[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 10 (Friday, February 8, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S528-S537]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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


                           Amendment No. 2471

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now 
proceed to the Crapo amendment, which was offered yesterday. I ask it 
be recalled for purposes of my offering an amendment to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is pending.


                Amendment No. 2838 to Amendment No. 2471

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

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2838 to amendment no. 2471.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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the quorum call be rescinded.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.


                     Amendment No. 2838, Withdrawn

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment I just 
offered be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, a few weeks ago I saw a movie called ``A 
Beautiful Mind.'' It is based upon a true story of a man by the name of 
John Nash who is a mathematician from Blue Field, WV. He is probably 
one of smartest men ever born on this Earth. I was so fascinated by the 
movie that I read the book which was the basis for the movie. The book 
was even more intriguing, interesting, and fascinating than the movie. 
It was a thick book. It read like a novel. I couldn't put it down.
  This brilliant man could see the solution to the most complicated 
math problems. He could see a solution to the problem before he 
determined how the solution came about. Most people work the other way. 
They work up to finding a solution. He knew the solution. After he 
found the solution, he would work out the problems so other people 
could understand how he arrived at the solution.
  Just one example: He won a Nobel Prize for what is called game theory 
in economics. Certainly, I am no mathematician. I will not explain it 
very well.
  But there was another eminent scientist who figured out what would 
happen between two people playing a game--whether it was checkers, or a 
game of cards, or a game of two people playing basketball. He would 
determine what the result would be. But John Nash said that is not good 
enough. What you need to do is figure out what would happen when large 
numbers of people participated in a game. If two people, or four 
people, or any amount of people were playing a game, he could determine 
what would happen. It sounds fantastic and unbelievable that you can do 
that through mathematics, but he did it.
  One of the things that could be determined, for example, were moves 
of the military during the cold war. Through a mathematical formula 
using John Nash's theory, you could determine what would happen if the 
United States did this. This is what the Soviet Union would do.
  I will not go into any more detail other than tell you he was a 
brilliant man. But sadly, he became a schizophrenic paranoid. He had 
people talking to him all the time who were real to him. These people 
talking to John Nash were as real as if we were speaking to our wives 
when we left home today or speaking to one of the Senate staff. He 
believed things that he heard. As the movie depicts, he saw people on 
occasion.
  Obviously, I was fascinated by this movie and by this book, but 
listening yesterday to the people come to this Chamber and talk about 
my language in this farm bill made me think of this movie and this 
book. I am not accusing them of being paranoid or schizophrenic because 
they were talking about something they either knew nothing about or 
they were imagining things because they came down here talking about 
how bad my water legislation was and they simply were without any basis 
in fact. I don't know where this came from.

[[Page S529]]

  I am from the West and people think about why a Senator from out West 
would talk about these ``sacred issues'' such as water, grazing, and 
wilderness. I do it for a number of reasons. No. 1, I feel competent 
and qualified to do that. I live in the West. We don't need someone 
from Rhode Island telling us what to do in the West, even though they 
have a right to do so because this is a national congress. But in 
addition to that, there is a new West out there.
  I have great respect for cowboys, ranchers, and miners. But I am also 
realistic. The West has changed. Seventy percent of the people in the 
State of Nevada live in Las Vegas. We have to protect those people in 
Las Vegas as much as we do the people in the outlining areas. We need 
to make sure they have water. Reno has 20 percent of the people in the 
State of Nevada. Ninety percent of the people in Nevada live in two 
metro areas. I have an obligation to 90 percent of the people in the 
State of Nevada, just as I have for the other 10 percent of the people 
in the State of Nevada.

  Water has changed. We know that agriculture uses huge amounts of 
water. In this farm bill, I thought it was time we started being 
realistic about the new West. Therefore, I worked hard to get a 
protection in that bill dealing with a conservation program. Why 
shouldn't we deal with conservation in a farm bill? Many of us involved 
in the farm bill are not from the breadbasket States. The Presiding 
Officer is from the State of Minnesota.
  When I was Lieutenant Governor of Nevada, one night I went to the 
Governor's Mansion. My dear friend, Governor O'Calahan, taught me in 
high school and he taught me how to fight. That is where I learned to 
box--from Governor O'Calahan. He was a great fighter with over 200 
amateur fights. He lost his leg in the Korean war and lost his boxing 
career.
  I can remember we were there in the Governor's Mansion with his old 
uncle from Minnesota. I sat and listened to these two men--one an old 
man at that time and Governor O'Calahan who was a very young Governor--
talk about growing up in Minnesota. I thought they were making it up. 
But I have checked with other people since. It is absolutely true that 
in Minnesota at nighttime in the hot summer you can actually hear the 
crops growing--snapping, popping out, and growing. That isn't the way 
of the West.
  In Searchlight, NV, there are trees around my home. It takes hundreds 
of years for the Joshua and Spanish Daggers to grow. It takes hundreds 
of years. We have bushes all around my home in Searchlight. They take 
hundreds of years to grow. That is how the arid desert is different 
than the breadbasket.

  So for many of us involved in the farm bill--we are not from the 
breadbasket States--the most important provisions of this bill are 
those that deal with conservation.
  In the State of the Presiding Officer--the land of lakes--Minnesota 
has hundreds of lakes, I am told. In Nevada, we have very few lakes. We 
have Lake Mead that is man made. We have Lake Mojave that is man made 
because of Davis Dam and Boulder Dam. We have Pyramid Lake and Walker 
Lake, two desert terminus lakes. There are only 20 lakes like those in 
the rest of the world.
  We do not have many lakes. We have very few rivers. And what we call 
rivers, people from the Presiding Officer's part of the country would 
laugh at. You can walk across our rivers. So conservation is important 
to us in the West.
  I started my service in the Senate as a member of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee. I am still a member of that committee. I have 
been chairman of the committee twice. Probably the most controversial 
issue about which we have dealt in that committee is how we deal with 
the negative environmental effects of farming and ranching.
  One time I was serving as chairman of the subcommittee that dealt 
with fish and wildlife, and we worked on the difficult issue of the 
Endangered Species Act with the late John Chafee, my dear friend, who 
at that time was the chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee; my friend Max Baucus, who now is chairman of the Finance 
Committee, and at that time was the ranking member of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee, and Senator Dirk Kempthorne, now the 
Governor of Idaho. We worked together and crafted a very fine reform of 
the Endangered Species Act.
  That effort failed for a couple reasons. One reason it failed was 
because it was not moved on quickly enough by Senator Lott, the then-
majority leader. He had his own reasons for not moving on it, I am 
sure. At the time it gave people too much time to nitpick our 
legislation.
  But I think the main reason the bill failed is that it gave 
landowners and farmers financial incentives and benefits for helping 
endangered species but the funding was not mandatory. So the farmers 
and landowners were afraid we would not give them any money. People did 
not know if the appropriations process would put money in their hands. 
So for the farmers and landowners who wanted financial help, we could 
not give it to them.
  This program that is in this bill right now, that my friend, Senator 
Crapo, is trying to change, fills the void that bill could not. It 
brings real money to the table to help address these problems through 
voluntary incentives.
  One of my colleagues from the western part of our country who 
discussed this issue in the Chamber yesterday asked: Why are we talking 
about water in the farm bill? For heaven's sake, why shouldn't we talk 
about water in the farm bill?
  In the arid West, agriculture consumes the lion's share of the water. 
Sometimes that use comes into conflict with other users.
  We have had a long, ongoing problem with the tiny little Truckee 
River that runs through Reno, NV. It is tiny by the standards of 
Minnesota and other States where there is a lot of water, but in Nevada 
that is a river that is the lifeblood for the northern part of the 
State.
  I worked and got passed, about 10 years ago, legislation that settled 
a 100-year water war between the States of California and Nevada, which 
involved two Indian tribes, two endangered species, involved the cities 
of Reno and Sparks, agricultural interests, and involved a wetlands 
that had gone from 100,000 acres to 2,000 very putrid acres that were 
killing fish and animals that even came there. We resolved that. Now 
there is fresh water going in there. The legislation is almost 
implemented.
  At that time, the cities of Reno and Sparks were using 69,000 acre-
feet of water a year. The farmers were getting out of that same little 
river, not long before that, 400,000 acre-feet of water a year. It was 
just a very few farmers. A lot of the water was being wasted that the 
farmers were using. The only way the wetlands were maintained, even as 
they were, was because of the overflow from the farms because the 
Newlands project--the first ever Bureau of Reclamation project, that 
created that farming community--dried up one lake--Lake Winnemucca is 
gone--and was in the process of drying up Pyramid Lake, lakes 
controlled and in the land of the Indians.
  We were able to reverse that. I think we are going to have a healthy 
agricultural community, and certainly we are going to have a better 
Indian community. They have been able to do a lot of things as a result 
of that legislation.
  But I only gave that example to show the huge amount of water that is 
used in agriculture. And at the time, they grew basically hay and 
alfalfa, which are very water intensive.
  This section in this bill is a place to address these conflicts. The 
amendment, which I will offer at the appropriate time, to that 
program--I am amending my section through the amendment that will be 
offered to Senator Crapo's legislation--is to account for the 
legitimate concerns people have raised since this legislation first 
came up before the end of last year.
  Some of my Western colleagues noted yesterday there will be an 
amendment to strike the program. That is what Senator Crapo is doing, 
trying to eliminate it.
  My amendment, and the provision in the bill that I have, is supported 
by hundreds of groups. The vote that we will take on my amendment and 
Senator Crapo's will be scored by the League of Conservation Voters. 
They already have a letter out on that.
  But the groups supporting this legislation I talked about are too 
numerous to mention. There are scores of organizations that support 
this legislation,

