[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 9 (Thursday, February 7, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S467-S479]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION, AND RURAL ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2001--Continued

  Mr. HARKIN. 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the quorum call be rescinded.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, I understand under the procedure agreed to 
earlier, this side will now be recognized to offer an amendment. I 
understand Senator Carnahan has an amendment to offer. I understand we 
are ready to proceed to the Carnahan amendment. I was going to ask for 
a time agreement, but obviously we cannot proceed with a time agreement 
at this time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                Amendment No. 2830 to Amendment No. 2471

  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mrs. Carnahan], for herself and 
     Mr. Hutchinson, proposes an amendment numbered 2830 to 
     amendment No. 2471.

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

(Purpose: To permanently reenact chapter 12 of title 11, United States 
                                 Code)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . REENACTMENT OF FAMILY FARMER BANKRUPTCY PROVISIONS.

       (a) Reenactment.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, chapter 12 of title 11, United States Code, is hereby 
     reenacted.
       (b) Conforming Repeal.--Section 303(f) of Public Law 99-554 
     (100 Stat. 3124) is repealed.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section shall be deemed to have 
     taken effect on October 1, 2001.

  Mrs. CARNAHAN. I ask unanimous consent Senator Hutchinson of Arkansas 
be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, let me commend the two managers of this 
bill, Senator Harkin and Senator Lugar. Trying to forge a consensus on 
a farm bill is a daunting task. The work is absolutely critical for 
family farmers in Missouri and throughout the Nation.
  This amendment is designed specifically to help ailing family 
farmers. It will make permanent chapter 12 of the bankruptcy law. 
Chapter 12 offers an expedited bankruptcy procedure to family farmers 
in an effort to accommodate their special needs. It was first enacted 
in 1986 and has been extended several times since then--in fact, twice 
last year.
  The provisions of chapter 12 allow family farmers to reorganize their 
debts as opposed to liquidating their assets. These provisions can be 
invaluable to farmers struggling to stay in business during difficult 
times. Unfortunately, chapter 12 expired on October 1 of last year. The 
Carnahan-Hutchinson amendment seeks to make permanent these bankruptcy 
provisions and reinstates them retroactively to the date when they last 
expired. The retroactivity will ensure there are no gaps in 
availability of these procedures.
  The larger bankruptcy reform bill currently pending before the House-
Senate conference committee includes a permanent extension of chapter 
12. Nevertheless, America's family farmers should not have to wait for 
us to complete our work on the bankruptcy reform bill. Farmers and farm 
groups across Missouri have urged me to try to get these provisions 
reenacted as quickly as possible. They stress how important chapter 12 
can be during tough times.
  This amendment is also important because the retroactivity will 
eliminate uncertainty for farmers who have cases already pending.
  Legislation extending these provisions passed the House of 
Representatives twice last year by votes of 411 to 1 and 408 to 2. 
These laws were both subsequently approved by the Senate by unanimous 
consent. It is my hope we can approve this amendment and complete our 
work on the farm bill quickly.

[[Page S468]]

  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I commend Senator Carnahan for her 
excellent statement and for introducing this amendment. I am proud to 
be a cosponsor.
  Earlier today I filed amendment No. 2828 which did precisely this, 
making permanent chapter 12 provisions and making them retroactive. 
Obviously, there is no need to pursue that amendment. I am very pleased 
to be able to cosponsor this amendment with Senator Carnahan. I look 
forward to its quick passage as well.
  I was very disappointed earlier today in the payment limitation 
amendment being adopted and the consequences I believe it will have for 
southern agriculture. I know other parts of the country do not face 
that problem and will not see the impact we will see in Arkansas, 
Mississippi, Alabama, and across the South. Consequences will be real 
and severe. That is why the permanent extension of the chapter 12 
bankruptcy for farmers is so essential. It is unfortunate it is so 
essential.
  We talk of our farm bill having a safety net. That safety net expired 
last year, and the enactment of chapter 12 bankruptcy is critical. The 
temporary basis of past law has Members again seeking to protect our 
Nation's farmers. This law was enacted on a temporary basis because 
Congress did not know whether it would work. We now know it does work 
and it should be permanently enacted. It was passed back in 1986. In 
the past 14 years, 20,000 American farmers have filed to reorganize 
their debts under its protection. It was designed to help farmers who 
receive more than half of their income from farming and have total 
debts of less than $1.5 million. It hopefully allows them to stay in 
farming. It has worked very well.
  It is unfortunate so many of our farmers are being forced into 
bankruptcy. I join my colleagues in pointing out this disturbing fact. 
I ask those same colleagues to join me in doing something. Between 1999 
and 2001, the Farm Service Agency in Arkansas has seen a 28-percent 
increase in filings for chapter 12 bankruptcy. I mentioned earlier I 
attended one of those farm auctions this weekend. The newspaper ad 
announcing the auction said: Three more farmers calling it quits.
  That is what we are seeing over and over again across the South--
calling it quits, not being able to make a go of it under the current 
commodity prices and in the absence of a predictable farm policy. There 
has been a 28-percent increase in filings for chapter 12 in Arkansas. 
Chapter 12 helps farmers get through bad times without having to give 
up the farm and helps them, hopefully, to get on their feet.
  Before chapter 12, banks would not negotiate with farmers and they 
would be forced to sell the farm. Chapter 12 provides farmers the 
ability to have more flexibility to reorganize their financial affairs. 
Farming requires a tremendous amount of capital investment. Under most 
other provisions of bankruptcy, farmers would be required to sell a lot 
of their machinery and oftentimes sell their property also. This sends 
these farmers spiraling toward collapse because it nearly eliminates 
the chance farmers could work themselves out of their financial 
situation.
  This legislation is currently tied up in the bankruptcy reform 
conference. It has been there now for 6 months. All the while, farmers 
are going out of business, forced to sell their equipment, and sell 
their assets, and sell their property.
  Our country is in a recession. The agricultural community has been in 
a recession for several years. Many commodity prices are at their 
lowest point in nearly 50 years. In the past, we have supported short-
term, short-sighted extensions. It is time to permanently enact these 
bankruptcy provisions. In this time of economic uncertainty, forcing 
farmers to liquidate their assets is not the answer. The answer is 
permanent enactment of chapter 12 bankruptcy, allowing farmers the 
ability and freedom to reorganize their debt and stay in farming.
  Once again, I thank Senator Carnahan for filing and offering this 
amendment. I am glad to cosponsor the amendment. I hope for its quick 
passage this afternoon.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment by 
Senator Carnahan to retroactively renew family farmer bankruptcy 
protection and make Chapter 12 a permanent part of the Bankruptcy Code. 
I commend Senator Carnahan for her continued leadership in protecting 
family farms across the country.
  Unfortunately, too many family farmers have been left in legal limbo 
in bankruptcy courts across the country since Chapter 12 of the 
Bankruptcy Code expired on October 1, 2001. Congress needs to move 
quickly to restore this safety net for America's family farmers.
  This is the third time in the last year that this Congress must act 
to retroactively restore basic bankruptcy safeguards for family farmers 
because Chapter 12 is still a temporary provision despite its first 
passage into law in 1986. Our family farmers do not deserve these 
lapses in bankruptcy law that could mean the difference between 
foreclosure and farming.
  In 2000 and into last year, for example, the Senate, then controlled 
by the other party, failed to take up a House-passed bill to 
retroactively renew Chapter 12 and, as a result, family farmers lost 
Chapter 12 bankruptcy protection for 8 months. The current lapse of 
Chapter 12 has lasted more than 4 months. Enough is enough. It is past 
time for Congress to make Chapter 12 a permanent part of the Bankruptcy 
Code to provide a stable safety net for our nation's family farmers.
  In the current bankruptcy reform conference, I am hopeful Congress 
will update and expand the coverage of Chapter 12 as Senator Feingold 
has proposed in the Senate-passed reform bill.
  In the meantime, the Senate should take the lead and quickly restore 
and make permanent this basic bankruptcy protection for our family 
farmers across the country by adopting the Carnahan amendment.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I'm a strong supporter of Chapter 12. I 
wrote it; I believe in it. But I believe it belongs in the bankruptcy 
bill which is currently in conference. I hope that the Majority Leader 
will step up to the plate and help move this conference along. The 
bankruptcy bill contains many provisions that would make life better 
for farmers and it would be a serious mistake not to enact the 
bankruptcy bill soon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I join with the Senator from Arkansas and 
the Senator from Missouri in supporting this amendment. I compliment 
both Members for addressing this issue. I compliment the Senator from 
Missouri for offering this amendment and the Senator from Arkansas. 
This is something sorely needed. I hope it will have strong support.
  I hear a lot about this in the countryside. Quite frankly, in these 
tough times, more and more I think we will need the benefit of chapter 
12.
  As I understand it, this does go back retroactively to last 
September, if I am not mistaken, and it will cover a number of farmers 
using chapter 12 proceedings and making it permanent. At least it lets 
them know it is going to be there from now on and we will not have to 
keep reauthorizing it. I ask to be added as a cosponsor of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I join the chairman in commending the 
distinguished Senators from Missouri and Arkansas for a very 
constructive amendment. I am hopeful it will have universal support.
  Let me add a point of procedure. Senator Hatch wants to speak on the 
amendment. He is not visible for the moment. At a certain proper time, 
I will consult with the chairman. We may want to set this amendment 
aside so we have floor activity. I know of no opposition, but Senator 
Hatch is still to be heard from, so we want to reserve the opportunity 
for him to speak if possible.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S469]]

  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Leahy be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. HARKIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I have conferred with Senators Lugar and 
Harkin, the two managers of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent 
that the vote on or in relation to the Carnahan amendment occur at 5:40 
today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment, that of Senator Carnahan, be set aside and that Senator 
Crapo be allowed to offer his amendment. For the information of 
Members, he would offer this amendment, speak until 5:40. There are 
other Members who probably wish to speak on this amendment. Then the 
agreement between Senator Crapo and the two managers and I would be 
that when the debate is finished on his amendment this evening, the 
amendment would be laid aside and we would take it up again next week.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. 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. CRAPO. Mr. 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. 2533

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2533.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Crapo], for himself and Mr. 
     Craig, proposes an amendment numbered 2533.

