This farm bill passed by the Agriculture Committee makes some
important changes in the Food Stamp program. I join in thanking the
committee's ranking Republican for the hard work he has put into this
section of the bill.
Here is what my amendment does. It restores eligibility for the Food
Stamp Program to legal immigrants who have lived in the United States
for 5 years or longer. I will repeat, it restores eligibility for legal
immigrants living in the United States for 5 years or longer.
This amendment will be an addition to the immigrant restoration
provisions already in the farm bill, including the immediate
restoration of eligibility to all poor children. I salute Senators
Lugar and Harkin for that provision. I will not go into a long story
about how important immigrants have been to the United States. Suffice
it to say that my mother was an immigrant to this country. I am proud
of that fact, and I am happy to be a first-generation American and to
have this chance to serve as a Senator from the State of Illinois. I
keep in my office, very near my desk, the framed copy of my mother's
naturalization certificate. I am very proud of it. I look at it every
day as a reminder of my family and a reminder of from where I came. I
think it is a reminder to all of America how many of us are close to
new immigrants in this country.
At the turn of the century, many of our relatives arrived from all
over the world. They were poor and didn't speak the language, and they
came looking for a better life. At that time, survival meant sending
all members of the family to work. Young children worked in factories
and sweatshops instead of going to school.
Eventually, we realized that families should not have to send their
7-year-old to work just to be able to put food on the table. Jane
Addams of Illinois, quite a well-known figure in Chicago with her
settlement houses, was one of the great American social reformers. She
inspired us to lobby for child labor laws because of her experiences
with the working men, women, and children in the immigrant
neighborhoods of the city of Chicago.
Those arriving in the United States today are no different than our
great
[[Page S421]]
grandparents. And we continue to rely on immigrants to fill jobs at all
levels of the workforce.
Legal immigrants here not only work, they pay taxes. The National
Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council conducted studies
that show that, overall, immigrants pay more in taxes than they use in
government benefits.
Allow me to digress and tell you that a little over 2 weeks ago I was
at an air base near Kabul in Afghanistan. I ran into a soldier from
Illinois. He told me of his high school in the suburbs of the city of
Chicago, and he said: When I get through with my Army experience here,
can I come to your office and will you help me to apply to become a
citizen? He is a member of the U.S. Army, a soldier risking his life
fighting terrorism in Afghanistan, but he is from Panama. He is legal
here, and he volunteered to serve this Nation, but he is not a citizen.
I said of course I would help him. He is a legal immigrant to America
who would be denied, under many circumstances, food stamps. Yet he has
volunteered and is serving our Nation in uniform. How do you make any
sense out of that kind of policy? This amendment tries to do that. It
says immigrant families with children, who tend to have lower income
levels than native-born families with children, need a helping hand
with food stamps.
Most low-income children of immigrants live in working families with
two parents who are married. The vast majority of legal immigrants are
not permitted to receive food stamp benefits.
In 1996, as a result of changes in the law, the Physicians for Human
Rights interviewed 700 legal immigrant families and found that adults
in one out of three households had skipped meals in the previous 6
months. One in ten recalled missing a meal, not being able to eat for
at least a whole day. One in four reported cutting the size of a
child's meals due to inadequate resources.
The Urban Institute reports that, nationwide, 37 percent of all
children of immigrants live in families that worry about providing food
for the table. In California, Illinois, and Texas, legal immigrants'
food insecurity rates were seven times worse than the general
population in our country.
These harsh eligibility rules today translate into future citizens
not getting the benefits for which they are eligible. The vast majority
of immigrant families are mixed-status families that include at least
one U.S. citizen. That citizen is typically a child. When legal
immigrant parents are not aware that their children are eligible for
food stamps, the kids don't get enough to eat.
Participation in the Food Stamp Program among children with legal
permanent resident parents dropped 40 percent from 1994 to 1999,
without a corresponding decrease in need.
Can America be a better place if these children who are legally in
the United States don't receive the proper nutrition? If they suffer
disease and illness, if they are not prepared to learn, and if they
come to a classroom and can't stay awake and are listless because of
not having enough to eat, how can we be a better Nation?
Since 1996, many States have worked to pick up the slack. Seventeen
States, including mine, provide State-funded food stamps to some or all
legal immigrants who are ineligible for the Food Stamp Program--because
of the changes in the law. In most of the States, eligibility is
limited to very narrow categories of immigrants.
On Monday, President Bush released his fiscal year 2003 budget
proposal. I am certain there will be many items I will disagree with in
that proposal. But I congratulate him for including a restoration of
benefits for legal immigrants identical to that in my amendment.
When this provision was first made public in January, a senior
administration official was quoted as saying:
We believe this will go a long way to meeting the needs of
children and adults who need additional benefits. It will
allow them to have access to nutritious food and will improve
their well-being.
Applause to the President and to the White House. Congratulations for
a good idea, a bipartisan idea.
The author of this idea of limiting food stamps to legal immigrants
was the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, who was also the
author of the Contract with America. He said this in the New York Times
last month about that decision in 1996:
In a law that reduced welfare by more than 50 percent, this
is one of the provisions that went too far. In retrospect, it
was wrong.