[[Page S530]]

national organizations, such as the National Audubon Society, the World 
Wildlife Fund, The Wilderness Society, Trout Unlimited, Environmental 
Defense, and State and local organizations--well over 100 of them from 
Alabama to Wisconsin.
  This is really good legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters that I have just 
spoken about be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                League of Conservation Voters,

                                 Washington, DC, February 7, 2002.
     Re oppose anti-environment amendments to the farm bill (S. 
         1731).

     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is 
     the political voice of the national environmental community. 
     Each year, LCV publishes the National Environmental 
     Scorecard, which details the voting records of Members of 
     Congress on environmental legislation. The Scorecard is 
     distributed to LCV members, concerned voters nationwide, and 
     the press.
       LCV urges you to opposes the following amendments to 
     Senator Harkin's (D-IA) Farm Bill:
       A Smith (R-OR) amendment that would use crop disaster 
     relief funds to pay farmers for implementing environmental 
     laws. These payments to implement a broad range of federal 
     laws and contracts could create a huge drain on funds that 
     are needed to compensate farmers for real disasters and would 
     chill enforcement of important federal environmental, labor 
     and other safeguards.
       A Crapo (R-ID) amendment that would strike a program that 
     would purchase or lease water rights from farmers to help 
     endangered fish and other species. The program guarantees 
     state water law protections and state approval of all water 
     purchases and leases.
       A Roberts (R-KS) amendment that would allow self-interested 
     parties, such as fertilizer company representatives, to 
     become federally-reimbursed advisors to farmers on 
     conservation practices. This ``fox guarding the hen house'' 
     provision could allow commercial businesses with an interest 
     in promoting heavy use of chemical inputs to formulate 
     conservation plans designed to limit such inputs to protect 
     water quality.
       Two Burns (R-MT) amendments: the first would prohibit 
     farmers from enrolling more than half of the farms in the 
     Conservation Reserve Program, which could break up CRP into 
     smaller tracts of land that have significantly less habitat 
     value and bar the enrollment of some highly sensitive lands. 
     S. 1731 already prohibits more than 25% of eligible land in 
     any county from being enrolled in regular CRP. The second 
     Burns amendment would require that the Secretary pay more for 
     enrolling less productive lands in CRP than more productive 
     lands. Many valuable enrollments, such as stream buffer 
     strips, are on both productive and non-productive lands. 
     Reducing payments for productive lands would effectively 
     preclude their enrollment.
       A Hutchinson (R-AK) amendment to exempt USDA's Wildlife 
     Services program from National Environmental Policy Act 
     (NEPA) review in the killing of migratory birds. It would 
     also eliminate the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Service 
     (FWS) to regulate such killings and create a dangerous 
     precedent for piecemeal exemptions from NEPA and our 
     international treaty obligations.
       LCV's Political Advisory Committee will consider including 
     votes on these issues in compiling LCV's 2002 Scorecard. If 
     you need more information, please call Betsy Loyless in my 
     office at (202) 785-8683.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Deb Callahan,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                 February 5, 2002.
       Dear Senator: We urge you to help resolve conflicts between 
     farmers and endangered fish and other aquatic species by 
     supporting the incentive-based Water Conservation Program in 
     the conservation title of S. 1731, the Agriculture, 
     Conservation and Rural Enhancement Act of 2001.
       The Water Conservation Program authorizes the U.S. 
     Department of Agriculture to acquire or lease water rights on 
     1.1 million acres of land, so long as water transfers are 
     consistent with state water law and have been approved by 
     state officials. State officials must also permit the 
     Secretary of Agriculture to implement the program in their 
     state.
       Freshwater species are North America's most endangered 
     class of species--they are vanishing five times faster than 
     North America's mammals or birds and as quickly as tropical 
     rainforest species. Inadequate stream flow is among the 
     leading threats to endangered fish because low summer flows 
     reduce dissolved oxygen levels, increase water temperatures, 
     and limit access to food and spawning habitat. The absence of 
     rising spring flows--which triggers spawning and aids fish 
     migration--is also a major threat.
       We urge you to support this voluntary, incentive-based 
     approach to one of the nation's most pressing environment 
     challenges. Please support the Water Conservation Program in 
     the conservation title of S. 1731, the Agriculture, 
     Conservation and Rural Enhancement Act of 2001.
           Sincerely,
       National Organizations: American Lands; Department of the 
     Planet Earth; Endangered Species Coalition; Environmental 
     Defense; Environmental Working Group; Institute for 
     Agriculture and Trade Policy; Institute for Environment and 
     Agriculture; Land Trust Alliance; National Audubon Society; 
     Rails-to-Trails Conservancy; Restore America's Estuaries; 
     Trout Unlimited; The Wilderness Society; World Wildlife Fund.
       State and Local Organizations: Alabama Rivers Alliance, AL; 
     Altamaha Riverkeepers, GA; American Bottom Conservancy, IL; 
     American PIE--Public Information on the Environment, MN; 
     Amigos Bravos, NM; Arkansas Nature Alliance, AR; Ascutney 
     Mountain Audubon Society, VT; Audubon Arkansas, AR; Audubon 
     California, CA; Audubon Colorado, CO; Audubon of Florida, FL; 
     Audubon Society of New York State, Inc./Audubon 
     International, NY; Bear River Watershed Council, UT; Belgrade 
     Regional Conservation Alliance, ME; Blue Heron Environmental 
     Network Inc., WV; Cacapon Institute, WV; California League of 
     Conservation Voters, CA; California Trout, Inc., CA; Campaign 
     to Safeguard America's Waters, Earth Island Institute, AK; 
     Citizens for a Future New Hampshire, NH; Citizens for a 
     Quieter Santa Barbara, CA; Citizens for Alternatives to 
     Chemical Contamination, MI; Citizens of Lee Environmental 
     Action Network, VA.
       Clean Air Now, CA; Clean Up Our River Environment (CURE), 
     MN; Clinch Coalition, VA; Coalition for a Clean Minnesota 
     River, MN; Coalition for Jobs and the Environment, VA; Coast 
     Action Group, CA; Coldwater Fisheries Coalition, Inc., NH; 
     Committee on the Middle Fork Vermilion River, IL; Communty 
     Environmental Council, CA; Community Forestry Resource 
     Center, MN; Concerned Citizens Committee of SE Ohio, OH; 
     Delaware-Otsego Audubon Society, NY; Devil's Fork Trail Club, 
     VA; Douglaston Chapter of the Sierra Club, NY; Dutches County 
     Farm Bureau, NY; ECO-Action, FL; ECO-Store, FL; Endangered 
     Habitats League, CA; Environmental Action!, GA; Environmental 
     Defense Center, CA; Experience Appalachia!, OH; Federation of 
     Fly Fishers, MT; Forest Guardinas, NM; Forest Watch, VT; 
     Friends of Butte Creek, CA; Friends of Critters and the Salt 
     Creek, IL; Friends of Poquessing Watershed, PA; Friends of 
     the Locust Fork River, AL; Friends of the Nanticoke River, 
     MD; Friends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River, VA.
       Friends of the Santa Clara River, CA; Friends of the St. 
     Joe River Association, Inc, MI; Friends of the Wekiva River, 
     Inc, FL; Friends of the White Salmon River, WA; Great 
     American Station Foundation, NV; Great Basin Mine Watch, NV; 
     Group for the South Fork, NY; Halifax River Audubon, FL; 
     Hancock County Planning Commission, ME; Hardy Groves, Inc, 
     FL; Humane Education Network, CA; Juniata Valley Audubon 
     Society, PA; Keepers of the Duck Creek Watershed, OH; Lake 
     Champlain Committee, VT; Lake Superior Greens, WI; Maine 
     Congress of Lake Associations, ME; Maine Farmland Trust, ME; 
     Marion County Water Watch, KY; Michigan Resource Stewards, 
     MI; Montana Fishing Outfitters Conservation Fund, MT; Montana 
     River Action Network, MT; Mountaineer Chapter Trout 
     Unlimited, WV; My Mothers Garden Inc. Organic Herbs, FL; 
     Nanticoke River Watershed Conservancy, DE.
       New Jersey Chapter of the National Wild Turkey Federation, 
     NJ; New Ulm Area Sport Fishermen, MN; New York Rivers United, 
     NY; North Carolina Smart Growth Alliance, NC; North Fork 
     River Improvement Association, CO; North Shore Audubon, NY; 
     Ohio River Advocacy, OH; Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, 
     WV; Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition, OR; Organic 
     Consumers Association, MN; Organic Independents, MN; Palomar 
     Audubon Society, CA; Palos Verdes/South Bay Audubon Society, 
     CA; Palouse Land Trust, ID; Pamlico-Tar River Foundation, NC; 
     Park County Environmental Council, MT; Patrick Environmental 
     Awareness Group, VA; PCC Farmland Fund, WA; Pequannock River 
     Coalition, NJ; Planning and Conservation League, CA; Potomac 
     River Association, MD; Preserve Calavera, CA; Rahway River 
     Association, NJ; Rio Grande Restoration, NM; River Tales, PA; 
     River Touring Section, John Muir Chapter, Sierra Club, WI; 
     Rivers Council of Minnesota, MN; Rural Vermont, VT.
       Seattle Chapter--Izaak Walton League of America, WA; Seavey 
     Funds, Inc, CA; South Carolina Forest Watch, SC; Southern 
     Illinois University, Environmental Law Society, IL; Southwest 
     Environmental Center, NM; S.A.V.E. (Students Against the 
     Violation of the Environment), IL; Students Improving the 
     Lives of Animals, IL; Taking Responsibility for the Earth and 
     the Environment, VA; United Anglers of California, Inc., CA; 
     Utah Open Lands, UT; Utah Water Project of Trout Unlimited, 
     UT; Vermont Association of Conservation Districts, VT; 
     Virginia Forest Watch, VA; Walburg Realty & Investments 
     Corp., CA: West Virginia Council of Trout Unlimited, WV; West 
     Virginia Rivers Coalition, WV; Wisconsin Council of the 
     Federal of Fly Fishers, WI.

