[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 11 (Monday, February 11, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S577-S582]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION, AND RURAL ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 1731, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1731) to strengthen the safety net for 
     agricultural producers, to enhance resource conservation and 
     rural development, to provide for farm credit, agricultural 
     research, nutrition, and related programs, to ensure 
     consumers abundant food and fiber, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Daschle (for Harkin) amendment No. 2471, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Daschle motion to reconsider the vote (Vote No. 377- 107th 
     Congress, 1st session) by which the second motion to invoke 
     cloture on Daschle (for Harkin) amendment No. 2471 (listed 
     above) was not agreed to.
       Crapo/Craig amendment No. 2533 (to amendment No. 2471), to 
     strike the water conservation program.
       Craig Amendment No. 2835 (to amendment No. 2471), to 
     provide for a study of a proposal to prohibit certain packers 
     from owning, feeding, or controlling livestock.
       Santorum modified amendment No. 2542 (to amendment No. 
     2471), to improve the standards for the care and treatment of 
     certain animals.
       Feinstein amendment No. 2829 (to amendment No. 2471), to 
     make up for any shortfall in the amount sugar supplying 
     countries are allowed to export to the United States each 
     year.
       Harkin (for Grassley) amendment No. 2837 (to amendment No. 
     2835), to make it unlawful for a packer to own, feed, or 
     control livestock intended for slaughter.

[[Page S578]]

       Baucus amendment No. 2839 (to amendment No. 2471), to 
     provide emergency agriculture assistance.
       Reid amendment No. 2842 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by Crapo/Craig amendment No. 2533), to promote water 
     conservation on agricultural land.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2843 to Amendment No. 2471

  Mr. ENZI. 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 Wyoming [Mr. Enzi] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2843 to amendment No. 2471.

  Mr. ENZI. Madam 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 require the Secretary of Agriculture to provide livestock 
          feed assistance to producers affected by disasters)

       On page 126, before line 1, insert the following:

     SEC. 1.  LIVESTOCK ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       Section 194 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
     Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 6933) is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 194. LIVESTOCK ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--the Secretary shall carry out a program 
     to provide livestock feed assistance to livestock producers 
     affected by disasters.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal year 2003 through 2008.