Even Speaker Gingrich can have this epiphany and realize that a
mistake was made. I acknowledge and congratulate him for publicly
saying this and saying why this amendment is so important.
What we have learned from the 1996 cuts is that making food stamp
benefits available to legal immigrants doesn't open the floodgates at
our borders. The average food stamp benefit is $74 a person monthly--
not exactly a fortune. It is difficult to imagine families flocking to
the United States because they could be eligible for food stamps if
they just wait legally for 5 years.
Food stamps do not bring families to the United States who would not
otherwise come here. It is a vital support for low-income families.
This amendment is a bipartisan opportunity to support farmers
throughout America with a sensible limitation so there will not be
overproduction, and to take the savings from that limitation to provide
food for needy children of legal immigrant families.
This is a bipartisan amendment. It is one that does the right thing.
I am pleased my colleagues, Senator Lugar and Senator Harkin, and
President Bush have joined in supporting this concept. I hope all my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will vote in favor of this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Who yields time?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask the Senator from Illinois if he has 5 minutes.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes 10 seconds.
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am honored to be a cosponsor of the
Durbin amendment which makes legal immigrants who have lived in this
country 5 years eligible for food stamps.
My colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar, has been a strong advocate
as well, and a number of Senators voted for Senator Lugar's amendments
which work to improve the nutrition programs.
First a disclaimer. On this whole question of illegal immigrants, we
are all products of our personal experience. I remember during the
debate on the welfare bill in 1996, one of the things I said was that
to vote for the bill would be to me like cutting off my hand because I
am a son of immigrants. I am first-generation American. My father fled
persecution from Ukraine and Russia.
The Senator from Illinois mentioned the former Speaker saying we went
too far, and I felt that way. I had a number of objections; I never
understood what we were doing. I thought it was too harsh, too
punitive.
Then in 1998, Congress restored some of the benefits to categories of
immigrants. It was children, elderly, and disabled, but only if they
were here prior to 1996.
The Food Stamp Program is a critical safety net program and, by the
way, an astounding success. This is a program that has made a huge
difference.
One of the problems is, even if the children are eligible and the
parent or parents are not eligible, it does not work. Quite frankly, it
does not work. One of the reasons we have seen this huge decline, which
should concern us--since the bill passed, there has been maybe a 25- to
35-percent decline in food stamp participation--is because of these
cuts. Even when the children are supposed to be helped, if the parents
are not eligible, they do not know about it, they do not know where to
go, and they are not able to help their kids.
This amendment is about helping a lot of people. Altogether, 360,000
legal immigrants would be helped--men, women, some elderly, some middle
aged, some children. It is the right thing to do. It corrects a huge
injustice.
[[Page S422]]
I also give credit to the White House for taking a strong lead on
this. I give credit to my colleagues, Senator Durbin and Senator Lugar,
and I know Senator Harkin supports this effort. There is bipartisan,
strong support.
I wish to say one other thing which is a little bit different, and it
is not inconsistent with what I just said but is interesting to me.
This is a social justice amendment. I thank Senator Durbin for it. It
is the right thing to do. It is extremely important to get this
assistance to families who need this assistance.
The other thing that has happened, as opposed to 1996--and I think of
Minnesota--is in a way we have new politics in Minnesota and new
politics in the country. The immigrant populations--my mother, father,
and grandparents did this as well--are finding a voice. They are
becoming active in their communities. They are becoming their own
leaders. They are speaking for themselves. They are becoming a
political force, and there is much more recognition of who they are,
what their needs are, and how we can support them.
There are so many activities going on in the country right now that
are so important and positive for these immigrant communities.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, these cuts were not the only harsh
feature of the welfare bill, but this was one of them. This amendment
improves on the Agriculture Committee's work. That work in the
committee vastly improved on the mistakes we made in 1996. This is a
hugely important amendment, and I am very proud to support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, although I will speak in favor of the
Durbin amendment, I note there are no Senators present who are prepared
to speak in opposition to it. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I
be able to yield myself 30 minutes from the opposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LUGAR. I yield myself as much time as I may require.
Mr. President, I appreciate very much the advocacy of Senator Durbin
in bringing forward this amendment. I believe he has rescued a
situation that has been well described by my colleague, Senator
Wellstone, a valued member of the Agriculture Committee, and Senator
Harkin, our chairman.
We worked together to try to provide a much stronger safety net for
nutrition in this country. As it turned out, in some of our
deliberations--and the distinguished Presiding Officer was there for
those--there were many Senators who during that period of time
questioned when we were going to get to the commodity section and what
money would be left at the end of the trail as we dealt with very vital
issues of community development, research, loans for young farmers--
many issues that have been resolved in a very strong bipartisan
fashion.
As a result, the amendments I offered at that time were a bridge too
far. I have been rescued by Senator Durbin and by the President of the
United States in a bipartisan way because as it now turns out, it may
be possible through this amendment to find resources that, in fact,
restore us to a situation we might have attained during our
deliberations.