  Mr. CRAPO. 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 strike the water conservation program)

       Strike section 215.

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, this amendment strikes section 215 of the 
Water Conservation Program from this bill. I have introduced this 
amendment on behalf of not only myself but Senator Craig, Senator 
Domenici, Senator Thomas, Senator Ensign, Senator Allard, Senator 
Campbell, Senator Hagel, Senator Enzi, Senator Burns, and Senators 
Hatch and Bennett of Utah.
  This amendment is essentially a debate over whether the Federal 
Government should make an unprecedented move into the management, 
allocation, and use of water nationwide through the farm bill.
  Historically we have had some very successful programs in the farm 
bill dealing with conservation. In fact, I have often stated, as I talk 
around the country about the farm bill, that in addition to creating 
our domestic farm policy, the farm bill has many other incredibly 
important provisions, not the least of which is its conservation title. 
It is probably the most important environmental piece of legislation 
this Congress considers on a regular basis.
  One of those important environmental programs is the Conservation 
Reserve Program. This is a program that is time honored and has worked 
for many years in a way that has assisted farmers while at the same 
time assisted those who seek to improve the habitat for fish and 
wildlife around our country and to protect and preserve and strengthen 
our environment.
  The Conservation Reserve Program is one which, in essence, allows a 
farmer to put his or her land into the program and idle it, allowing 
for more and better growth and development of habitat for wild species 
while at the same time allowing the farmer to receive some compensation 
for the agreement to do the effort of working to develop a habitat and 
protect it.
  It is a program, as I say, that has been very successful and very 
well received, and in this farm bill there are proposals to improve and 
increase the availability of the CRP to those in the agricultural 
arena.
  I have worked for months now on developing a very strong conservation 
title that can be a part of whatever we move forward on in the arena of 
our agricultural policy. In the proposals I have made, we have, indeed, 
added and improved the scope and reach of the CRP.
  The water provisions we are debating today are an effort to link, if 
you will, administration of the Endangered Species Act with this very 
successful CRP, and to do so in a way that will intrude on State 
sovereignty over water and will create inappropriate pressures on our 
farmers, our agricultural producers, to give up their water rights and 
will not result in more effective benefits for the wildlife.
  In essence, the language we are debating says, as to some of that 
increased CRP land we are proposing to be put into the new farm bill, 
about 1.1 million acres of it, that in order to participate in that new 
CRP land, a farmer would have to agree to give up either temporarily or 
permanently his or her water rights to the Federal Government.
  First, this is creating a condition on our farmers for their 
participation in a portion of a very successful conservation program, a 
condition that is unnecessary and is harmful.
  Second, it is walking all over States rights. Today States have 
sovereignty over the allocation, management, and use of water and water 
rights, and this is an unprecedented move of the Federal Government 
into the management, allocation, and use of water rights and, frankly, 
a move that will put the Federal Government in control of water rights 
in return for giving farmers the permission to participate in the CRP.
  Third, the States already have programs and operations in place that 
enable them to address the questions of the need for water for species 
management. In fact, in my State of Idaho, we already are working very 
aggressively in salmon and steelhead recovery efforts to work with 
private property owners and water rights holders to make certain we are 
able to get water to the species that need it without harming the 
agricultural community and the other interests of water users, and we 
are doing so very successfully.
  In fact, with permission, I would like to read briefly from a letter 
to me from former Senator Kempthorne, now Governor Kempthorne of the 
State of Idaho. I ask unanimous consent to read from this letter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, this letter, sent by Governor Kempthorne on 
December 11, says:

       The water conservation program--

  The water proposals I am talking about right now in this bill--

     are not consistent with the laws of the 18 Western States, 
     including those of the State of Idaho. In addition, the goal 
     of implementing water quantity and water quality improvement 
     demonstrated to be required for species listed under the 
     Endangered Species Act can largely be achieved under existing 
     State laws.

  My point is that the objective of this language we are talking about 
is certainly worthwhile: getting water, quantity and quality, to the 
species that need them. But the States already have programs in place 
to achieve these objectives, and it is achieved very successfully in 
Idaho.

[[Page S470]]

  Governor Kempthorne goes on to point out:

       In Idaho, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has been able to 
     rent water from the State water supply bank from willing 
     sellers pursuant to State law for almost a decade. More 
     recently, the Bureau has rented water while in the Lemhi 
     River, a tributary of the Salmon River, for the benefit of 
     fish species. Again, this was done under the auspices of 
     State law in cooperation with willing sellers.

  My point again is that State law already provides mechanisms for the 
objectives of this water language to be achieved. We do not need to 
insert the Federal Government into the control of water rights, and we 
do not need to condition participation in a very successful 
conservation program and pressure being brought to bear to force 
farmers to give up their water rights either temporarily or 
permanently.
  I will make another point and then yield the floor because I know 
there are other Senators concerned about this matter and who want to 
speak about it. The point is this: We have all had a lot of experience 
under the Endangered Species Act with its implementation and 
management. A very critical question has been raised about this 
language with regard to what happens if it is adopted and a farmer, in 
order to participate in this program, agrees to temporarily give up his 
or her water rights, thinking: I can get those water rights back at 
some point when I determine I would like to say it is time to return 
them to me.
  What if a species has become dependent on that water? Under the 
Endangered Species Act, section 9, the question arises: Does that 
become a taking? Does there need to be a NEPA analysis before the 
Federal Government can return the water rights to this farmer? Does it 
have to go through an analysis of section 9 of the Endangered Species 
Act and under NEPA and other provisions of Federal law to determine 
whether other Federal law would be violated by the return which is 
contemplated by this very language?
  Those are the kinds of questions that must be answered, but they are 
the kinds of questions that also raise clearly the problem that is 
addressed in terms of the Federal Government beginning to assert itself 
into this process.
  Mr. President, I know we have a limited time right now, so I am going 
to conclude my remarks. I know there are a number of other Senators who 
will seek time. I have been told to remind them all we only have about 
15 minutes of debate remaining.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Crapo's 
amendment to strike the language in the Conservation Reserve 
Enhancement Program.
  Before the holiday recess, we debated a slightly different version of 
Senator Reid's proposal. The holidays gave us sufficient time to look 
over the language and to get feedback.
  I can tell my colleagues that in my State our Governor, our attorney 
general, the Colorado Farm Bureau, and literally every rancher and 
farmer I talked to during the break strongly oppose this language.
  Senator Reid has included some very controversial language. I have 
great respect for Senator Reid and consider him a close friend, but I 
think this is just dead wrong. The recent change cannot cure the flawed 
provision.
  First of all, some might refer to Senator Reid's proposal as a mere 
extension of CREP, a program that can only be extended if it already 
exists, but water rights should not be part of the Conservation Reserve 
Enhancement Program. Therefore, the addition of water rights is a 
fundamental change to the existing program. Such a change should 
require hearings, study, or some level of congressional inquiry, and 
yet there has been none to date.
  Our constituents expect us to be fully informed. Since this is the 
first that most of us have heard of creating what is effectively a new 
program, how can we possibly be fully informed? We cannot, and I simply 
cannot vote for something that can hurt farmers in my State when we do 
not know the effects.
  I carefully reviewed the language letting the States hold water 
rights rather than the Secretary of Agriculture, as Senator Reid 
recently proposed.
  At first glance, this might sound reasonable, properly deferring to 
the primacy of State water courts in the West. However, the new 
language requires the Secretary of Agriculture to review and approve 
the interested State's program.
  Again, the United States waived its sovereign immunity and consented 
to deferring to State adjudication of water rights. In 1993, the U.S. 
Supreme Court reaffirmed that law ensuring that Federal claims are 
subject to State water courts.
  Senator Reid's language would make a change to CREP and would bring 
the Federal Government back into the equation. Whether intentional or 
not, the USDA review and approval requirement amounts to a sleight-of-
hand Federal regulation of a precious State resource resulting in de 
facto Federal involvement.
  Again, this dramatic change to the CREP creates way too many 
questions. First and foremost, of course, is why should water be 
included in this farm bill? Second, this new program would give 
priority to a State program that addresses endangered, threatened, or 
``species that have been called threatened or endangered.'' Senator 
Crapo alluded to this.
  It may also include those that ``may become threatened.'' I do not 
have to remind my friends from the West of the controversy currently 
surrounding the Canadian lynx and the fish in the Klamath Basin and my 
State of Colorado, too, species that were actually endangered and, in 
some cases, we are finding out now, in the case of the lynx, they were 
not really endangered. There were dummied statistics to make them look 
endangered.
  Before granting discretion to affect ``species that may become 
threatened,'' we should determine how many problems actually are there 
and what kind of corrective action should be taken.
  Senator Crapo mentioned the question, if we lease water to the 
Federal Government and they use it for a different purpose than the 
farmer used it, if it creates an area that may become an actual 
endangered species habitat, would that, under the Endangered Species 
Act, supersede the rancher's and farmer's ability to get the water 
rights back when the lease is over? That is a question we should ask 
ourselves.
  My colleagues have stressed this language would not disrupt water 
rights because it only affects ``willing sellers.''
  What about the downstream farmer? In the West, all of us know that 
water is used more than once.
  I have a small ranch. I think I am about fourth in the use of the 
water. The wastewater is then filed on by people who are downstream or 
have areas of ranching territory lower than others. So you may have 
four or five people who use the same water. Of course, priority right 
is given by senior water rights or junior water rights, depending on 
how early they were on the claims in the filing. If a senior rights 
holder upstream leases from the Federal Government, where does that 
leave the junior rights holders who also rely on that water to feed 
their crops or their livestock? Could they be also in danger? I think 
they could.
  In Colorado, much as in all the rest of the West, water is treated 
apart from the land. It is considered a property right. It can be taken 
from the land and sold separately, which it often is. So long as the 
change does not injure other water rights, I think this language, 
because of the way we reuse the water over and over, could certainly 
jeopardize junior rights holders.
  Colorado is an arid State. Its strained water supply has been over 
appropriated. In other words, the demand for water exceeds our supply. 
That is what we are always in court about and always fighting about. 
Even more challenging, Colorado's population is projected to grow 63 
percent in the next 25 years. The growth, in fact, is only superseded 
by the growth in Nevada and Arizona. We are the third fastest growing 
State. I certainly would oppose any action to jeopardize any State's 
rights to use the water it legally owns.
  In order to meet water needs, communities have entered into water 
compacts. I believe this language leaves too many questions about what 
happens to inter-basin compacts, inter-State compacts, and 
international compacts. Both the Colorado and the Rio Grande headwaters 
are in Colorado. We have nine rivers that flow out of Colorado. All of 
them are subject to those compacts. The two major rivers I