  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment that would 
permanently authorize the Livestock Assistance Program.
  The Livestock Assistance Program at the moment is an ad hoc program 
administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through the Farm 
Service Agency. It is available to livestock producers in counties that 
have been declared disaster areas by the President or the Secretary of 
Agriculture. It provides financial relief to livestock producers that 
are experiencing livestock production loss due to drought and other 
disasters. My amendment permanently authorizes this program, thereby 
acknowledging that drought is a recurring situation, much like low 
market prices, which the rest of the farm bill addresses--usually in 
emergency situations for which we provide some funding in advance. The 
Livestock Assistance Program is one of those areas where we have not 
done that. We want to change it so that we recognize it and then budget 
for it and then later appropriate for this great need that recurs 
frequently in the United States. It is just good accounting when you 
know something is going to happen and then provide for it in advance 
instead of providing for it at the tail end.
  Let me tell you a little about the history of the Livestock 
Assistance Program. It began in 1999 as an ad hoc program to assist 
ranchers in drought-stricken areas buy feed. Until fiscal year 2002, it 
had been tacked onto yearly appropriations bills and funded. The outcry 
in my State was loud when the Livestock Assistance Program wasn't 
funded this year. We will be voting tomorrow on the emergency funding 
of the Livestock Assistance Program for fiscal year 2002. In years of 
drought, which seem to be every year in Wyoming lately, my ranchers 
depend on Livestock Assistance Program money to help pay for 
skyrocketing feed costs. They need to know they can depend on our 
assistance when they need it.
  This buys feed so they can keep the herd alive, which is kind of a 
humane thing to do.
  Livestock producers in my State of Wyoming have been hard hit by 
drought. In fact, some ranchers in my State tell about the grass in 
their pastures being destroyed as their cattle walk over it. There is 
not enough moisture to keep what grass there is rooted in the ground. 
The drought outlook for this year isn't optimistic. Recently, Wyoming's 
State climatologist reported that a third year of drought is possible. 
After Wyoming's warmest summer in 107 years, a normal year would be a 
relief, but it wouldn't be enough.
  We need about 180 percent of our normal moisture to get to the 
average for the year. Unless rains of 125 to 175 percent of normal fall 
on my State, my ranchers will be facing a third year of drought. We are 
not talking about a lot of rain. Wyoming's average rainfall is only 18 
inches a year. But we are not anywhere near that this year. People who 
are feeding cattle at this time of year during the cold weather are 
often finding that there isn't enough moisture in the ground. At this 
time of year the ground would normally be frozen, and it would be easy 
to get across the ground. When they dropped off the feed, the feed 
would still be on top of the ground and the cattle would be able to get 
at it. They have to move their feed every day just to get around.
  This last weekend I was at the stock show in Denver. It is a big 
national event. All of the ranchers come in for that during this time 
of year and hold a number of important meetings. When I left that 
meeting to go to Wyoming, I was in a duststorm. I was in a duststorm 
that was as bad as any blizzard we have in Wyoming. The visibility was 
extremely limited. You could only see taillights about 100 feet ahead 
of you because the dirt was blowing off the fields. The fields are dry. 
They haven't had enough moisture so it can freeze and thaw so the dirt 
doesn't blow away.
  The past years tell us that we will always fight drought. I still 
believe that the forward-looking solution is to provide livestock 
producers with livestock insurance. They have risks inherent in a 
business that depends on weather. Livestock producers don't have this 
tool. The USDA recently introduced pilot programs to explore this 
option, but until livestock insurance is available to manage risk, we 
should assist when risk becomes fact.
  The chart behind me displays how many states have drought 
problems. It is color coded. If the States are in blue, there isn't a 
drought problem at the moment. If the States are in red, the entire 
State has already been declared a disaster area. The ones in orange 
have been partly declared disaster areas, depending on the part of the 
State which submitted applications and were accepted as having the 
difficulty. The States in yellow have some counties that have emergency 
designations because of being contiguous to the other counties that 
have already been designated.

  You can see that almost the entire United States has this problem. 
For us to ignore it would be a tragedy.
  The Secretary of Agriculture designated counties in each of these 
States as drought disaster areas for 2001.
  You can see that the pattern is pretty widespread throughout the 
United States. If we don't pass this amendment, we are saying, yes, we 
have a program. It has been a great program. It has saved livestock 
from dying in the past. It saved people from having to sell off their 
herds. If we do not fund this program, if we do not put it on the books 
as a permanent program, if we do not show that it has some importance, 
then it is like a bad joke in our programs.
  Many of you may not realize that drought begins during the winter 
even when the snow is on the ground. It is born when the snowpack is 
too thin. It reaches its full size during the dry summers. And drought 
flexes its full strength in the fall when ranchers are searching for 
winter feed.
  My amendment authorizes this program so that we can consider the full 
impact of drought before it is too late. We are doing our country a 
disservice by waiting until the Agriculture appropriations bill is 
passed each year to garner support for assisting drought-stricken 
ranchers.
  I am not asking my colleagues to support risky ventures. The poorly 
managed ranches went out of business in the first year of drought. 
Besides, the money these ranchers receive isn't enough to save their 
places; it is enough to feed the cattle and sheep.
  I am asking my colleagues to adopt this amendment and assist 
dedicated livestock producers and their families who have persevered 
through hardship and continue to fight to stay in business.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

[[Page S579]]