[[Page S531]]

     
                                  ____
         American Rivers, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Defenders of 
           Wildlife, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, 
           Environmental Defense, Environmnetal Working Group, 
           Friends of the Earth, Humane Society of the United 
           States, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, 
           National Audubon Society, Trout Unlimited, The 
           Wilderness Society,
                                                 February 5, 2002.
       Dear Senator: As the Farm Bill debate continues, we urge 
     you to support or oppose the following amendments:

     Amendments to SUPPORT:
       Wellstone Amendment: Senator Wellstone's amendment would 
     institute safeguards to ensure that funds from the USDA's 
     main water quality protection program (Environmental Quality 
     Incentives Program--EQIP) are not used for the expansion of 
     large confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). The Farm 
     Bill heading to the Senate floor, S. 1731, removes the animal 
     unit eligibility cap for the Environmental Quality Incentives 
     Program, opening the program to CAFOs of over 1,000 animal 
     units. Our nation's agricultural policy should help family 
     farmers and encourage sustainable agriculture and should not 
     provide incentives for further concentration of livestock 
     into ever-larger factory farms. The proposed Wellstone 
     amendment would prevent EQIP from becoming a massive giveaway 
     to the nation's largest industrial animal factories.
       Grassley/Dorgan Payment Cap Amendment: Senators Grassley 
     and Dorgan are offering a major commodity program reform 
     amendment to reduce the payment limit per farm for direct 
     payments to $75,000 and for marketing loan payments to 
     $150,000. This compares to the levels in the underlying bill 
     of $200,000 on direct payments and a $300,000 nominal limit 
     and no effective limit at all on marketing loan gains. The 
     amendment removes the major loopholes in current law and 
     tightens the ``actively engaged in agriculture'' rules. The 
     amendment would reinvest \3/4\ of the $1.3 billion savings in 
     the food stamp program, with the remainder to the Initiative 
     for Future Agriculture and Food Systems program.
       Although farm programs are typically justified as aid to 
     family farms, farm payments in fact today go overwhelmingly 
     to the largest farms, many of which obtain more than $1 
     million per year. According to USDA, these farms use these 
     funds to our-compete and then buy-out smaller and medium-
     sized farms. This amendment will help restore integrity to 
     the programs. It also helps the environment because it will 
     reduce some of the pressure for overproduction, which leads 
     to loss of habitats and excess use of chemicals.
       Durbin Amendments: The Durbin Amendment would curtail 
     incentives created by farm program payments to cultivate new 
     lands and increase production beyond levels supported by the 
     market. Farm program payments, designed to serve as a safety 
     net for the natoin's commodity producers, are giving farmers 
     incentives to maintain and increased production at levels 
     not supported by the market. According to USDA analysis, 
     roughly 23 million acres of range and pastureland were 
     converted to row crops between 1982 and 1997. These 
     conversions contribute to crop surpluses, low prices, and 
     higher government payments, as well as to significant 
     declines in grassland ecosystems and many bird and other 
     wildlife species that depend upon them. CBO estimates that 
     the Durbin amendment could save $1.4 billion over ten 
     years, which the amendment would devote to added nutrition 
     programs.