[[Page S471]]

mentioned are subject to compacts with another nation, Mexico, as they 
receive water from both of those resources.
  In closing, many of my colleagues like to say they are moving a farm 
bill because that is what farmers want. The group, Environmental 
Defense, was quoted today in Congress Daily concerning Senator Reid's 
language, and I would like to remind my colleagues they are purportedly 
acting pursuant to the farmers' interests and what the farmers want.
  Well, I know the Farm Bureau has gone on record as opposing this 
language. The Farm Union was in my office also opposing this language, 
and I oppose this language. So I hope my friends recognize the real 
long-term dangers that could exist for water users in all the Western 
States if the Reid language is included.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues 
from the West and my partner from Idaho, Mike Crapo, to support an 
amendment to strike a section from this bill that deals with the very 
critical issue of western water. This area is being called the water 
conservation program.
  I will submit for the Record a letter from the President of the 
American Farm Bureau. Basically, he puts it rather clearly:

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

  I ask unanimous consent that the American Farm Bureau letter be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                              American Farm Bureau Federation,

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

  Mr. CRAIG. I am not sure one can get much clearer than the language 
of Bob Stallman as he talks for the thousands and thousands of members 
of the Farm Bureau across the Nation and, most importantly, in the 18 
Western States that are most dramatically affected by the Reid 
provision.
  A long while ago, long before the Presiding Officer or I ever thought 
about coming to the Senate--or maybe our parents even thought they 
might have sons that would come to the Senate --this Congress decided 
the best way to solve water problems in the arid Western States and 
western territories was to allow those States and their governments to 
make those determinations. Why? Because water was so very scarce, and 
only the Western States with their perspective could determine the 
allocation of water. It was never true this side of the Mississippi 
where there was 30 or 40 or 50 inches of rainfall on an annual basis. 
Water was viewed sometimes as a problem, not an asset or not a rare 
commodity, but that is not true in Idaho, Arizona, Colorado, New 
Mexico, California, or Wyoming where water is truly a scarce commodity. 
Over decades of time, our States have very carefully and cautiously 
allocated that water.
  My colleague from Idaho, and the Senator from Colorado, spoke about 
some of the methods, the compacts, the water laws, and also the 
sensitivity that water had to be left instream to take care of 
endangered species, and those decisions had been made in the States 
where they most appropriately ought to be made to assure that critical 
balance in the aridness of the West, of where the water was, how it got 
allocated and how it got used.
  Never before have we attempted to reach over State law by the 
character of the Reid amendment and create a rather perverse incentive 
that said we will reward you if you will take land out of production 
and, by the way, in doing so, you have to put your water in a waterbank 
to be reallocated.
  I do not believe that is the right or the prerogative of the Federal 
Government in any of its policies under any incentive to do so. That is 
the right of the States, the State legislators, their State water 
boards of resources, and the methods by which they have established 
water allocation historically and currently. That is why it is 
critically important that the Crapo amendment pass. It is so very 
important for all of the West that that happen and that we never allow 
our Government in any way to infringe upon those rights.
  We in Idaho, as is true of those other 17 States, are very sensitive 
to the needs of wildlife as it relates to the needs of the human 
species, as it relates to the needs of agriculture and the consumptive 
uses versus the conservation uses. We have worked constantly to strike 
that balance, and we do so today.
  Water use and water allocation are a dynamic process in our States, 
as it must be because it is a rare commodity, constantly being demanded 
by someone for another purpose and another use. This city and those who 
work in these Halls do not collectively have the understanding that our 
colleagues in the West have for these unique purposes.
  That is why I stand in support of the Crapo/Craig amendment this 
evening and hope our colleagues will join with us in its passage to 
change the provision of the Reid water language in S. 1731, better 
known as the water conservation program. I believe that proposal is a 
war on western water rights and western prerogative. Let us not get it 
started. Let us snuff it out before the first shot is fired.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am opposed to the Reid provision in the 
farm bill and stand in support of the Crapo amendment to remove that 
provision.
  May I inquire as to how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is approximately 1 minute before the 
vote under the previous order.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized immediately after the vote to speak on the Crapo amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, briefly I want to talk about the fact we 
have not had any hearings on this particular issue. I do not know how 
many Senators who come from a different part of the country than those 
of us in the West have come up to me and said: We do not understand 
your water law. Granted, it is complicated and it varies a little bit 
from State to State. Due to that complexity, I don't think we are doing 
the Members of the Senate any service by rushing this matter through 
and not having proper hearings and giving everybody an opportunity to 
understand the full impact of this piece of legislation.

  The U.S. Supreme Court has clearly given the States the sovereignty 
in the matter of water adjudication. We are talking about a property 
right. My State of Colorado has recognized water as a property right. 
We have sometimes referred to it as the ``doctrine of prior 
appropriation'' or perhaps simply the ``Colorado water doctrine.'' Many 
Western States have followed suit and the laws have been put in place 
in the State of Colorado.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2830

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
vote on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Missouri. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S472]]

  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FITZGERALD (when his name was called). Present.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), 
the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from Texas (Mr. 
Gramm), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from 
Tennessee (Mr. Thompson) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from 
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 20 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Fitzgerald
       

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bunning
     Domenici
     Gramm
     Jeffords
     McCain
     Thompson
  The amendment (No. 2830) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. 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. ALLARD. 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. 2533

  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, before we had the vote, I was talking 
about my support of the Crapo amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, 
because of the need I felt to remove the Reid amendment from the farm 
bill. At the time, I was making the point that water issues in the West 
are very complicated.
  Here is an issue that has come to the floor of the Senate that has 
not had any hearings in committee and has not had any kind of study.
  Before we move forward with this kind of a proposal from the Senate, 
we ought to have thorough hearings and study so the Members of the 
Senate can understand the implications of this type of amendment, 
particularly out West where we deal with and are under a completely 
different set of water laws than those parts of the country that have 
more water.
  For those of us in semiarid States, water is a property right. The 
responsibility of managing water has been made the responsibility of 
the States. This has gone to the Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court 
has affirmed that, yes, that is a proper role; States should assume 
that responsibility.
  The Reid amendment to the farm bill could literally devastate my 
State of Colorado. It is a very serious problem because we are a 
semiarid State, and farm country relies a good deal on agriculture.
  One of the largest agricultural-producing counties in the country is 
in the State of Colorado. They rely on irrigated agriculture and having 
a reliable source of water.