  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I ask the distinguished Senator from 
Wyoming if he will respond to questions in a colloquy about the 
important amendment he has offered?
  Mr. ENZI. I am pleased to respond, Madam President.
  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I ask the Senator, is it his intent to 
bring about an authorization for this so-called LAP program, which 
leads to this point, as the Senator has pointed out, that it has 
usually been the result of the appropriations process and a disaster 
bill on an ad hoc basis?
  Mr. ENZI. Yes. My purpose is to move it from a last-minute measure to 
an authorized program so that it would go through the normal process 
and be a part of our normal planning.
  Mr. LUGAR. To be a permanent program?
  Mr. ENZI. Yes, a permanent program.
  Mr. LUGAR. As I understand the amendment, it does not have mandatory 
funding attached to the program. It simply is an authorization. As the 
Senator pointed out, therefore, there is some planning, some attention 
that could be given to the livestock industry throughout the year in 
preparation for the appropriations process.
  Mr. ENZI. Yes. Our hope is definitely that it becomes a part of the 
normal planning process, that it becomes a part of the appropriations 
through that mechanism rather than always coming in as an emergency, an 
emergency after the fact. It would be before the fact.
  So I appreciate the question and the attention that is being given to 
it to make it a full-fledged program.
  Mr. LUGAR. Does the Senator have a recollection of how frequently 
drought has occurred in Wyoming or, for that matter, the surrounding 
States? Is this an annual situation or perhaps it has occurred 1 out of 
3 years? How would the Senator characterize the dilemma?
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, at the present time, we are in the third 
year of a drought. We normally do not have it every year, although we 
may have a county or two that would have it--not the same county even--
but it is usually on a county-by-county basis. One county may have a 
drought this year; another county might have a drought next year.
  But at the moment, our entire State is having a drought, as is 
Montana. They have already gotten their designation. We have not gotten 
our full State designation yet, and it probably would not even be 
necessary because of some of the surrounding county designations that 
we pick up that same way.
  But ever since I got to the Senate, I have been concerned that we 
have come in with emergency proposals for things that happen on a very 
regular basis and what we know will happen. We do not know where it 
will happen, but we know it will happen. Wherever it happens in the 
United States, we ought to take it into consideration, plan for it, 
budget for it, and prepare for it before it happens so we can do what 
we said we would do.
  Mr. LUGAR. Just on a historical basis, obviously, the ranching 
industry has been a large one in the Senator's State for many years, 
and I suspect that drought has frequently come. I am just simply 
curious, as a matter of historical record, how have cattlemen survived 
these droughts? Has it been really through annual or these ad hoc 
appropriations or is there sort of a law of averages? How would you 
describe why people decide to have grazing in Wyoming and how some, at 
least, have thrived or they would not be in business even to this day?

  Mr. ENZI. We have had the cattle industry in Wyoming since before 
Wyoming was a State. We have had some horrible losses before. The 
original losses were by people from other countries who were raising 
their cattle in Wyoming. They had enough money to get into business to 
begin with, and they had enough money to survive.
  We have now gotten more to the point where they are family 
businesses, family ranches. The reason this becomes an extreme problem 
is, for example, this is the third year of drought for us. The program 
is even set up so if you receive money in 1 year, you cannot receive 
money in the next year. That will create some problems.
  But the purpose of the program was not to pay for losses they had but 
to provide enough feed to keep them in business. With the cattle 
industry and the sheep industry, if you have breeding stock, and the 
weather gets really bad--really dry--and you know you are going to be 
in bad shape, and you sell off your breeding stock, you have just gone 
out of business. So mostly what this does is provide the feed supply 
for the breeding stock itself so that they can keep the herd going year 
after year. If it was only cattle they were raising on an annual basis, 
then they would just sell off that cattle.
  One of the happenings in the past in Wyoming--and in the surrounding 
States--is ranchers have had to go out of business, and they have had 
to find a way to get back in business at a later time. Of course, 
during a drought, the people who are buying cattle recognize there is a 
drought, so they are kind of fire-sale prices that people get. They do 
not get full compensation for their herd at that time. Part of that is 
because there are more cattle being sold off at that time than normal. 
When you have an oversupply, the price goes down.
  So we are trying to keep things together so there can be economic 
planning on the part of the ranchers as well as on the part of 
Government.
  Mr. LUGAR. I appreciate the Senator's responses that fill out a very 
fine initial presentation of the bill with the Senator's own 
experience.
  Obviously, he speaks not only for the State that he represents so 
well but for other cattlemen, those who are involved in this process. 
The chart that he has presented is a comprehensive chart of the entire 
United States. There are many problems; therefore, the merits of the 
Senator's amendment really pertain to all of these Americans in 
addition to those he represents in the State of Wyoming.
  I thank the Senator for his responses. I like the idea, and I would 
plan to support his amendment.
  Mr. ENZI. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak as in morning business for a period of time not to 
exceed 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Jeffords are printed in Today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')