     Amendments to OPPOSE:
       Smith (OR) Amendment: Senator Gordon Smith's amendment 
     would use crop disaster relief fund to pay farmers for 
     implementing environmental law. Although the amendment has 
     been explained as helping farmers deal with ``regulatory 
     disasters,'' the amendment opens up potential liability to 
     pay farmers for the simple reason that they have only 
     subordinate water rights and they face a dry year. Throughout 
     the West, the water available in rivers is over-appropriated, 
     meaning it is owned many times over. Only in the wettest 
     years, can all potential water users be satisfied. This 
     amendment could put the government in the position of paying 
     landowners in essence for water they do not own.
       Crapo Water Conservation Amendment: Senator Crapo has 
     introduced an amendment that would weaken the water 
     conservation provisions of the bill by converting a program 
     designed to pay farmers to reduce water use to benefit 
     endangered species into additional traditional CRP acres. The 
     water conservation program in the bill does not take land out 
     of production but instead allows farms to install more 
     efficient water use equipment or shift to more water-
     efficient crops and lease their surplus water to protect 
     endangered species. It therefore provides an incentive-based 
     tool to alleviate conflicts between farmers and endangered 
     species. Attacks on this program have mistakenly claimed that 
     it would interfere with state water rights. But all leases 
     must meet state water law and therefore in general must be 
     approved by state officials, and the program will only be 
     implemented where Governors have agreed. It is quite possible 
     that other amendments designed to weaken this provision will 
     also be introduced.
       Roberts Technical Assistance Amendment: Senator Roberts has 
     introduced an amendment that would weaken and threaten the 
     quality and integrity of the valuable technical assistance 
     that farmers need to implement cropping practices that are 
     environmentally sound. The amendment could exclude employees 
     of state of local governments, such as conservation district 
     personnel, from being able to offer the technical assistance 
     needed to help farmers implement the farm conservation 
     programs. At the same time, the amendment would allow 
     fertilizer company representatives and other self-interested 
     actors to become federally reimbursed advisors to farmers on 
     conservation practices, including fertilizer and pesticide 
     use, while being reimbursed for their services by the federal 
     government. This ``fox guarding the hen house'' provision 
     could lead to widespread abuse because commercial business 
     with an interest in promoting heavy use of chemical inputs 
     would be formulating conservation plans designed to limit 
     such inputs to protect water quality. In addition, the 
     amendment would establish the Certified Crop Advisers 
     Program, just one of many private sector-established 
     programs, as the ``standard'' for the technical assistance 
     certification program that the Natural Resources 
     Conservation Service must develop. This eliminates 
     flexibility for the Secretary to establish a sound 
     certification program that people must meet in order to 
     become providers of conservation technical assistance.
       Burns Amendments: Senator Burns has introduced two 
     amendments to deal with the legitimate concern that the 
     Conservation Reserve Program may be enrolling too much land 
     in a few states. Unfortunately, the amendments would do more 
     harm than good. The first amendment would prohibit farmers 
     from enrolling more than half of their farms in the program. 
     The affect would be to break up CRP into smaller tracts of 
     land that have significantly less habitat value and to bar 
     the enrollment of some highly sensitive lands. Senator 
     Harkin's bill (S. 1731) already prohibits more than 25% of 
     eligible land in any county from being enrolled in regular 
     CRP. In addition, producers cannot receive more than $50,000 
     total in CRP program payments. While it takes sense to enroll 
     more CRP land in practices like buffer strips, enrolling many 
     half farms (regardless of the size of the farm) may be the 
     worst solution. The Harkin bill already includes new 
     provisions to encourage more buffer strip enrollments.
       A second amendment by Senator Burns would require that the 
     Secretary pay more for enrolling less productive lands in CRP 
     than paid for more productive lands. In general, CRP criteria 
     can and should target less, rather than more, productive 
     lands. But many of the most valuable enrollments are strips 
     of land, such as stream buffers, on both productive and non-
     productive lands. In addition, some highly productive lands 
     are also highly erodible or otherwise very sensitive. USDA 
     has followed a policy of discouraging enrollment of 
     productive lands but not precluding their enrollment when 
     there is a strong environmental justification. This amendment 
     would require that USDA greatly reduce payments for these 
     high value enrollments on productive lands, effectively 
     precluding their enrollments. In many parts of the country, 
     this policy could preclude almost all enrollments.
       Hutchinson NEPA and Migratory Bird Exemption Amendment: 
     Senator Hutchinson has introduced an amendment to exempt 
     USDA's Wildlife Services program for National Environmental 
     Policy Act (NEPA) review before the killing of migratory 
     birds and would eliminate the authority of the Fish and 
     Wildlife Service (FWS) to regulate such killings. The 
     amendment presently applies to all migratory birds, but may 
     be narrowed to apply just to cormorants. The amendment should 
     be opposed in either form.
       The Hutchinson amendment short-circuits the efforts by the 
     FWS to address cormorant management issues through the 
     regulatory process. After a complete environmental review, 
     FWS has concluded that cormorants have not caused any clear 
     adverse effects on fish populations in open water (as opposed 
     to aquaculture). The Hutchinson amendment would also create a 
     dangerous precedent to establish a wholesale exemption from 
     NEPA and our international treaty obligations for a single 
     species.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the amendment that I will offer is a 
complete substitute for the Water Conservation Program that is in the 
bill. It addresses all the arguments that have been raised about it 
since last year.
  It prohibits the Federal Government from holding, leasing or buying 
water rights in any way whatsoever.
  It gives control over the program to the States with Federal 
oversight, consistent with existing United States Department of 
Agriculture farm conservation programs.
  It gives States real money to help address real problems through 
programs they are implementing already.
  This program is important because when a drought occurs, competition 
for water becomes fierce. Farmers and fish--that is lakes--both get 
less water because of the drought. Or it could be a stream or a river. 
If conditions become bad enough, the farmer loses

[[Page S532]]

whatever water he has. No one gives the farmer a way to get by until 
the drought is over.
  My existing Water Conservation Program that is in the bill--and this 
substitute--would get him that payment to tide him over until the 
drought is over.
  The existing program said that if a farmer wanted to transfer his 
water to benefit fish or water, lake, stream, or river during a drought 
year, he would get a Federal payment in return.
  It would be up to the farmer and up to the State to decide if the 
State law would allow the transfer to occur. Many States already have 
programs such as this: California, Idaho, Oregon, Nevada.
  Some of my colleagues from the West raised some concerns about the 
program before we recessed in December. They said a lot of things about 
the program that were not intended or just were not true.
  Some of these arguments were repeated on the floor yesterday. They 
said it gave the Federal Government the right to confiscate water. I 
don't know how to say it other than it doesn't. It is ridiculous. They 
said if one farmer decided to transfer his water under a short-term 
contract, they could take away the other farmer's water. Think about 
the logic of that. If you are a farmer or a rancher who is using his 
water to irrigate, who, under this program, now decides to leave his 
water in the stream, how can leaving water in a stream ever mean 
another farmer is going to get less water? That is illogical. It 
doesn't make sense.
  Some of my colleagues had some legitimate questions about the 
program. The main concern was that the States rights and traditional 
role in setting their own water could be affected. So it was decided 
that one way to deal with this problem was to let the States decide 
whether they want the program or not. Senators Domenici and Bingaman 
and I amended the program to say that. If you don't want to participate 
in the program, you don't participate. If you want to, come on in.
  I thought more about their concerns and decided the best way to get 
water conservation programs implemented in the right way was to let the 
States run them as they do under a few USDA conservation programs 
already. The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program and the Farmland 
Protection Program both put States in the driver's seat with respect to 
conservation. The USDA makes sure that the State's conservation ideas 
are sound and that the State implements conservation plans and 
agreements with USDA oversight.
  That is what this amendment does. It replaces the existing program 
with two pilots. Both pilot programs are run by the States--not by big 
brother in Washington--according to the existing model. Both pilots get 
mandatory conservation money into the hands of States and gives them 
discretion on how to spend it to solve their water conservation needs.
  The first pilot program would expand a successful partnership between 
the USDA's Conservation Reserve Program and the State of Oregon to 
restore habitat and to lease water to help fish and wildlife. The 
second provision would create a new State-delegated program to help 
fund irrigation efficiency measures, help willing farmers convert from 
water-intensive crops to less water-intensive crops, and to lease, sell 
options, or sell water. The programs provide $375 million for States to 
use on this menu of different water-conserving options.
  Both provisions will help resolve conflicts between endangered 
species and farmers such as we have seen in the Klamath Basin in 
Oregon, the San Francisco Bay Delta, and the Truckee-Carson Basin in 
Nevada. Let me explain how these programs work.
  First, the Water Conservation Enhancement Program will build on the 
successful Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. This program 
permits USDA and States to combine CRP and State funds to target 
critical resources for protection and restoration. Today, 17 States 
have these programs to target protection of important resources, such 
as the Chesapeake Bay.