  The practical effect of this language could mean that farmers end up 
giving their water rights to the Federal Government when they sign up 
for participation in the Conservation Reserve Program.
  This language, if it is left in the farm bill, could potentially 
dewater Colorado and other Western States. It would dewater States such 
as Colorado that rely on interstate compacts and State water laws to 
allocate a very scarce commodity--water.
  Water is the essential substance of life. The farmer depends on it to 
grow enough food to meet our national food needs. The city depends on 
it to survive. Commerce depends on it to deliver goods to customers, to 
restock store shelves, and to continue as a viable business, providing 
jobs and security.
  Colorado has a unique system in water law. We have our own water 
courts. We are the only prior appropriation State that does not have a 
permit system. Appropriators in Colorado must make a claim first and 
then seek a ``decreed'' water right in court.
  In Colorado, we have actually even set up a different set of courts. 
It does not go through the regular court system. We have a different 
set of courts that just deal with water rights. When somebody applies 
for a right to use water, not only are there attorneys in that court 
but there are engineers, hydrologists, all sorts of scientists who come 
in and discuss the impact of the diversion of that water for one reason 
or another.
  This requires considerable study. Each individual case is different. 
And these individual cases--usually the circumstances are never the 
same--have to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
  Why many of us get so concerned about the Federal Government and a 
Federal law is that this treats everything as a blanket process. The 
Federal Government does not go through that process. They just collect 
the water off the CRP land, and there is no study as to what impact it 
has on private property rights.
  The Colorado Constitution, which the Supreme Court has said has a 
sovereign right on water issues, says: ``The right to divert the 
unappropriated waters of any natural stream shall never be denied.''
  These are not mere words. This is a collective ideology, molded from 
over 100 years of practical use. Many have brought an excellent point 
regarding beneficial use. Beneficial use is an integral part of western 
water law. When the farmer allows the Government to take the water, it 
is possible that the farmer could lose the water right under the 
State's beneficial use laws. It is possible that this law would result 
in an unintentional loss of water rights, water rights terminated 
through the operation of State law.
  Let me offer a scenario. A farmer decides to go into the CRP, and it 
is the CRP where the Federal Government would take the water. Suppose 
he goes in it for 10 years. He has not been using that water so, under 
our State law, he would lose the right to use that water. Or the other 
question comes up, Does that right transfer to the Federal Government 
and remain with the Federal Government even though he has brought his 
land out of the CRP and back into production?
  That is why it is very important that we proceed with hearings and 
study. The U.S. Supreme Court has clearly given the States sovereignty 
in the matter of water adjudication. This ill-founded amendment 
attempts to give the Federal Government a new water right that it 
simply is not entitled to, nor should it be granted by Congress.
  My home State is united in opposition to this usurpation of water: 
the Colorado Commissioner of Agriculture, the Colorado Department of 
Natural Resources, the Colorado Farm Bureau, and the Attorney General. 
There is bipartisan concern in my State, and agricultural groups from 
all aspects of Colorado have raised concerns with me about this 
particular amendment.
  The Colorado groups are not alone. The list of those deeply concerned 
with the negative implications of this language reaches the national 
level as well. We have heard from some of my colleagues and will 
probably hear more.
  The Reid amendment ties the water rights to endangered species. We 
have

[[Page S473]]

seen this combination before. Land, water, and the Endangered Species 
Act create a mix that is often disadvantageous for property rights and 
property owners. We have seen this, for example, in the Klamath River 
Basin in Oregon. Unfortunately, we are not sure what will happen with 
the water rights when the farmer's deal with the Government ends. I 
raised this point. We don't know because the proposal is silent on what 
has to take place upon termination of the enrollment period. Does the 
Government keep the water?
  As we know, the Endangered Species Act requires consultation for any 
Federal action that affects species. That requirement could be applied 
to transfer of water rights back to the landowner on termination of the 
agreement.
  Does the landowner have to establish that there is no longer a need 
for the water by the listed species? The landowner is placed in an 
expensive and dangerous position of proof--a difficult proposition 
that, if not answered, could mean the landowner loses his water right.
  When water habits and availability of water to the land are changed, 
this alters the character of the land. In a region that receives far 
too little rain to depend on skies for moisture, a deprivation of 
water, no matter how permanent, could change the very nature of the 
ground itself.
  Again, I would like to cite, in this context, my own personal 
experience. I grew up on a ranch. We had many hay meadows, and they 
were watered with flood irrigation. No longer is that ranch under 
private ownership. It is now owned by the Federal Government. They quit 
the surface right irrigation. It dried up all the springs that were 
feeding into this river that ran through the place. As a result, we see 
that that river dries up and is bone dry.
  I see my colleague from Iowa wants to be recognized for a minute. I 
yield to my colleague from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for yielding without losing his right 
to the floor.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following list I 
will send to the desk be the only first-degree amendments in order to 
S. 1731; that they be subject to second-degree amendments which must be 
relevant to the amendment to which it is offered; that upon the 
disposition of all amendments, the bill be read a third time and the 
Senate then proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 199, H.R. 
2646, the House companion; that all after the enacting clause be 
stricken and the text of S. 1731, as amended, be inserted in lieu 
thereof; that the bill be advanced to third reading and the Senate then 
vote on passage of the bill; that upon passage, the Senate insist on 
its amendment and request a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses; and that the Chair be authorized 
to appoint conferees with a ratio of four to three; that S. 1731 be 
returned to the calendar, with this action occurring with no 
intervening action or debate.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, reserving the right to object, for the 
information of Senators, tomorrow we have a number of people who have 
agreed to come and offer amendments: Senator Conrad at 9:30; Senator 
Santorum at 10; Senator Lincoln at 10; and Senator Feinstein at or 
about 12.
  I am not asking that this be part of the unanimous consent request 
but just to alert everybody, tomorrow there will be amendments offered. 
The two leaders will agree on when we will vote. There will be no votes 
tomorrow, as has been announced. Tomorrow we will be open for business 
to try to move this bill along.
  I withdraw my reservation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The list is as follows:

       Baucus: Disaster assistance.
       Bingaman: Peanuts (amendment No. 2573).
       Bond: Relevant (2).
       Boxer: Regional equity.
       Boxer: Relevant (2).
       Bunning: Relevant (2).
       Burns: CRP (2).
       Byrd: Relevant (2).
       Carnahan: Relevant.
       Collins: Relevant.
       Conrad: Relevant.
       Conrad: Sugar beet acreage allocations.
       Craig: Strike packer ownership language.
       Crapo: Strike water rights provision.
       Daschle: Relevant to list (3).
       Daschle: Relevant (2).
       Dayton: Milk quotas.
       DeWine: Food Aid.
       Domenici: Dairy (2).
       Domenici: Peanut.
       Enzi: Lamb as food aid.
       Enzi: Make livestock program permanent.
       Feingold: Ag Fair Practices Act.
       Feingold: Relevent (3).
       Feinstein: Sugar Quota shortfall reallocation.
       Gramm: Avocado checkoff.
       Gramm: Immigrants/Food stamps.
       Gramm: Payment limitation.
       Gregg: Capitol gains.
       Gregg: Tobacco.
       Harkin: Managers' amendments.
       Harkin: Relevant to list.
       Harkin: Relevant (2).
       Helms: Animal Welfare Act.
       Helms: Relevant (2).
       Hutchinson: Agro-terrorism.
       Hutchinson: Predatory species.
       Hutchinson: Relevant (2).
       Inhofe: Peanuts (2).
       Inhofe: Relevant.
       Inhofe: Trade/Cuba.
       Kerry: New England fishermen (amendment No. 2241).
       Kyl: Death tax (sense of Senate).
       Kyl: Water rights.
       Leahy: Organics.
       Leahy: Relevant (2).
       Lincoln: Agro-terrorism.
       Lincoln: Cormorants permits.
       Lott: Relevant (2).
       Lott: Relevant to list (2).
       Lugar: Ceiling on farm spending.
       Lugar: Relevant (3).
       Lugar: Relevant to list (2).
       McCain: Relevant.
       McCain: S.O.S. farm.
       McConnell: Bear Protection Act.
       McConnell: Nutrition.
       McConnell: Relevant (2).
       Miller: Peanut quota holders.
       Nickles: Relevant (2).
       Reid: Relevant (3).
       Reid: Relevant to list.
       Roberts: Conservation.
       Roberts: LDP graze-out.
       Santorum: Puppy protection.
       Santorum: Puppy mills protection.
       Snowe: Commercial fisheries.
       Stevens: Country of origin labeling.
       Stevens: Organic labeling.
       Stevens: USDA study/salmon.
       Thompson: Relevant.
       Wellstone: Relevant.