                           Amendment No. 2837

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment on the 
farm bill. I offered this second-degree amendment to the Craig 
amendment to clear up any concerns raised by the opposition regarding 
the word ``control'' in the original Johnson-Grassley amendment banning 
packer ownership of livestock.
  The new language reads that a packer may not own or feed hogs or 
cattle ``through a subsidiary, or through an arrangement that gives the 
packer operational, managerial, or supervisory control over the 
livestock, or over the farming operation that produces the livestock, 
to such an extent that the producer is no longer materially 
participating in the management of the operation with respect to the 
production of livestock.''
  What we are trying to do is clear up a little blue smoke that has 
been raised about the amendment that Senator Johnson and I offered 
prior to the holidays. It was adopted 51 to 46. So we want to clear up 
what the word ``control'' means. We do that through the phrase 
``materially participating.''
  A farmer who materially participates in the farming operation must 
pay self-employment taxes. Those who do not materially participate do 
not have to pay self-employment taxes. The phrase has appeared in the 
IRS Code, section 1402(a), since 1956, and there is a full hopper of 
case law clarifying the definition. So the words we use to explain what 
we mean or do not mean by the word ``control'' have a lot of case law 
behind them.
  For those who were worried about excessive lawsuits and the actual 
enforcement of the provision being tied up in

[[Page S580]]

the courts, rest assured that the perceived problem has been fixed.
  I know that the lobbyists for the American Meat Institute will dream 
up some red herring argument that might attack me, as they have on this 
amendment, but that is OK. They do not represent the independent 
producers; they represent just the packers, bottom line.
  For those producers who manage their risk through forward contracts 
and marketing agreements, the new language will not affect contractual 
relationships. Almost all producers who sell hogs or cattle under 
marketing agreements or forward contracts materially participate in the 
management of the operation and, thus, pay self-employment taxes. These 
independent producers will not have to change their business practices 
at all.
  The revised amendment I have offered will inject greater competition, 
access, transparency, and fairness into the livestock marketplace. 
Small and medium-sized livestock operations will gain greater access to 
markets that will have greater volume and be subject to less 
manipulation. The revised bill clarifies that arrangements that do not 
impose control over the producer can still provide all the benefits of 
coordination and product specification.
  I have worked on the second-degree amendment with the distinguished 
chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin, and also 
with Senator Johnson, the original cosponsor with me of the original 
language before the holidays, and the Iowa Farm Bureau and the American 
Farm Bureau Federation. We are all confident this amendment does 
exactly what we claim, which is to limit packer ownership but avoid 
impacting risk-management tools available for independent producers.
  I will read, for my Senate colleagues, a letter from the American 
Farm Bureau Federation that states, with confidence, we have 
accomplished our goal and have overcome the blue smoke that the 
American Meat Institute and the packers have raised against the 
original Johnson-Grassley amendment:

       The American Farm Bureau Federation supports Senator 
     Grassley's amendment to clarify the issue of ``control'' 
     under the packer ownership prohibition. This would allow 
     producers to forward contract, pursue marketing arrangements, 
     develop branded products, schedule animals to their plants, 
     and to receive value-based premiums. We urge you to support 
     the Grassley amendment to clarify ``control.''
       Packer ownership has resulted in an increase in packer 
     market power by allowing the packers the opportunity to stay 
     out of the cash market for extended periods of time, often 
     reducing farm gate demand and driving down prices paid to 
     producers. This has resulted in the inability of independent 
     producers to access the market. These transactions concerning 
     packer-owned livestock are not part of the publicly-reported 
     daily cash market. Narrowing the volume in the market makes 
     it more subject to manipulation and often results in lower 
     prices paid to producers.
       We urge you to oppose the Craig amendment and support the 
     Grassley amendment calling for clarification to the 
     prohibition of packer ownership included in the Senate farm 
     bill.
  I can't lay it out much more clearly than the statement I just read 
from the American Farm Bureau. I should also state that in addition to 
the Farm Bureau, over 135 other organizations have also signed a letter 
in support of my second degree amendment. Just a few of those groups 
are the Livestock Marketing Association, National Farmers Union, 
National Farmers Organization, National Family Farm Coalition, R-CALF 
USA, Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of 
America, United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society, 
National Catholic Rural Life Conference, and the Organization for 
Competitive Markets.
  The packers are an important piece in the rural economy, but only a 
piece, not the whole pie. The question we need to ask ourselves is 
whether packers should be packers or packers should also be products. 
Is it our intent to let packers compete with producers on an even 
playing field? Is there any question who will lose?
  I yield the floor.
  The reason we keep sows in farrowing stalls is to protect the 
piglets. Sows are extremely important for the health and well-being of 
the piglets, but if we let the sow out of the crate we stand the chance 
of getting the piglets crushed by the sheer weight of the sow, or 
worse, and watch the sow grow fatter. Let us build a strong farrowing 
stall for the packers and facilitate the health and well being of our 
independent producers.
  Support the Grassley second-degree tomorrow.


                           amendment no. 2542

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak as a cosponsor of an 
amendment by my colleague, Senator Santorum, regarding puppy mills. 
This amendment is based on legislation we introduced last October, S. 
1478, known as the Puppy Protection Act.
  For more than three decades, Congress has given the responsibility of 
ensuring minimum standards of humane care and treatment of animals to 
the Department of Agriculture, under the Federal Animal Welfare Act.
  The current guidelines within the Animal Welfare Act do not go far 
enough to protect puppies at large breeding facilities, they merely 
provide for water and food, and that is questionable. By amending the 
Animal Welfare Act our amendment will better control the practices of 
puppy breeding in large facilities and address cruel puppy treatment.
  In these large facilities, puppies are often kept in cramped, dirty 
cages, sometimes stacked on top of each other, exposed to the elements 
in extreme cold and heat, forced to breed incessantly; and deprived of 
adequate food, water, veterinary care, and any semblance of loving 
contact. I have a chart that outlines the top 10 violations committed 
by commercial dog breeding facilities according to the USDA. These 10 
points underscore the fact that something has to be done to stop the 
cruel treatment of puppies. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my 
chart, and a letter from the Humane Society of the United States be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1)
  Mr. DURBIN. This inhumane treatment has a direct bearing on the 
physical and mental health of dogs in these facilities. Often, after 
these puppies join a family, they turn out to have serious health and 
psychological problems that cause them pain, cause their owners great 
distress, and require expensive medical care.
  I believe our amendment will address these problems, by filling gaps 
in the current law and encouraging stronger enforcement by USDA to 
crack down on chronic violators.
  Our amendment has three components: socialization, breeding, and a 
three strikes policy. First, it will require commercial breeders to 
provide socialization for dogs at their facilities. Socialization is 
important for puppies during their first few weeks of life because if 
they're isolated from people and other dogs during those key weeks, 
they could face a lifetime of serious problems. Second, our amendment 
establishes some very modest restrictions to prevent extreme over-
breeding of dogs by commercial operators. The dogs must be at least 
one-year-old before they're bred, and they can't have more than 3 
litters during a 24-month period. Third, our amendment contains a 
``three strikes and you're out" provision to strengthen enforcement of 
the Animal Welfare Act by cracking down on commercial dog dealers who 
keep violating the law. If there are three violations during an 8-year 
period, the facility will lose its license, unless the Secretary makes 
a written finding that revocation is unwarranted because of 
extraordinary extenuating circumstance
  I've heard from many of my constituents in Illinois, who are deeply 
concerned about the puppy mill problem and want this legislation 
enacted. Our amendment is supported by national animal protection 
organizations, such as The Humane Society of the United States and the 
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, ASPCA, which 
collectively represent more than 8 million Americans.
  In addition, more than 860 animal shelters, animal control offices, 
and other state and local organizations across the country have 
endorsed this legislation. In my home State, they include 23 groups in 
Illinois, ranging from the Cook County Department of