  The Water Conservation Enhancement Program expands to other States 
the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program developed by the State of 
Oregon which pays farmers irrigated land rates if they voluntarily 
transfer their water rights to the State for a limited amount of time. 
Under this model, farmers may also enter into the program and not 
transfer their water if the enrollment would benefit the fish habitat 
in some way. The provision would reserve a half million acres of this 
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program for this purpose; 40 million 
acres would remain available for traditional uses of the CRP.
  Just like the current program, States must develop and submit 
proposals to the secretary so States have the control. Farmers do not 
have to participate in the program. If they do participate, they do not 
have to transfer their water rights to the State.
  Under the provision, farmers could simply choose to receive funds to 
restore lost wetlands, grasslands, and other habitat, and retain their 
water rights.
  The second provision creates a new $375 million water benefits 
program run by States that could use the money for any of the three 
broad water conserving programs. Most Western States already have 
programs to do this. This Federal money will bolster these programs. 
First, States can use the money to help farmers install irrigation 
efficiency infrastructure, such as lining canals and building fish 
screens. Second, States can use the money to help farmers switch crops 
and use less water. For these options, the State would get 75 percent 
of the cost of the measure adopted. A farmer, the State, or a 
conservation group can match the remaining cost.
  The amount of water saved by virtue of the Federal contribution would 
be transferred for an environmental purpose while the measure is in 
place and only while the measure is in place.
  The amount saved by the farmer's contribution can be used by the 
farmer any way he wants. If the farmer wants to contribute more to the 
cost of the measure, say, 50 percent of the irrigation measure, he uses 
that 50 percent of the saved water.
  Third, States can use the money to lease, sell options on, or buy 
water rights from willing farmers for fish and if consistent with State 
law. Like the Water Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, States 
would have complete control over the program. For people walking in 
here yesterday saying they are taking away the States rights, my water 
engineer, a man by the name of Mike Turnipseed, a very conservative 
person, believes this is a great program.
  States must affirmatively ask to be certified by the Secretary to 
administer the program, and the State must designate an appropriate 
State agency to administer the program. The State would hold any water 
rights leased or acquired under this program. The Federal Government is 
strictly prohibited by this legislation from holding or buying water 
rights. In addition, States would have to subject all water leases and 
purchases for the review and approval of the State water boards--in our 
case, the State water engineer.
  As I have mentioned, both programs have to be initiated by States 
subject to State water law, approved by State water officials, and 
ensure that the water rights be held by States. If that is not clear 
enough, I have added general language to make it clear that the State 
water law is paramount. I have also added language to ensure that 
private property rights are fully protected.

  Both of these programs would help ease the conflicts between the 
needs of farmers and the needs of endangered fish, as we have seen in 
the Klamath Basin and in my State in the Truckee and Walker River 
Basins. These programs will give States the resources they need to plan 
ahead for years when water supplies are too low to meet all needs. 
These programs will give farmers greater flexibility.
  Under this program, a farmer who wouldn't have enough water to have a 
profitable year can, if he or she chooses, transfer that water to 
benefit a lake or fish or a stream.
  The contract payment can then tide the farmer over until better water 
years, years in which the fish don't need the water. These programs 
will also help protect freshwater species, species which are important 
to the recreational and commercial economies of States in the West.

[[Page S533]]

  Freshwater species are North America's most endangered class of 
species. They are vanishing five times faster than North America's 
mammals or birds and as quickly as tropical rain forest species. 
Habitat loss and degradation are the single biggest threat to 
freshwater species in trouble. Inadequate streamflow is the largest.
  In closing, there are a few things to remember about these water 
conservation provisions: The Water Conservation Reserve Enhancement 
Program and the Water Benefits Program. First, both programs are 
completely voluntary. No farmer could be coerced, forced, or in any way 
cajoled into participating in either of them.
  Second, the Federal Government, by this legislation, is explicitly 
prohibited from leasing, buying, and holding water rights.
  Third, States must choose to participate in these programs. If they 
do, the programs are run by States and must be consistent with State 
water law.
  Fourth, State water boards and engineers must review and approve all 
water transfers.
  Fifth, the water benefits programs will pay for irrigation efficiency 
projects that not only conserve water for fish and other things, but 
will also conserve water that farmers can use to grow more crops or can 
sell to other farmers.
  But I think, most importantly, lastly, the program will help reduce 
conflicts between the needs of farmers and the needs of this Nation's 
fish and wildlife, rather than just one or the other.
  Mr. President, I have already asked that the list of organizations 
supporting this legislation be printed in the Record. It is extensive. 
I don't see other Senators here in the Chamber, but virtually every 
State has organizations that support this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Leahy). The distinguished senior Senator 
from Montana is recognized.


                Amendment No. 2839 to Amendment No. 2471

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is laid aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), for himself, Mr. 
     Enzi, Mr. Reid, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Johnson, Mr. 
     Conrad, Mrs. Carnahan, Mr. Dayton, Ms. Stabenow, and Mrs. 
     Lincoln, proposes an amendment numbered 2839.

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

         (Purpose: To provide emergency agriculture assistance)

       On page 128, line 8, strike the final period and insert a 
     period and the following:

            Subtitle ____--Emergency Agriculture Assistance

     SEC. ____01. INCOME LOSS ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture (referred to 
     in this subtitle as the ``Secretary'') shall use 
     $1,800,000,000 of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     to make emergency financial assistance available to producers 
     on a farm that have incurred qualifying income losses in 
     calendar year 2001, including losses due to army worms.
       (b) Administration.--The Secretary shall make assistance 
     available under this section in the same manner as provided 
     under section 815 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
     and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549A-55), including 
     using the same loss thresholds for the quantity and economic 
     losses as were used in administering that section.
       (c) Use of Funds for Cash Payments.--The Secretary may use 
     funds made available under this section to make, in a manner 
     consistent with this section, cash payments not for crop 
     disasters, but for income loss to carry out the purposes of 
     this section.

     SEC. ____02. LIVESTOCK ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall use $500,000,000 of 
     the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make and 
     administer payments for livestock losses to producers for 
     2001 losses in a county that has received an emergency 
     designation by the President or the Secretary after January 
     1, 2001, of which $12,000,000 shall be made available for the 
     American Indian livestock program under section 806 of the 
     Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 
     106-387; 114 Stat. 1549A-51).
       (b) Administration.--The Secretary shall make assistance 
     available under this section in the same manner as provided 
     under section 806 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
     and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 2001 (Public Law 105-277; 114 Stat. 1549A-51).

     SEC. ____03. MARKET LOSS ASSISTANCE FOR APPLE PRODUCERS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall use 
     $100,000,000 of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation for 
     fiscal year 2002 to make payments to apple producers, as soon 
     as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, for 
     the loss of markets during the 2000 crop year.
       (b) Payment Quantity.--A payment to the producers on a farm 
     for the 2000 crop year under this section shall be made on 
     the lesser of--
       (1) the quantity of apples produced by the producers on the 
     farm during the 2000 crop year; or
       (2) 5,000,000 pounds of apples.
       (c) Limitations.--The Secretary shall not establish a 
     payment limitation, or income eligibility limitation, with 
     respect to payments made under this section.

     SEC. ____04. COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION.

       The Secretary shall use the funds, facilities, and 
     authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out 
     this subtitle.

     SEC. ____05. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

       (a) In General.--In addition to funds otherwise available, 
     not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise 
     appropriated, the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer to 
     the Secretary of Agriculture to pay the salaries and expenses 
     of the Department of Agriculture in carrying out this 
     subtitle $50,000,000, to remain available until expended.
       (b) Receipt and Acceptance.--The Secretary shall be 
     entitled to receive, shall accept, and shall use to carry out 
     this section the funds transferred under subsection (a), 
     without further appropriation.