  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, the point I was making is that we have 
to be very careful in how we use our water or we could have a lot of 
far-reaching ramifications that have had some inadvertent effects on 
fish and wildlife and plant species that survive in that particular 
area, which simply may not be met with a ready, easy transfer of water 
to the Federal Government without a serious study of those 
ramifications. There is a serious lack of fair and open discussion on 
this issue.
  I remind my colleagues again, there was little congressional 
investigation or involvement when this language was inserted into the 
bill, and the committees responsible for many of the details simply 
were not involved in the discussion.
  One must also ask the question: What is the purpose of the 
Conservation Reserve Program? Our debate is focused on many things, but 
not once have Members had the opportunity to discuss until now whether 
or not the purpose of the Conservation Reserve Program is for 
endangered species. This program also allows for a permanent transfer 
of water rights. CRP has always been limited to a certain number of 
years.
  The Reid language also expands the basic coverage afforded to the 
protection of species under the Endangered Species Act. This is an 
important point. Not only will endangered species and threatened 
species be covered, but the Reid program would cover sensitive species, 
too.
  What is a sensitive species? At this time everyone should be reminded 
that the Endangered Species Act has no classification or definition of 
sensitive species. What happens to the other uses of the water source? 
Participation in the program could lead to increased delivery costs to 
mutual users. The costs of operating ditch companies could increase as 
cost share participants leave the program. Downstream users could also 
be affected. Participation in the program could lead to underground 
recharge problems.
  The language is simply too vague. It does not specify sources of 
water eligible to participate in the program. Not only would the 
language apply to surface water and CRP, but it could apply to ground 
water as well; a whole different set of issues become pertinent.

[[Page S474]]

Ground water use and set-asides affect neighboring use.
  My point is, this is a very complicated issue. It has a lot of 
ramifications. Without careful study, this could be the wrong action to 
be taken. It could have just the opposite effect of what the sponsor 
would like to accomplish.
  I rise in support of the Crapo amendment. I thank my colleagues and 
yield the floor.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to support the Crapo amendment to 
strike the proposed Water Conservation Program from the farm bill that 
we are debating today on the Senate floor.
  The creation of the Water Conservation Program, as proposed in this 
current legislation, would set a very dangerous farm policy precedent. 
It would open the door to federal government infringement on state 
water rights. There would be many unintended consequences for the 
nation's agricultural producers--the people we are trying to assist 
today.
  This provision is a threat to private property rights and conflicts 
with individual state water laws and programs.
  As Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns said:

       To tie state-administered water rights into such a program 
     creates another federal nexus whereby the federal government 
     can leverage water away from our agricultural producers and 
     water users permanently. . . .  Nebraska simply cannot agree 
     to any such program.

  Governor Johanns clearly identified the dangers of the current 
legislation.
  All states care about water conservation and wildlife protection. For 
example, the State of Nebraska is currently working with Wyoming and 
Colorado, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to craft a Cooperative 
Agreement for endangered species management on the Platte River. States 
do not need more federal dictates and regulation.
  As one irrigation district manager in western Nebraska said, ``there 
could be significant consequences with this water conservation proposal 
as it is written in this legislation. The process of evaluating these 
impacts would be very complicated. Each state has different laws and 
issues.''
  Additionally, the current proposal has not been debated in the House 
or Senate Agriculture Committees, or in the oversight committees 
responsible for the Endangered Species Act. This issue deserves 
significant study, review and analysis before we move forward with 
federal legislation.
  There are too many problems in this proposal--too many questions yet 
to be answered. We should not impose additional, unnecessary 
restrictions on water and property rights for our states and our 
citizens. I urge my colleagues to support the Crapo amendment to strike 
the Water Conservation Program from the underlying bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I will be brief. I will come back on 
Monday or Tuesday and talk more about it. I rise, too, in support of 
the Crapo amendment.
  Certainly for those of us in the West there is nothing more important 
than water rights and how we handle those water rights, nothing more 
important to us than to maintain the concept of State allocation of 
water adjudication. And this threatens that, it preempts State water 
rights. It has the possibility of doing that. That could result in 
permanent acquisition of the water rights, which is not something that 
any of us want to see happen.
  It extends authority of the Endangered Species Act to USDA. Certainly 
we have enough difficulties with the way the Endangered Species Act is 
handled now.
  This is the last one of the issues. It proposes radical changes to 
CRP without addressing the reform of the Endangered Species Act. These 
two issues do not fit together and are very inconsistent.
  Furthermore, it never was discussed in the committee. I happen to be 
a member of the Agriculture Committee. This was never debated during 
consideration of the bill. There are a number of us on the committee 
who certainly would have fought vigorously to keep this language out of 
the bill.
  Madam President, I will not take any more time. Some of my colleagues 
want to speak. I will be back to talk more about some of the impacts I 
believe this amendment will have. Again, I support the Crapo amendment. 
I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I rise to support the Crapo amendment. 
From the statements that have been made with regard to having water 
language in the agriculture bill at all, it is pretty indicative of 
what has happened since the legislation was introduced. There has been 
no hearing on this legislation. It started out as a version of S. 1737. 
The bill never had a hearing. It has never seen the light of day. It 
has never seen any lightbulbs. Any time that happens in the Senate, 
most of us fear not what is in it but what is not in it.
  This summer, we had a crisis in the Klamath Basin in southern Oregon, 
southeastern Oregon, and northern California. Anybody who depends on 
water for irrigation and their farm operations should be very concerned 
about this amendment.
  We have heard a lot of Western Senators make statements, but this is 
not only a problem that is confined to the West. We now have a little 
argument over a river that runs between Alabama and Georgia. As 
populations grow, we will hear of more conflicts in areas where water 
law or water policy has never before been considered.
  Last weekend, of course, all the papers were full of Enron, but there 
was a very interesting article in Monday's Washington Post with regard 
to a National Science Foundation study that was released. It was very 
critical of the science that was a part of the decision to shut off the 
water to the agricultural interests in the Klamath Basin.
  Madam President, 1,500 farmers were denied water for their irrigation 
projects. Crops burned up. We have seen filings of bankruptcy, people 
losing their farms because in farming, a tenuous endeavor, one cannot 
afford to see one crop missed or they will not have anything at all, 
all because of the Endangered Species Act.

  That made me wonder about a lot of other studies the Government has 
done. Are they credible? And what kind of responsibility have we taken 
on as a Government to make sure that the science is correct to the best 
of our knowledge?
  Ever since, any legislation that comes before this body that has to 
do with the Endangered Species Act as it relates to water raises many 
questions.
  Congress has had a longstanding policy that water rights, even water 
rights for conservation, even water that would be classified as 
preservation, always had to come to terms with the States involved. It 
is a State's right of controlling and adjudicating its own resources. 
This Government has never even taken a look at that until the beginning 
of the last administration when we had a Secretary of Interior who was 
very forthright in his belief that the Federal Government should 
control all water resources across this country.
  This is a part of the farm bill that is most troubling to most of us. 
We will have more to say on this before we vote on this amendment, 
which comes up on Tuesday. I assume that is the tentative schedule.
  We see new terms entered in this issue. We know what an ``endangered 
specie'' is. We have a definition of a ``threatened specie.'' But this 
is the first time we have heard the term ``sensitive specie.'' Maybe 
that category is those who serve in this body.
  As we look at what happened in the Klamath Basin, as we look at 
another little item that happened in Washington State when there was a 
deliberate planting of the Canadian lynx hair to prove this was habitat 
for another specie that is on the threatened list and yet has not been 
classified as endangered just to control the use of the land, we have 
to look with a very suspicious eye at what we are doing to this country 
and its ability to produce food and fiber for its citizens.
  Can that agenda be so treacherous as to deny us, the American people, 
the ability to clothe and feed ourselves? Right now, with the attitude 
I see in some communities, I would say that is the case.
  There are a lot of unintended consequences of this language that 
could happen later, and all of them are negative. There is nothing 
positive. This does nothing for agriculture, as we know it, and our 
ability to produce crops and fiber.