Let me follow through on many of the arguments the distinguished
Senator from Illinois has made. Simply, the amendment generally
prohibits taxpayer-provided crop insurance and farm program benefits on
acreage which has not been cropped at least once in the last 5 years or
3 of the last 10 years from the time of the enactment of the farm bill.
Exceptions to this general prohibition are made for acreage idle in
the Conservation Reserve Program. That has been a major objective of
the committee and the Senate and for long-term crop rotations as
determined by the Secretary of Agriculture.
The amendment does not change the structure of farm commodity
programs as they have been designed in the underlying bill.
The bill would still have higher marketing loan rates, a new
commodity-specific countercyclical payment program for major crops, and
all the other commodity provisions we previously discussed.
As I mentioned earlier in the debate this afternoon, I will be
offering an amendment tomorrow that will radically change the whole
commodity payment system, but this amendment does not. It is benign
with regard to everything that has preceded and should be debated on
its own merits.
In this respect, the Durbin amendment offers much less commodity
title reform than I would like, and I admitted as much as a preview of
what may be coming. Nevertheless, it makes an attempt to lessen the
overproduction problem that will surely only worsen if we approve the
underlying farm bill without change.
The Congressional Budget Office has scored the Durbin amendment as
saving $1.4 billion over 10 years in the commodity title of the
underlying farm bill, and that is not an immodest saving. I appreciate
and support my colleague's proposal to improve the Food Stamp Program
with the savings, and his allocation of that, it seems to me, is highly
merited.
With the amendment, the Senate farm bill will now incorporate
proposals I made originally and President Bush's budget proposal. It
does both. The President and I are grateful to have found this
partnership with Senator Durbin and with our distinguished chairman,
Senator Harkin, as Senator Durbin mentioned. These new rules restore
the extension of regular food stamp eligibility criteria to legal
immigrants, and Senator Durbin has stressed that, as I do.
A question has been raised in previous debates on food stamp
eligibility, and let me be unambiguous. We are talking about legal
immigrants who meet either a 5-year U.S. residency or 4-year work
requirement. Those are fairly strong thresholds. Combining these with
Senator Harkin's proposal to extend eligibility to all immigrant
children will improve the Food Stamp Program's capacity to serve the
vulnerable, but we do not offer a free ride. The criteria I have
illustrated again, as Senator Durbin has, are substantial.
Currently, most legal aliens are ineligible for food stamp benefits
even if they meet that program's strict asset and income criteria. An
estimated 500,000 legal immigrants who meet the financial rules remain
categorically ineligible under current law. In addition, these rules
have had the unintended effect on citizen children living in immigrant
families. Because of confusion, fear, or a combination of these
factors, there has been a 70-percent decline in food stamp
participation among this group of children. That is an awesome change
as to children who clearly were eligible.
Although immigrant restrictions apply to participation in other
Federal assistance programs, the Food Stamp Program has particularly
strict rules. For example, in Medicaid and cash assistance, also known
as TANF, legal immigrants in the United States before August 22, 1996,
are eligible, at State option, under the same rules that apply to all
others.
In contrast, most adult legal immigrants here before that date are
categorically ineligible for food stamps until they meet the 10-year
work requirement. Further, children who emigrated after 1996 remain
ineligible until their parents meet the work requirements or become
citizens.
Considering the fact many legal immigrants work in low-paying service
jobs, they are among the first affected during economic downturns such
as the one we are now enduring. The current immigrant work requirement
thus penalizes those who have little or no control over their
employment situation. The food stamp immigrant provisions that would
result from the Durbin amendment do not open the door to those who come
to the United States looking for a handout. Rather, they help children
who are unable to support themselves, individuals who came to escape
persecution in their native countries, and adults who have a documented
work history or support from their U.S. sponsors.
There is genuine need among this population. Studies of both local
and national scope indicate serious food insecurity and hunger occur.
For example, the Physicians for Human Rights reported that among 700
immigrant families, adults in one-third of them skip meals; one-fourth
cut meal size
[[Page S423]]
due to inadequate resources; one-tenth reported not eating for an
entire day at least once in the last 6 months.
States are vocal about the problems created by current eligibility
restrictions for immigrants. Sixteen of them provide food stamp
replacement benefits with their own funds. Many others, according to
the National Conference of State Legislatures, have appropriated
additional resources for food banks and a variety of charitable
programs serving the immigrant population.
The Food Stamp Program is the foundation of our country's nutrition
safety net for vulnerable people. Until 1996, eligibility was based
only on a family's financial need. Many, including President Bush, now
voice the opinion that the food stamp immigrant policies legislated at
that time were too harsh. I congratulate the President for his advocacy
and the publicity that has surrounded that. It was a high-profile
advocacy.
I ask that each of us in the Senate endorse the Bush administration's
food stamp policy by voting for Senator Durbin's amendment, which the
Senator has pointed out encompasses exactly the same goals. It is our
opportunity, in a bipartisan way, hopefully in a unanimous way, to
improve the capacity of the Food Stamp Program to operate as a genuine
nutrition safety net for our country.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________