     SEC. ____06. REGULATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may promulgate such 
     regulations as are necessary to implement this subtitle.
       (b) Procedure.--The promulgation of the regulations and 
     administration of this subtitle shall be made without regard 
     to--
       (1) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of 
     title 5, United States Code;
       (2) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture 
     effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to 
     notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in 
     rulemaking; and
       (3) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly 
     known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'').
       (c) Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking.--In carrying 
     out this section, the Secretary shall use the authority 
     provided under section 808 of title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. ____07. EMERGENCY REQUIREMENT.

       The entire amount necessary to carry out this subtitle is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(e)).

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment will help farmers who have 
experienced very deep, strong disasters due to weather conditions. It 
provides desperately needed disaster assistance for America's farmers 
and ranchers.
  I begin by thanking Senators Enzi, Reid, Burns, Landrieu, Dorgan, 
Johnson, Conrad, Carnahan, Dayton, Stabenow, and Lincoln for 
cosponsoring this.
  I also thank the 57 Senators who voted in support of this measure 
when we tried to append it to the stimulus package a couple weeks ago. 
We came very close to passing this amendment. Unfortunately, 10 of our 
colleagues were not present for the vote, and given the strong showing 
of bipartisan support and the likelihood that I think more than 60 
Senators support this measure, it is vital that we try again with more 
Senators present.
  The amendment extends to the 2001 crop the same agricultural disaster 
programs that have proven crucial to American farmers in recent years. 
What could be more obvious and commonsense than to extend to the 2001 
crop the same programs that have proven crucial to American farmers in 
recent years?
  The amendment provides $1.8 billion for crop disaster program and 
covers quality loss due to army worms. It provides $500 million to the 
livestock assistance program, with $12 million directed to the Native 
American livestock feed program. It also addresses the concerns of our 
apple producers and provides $100 million toward their market loss 
assistance program.
  Producers desperately need these disaster programs. They need them to 
help mitigate the devastating effects of an unprecedented streak of 
poor weather throughout the United States.
  Mr. President, I know you will remember when you came to Montana, I

[[Page S534]]

think in the 1980s, how bad that drought was, walking out in the 
fields, virtual dust, with no crops. That was, I think, in the late 
1980s. I must tell you, regrettably, I was thinking about that trip you 
and I, Senator John Melcher, and others took to Montana earlier this 
year when I was in an area a little way from where we were, with the 
same conditions--dust, no crops. In about a 200-square-mile area 
nothing was combined.
  This chart basically indicates the drought impact in the United 
States. The red, as you can see, are areas of our country already 
declared disaster because of drought. The green patches you can see 
here are areas that are recovering from drought. They are obviously not 
out of the woods. They have been in a drought situation. The yellow 
represents drought watch areas. That means close to being declared a 
drought area. That is an area qualifying for disaster assistance.
  On the map, essentially all of the United States down around the 
Mississippi River is either in drought conditions or drought watch 
conditions. I don't know whether it is climate change that is causing 
this or global warming. All I know is that very strange weather 
conditions are hurting farmers and ranchers. It is our job to do what 
we can to be sure they are made whole.
  These weather conditions could not have happened at a worse time. 
While struggling to survive 3 disastrous years in agriculture, farmers 
also have faced sharply escalating operating costs. Just think of it. 
The drought hits, operating costs go up--high operating costs due to 
high energy and fertilizer prices--income is not doing too well, and 
farm debt is increasing.

  A couple words about farm expenses. Total farm expenses were 
estimated to rise another $4.5 billion in 2001. That is after the rise 
of nearly $10 billion in the preceding year. Farm debt has been rising 
in the last 3 years, after recovering from the crisis in the mid-1980s. 
We just talked about the late 1980s, and now farmers are borrowing as 
much or higher, and that adds to their operating costs.
  Statistics kept by USDA's Economic Research Service demonstrate that 
net farm business income was at a decade low in 1999 and in 2000. 
Thanks to a limited recovery in income last year--very slight--which 
means that unless Government assistance continues, net farm income in 
2001 is projected to be lower than farm income in 1999 or 2000. Thus, 
if our efforts are curtailed, if weather problems continue, costs rise, 
and there is no time to recover from the contraction of farm operating 
income since 1998, the impact on rural America will be devastating.
  You might ask: Why now? Why this amendment on the farm bill? 
Basically, simply, because the clock is ticking. People need help now. 
They can't wait. Farmers in economic distress are not able to make the 
usual purchases of seed or fertilizer now, not to mention--I don't want 
to overdramatize this--in some cases, plain old food and clothing.
  Equipment and tractor dealers close their doors, as do rural schools 
and local merchants, which makes the agricultural sector--which is 
directly and indirectly responsible for nearly one-fifth of the U.S. 
gross domestic product--among the worst affected areas in the United 
States and the most vulnerable sectors of the U.S. economy.
  Our amendment extends the disaster relief programs that have been 
critical to shoring up farm income over the last 3 years. This relief 
will allow farmers--and rural economies that depend on them--to get 
back on their feet.
  I want to address several issues that were raised when we last 
debated this issue. First, some worried that these payments would go to 
millionaire farmers. Why should this agricultural disaster assistance, 
they say, go to millionaire farmers? I might say that charge is totally 
inaccurate, unfounded, and probably misunderstood.
  The crop disaster benefits under this amendment are limited to 
$80,000 per person and no one with an annual gross income of $2.5 
million or more is eligible. That is, if your gross income is $2.5 
million or more, you don't qualify. That sounds like a lot of money, 
but that is gross income, not net income. Most farmers have no net 
income. If you take the gross and subtract out the costs, whether it is 
debt service or expenses, or whatever else it might be, the net income 
for most farmers is negligible--if there is income at all.
  Second, some Senators believed these disasters were already covered 
under the crop insurance program.
  Let me be clear: I support Federal crop insurance. I think most 
Senators do. However, Federal crop insurance only covers a small 
percentage of farmers, as well as only a fraction of their losses. That 
is due to adverse weather conditions in 2001.
  To quote the president of the National Association of Wheat Growers, 
Gary Broyles:

       Current crop insurance only covers up to 57 percent of a 
     farmer's loss, but farmers do not operate with a 25 percent 
     profit margin, especially in areas that have had multiple 
     years of weather-related problems.

  In addition, other sectors in the agricultural industry such as 
specialty crops and livestock are not eligible for Federal crop 
insurance. For them, their losses are really real. They particularly 
need help. If producers have crops that qualify in the Government 
programs, I would think livestock and other specialty crops in 
agriculture should also qualify.
  On a related note, farmers who do receive assistance under this 
program are required to obtain crop insurance on their next crop if it 
is available.
  One final point. Producers are now making planting decisions for next 
year. Without these disaster payments, I have to say--and I hear this 
constantly--many banks will refuse to provide operating loans. They 
will refuse to extend the credit that farmers need to try planting for 
another year. Without these loans, many farmers will be unable to 
plant, it is that simple, which is giving up any hope of economic 
recovery in the near future.
  This hits pretty close to home. In my State of Montana, it is 
anticipated 40 percent of producers seeking operating loans this year 
will be denied; that is, denied if we fail to provide this assistance 
under this amendment. It is that timely. It is that significant. Of 
course, that is going to very much hurt the agricultural economy with 
individual farmers.
  In conclusion, I have many letters of support for this amendment. 
They literally continue to pour in. They include the National 
Association of Wheat Growers, the National Cattlemen's Beef 
Association, the National Farmers Union, the National Cotton Council, 
the American Farm Bureau, the United Stockgrowers of America, the 
National Barley Growers Association, the U.S. Canola Association, 
American Soybean Association, the National Sunflower Association, the 
Northwest Farm Credit Services, and others.
  Today we have another chance to help these farmers get back on their 
feet. If we cannot make it rain, we can make a difference. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment to provide the disaster assistance 
so many in American agriculture need given these whacky weather 
conditions we are experiencing this year which is hurting American 
agriculture.
  I yield the floor, and 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. CONRAD. 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. CONRAD. Mr. President, I'm pleased to be a cosponsor of the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Montana to provide disaster 
assistance to those farmers and ranchers who suffered crop or 
livestock-related losses in calendar year 2001.
  American agriculture is beginning its fifth straight year of rock 
bottom prices. For those farmers lucky enough to raise a decent crop, 
the only thing that's been keeping them in business is the supplemental 
relief that Congress has provided in each of the past four years. Last 
month, the Department of Agriculture confirmed that net farm income 
will fall by 20 percent this year, to $40.6 billion, unless Congress 
responds with improved farm policy.
  As bad as this situation is, however, the blow is doubly hard for 
producers whose crops have been ravaged by drought, excess moisture, or 
some other natural calamity. These producers have little to fall back 
on, they