[[Page S475]]

  From that standpoint alone, I ask my colleagues who represent States 
where agriculture plays a major role in their economy to take a look at 
this and ask themselves: Is this farm policy? Is this food security 
policy? I can see no way that one can find a positive answer.
  Any time we have big brother, who has the big checkbook, standing in 
the wings to control the lifeblood of any crop, whether it falls from 
the sky, whether it runs down our streams, or the capillary or the 
underground rivers of groundwater under their control, something so 
vital that it is even recommended we have eight glasses a day--or it 
used to be--something so vital to life, would we want that kind of 
control in the hands of a government, sometimes a government that is 
insensitive to what we have to put up with in the production of food 
and fiber for this country?
  So as the weekend rolls on and as we take time to study this issue, I 
think that is a question for this body. Do we pass legislation that has 
never had a hearing, that has never been presented before any 
committee, and then wonder about the question that is being raised 
tonight? Remember, we are doing business that will affect people with 
real faces, with real investments, in the real world. It is not some 
harebrained idea that has been generated in this 17 square miles of 
logic-free environment because it does have a true effect on every 
person who lives in this country, not just us who live in the West but 
everybody who lives in this country.
  I thank the Chair for allowing me this time. I will have more to say 
at a later date.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise to support the amendment that is 
offered by my colleague from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, a water lawyer. Yes, 
water is important enough in the West that there are people who make it 
an occupation. It is that complicated and it is that important. His 
amendment would strike section 215 of the farm bill and leave intact 
the current conservation programs that are administered by the 
Secretary of Agriculture.
  I commend the Senator from Idaho for his leadership in this matter 
and for the excellent foresight he shows in working to block the 
Federal Government when intervening into an area that is extremely 
critical to the survival of the Western United States.
  Now one has probably noticed how many Western Senators have come to 
this Chamber. That is because we have some unique problems with water. 
We want to make sure those fights we have been having for a long time 
are still fights between States, because we know that is a fair fight 
and a fight with the Federal Government is not.
  Mark Twain is the one who said in the West whiskey is for drinking 
and water is for fighting over. He was really right.
  The first principle that must be understood in dealing with water in 
the West is that availability of water has always been the West's 
limiting factor for development. If one looks at a map of the private 
and Federal lands in the West, one will see a fairly good description 
of the region's water sources and productive lands. Early settlers 
built their homes where they could get water to plant their crops and 
raise their livestock; at least as soon as they understood the West, 
they did.
  A lot of the homesteaders came from the East. One of my old friends, 
one of the first people I met when I moved to Gillette, WY, was a 
homesteader. He has since passed away, but I loved him telling me about 
his first selection of land. There were people who could be paid who 
would help pick the best land. But nobody who came West had much money. 
So rather than pay one of these people this bounty to help him select 
the good land, he picked good land Pennsylvania-style. He picked the 
hills because he did not want to be flooded out every year.

  After the first year, he gave up his first homestead and picked some 
good bottomland. Bottomland in Wyoming does not flood because we do not 
have that much water, and he learned that his first year. He tells 
about this piece of property on which he did finally homestead. He had 
to get water from a neighbor to drink. He had to haul the water by 
wagon 3 miles to get it to this place. We are talking some dry land.
  In fact, availability of water was so important to early settlers, 
when Wyoming ratified its State constitution in 1890, the State claimed 
State ownership of all water rights as part of the State constitution, 
and that was accepted as part of our Statehood. The Federal Government 
said: Wyoming, we will let you own your water.
  Later, when all the productive lands were settled, the bulk of the 
remaining lands were portioned out by the Federal Government mainly 
between the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management.
  We also have a third category, and that is the national parks. The 
Bureau of Land Management and the national parks are administered by 
the Interior Department, and the forest lands are handled by the 
Department of Agriculture. There is a good reason for that. The 
national parks, of course, are very pristine. They are to be maintained 
in that condition, and I do not know of anybody who ever wants to 
change that. So those are not productive lands.
  The Bureau of Land Management lands are the lands that were left over 
from homesteading. That means those are the lands people found were too 
dry or too rocky or too steep to be usable. So those are not productive 
lands.
  Then, of course, there are the Forest Service lands. Those went under 
the Department of Agriculture because those were supposed to be 
productive. Those were usable lands, and usable for a number of 
activities. Besides the recreation we greatly enjoy today, there was 
grazing and timbering. When we created a new agency a little bit later 
then to develop the water resources on this public land, we had the 
Bureau of Reclamation to make sure there was enough water to use the 
vast resources found in places such as the State of Wyoming.
  The next principle that must be understood as to why it is so 
important to strike section 215 is because of the scarcity of water in 
the West. Western water law was built on a much different foundation 
than the current laws enforced in the East.
  We are amazed at the rain that happens out here. Washington, DC, 
occasionally gets more rain in a period of a few consecutive days than 
the State of Wyoming gets in an entire year. Almost all of Wyoming is 
considered desert, high desert, mountain desert. The desert definition 
is less than 15 inches of rainfall a year.
  Part of the reason we do not get much rainfall, of course, is the 
mountain ranges that this water comes over before it ever gets to us 
drop out a lot of the moisture. I remember being in Seattle and seeing 
T-shirts that said: ``Here you can take your goldfish for a walk,'' or 
``Kids here do not get a suntan, they rust.''
  After I saw some of the rain, I realized it was a little different 
place than Wyoming where we are more interior and have a little less 
rain. While a good portion of the country, particularly the East, is 
trying to figure out how to drain the water off, we are trying to 
figure out how to save every last drop. We have come up with some 
rather innovative ways of doing that.
  We are also in a drought, so water is even more important this year 
than it has been. This is the third year of a drought, though. There 
are some complications with the Federal Government when there is a 
continuing drought because we really only provide for--and can 
imagine--one year of drought. So if people are given advantages in one 
year of a drought, they are not eligible in the next year.
  I mentioned that we are going into the third year. There are lakes in 
Wyoming that have dried up. Nobody gets any water out of them anymore. 
The streams are much smaller than usual. Wyoming streams and rivers are 
different than in some of the other areas of the country. We call it a 
creek or a stream when it is about 2 feet to 20 feet wide. Anything 
over 20 feet is a river in Wyoming.
  We do not have much water. We are the headwaters of a lot of places, 
but when there is a drought every last drop is important.
  I want to explain a little bit about the water law. Although there 
are variations from State to State, basic eastern water law follows a 
doctrine known as riparian rights. Under this doctrine, landowners who 
border waterways are granted certain rights that allow them

[[Page S476]]

to use whatever amount of water they need for any reasonable use. 
Because riparian rights adhere to the ownership of the land, these 
rights do not need to be exercised to be kept alive. By simply 
obtaining a water use permit, much as someone would get a building 
permit, landowners can initiate a new water use at any time they want 
and in doing so can force other users to adjust to their needs. This is 
more or less the main water use principle that underlies the water law 
in 29 States.
  Western water law, on the other hand, is based on a doctrine of prior 
appropriation. Under State law, an individual owns the right to use 
water based on the time the water was first appropriated and used, and 
then that interest is only valid for the amount of water appropriated 
for that particular use.
  Let me give an example. Say that rancher one settles along Crazy 
Woman Creek at the foot of the Wyoming Big Horn Mountains. We have a 
lot of interesting creek names. He drew enough water in his first year 
to water 50 head of cattle and to irrigate two pastures. The next year 
his neighbor moved in and used enough water to irrigate his two 
pastures and to water his livestock. Now in this case, rancher one, 
settler one, would be able to claim a prior use and his neighbor would 
have to guarantee enough water remains in Crazy Woman Creek to ensure 
the first settler can irrigate his two pastures and water his 50 head 
of cattle before settler two gets any water.
  Furthermore, if in the following year the first settler decided to 
irrigate a third pasture in order to feed an additional 25 head of 
cattle, his second appropriation of water would have to follow the 
appropriated rights already established by settler two the year before.
  To add to this confusion, once a person puts water to a beneficial 
use, such as irrigating land or watering livestock, and complies with 
the statutory requirements, that water right remains valid only so long 
as it continues to be used. If a water right lays dormant for too long, 
the right is considered abandoned and is lost. All of those rights 
shift.
  Do not worry if the system sounds complicated. After more than 150 
years of more and more water users and more and more beneficial uses, 
the ability to sort out the rights of Western water users is a science 
all its own. And I have not even thrown in the complication of Indian 
water rights which have a historic precedent and are the subject of a 
lot of water law.
  I will say, however, if you were to talk to any of the farmers and 
ranchers whose families first settled areas that still apply the prior 
use doctrine, you would quickly begin to grasp the fact that each one 
of them knows what their rights are under the law now, how much water 
they can use, how much water they will need, and how any disruption of 
the use system will decimate the ecosystem and the land's ability to 
sustain life.
  What does this have to do with the amendment? It has everything to do 
with the amendment. As soon as the Federal Government intervenes in the 
State water law system and acquires the water rights under section 215, 
that water right under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution 
would suddenly move to the front of the line for when that water right 
would be available for use. In other words, it would trump all other 
uses and put people selectively out of business.
  The land use and water balance that had been established over the 
past one and a half centuries would then be completely turned on its 
ear. The impact would immediately be felt by family farms and ranches 
that would lose productivity, jobs, homes, and wildlife. Migrating 
birds would lose their habitat.
  Don't let anyone kid you that ranches and farms are not habitat for 
wildlife. Private ranches and farms in the West are some of the most 
productive and vibrant wildlife habitat you will ever find. Every time 
we put a ranch out of business in Wyoming it turns into rich 
ranchettes, little 40-acre tracts. The people are so crowded together. 
Forty acres may seem to be a lot in the rest of the country, but for 
wildlife that is not a lot of room. It is not even a lot of room for 
people in our State. We would lose critical wildlife habitat. They 
would be overrun by people.
  In addition, many streams in the West are currently overallocated 
with junior and senior water rights. Individuals with junior water 
rights would lose complete access to water if the Federal Government 
held senior water rights. Water delivery schedules would be upset; some 
areas could get flooded while others would come up dry at critical 
times. And just in case you do not believe that Federal ownership of 
water rights would have such a devastating impact, I will point out 
again the travesty that occurred in Oregon and California's Klamath 
Basin.