[[Page S581]]

Animal and Rabies Control to the Peoria Animal Welfare Shelter to the 
Illinois Federation of Humane Societies, based in Urbana.
  I've been pleased to join with Senator Santorum and a number of our 
colleagues in obtaining additional funds for USDA to improve its 
enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act. We've had terrific support in 
this effort from Appropriations Chairmen Byrd and Kohl, along with 
Ranking Member Cochran, for which I'm very grateful. This amendment 
will complement those ongoing efforts by strengthening USDA's authority 
to crack down on the bad actors.
  This amendment will ensure that any commercial dog breeder licensed 
by the Federal Government is meeting basic humane standards of care. We 
owe at least this much to the animals that have earned the title 
``man's best friend.'' We're talking about establishing a safety net to 
protect dogs, puppies, and the consumers who care about them against 
the poor treatment practices of the really bad dealers, the ones who 
provide no interaction; the ones who go against industry norms when it 
comes to over-breeding. And the ones who repeatedly violate the law 
governing the humane care of dogs. The good dealers, however, should be 
recognized for their work.
  In closing, it is just unfortunate that it is the good dealers who 
suffer at the hands of the bad ones, the ones that give the industry a 
bad reputation. I thank my colleagues for their attention to this 
issue, and I urge their support for the Santorum-Durbin amendment.

                               Exhibit 1

        Top 10 Violations by Commercial Dog Breeding Facilities

       Here are the most common violations found by USDA in 
     reported enforcement actions of 2000 (in order of frequency):
       1. Failure to maintain clean and dry enclosures (remove 
     excrement, food waste or corpses on a daily basis);
       2. Failure to provide veterinary care to animals in need of 
     care;
       3. Failure to provide outdoor housing with adequate 
     protection from the elements;
       4. Failure to establish or maintain program to prevent 
     infestation of pests;
       5. Failure to provide dogs with adequate space;
       6. Failure to clean and sanitize food receptacles;
       7. Failure to ensure that enclosures did not have sharp 
     edges that could injure animals;
       8. Failure to provide water and food;
       9. Failure to allow USDA inspectors to conduct a complete 
     inspection of facility; and
       10. Failure to ensure dogs were older than eight weeks of 
     age before delivering them for transport.
                                  ____

                                                The Humane Society


                                         of the United States,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Support the Santorum-Durbin amendment to the farm bill
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the more than 7 million members 
     and constituents of The Humane Society of the United States 
     (HSUS) and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty 
     to Animals (ASPCA), we urge you to support the Santorum-
     Durbin amendment to S. 1731 (the Farm Bill). This amendment, 
     which has broad bipartisan support, tracks closely with S. 
     1478, the ``Puppy Protection Act,'' introduced by the 
     amendment authors. The amendment is designed to crack down on 
     so-called ``puppy mills.''
       The Santorum-Durbin amendment will improve USDA enforcement 
     of the Animal Welfare Act at commercial dog breeding 
     operations in three ways:
       (1) Encourage swift and strong enforcement against repeat 
     offenders by creating a ``three strikes and you're out'' 
     system for chronic violators.
       (2) Address the need for breeding females to be given time 
     to recover between litters, and to be at least one year old 
     before they are bred.
       (3) Require that dogs be adequately socialized with other 
     dogs and with people, enhancing their well-being and helping 
     to prevent behavior problems in the future.
       Mistreatment of dogs is a chronic problem at puppy mills. 
     Dogs at puppy mills are often overcrowded, subjected to 
     intense over-breeding, denied proper veterinary care, and 
     maintained in substandard and unsanitary housing. Despite 
     public awareness of these problems, the conditions persist. 
     Strengthening the federal Animal Welfare Act to resolve these 
     problems is a warranted and overdue response.
       Mill dogs are treated as breeding machines. They are kept 
     there for one reason: to produce puppies non-stop, beginning 
     at a very young age, when they are still just puppies 
     themselves. Over-breeding causes serious health problems for 
     the mother and puppies.
       Consumers are defrauded, believing they are purchasing 
     healthy animals. Because of overbreeding and poor 
     socialization, new puppies from pet stores and large-scale 
     breeding facilities often face an array of behavioral and 
     health problems--with illnesses often requiring consumers to 
     absorb costly veterinary treatment.
       USDA data reveal that there are at least 3,000 commercial 
     dog breeding facilities operating throughout the country. The 
     Santorum-Durbin amendment will provide USDA with better tools 
     to crack down on chronic law-breakers and to address the 
     important issues of socialization and over-breeding.
       We anticipate scoring this legislation in the 2001 Humane 
     Scorecard, either by cosponsorship or recorded vote. Please 
     support the Santorum-Durbin amendment to the Farm Bill.
           Sincerely,
     Wayne Pacelle,
       Senior Vice President, Communications and Government 
     Affairs, HSUS.
     Lisa Weisberg,
       Senior Vice President, Government Affairs and Public 
     Policy, ASPCA.
                                  ____