[[Page S535]]

cannot hope to make up in volume what they are losing under Depression-
era prices. In North Dakota, the brutal reality of today's farm 
economics leaves little margin for either error or misfortune, and for 
many of those producers suffering natural disaster losses, their luck 
has run out. That is why Congress must respond.
  I want to commend the Senator from Montana for his tireless efforts 
to address the disaster situation. I know that his State has been hard 
hit by consecutive years of drought, and his ranchers are reeling. He's 
been trying since last fall to respond in some way.
  In my own State of North Dakota, we have received some of the rains 
that passed over Montana. Unfortunately, those rains came just as our 
wheat crop was maturing, and the result has been serious losses due to 
scab and other quality problems. Some estimates put North Dakota's 
disaster losses last year at near $200 million. Even those who have 
purchased crop insurance find that their indemnity payments won't 
restore profitability to their operation, so that is why this 
additional assistance is required.
  To vividly illustrate what last year's disaster losses have done to 
the typical farming operation in North Dakota, I would like to cite 
some figures from an instructor in an adult farm management program in 
my state.
  According to this farm management instructor, the farm operations he 
is advising--located in an area hit hard by natural disasters--had an 
average net farm income last year of just $25,937--down 54 percent from 
the previous year. These net farm income figures actually include 
government payments received under existing farm programs. If farm 
program payments are excluded, these farmers would have had a 
substantially negative farm income--losing $46,665 per farm, on 
average, last year. That's the harsh reality of farming in the Northern 
Great Plains today.
  So again, for all these reasons, I am pleased to cosponsor this 
needed amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the opportunity to 
express my support for the Baucus amendment to the farm bill. I want to 
commend Senator Baucus for his leadership on this amendment.
  This amendment provides much needed relief for our farmers and farm 
communities. This emergency assistance will provide an immediate boost 
to the sagging farm industry in Missouri. I am especially grateful to 
Senator Baucus for his assistance in providing relief to farmers whose 
crops were damaged by an invasion of armyworms. Armyworms marched 
through Missouri and left a trail of crop destruction and economic loss 
in their wake. The armyworm is a caterpillar only about one and a half 
inches long, but they march in large groups, moving on only after 
completely stripping an area. Last winter's unusually warm weather and 
the summer drought conspired to make life easy for the armyworm and 
hard for the farmer.
  Thousands of farmers across southern Missouri were devastated. One 
official at the Missouri Department of Agriculture said that last 
year's invasion was the worst he has seen in his 38 years at the 
Department. Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman declared 32 counties in 
Missouri disaster areas due to the extent of the armyworm damage.
  Missouri wasn't the only State hit hard by the armyworm infestation. 
Farmers throughout the Midwest and Northeast were all affected. The 
armyworms work extremely fast. Jim Smith, a cattle farmer in Washington 
County, completely lost 30 acres of hay field and most of the hay on 
another 30 acres. He said that he did not even know he had armyworms 
until 20 acres had been mowed down ``slick as concrete'' by the 
insects. In his 73 years on the farm, Mr. Smith says this is the worst 
he has even seen.
  This invasion has had severe economic consequences for my State. 
Missouri is second in the Nation in cattle farming. As a result of crop 
loss, farmers are using winter hay reserves to feed their cattle and 
dairy cows. Farmers are not only losing thousands of dollars in crop 
loss, but also have the additional and substantial expense of 
purchasing livestock feed for their herds this winter. In addition, 
some farmers were forced to sell their yearlings earlier than normal. 
Due to premature sales of yearlings, farmers got below average prices 
for their heads of stock, further increasing farm loss. The effects of 
this infestation will continue to be felt.
  It isn't just the farmers that are suffering economic loss. When the 
farmers hurt financially so do the feed merchants, farm supply dealers, 
and gas stations. The funds provided in this bill will help all of 
Missouri recover from the armyworm infestation. So, I support this 
amendment and I look forward to its inclusion in the farm bill.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, President Bush was in Denver this morning. 
He has probably left by now, I suppose, and is on his way to the 
Olympics in Salt Lake City.
  I was very interested in his stop in Denver because he gave an 
address to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. He talked about 
some of his ideas for the new farm bill.
  At the outset, I want to note I had a chance to speak personally with 
the President briefly when he visited Moline, IL, the home of John 
Deere, about 3 weeks ago. I asked if we could get together and meet on 
this farm bill, and he said that we could. I am still looking forward 
to that meeting.
  The message that I thought came through to the President very clearly 
in Moline, IL, was that the farm bill is the economic recovery bill for 
rural America; that farmers need some certainty, and that our 
agricultural lenders, agricultural businesses and rural communities 
need some certainty about what the farm program will be this year. 
Without some greater assurance, farmers cannot buy the supplies, 
equipment and other inputs they need and that affects the rural 
economy.
  So I was hopeful and remain hopeful the President will help us try to 
get this farm bill through the Senate, but we are still stuck on it. I 
remain hopeful we will be able to finish this farm bill next week, but 
then again that is not certain.
  I paid some attention to the speech the President gave in Denver, and 
I was interested in what he mentioned. First of all, he said he was 
committed to the $73.5 billion over 10 years in new spending for the 
farm bill, which was in our budget resolution for this year. That is 
good, but it is important to note his budget also calls for dramatic 
reductions in commodity loan rates. A good share of that $73.5 billion 
would be required just to make up for the large loan rate reductions. 
So it is critical to look carefully below the surface of the budget.
  Now, the President then went on to talk about how new farm bill 
funding must be evenly spent over 10 years.
  He says he doesn't want to ``front-load'' it, which he said 
``overpromises and underperforms.'' I don't quite understand that 
expression, but it is clear he wants to spend the farm bill funding 
evenly over 10 years.
  There was one glaring omission in the President's remarks. He did not 
mention that his own Department of Agriculture, a month ago, estimated 
that net farm income this year would be 20 percent lower than it was 
last year unless we provide additional assistance. The President 
glossed over that fact about the dire state of the farm economy.
  The President evidently is pointing at the Senate bill which puts 
somewhat more of the $73.5 billion in the first 5 years than it does in 
the second 5 years. Actually not a lot more. Half of $73.5 billion 
would be somewhere around $37 billion. Our bill is about $40 billion in 
outlays in the first five years. So it is only about $3 billion more 
than half. We believed it important to put more funding upfront because 
now is when it is critically needed. The President's own Department of 
Agriculture said that we would see a 20 percent drop in net farm income 
this year. When farmers are hurting and going out of business, that is 
the time to come in and help.
  I don't know what the farm economic situation will be 8, 9, or 10 
years from now. It may be just fine. If that is the case, we should not 
need to spend much of any money on commodity programs 8, 9, or 10 years 
from now. But when commodity prices are low and farmers are struggling, 
as they are, now is the time to reach out and help. That is the main 
reason why there is more funding in the first 5 years than in the 
second 5 years. The President did not mention