  Farmers, whose rights to the water were established by Federal 
statute, had them taken away from them through a policy that the 
National Academy of Sciences reports was based on speculation. It was 
not based on science. It was not based on good policy. It was not based 
on practicality. I guess it was based on bad politics.
  As I said at the beginning of my statement, water is extremely 
important to the future of the West and to Wyoming. I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment offered by my colleague, the water 
attorney from Idaho, and to leave in place the conservation program as 
currently administered by the Secretary of Agriculture.
  If we were to implement section 215 as it now stands, it would have a 
devastating impact on all the downstream water users, and it would 
preempt the balance carefully established in State water law. It would 
do so to satisfy a policy that not even the National Academy of 
Sciences claims is supported with adequate science.
  I mentioned before there are fights between States. We just finished 
a 25-year fight with the State of Nebraska. It had to do with how much 
water we have to release from Wyoming into Nebraska. It is settled by a 
water compact that has a few intricacies that resulted in 25 years of 
legal battles. That particular compact would be upset, and most of the 
protection that is built in there is for migrating whooping cranes. 
Sometimes when we make an effort, we are not sure of the unintended 
consequences.
  Once again, I remind Members what Mark Twain said: In the West, 
whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over.
  We prefer to be fighting between States than fighting with an unfair 
Federal Government. Please help eliminate this unfair section.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I have been listening for the last good 
number of minutes as my colleague from Wyoming gave what was not only 
an eloquent but true and most entertaining explanation about the 
validity of the Crapo amendment and why this Senate should pass it.
  There is no question in my mind or any westerner who lives in the 
high desert States of the Great Basin, all the way to the Mississippi 
River, of the criticality of water and why States over long periods of 
time have been very cautious in not only its allocation but its 
relationship to the human species. I hope the explanation of the 
Senator from Wyoming serves us all well as we consider this amendment.
  It appears there is no one else in the Chamber at this moment to 
debate the Crapo amendment, so I ask unanimous consent it be set aside 
for the purpose of offering another amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2835 to Amendment No. 2471

  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2835 to amendment No. 2471.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. 1022. STUDY OF PROPOSAL TO PROHIBIT PACKERS FROM OWNING, 
                   FEEDING, OR CONTROLLING LIVESTOCK.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the

[[Page S477]]

     Secretary of Agriculture shall complete a study to determine 
     the impact that prohibiting packers described in subsection 
     (b) from owning, feeding, or controlling livestock intended 
     for slaughter more than 14 days prior to slaughter would have 
     on--
       (1) livestock producers that market under contract, grid, 
     basis contract, or forward contract;
       (2) rural communities and employees of commercial feedlots 
     associated with a packer;
       (3) private or cooperative joint ventures in packing 
     facilities:
       (4) livestock producers that market feeder livestock to 
     feedlots owned or controlled by packers:
       (5) the market price for livestock (both cash and future 
     prices);
       (6) the ability of livestock producers to obtain credit 
     from commercial sources:
       (7) specialized programs for marketing specific cuts of 
     meat:
       (8) the ability of the United States to compete in 
     international livestock markets; and
       (9) future investment decisions by packers and the 
     potential location of new livestock packing operations.
       (b) Packers.--The packers referred to in subsection (a) are 
     packers that slaughter more than 2 percent of the slaughter 
     of a particular type of livestock slaughtered in the United 
     States in any year.
       (c) Consideration.--In conducting the study under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary of Agriculture shall--
       (1) consider the legal conditions that have existed in the 
     past regarding the feeding by packers of livestock intended 
     for slaughter; and
       (2) determine the impact of those legal conditions.
       (d) Effectiveness of Other Provision.--The section entitled 
     ``PROHIBITION ON PACKERS OWNING, FEEDING, OR CONTROLLING 
     LIVESTOCK'', amending section 202 of the Packers and 
     Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 192), shall have no effect.

  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, as we debated the farm bill before the 
Christmas recess, I voted to support an amendment offered by Senator 
Grassley, Senator Johnson, and Senator Wellstone to ban packer 
ownership of livestock. Since that amendment passed, I and other 
Senators have had serious discussions, along with the livestock 
industry and the packing industry, as to what this amendment meant and 
what it will mean if it becomes law out in the marketplace.
  As a result of that, I am offering an amendment tonight that would, 
in essence, set this provision aside. I am talking about that provision 
of the section entitled ``the prohibition on packer ownership feeding 
or controlling livestock.'' That is an amendment to section 202 of the 
Packers and Stockyards Act.
  It is clear to me and to many others that there are a great many 
questions being asked at this moment about the scope of the language 
and its potential impact on the meatpacker and the livestock producer. 
In fact, much has been written on both sides with respect to the legal 
and economic ramifications of the language.
  This fact lends greater credence to my suggestion in this amendment 
that we approach a complete study by USDA of the intent of this 
language and what it would mean in these kinds of new owner 
relationships.
  Since the Senate approved the language in December, I am sure many 
have heard from those in favor of and opposed to the language. Seldom 
have I heard such impassioned opinions on any given issue. Indeed, the 
National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the National Pork Producers 
Council, both leading groups representing livestock producers, have 
policies opposing the proposed ban. Still other groups support the ban.
  Meanwhile, eight of the Nation's leading agricultural economists 
released a paper that raised nine serious concerns about the potential 
negative consequences this ban would have. Among them is the damage 
that would be done by revising strategic alliances between packers and 
producers, taking us back to a time when meat was treated as a nameless 
commodity rather than a distinct, branded consumer food product.
  The U.S. meat and livestock industries also would be at a distinct 
disadvantage, I believe, under the current language, to foreign beef 
and pork processing competitors with the production capacity and 
marketing ability to work with livestock producers to form the very 
strategic alliances, joint ventures, and ownership arrangements that 
this language seeks to make illegal in the United States. The advances 
we have made in foreign markets could be put at very serious risk.
  These economists also point out that producers who enter into 
marketing agreements with packers are better able to obtain financing 
for their operations. I know of several instances of those 
relationships where those very contracts allow the producer to gain the 
necessary financing with his financial institution. Without these 
agreements, financing for growth and capital investment could clearly 
be threatened. Lenders would not have the assurances that producers 
seeking loans had a market for their animals.
  Congress would be taking a critical risk management tool away from 
producers in certain instances. Is this what the ban's proponents hoped 
to accomplish for their livestock constituents? I really don't think 
that was the intent. And I must tell you, Mr. President, when I 
initially voted for the ban, that was clearly not my intent.
  Still other legal analyses have offered a response to this economic 
analysis. The very intensity of the ongoing debate over this issue 
raises the question: Why throw support to a measure punctuated by so 
many question marks as this current language has?
  Call me a pragmatist if you will, but when I hear such genuine 
concern expressed by so many of my constituents, by leading economists, 
and by legal experts about language that was never vetted through a 
committee, a hearing not held on it, and legal experts not allowed to 
give their opinion on it, it seems to me that we should not act as 
hastily as I believe we did, and as I know I did.
  My concerns have been validated by the disparate positions taken by 
many farm and livestock groups. I have learned that large economic 
implications may exist for several States, including that of my 
colleague, Senator Johnson, from South Dakota. Reportedly at stake are 
about 3,000 jobs in a South Dakota packing plant, and 4,000 jobs 
associated with the Premium Standard Farms of Missouri. I also know of 
significant consequences to the economy and jobs in the State of 
Colorado. In this current time of such a sensitive economy in 
agriculture, I believe 10,000 more people without jobs is not a correct 
path to walk down.