                 Q & A on Puppy Protection Act, S. 1478

     Won't this legislation affect ``hobby breeders'' and bring 
         anyone who sells a puppy under federal regulation?
       Those who maintain three or fewer breeding female dogs and 
     sell their offspring for pets or exhibition are exempt from 
     the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). This means that they do not 
     need to obtain a license, nor are they subject to the AWA's 
     humane care requirements or inspections.
       Nothing in the Puppy Protection Act changes this ``de 
     minimus'' exemption. Only those who are subject to the rest 
     of the Animal Welfare Act will be subject to the new 
     requirements regarding socialization and overbreeding and to 
     the ``three strikes'' enforcement provision.
       According to the American Kennel Club's (AKA) records for 
     1997, the overwhelming majority of its registrants--almost 
     97%--had 3 or fewer breeding female dogs.
       If it becomes necessary to adjust the de minimus threshold 
     because of pending litigation, this can and should be 
     addressed through the regulatory process, with input from all 
     affected parties.
     Under the ``three strikes'' provision, will breeding 
         facilities be shut down for non-compliance with minor 
         technical rules?
       The legislation expressly provides that a dealer's license 
     need not be revoked if the Secretary finds that ``the 
     violations were minor and inadvertent, that the violations 
     did not pose a threat to the dogs, or that revocation is 
     inappropriate for other good cause.'' This waiver language is 
     broad enough to cover a range of situations for which 
     revocation might be considered too severe a penalty, such as 
     the scenario cited by opponents involving ``three minor 
     violations. . .even if immediate corrections were made and 
     the dealer was in full compliance with the law.''
       The legislation further guarantees the licensee a hearing 
     before an Administrative Law Judge within 30 days, to 
     consider whether license revocation is unwarranted.
     Why cover commercial breeders who supply dogs for research?
       There are no standards currently covering socialization or 
     overbreeding of any dogs (those destined for research or for 
     the pet trade). The Puppy Protection Act addresses this gap 
     in the Animal Welfare Act.
       Dogs who will be used for research--and may suffer and give 
     their lives to serve human health needs--are certainly no 
     less deserving of humane care in their first few weeks than 
     those who will become pets.
       Congress has recognized this moral obligation by providing 
     additional--not lesser--protections for dogs destined for 
     research, in other portions of the Animal Welfare Act.
       Poor socialization renders dogs fearful and aggressive when 
     they come in contact with people. It is not in the interest 
     of researchers to have dogs who bite and are unmanageable.
       Breeding female dogs every single heat, beginning when they 
     are too young, seriously compromises their health and the 
     health of their puppies, leavingthem weak and susceptible to 
     disease. The scientific integrity of medical research is 
     undermined if animal subjects are not healthy.
       If puppies are produced at facilities that chronically 
     violate basic humane standards (for food, water, veterinary 
     care, etc.), their health and their value as research 
     subjects are likely to be compromised. As former Senator Bob 
     Dole said, ``It is obvious that good animal care is essential 
     to ensuring good quality research.''
       Less than .3% of all animals used in research are dogs, so 
     the impact of this bill on research will be slight. 
     Furthermore, it is not researchers, but the breeding 
     facilities that supply dogs to them, who will be subject to 
     the Puppy Protection Act's requirements, which will in turn 
     benefit the researchers by ensuring healthier dogs.
     Shouldn't Congress stay out of the business of regulating dog 
         breeding practices?
       Female dogs at some breeding facilities are made to produce 
     litters every cycle (typically, twice a year) until they are 
     ``spent,'' beginning when they are as young as 6 months old. 
     Such relentless overbreeding causes severe nutritional 
     deficiencies and impairs a dog's immune system, leading to