[[Page S536]]

that. He wants to say, whatever we spent this year is what we will 
spend 9 years from now. What sense does that make? I don't know what 
will happen 9 years from now. I hope farmers are making good money and 
don't need Government assistance 9 years from now. There is more money 
in the first 5 years of our bill because it is needed now to help 
farmers stay in business and for rural communities that are struggling 
economically.
  The President said a good farm bill should include the farm savings 
account. That is fine. I have nothing against farm savings accounts. 
When you are losing 20 percent of net farm income, how do you have 
money to put into a savings account?
  Then he said it must include conservation. I believe he said every 
day is Earth Day for people who rely on the land for a living.
  If that is the case, why did the administration in December support a 
substitute to the Senate bill that slashed support for conservation? 
What the President is saying does not track with what the 
administration is doing in Washington on this farm bill.
  The President was speaking to the National Cattlemen's Beef 
Association, the producers of our beef cattle. I am disappointed the 
President did not mention packer concentration. We debated that this 
morning. We had debate on it in December also, including the fact that 
four large packers control 81 percent of all the cattle slaughtered in 
America. If that is not undue economic concentration, I don't know what 
is. Yet the President did not talk about that.
  We have an amendment on this bill to keep packers from feeding 
livestock so that our independent pork and beef producers can have a 
better bargaining position and a fighting chance to survive. But the 
President didn't mention the issue of economic concentration in Denver. 
I find that curious, at the least.
  The President also said something about political budget gimmickry 
and cobbling together loose political coalitions. Is this the President 
who said we have to work together, that we should all work together in 
a bipartisan atmosphere?
  There are competing interests. Agriculture covers a broad spectrum in 
America. Of course we want to take into account farmers in Vermont, as 
well as we take care of farmers in Texas, or in Washington, or in 
Maryland, or in Iowa. It is a broad country. As chairman of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee, my responsibility is to be cognizant and aware 
and supportive of agriculture nationwide. Yes, we have put together 
coalitions. Of course we have. But isn't that what the President wants 
to do? Work together in a bipartisan atmosphere and try to put together 
a coalition to get something through?
  He said we cannot set the loan rates too high. Specifically, what 
does that mean? He also vowed, when he became President, he would make 
agriculture the cornerstone of U.S. economic policy. Yet I have not 
received the specifics from the Administration that would allow us to 
negotiate to come up with the new farm bill.
  To make something a cornerstone, you have to lay a foundation down 
first. I have not seen the specifics of a farm bill from the 
Administration to lay down a foundation for agriculture.
  Last year when the Department of Agriculture under Secretary Veneman 
put out a policy book on American agriculture, I gave it high praise. I 
found I could support a lot of the objectives in that book, especially 
including stronger support for conservation. We put it in our bill. 
Most of it was in the Department of Agriculture book last year.
  Again, I was very shocked in December when there was a substitute 
bill offered to ours that drastically cut the conservation we had put 
in our bill and the administration supported it. So I hope there will 
be less talk about political gimmickry and more cooperation from this 
administration when it comes to getting this farm bill finished.
  I am looking forward to work with the President. I have said that 
time and time again. We have worked in a bipartisan atmosphere here. I 
continue to point out, as I always say, the facts give lie to rhetoric. 
The fact is, our bill came through our committee with strong bipartisan 
support, every single title except the commodity title, which still had 
bipartisan support but just not overwhelming bipartisan support. The 
bill on the Senate floor now commands a bipartisan majority. It is good 
for agriculture.

  If we are accused of having gone overboard to represent the dairy 
farmers in Vermont, the sugar farmers in Louisiana, the cotton farmers 
in Texas, the rice farmers in Arkansas, the corn and soybean farmers in 
Iowa, the wheat farmers in Kansas, the pork producers in Iowa and the 
upper Midwest, the cattle producers all over America, the orchards in 
Michigan, and the apple growers in Washington State--if we are accused 
of having gone out of our way to help them survive and be a vital part 
of rural America, I plead guilty. You bet we have because I believe in 
American agriculture, and I believe it still should form the foundation 
for our economic policy in America.
  Believing that, we have laid down the cornerstone, we have laid down 
the foundation, on energy and conservation and commodities and rural 
economic development and trade and, yes, nutrition.
  On nutrition, for which the President's budget provides some $4 
billion less for nutrition than is in our farm bill, that is an 
important part of the farm bill.
  I appreciate the President paying a visit to the National Cattlemen's 
Beef Association. I look forward to working with him in a bipartisan 
atmosphere, to get through a sound farm bill. I just hope his speech 
writers and those who are advising him might better inform him what we 
are doing.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Harkin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I had the privilege to be presiding while 
the distinguished Senator from Iowa was speaking of the work he has 
done putting together this farm bill. I listened. I have been chairman 
of the Agriculture Committee on one occasion, ranking member on another 
occasion, when we had to put through the 5-year farm bill.
  I have worked with the distinguished chairman of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee, and now Presiding Officer, for over 20 years 
between the House and the Senate. I know how hard it is to put such a 
bill together.
  The distinguished Senator from Iowa worked very closely with all 
Members--both Republicans and Democrats--in meeting after meeting, 
conversation after conversation, on the floor, in their offices, in the 
Senate dining room, walking across the Hill. I have been privy to a 
number of those conversations.
  A farm bill has a number of diverse aspects to it. The President 
seems to wrap everything into some kind of sense of patriotism. We have 
to be patriotic. We have to have a missile defense system to be 
patriotic, we have to pass tax credits. Incidentally, the last tax cut 
and stimulus package they proposed would have given, I believe, a 
quarter of a billion dollars to Enron. I am not quite sure just what 
kind of patriotism comes out of giving another $250 million of 
taxpayers' money to Enron. Maybe it is because I come from Vermont and 
not Texas, but it didn't seem all that patriotic. But I digress.

  The point is, everybody in this body is patriotic, Republicans and 
Democrats. Why don't we just acknowledge that. We wouldn't be here 
otherwise. Let's think, though, what that means. That means protecting 
all aspects of our country.
  The United States is the only significant power in the world able to 
feed itself and still export food--billions of dollars worth of food. 
That is part of our national security. We are not energy sufficient. 
Maybe someday we will be, if we do a better job of conservation. We are 
food sufficient. We are a nation of over a quarter of a billion people 
and we can feed ourselves from within our own borders, and that will

[[Page S537]]

continue to be true if we continue the incentives that keep people on 
the land, keep the land productive, protect the environment for farmers 
so they can keep that land productive, and to be able to tell farmers: 
You will work hard and long, but you will be able to make a living out 
of it, your kids can go to college, someday you will be able to 
retire--all the things people desire.
  I hope as we go forward the White House would realize we are all in 
this together. We are not talking about a partisan farm bill. One of 
the things I have enjoyed the most, serving for 27 years now on the 
Agriculture Committee, is the bipartisanship of that committee. I value 
my friendship with the current chairman. I value my friendship with the 
former chairman, Senator Lugar. They are two of the closest friends I 
have in this body.
  I remember Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, and Bob Dole working 
closely together on nutrition matters. This is a diverse group, but I 
think one thing that united them was their great sense of humor and a 
passion, a special passion for feeding the children of this country.
  There have been bipartisan coalitions on that committee ever since I 
came here. There was a bipartisan coalition that started the WIC 
Program, one of the best things for children, for pregnant women, for 
women post partum, after giving birth. These are programs that have 
come out of there--the School Lunch Program, which has improved the 
nutrition of our children and is now considered just a staple of 
Government. Yet as Harry Truman knew at the time of World War II, so 
many people were rejected for the draft because of lack of nutrition, 
so he started the School Lunch Program.
  I say this to commend the tremendous work of the Senator from Iowa. I 
am proud of him. I am proud to be his friend. I am proud to serve as a 
member of his committee.
  With that, 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. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________