  In my State of Idaho, it could significantly impact the relationship 
between certain producers in my State and certain packers.
  Given the questions I have asked about a ban on packer ownership of 
livestock, I cannot lend my support to the Grassley-Johnson-Wellstone 
language. I urge my colleagues to consider my amendment requiring a 
speedy but thorough review of the potential impact of a ban on packer 
ownership, control and feeding of livestock. The word ``ownership,'' 
and the word ``control'' are key to all of these relationships.
  Under my amendment, the USDA would conduct a study in cooperation 
with the livestock industry--all of those within the industry--to 
determine the impact that prohibiting packers from owning, feeding, and 
controlling livestock intended for slaughter more than 14 days prior to 
slaughter would have on producers, rural communities, private or 
cooperative joint ventures in packing facilities, marketing prices for 
livestock, the ability of producers to obtain credit, specialized 
marketing programs, the ability of packers to compete in foreign 
markets, and future investment decisions by packers about plant 
locations. This study would be completed within 270 days of the date of 
the enactment of this law. I think it is important that we move timely 
to this. It is not my intent to stall it. It is my intent to get clear 
answers for all of us and for all of those associated with this issue 
in the livestock industry.
  I have visited with Senator Grassley. We have been working 
cooperatively to get language that is better understood and that we 
believe would meet the test of the court. Senator Grassley is working 
with the Farm Bureau at this moment to do so. That amendment might well 
be available tomorrow or early next week, and I will take a look at it 
to see whether it fits my concerns and the concerns of a variety of 
other interests and relationships as they relate to the new dynamics of 
the livestock industry.
  I am certainly willing to give Senator Grassley and Senator Johnson 
and others the benefit of the doubt if that language can be arrived at. 
But if it can't be--and let me tell you, legal

[[Page S478]]

language is left to the beholder and the interpreter at the time--it is 
clear that a test needs to be run. This Senate deserves a clear 
determination or interpretation of what all of this means. That is 
exactly the intent of the amendment that I offer this evening.
  Let us act on this important issue with the foresight that a thorough 
review can offer rather than to seek to undo damage apparent in the 
glaring light of hindsight. Literally, we could destroy thousands of 
contractual relationships. We could even impact markets and future 
markets if this language is not clear and clearly understood in the law 
itself. Lawsuits, court orders, interpretations of or arbitrary 
decisions made as a result of language that is not clearly understood 
is not what this Senate should be about in the crafting of good farm 
policy for the livestock industry.
  That is the intent of my amendment. I hope my colleagues will read 
it, understand it, and I ask their support.
  Mr. President, I see the chairman of the Agriculture Committee is in 
the Chamber at this moment. With that consideration, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support this legislation. I commend 
Senator Harkin, Senator Lugar and all our colleagues on the Agriculture 
Committee for their hard work on it and I welcome the opportunity to 
discuss its important provisions to deal more effectively with the 
challenge of nutrition and hunger in our society.
  It is long past the time for Congress to end the gap in the nation's 
nutrition safety net. Hunger is a silent crisis affecting families 
across America today. No corner of our land is immune from this crisis.
  Thirty one million Americans, including twelve million children, 
suffered from hunger last year. Over seventeen million Americans 
participated in the food stamp program but four out of ten of those who 
are eligible did not receive benefits. Last year, 23 million Americans, 
including 9 million children, sought emergency food relief through 
America's Second Harvest--an increase of more than 2 million and that 
increase took place during a time of unprecedented economic prosperity 
in the nation.
  The average food stamp benefit is 81 cents a meal and it should be 
available to everyone who truly needs it. The need for action is 
especially urgent in this current serious downturn in the economy.
  Too many individuals and families in America have trouble putting 
food on the table. Their plight is all too clear in the stories of real 
people:
  A mother in Springfield, MA, asked, ``Should my kids sit in the dark 
or should they go hungry? One of my kids has multiple handicaps, so I 
have to pay the utility bills to have heat and light. But, then we have 
no food.''
  Karen Norman, a mother in Worcester, MA, explained, ``I used to 
donate food to the food pantry. I always thought, `There's someone out 
there who needs it.' Now all I have left is pictures of when I had a 
very nice life. Now I make brunch because I don't have enough to give 
my kids breakfast and lunch. When I leave the kitchen I can hear my 
five-year-old say to my eight-year-old, `How come we can't have 
breakfast and lunch?' and my eight-year-old says, `We have to stretch 
out the food.' Then at night she'll cry, `I'm hungry! I'm hungry! I'm 
sorry, but I'm hungry.' ''
  Their plight is unacceptable, but it is all too consistent with the 
national data collected in reports by the Greater Boston Food Bank, the 
Food Bank of Western Massachusetts, and America's Second Harvest.
  Nationwide, participation in the Food Stamp Program has declined by 
34 percent since 1996 four times faster than the decline in the poverty 
rate. This means that over 2 million fewer people who live in poverty 
are obtaining food stamps today. Over a quarter of the reduction in 
food stamp participation between 1994 and 1998 resulted from welfare 
reform and its elimination of food stamp eligibility for legal 
immigrants which made them ineligible for food stamps and discouraged 
their U.S. citizen children from obtaining food stamps.
  The results are predictable. The Department of Agriculture has 
determined that 5 million adults and 2.7 million children live in 
households that experienced hunger last year. Women and children are 
disproportionately hurt. Last year, over half of all food stamp 
participants were children. Sixty-eight percent of the children were of 
school age and 70 percent of adult participants were women. The most 
vulnerable are recent immigrants, children, and the elderly, and they 
are the ones who face the greatest difficulty.
  The nutrition provisions in this bill are a significant step to 
reduce hunger in America. It restores food stamp benefits for all legal 
immigrant children and persons with disabilities. It is clear that the 
people now most in need of nutritional assistance are immigrants who 
entered the United States legally. For the first thirty years of the 
Food Stamp Program, legal immigrants were eligible for food stamps. It 
was unfair for Congress to exclude them in 1996 and it is time for us 
to close this unconscionable gap.
  While hunger and malnutrition are serious problems for people of all 
ages, their effects are particularly damaging to children. Hungry and 
undernourished children are more likely to become anemic and to suffer 
from allergies, asthma, infections, and other health problems. They are 
also more likely to have behavioral problems and difficulty in 
learning. When children arrive at school hungry, they cannot learn. If 
children are hungry, our investments in education and early learning 
will not have the full positive impact that they should.
  The nutrition title of this bill includes a number of other important 
policy provisions, including changes in the Food Stamp Program to 
improve access and simplify administration. These reforms are vital to 
ensure that low income families receive the nutrition assistance they 
need. Excessive requirements for reporting income, counting assets, 
calculating expenses for deductions, and determining on-going 
eligibility can be an overwhelming burden for families who lack 
transportation or child care, or who have inflexible work schedules. 
These requirements often make it difficult or impossible for low income 
families to participate. Given current economic conditions, an 
effective and efficient Food Stamp Program is now more important than 
ever.
  The bill also provides states more options for helping families make 
the transition from welfare to work. Current food stamp law allows a 3-
month state option for a transitional food stamp benefit. This bill 
reflects Medicaid's six-month Medicaid transitional benefit for food 
stamps. It simplifies state record keeping, increases state 
flexibility, and helps welfare families make the transition to work.
  The bill ends the child penalty under current food stamp law. Just as 
the marriage penalty in our tax code unfairly penalizes some couples, 
the existing food stamp law unfairly limits nutritional assistance for 
many families with children. The bill corrects this problem by indexing 
the food stamp standard deduction to family size, so that every family 
in deep poverty will receive the maximum current food stamp benefit, 
regardless of family size.
  The bill helps single parents struggling to make ends meet. It 
ensures that the food stamp law treats child support payments like 
income, by disregarding 20 percent of these payments when calculating 
benefits. This measure is consistent with last year's overwhelming 
approval of a plan by the House of Representatives to encourage states 
to see that child support actually benefits the children in low-income 
families. Parents who know that their children will directly benefit if 
they pay child support are more likely to pay the support and stay 
involved in their children's lives.
  In addition, this bill improves access to food stamp information, 
helping to see that families are aware of the help available. Less than 
one-third of the people who seek emergency hunger relief are currently 
receiving food stamps

[[Page S479]]

even though three-fourths are eligible for the relief. This bill will 
help rural families apply for food stamps online or by telephone. It 
eliminates the need to travel to food stamp offices. In addition, the 
bill also supports stronger public-private partnerships to distribute 
information about nutrition assistance programs.
  Finally, the bill increases federal support for emergency food 
programs, which have had sharp increases in requests for help in the 
past year. Many food banks find themselves unable to meet the heavy new 
demands. America's Second Harvest reports that 23.3 million people--
equal to the combined population of the 10 largest U.S. cities--
received emergency hunger relief last year--two million more than in 
1997. One-in-five local charitable agencies were already facing 
problems that threatened their ability to serve hungry people in their 
communities--before the current economic crisis.
  For all of these reasons, it is critical that we maintain the $6.2 
billion funding level for the nutrition title of this bill. This amount 
is urgently needed and it must be part of the final bill. The policy 
changes that will be accomplished will make an enormous difference in 
the lives of many families. Fewer children will go to bed hungry and 
arrive at school hungry and unfed.
  The current downturn in the economy means that even more families, 
including farm families, are facing the impossible choice between 
feeding their children and paying the rent, a choice no person should 
have to make. We have the resources to make the modest investment that 
is necessary. Once again, I commend Senator Harkin and Senator Lugar 
for their skillful work and I urge my colleagues to support the needed 
funding levels for nutrition.

                          ____________________