[[Page S582]]

     increased risk of infections, illness and organ failure. 
     These concerns go to the heart of humane treatment, and are 
     as appropriate for Congress to address as other areas already 
     covered by the AWA, such as adequate veterinary care, food, 
     water, sanitation, ventilation, and shelter from harsh 
     weather.
       Opponents concede that the legislation's restrictions on 
     breeding are so modest that ``most breeders have much higher 
     standards than the ones called for'' in the Puppy Protection 
     Act; the bill will only affect truly ``bad actors.''
     If Congress puts restrictions on breeding of dogs, won't this 
         lead to breeding restrictions for livestock?
       The ``slippery slope'' argument ignores the fact that 
     Congress will only go as far as it considers necessary and 
     acceptable, and is not bound to extend any law.
       Congress has historically afforded dogs extra protections 
     under the Animal Welfare Act and other federal laws (such as 
     banning the sale of dog fur and restricting military research 
     on dogs), in recognition of the special relationship between 
     dogs and people. Livestock are not even subject to the 
     protections of the Animal Welfare Act.
     Why not us a ``performance-based standard'' rather than an 
         ``engineering standard'' for socialization?
       When performance-based standards have been used elsewhere 
     in the Animal Welfare Act (to meet the requirement for 
     promoting psychological well-being of primates), they have 
     proven vague, ineffective, and very difficult to enforce. 
     This approach leaves it up to each facility to figure out how 
     to achieve the desired result, and forces inspectors to make 
     subjective judgments. Conversely, an engineering standard 
     clearly specifies what steps a facility needs to take to 
     comply with the law. The facilities know what is expected of 
     them, and the inspectors know what to check for in 
     determining compliance.
     Shouldn't industry experts have a say in developing the 
         socialization standard?
       The legislation provides that minimum requirements for the 
     socialization of dogs will be developed by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture as part of the regulatory process, ensuring that 
     commercial breeders will have ample opportunity to influence 
     the standard-setting. The legislation does not dictate the 
     specific socialization requirements.
     Why not just focus on better enforcement of existing law and 
         catching those who breed dogs illegally without a 
         license?
       The sponsors of S. 1478, along with animal protection 
     organizations, are actively involved in obtaining increased 
     funding for USDA to do a better job enforcing the Animal 
     Welfare Act. In the past few years, Congress has appropriated 
     an additional $13 million to enable USDA to track down more 
     unlicensed facilities, conduct more inspections, and improve 
     follow-up enforcement efforts. Opponents of S. 1478, who 
     argue that Congress should direct its attention to better 
     enforcement of existing law, have done little or nothing to 
     secure additional funds toward that end.
       While Congress is making progress addressing the AWA budget 
     shortfall, it is also important to address gaps in the law to 
     better protect dogs and consumers. All the funding in the 
     world will not resolve the problems that the socialization 
     and breeding provisions of the Puppy Protection Act address.


                      multi-lender risk management

  Senator LEAHY. Mr. President, section 541 of S. 1731 makes certain 
technical adjustments to the current authority of farm credit system 
institutions to participate with non-system lenders in certain multi-
lender risk management transactions. The system's multi-lender risk 
management authorities have been very successful in achieving the 
objectives of the 1992 authorizing legislation, as described on page 73 
of the committee's report.
  Is it the chairman's understanding that the provisions of S. 1731 
will facilitate these partnership arrangements between commercial 
lenders and the system to spread risk among lenders and improve the 
availability of capital for the agricultural and food system, 
communication and related technology service companies and utility 
systems?
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is correct.

                          ____________________